This wisdom is not such as comes down from above: the Greek may be translated either as “This wisdom is not that which comes down from above” (New American Standard Bible), or “This is not the wisdom which comes down from above” (Barclay). In order to make it clear that this refers back to the kind of wisdom described in verses 13-14, it is possible to render This wisdom as “Such wisdom” (Goodspeed, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). As already mentioned in 1.5, 17, the wisdom that comes down from above is from heaven, namely from God. What James wants to say here is that any wisdom that results in envy and rivalry has nothing to do with God.

Using a strong but as a contrast, James goes on to use three adjectives to describe the kind of wisdom that is not from God. The three adjectives are arranged in the form of a crescendo, a gradual increase in strength to a climax, from earthly to unspiritual to devilish.

First, the claim to have true wisdom without consistent lifestyle is earthly. The word earthly is the opposite of heavenly. This word may have a neutral meaning, but it is often used in a negative sense to refer to something as weak, temporary, and inferior. In Phil 3.18-19 Paul uses the same adjective to describe the enemies of the cross of Christ, those “going to end up in hell,” as the ones who “think only of things that belong to this world” (Good News Translation). The earthly person, then, is someone who thinks and does things with earth-bound and inferior motives. In some languages this may have to be rendered as “People who have this wisdom are only concerned with things in the world” or “This is the kind of wisdom that people in the world have.”

Secondly, such wisdom is also unspiritual. This adjective derives from the word usually translated as “soul,” and is used in contrast to the word “spiritual” in 1 Cor 2.14. This is possibly the reason why a number of translators have rendered it as “unspiritual.” The difficulty in bringing out the meaning of the word is reflected in the variety of English translations; for example, “animal” (Goodspeed, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), “carnal” (La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée), “sensual” (King James Version), “sensuous” (Moffatt), “natural” (New American Standard Bible), “human” (Luther 1984, New Jerusalem Bible), “lowly” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), “this worldly” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Japanese New Interconfessional Translation), “selfish” (Contemporary English Version). It is obvious that the word has a large area of meaning, and that each of the above renderings covers just part of the total range of meaning of the original. In any case it refers to something of sinful human origin, something related to the natural life that human beings and animals share, something worldly and devoid of the Spirit. In some languages this may be translated as “It does not come from God’s Spirit” or “This is not the kind of wisdom that God’s Spirit causes us to have.”

Finally, such wisdom is devilish or “demonic” (Good News Translation; so also Revised English Bible), “from the devil himself” (Contemporary English Version). Devilish is the opposite of divine. This adjective is used only here in the New Testament. It may be taken to mean “demon-like” (Goodspeed), stressing that the behavior and wisdom of those described in verse 13 is similar to that of a demon. It may also be taken in the sense of “demon-inspired” (so Barclay), emphasizing that the so-called wisdom of those who are selfish and ambitious is demonic in origin, not from God. In many languages it will be helpful to render this as “It comes from the Devil himself” or “It is the Devil who gives it.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• God does not give wisdom like this to people. On the contrary it is the kind of wisdom that people in the world have. God’s Spirit does not give it. Rather it comes from the Devil himself.

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

James concludes this section with a call for prayer. This is clearly the major theme of the paragraph in that it appears in every verse from 13 to 18. Prayer is necessary especially for those who are suffering and feeling depressed. James wants people to remember God in all circumstances, good as well as bad. When things are bad, they should pray; when good, they should sing praises.

Is any one among you suffering?: the verb is … suffering is related to the noun “suffering” used in 5.10 and may be rendered simply as “in trouble” (Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible) or “in distress” (Barclay). The suffering may include distress caused by physical circumstances, such as the persecution suffered by the prophets, or exploitation of the poor by the rich. The phrase “in trouble” can also have a negative meaning in English; for example, “You are really in trouble” means “You have done something wrong, so you are going to receive….” Thus “having trouble” (Contemporary English Version) is perhaps a better English model. Translators should try to find a term that covers a wide variety of troubles and difficulties, not just physical suffering.

The imperative Let him pray may be rendered more naturally as “He should pray” (New International Version) or “He must pray” (Barclay). We may wish to use the inclusive form by shifting the subject to the plural; for example, “Are any among you suffering? They should pray” (New Revised Standard Version); “Are any among you suffering? You [plural] must pray.” The one to whom the prayer is spoken is understood to be God.

These two sentences in the form of a rhetorical question and an answer may be rendered differently. Some scholars feel that the form should be a declarative sentence followed by an imperative, thus “Someone among you suffers. He must pray!” This may also be rendered inclusively, “Some among you suffer. They [or, You (plural)] must pray!” It is also possible to take the two sentences in the form of a conditional sentence followed by an imperative; for example, “If any one of you is in trouble, he should pray” (Jerusalem Bible; similarly Phillips) or “If you are having trouble, you should pray” (Contemporary English Version). This again can be rendered inclusively, “If some among you are suffering, they [or, you (plural)] must pray!” On the whole the structure of a rhetorical question and an answer appears to be more effective and is therefore the one adopted by most translations. Translators, however, will have to decide for themselves which style or form will be more effective in their own languages.

Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise: this is a parallel to the first part of the verse. The verb Is … cheerful is used in Acts 27.22, 25, where Paul encouraged his companions to “take heart” (Revised Standard Version) when they were in immediate danger of shipwreck. It means cheerful courage in the face of danger and difficult circumstances. It is a serenity of the heart unaffected by any outward circumstances. The rhetorical question may be rendered “Is anyone in good spirits?” (similarly Goodspeed, New American Bible), “Is anyone feeling cheerful?” (Translator’s New Testament), “And if you are feeling good” (Contemporary English Version), or simply “Are any among you happy?” (Good News Translation). In happy circumstances people should sing praise. The Greek verb translated “to sing praise” is from the same root from which the word “psalm” is derived (compare King James Version, “let him sing psalms”). In the Old Testament it referred originally to playing a stringed instrument (1 Sam 16.23), then to singing with string accompaniment (Psa 33.2, 3), and later generally to singing any song of praise (Psa 7.17; 9.2). The imperative here is best rendered as “They should sing praises” (Good News Translation), “He must sing praises,” or “he must sing a hymn” (Barclay). The object of sing praise is understood to be God. In some languages this will be expressed as “You should praise God by singing.”

Here again the two sentences are most often rendered in the form of a question and an answer. It is also possible to render them as a declarative sentence followed by an imperative; for example, “Someone among you is cheerful. He must [or, should] sing praises.” This may also be expressed inclusively, “Some among you are cheerful. They [or, You (plural)] must [or, should] sing praises.” Another possibility is to make the first clause a conditional clause and the second an imperative; for example, “If someone among you is cheerful, he must [or, should] sing praises”; or inclusively, “If some among you are cheerful, they [or, you (plural)] must [or, should] sing praises.”

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 goes on now to portray the effect of “evil desire” by borrowing the language of mothering and childbearing: to conceive, to give birth, to become mature, and to give birth (to death). He uses this to warn the readers of the close connection between “evil desire,” “sin,” and “death.”

Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death: the particle Then introduces the result of the temptation arising from “evil desire.” In Greek we have here two pairs of terms, each consisting of a participle and a verb: “having conceived … gives birth; having become mature … gives birth.” This structure is reflected in the rendering of Revised Standard Version. In some languages it will be more natural to render “Then, when evil desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; when sin is full-grown, it brings forth death.” In many languages it will be possible to keep the vivid language of childbirth; but in some languages it will be more natural to say something like the following: “Then, when evil desire has germinated, it hatches sin; when sin is full-grown….”

The metaphor has conceived suggests the union of “evil desire” and the human will, allowing the evil desire to linger on and grow. Sin in this context means, in effect, the result of a person knowingly allowing his will to be led by evil desire in disobedience to the will of God. Gives birth and brings forth have the same meaning in Greek, both being used for producing offspring. They are obviously stylistic variations, not meant to refer to different kinds of giving birth. The final consequence of sin is death. Paul has a similar thought in Rom 7.7-11. Full-grown in certain languages will be rendered as “controls the heart fully.” Death here, as the opposite of “the crown of life” in verse 12, most likely means more than physical death, pointing to the final verdict of God at the Last Judgment. Brings forth death in some languages will be expressed as “causes the person to die.”

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 .

Do you want to be shown…?: starting at this verse James proceeds to give two illustrations from the Old Testament to demonstrate that faith without action is useless.

He addresses his imaginary opponent as you shallow man, literally “you empty[-headed] person.” Here the term “empty” suggests deficiency in understanding, meaning “senseless” or “foolish.” It is a word of contempt and may be translated as “you stupid person!” Here the word man is to be taken as inclusive. This is reflected in renderings like “You fool!” (Good News Translation; so also Revised English Bible) and “you senseless person” (New Revised Standard Version).

Do you want to be shown is literally “Do you want to know?” meaning “Do you want proof?” (Goodspeed, Barclay, New American Bible). The content of what James’ opponent needs to be shown is that faith apart from works is barren. The same thought has already appeared several times. Faith without action is defined as of “no profit” in verse 14, “dead” in verse 17, and here as barren, which is literally “no work,” and therefore “ineffective,” “inactive,” or “unproductive.” We may observe a play on words here: “Faith without works is no work.” This statement sums up the main point of the entire section. Another way to render this question is “Do you want me to show you that it is useless to claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but not do good deeds?” However, since this is an entirely hypothetical situation, it may also be expressed as a strong statement: “Surely you don’t want me to have to show you that … if you do not do kind deeds.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• You stupid person! Surely you don’t want me to have to show you that it is of no use for you to claim to believe in Christ, if you do not do kind deeds.

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 .

Draw near to God and he will draw near to you: this statement may be considered as opposite to the previous one. Here again we have command and a promise. The other side of the coin of taking a stand against the devil is drawing near to God. To Draw near to God does not mean simply to come close to God physically, as “come near to God” (Good News Translation, New International Version) or “come close to God” (Revised English Bible) may suggest to some people. It is to meet and maintain a close relationship with God, and therefore the clause may be rendered “Come to meet God” (Barclay). In some languages it will be necessary to express Draw near in a way similar to the following: “Put your trust in God,” or “Rely completely on God.” Then the following statement, and he will draw near to you, may be rendered something like “and he will come and stay close to you” or “… will remain with you.” In certain languages translators will find it better style to show the conditional relationship between these two clauses and say, for example, “If you draw near to God, he will draw near to you.”

Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind: in meeting with God, a person has to come prepared. Hence this command. Here we see what is called synonymous parallelism; that is, the two statements are more or less a poetic way of saying the same thing in different words. They represent two expressions of one action. The language James uses is very blunt. In Greek the two commands are without any articles or possessive pronouns, literally “Cleanse hands, sinners, and purify hearts, double-minded.” Here we are reminded of a saying in Psa 24.3-4; to the question “Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?” the Psalmist answers, “Those who have clean hands and pure hearts…” (New Revised Standard Version).

Cleanse your hands refers to an outward purification in deeds. The washing of hands was originally a purely external custom or rite. The priests in Israel had to wash their hands and feet before they were allowed to perform any ceremonial duties (Exo 30.20). Ceremonial washing of hands was also practiced at the time of Jesus by zealous Jews like the Pharisees (Mark 7.3-4). These actions were often used figuratively for the removal of moral defilement. And this is obviously the sense intended here by James. When he calls for his readers to wash their hands, he wants them to do right deeds. The connection of “hands” and “deeds” is seen in (Barclay) rendering “cleanse your hands from evil deeds.” In some languages the idea of “life” will be more appropriate; for example, “Make your lives pure, you sinners” or “Clean up your lives, you sinners” (Contemporary English Version).

Purify your hearts emphasizes purification of thoughts or inner attitudes. For the meaning of hearts see the discussion in 1.26 and 3.14. Purity of heart is an important teaching throughout the Bible. Jesus also pronounced true happiness to those pure in heart, for “they will see God” (Matt 5.8, TEV). To have a pure heart, a person must purify his or her inner desires and motives and must be totally and single-mindedly committed to God.

The bluntness of James is also seen in his using strong language, calling his readers sinners and men of double mind. He is addressing Christians—but Christians are sinners too; they also need to repent. Since the two statements are similar in meaning, we should consider these two expressions as referring to the same people; that is “men of double mind” are “sinners.” The author does not intend to refer to two different classes of Christians. The sinners here are Christians who fail to fulfill the law of Christ. Men of double mind translates the Greek word that means literally “two-souled.” It is a word already used in 1.8 (see comments there), where it describes the person whose faith is unstable. In this context the “double-souled” persons are considered sinners, as they are the kind of people who have conflicting allegiances; they seek to be friends of both the world and God (4.4). These people are “hypocrites” (Good News Translation); they are those “whose motives are mixed” (Revised English Bible) and “whose loyalty is divided” (Phillips; similarly Barclay). The masculine men is not meant to be exclusive, and so it is desirable to render it inclusively as “you double-minded” (New Revised Standard Version) or “you people who don’t make up your minds” (similarly Contemporary English Version). If a translator feels that retaining the two terms in two separate sentences gives the impression that two classes of people are being addressed, it is possible to say, for example, “So you hypocritical sinners must wash your hands of evil deeds and purify your hearts.”

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 shifts the discussion to the marks of true and genuine religion, as a general conclusion of the chapter. In spite of some abruptness in the shift, we still can detect some thread of connection between verses 26-27 and the earlier paragraphs. First, there is an advance from the general principle of “not mere hearing but also doing” to a particular application, “not mere religion but doing good” (Ropes). Secondly, there is again a warning of the need to control our speech (linking back to verses 19-21).

If any one thinks he is religious: the use of a hypothetical introductory formula beginning with If … is the sign of a change in theme. This has already been used in 1.5. The Greek clause may be rendered “If any man … seem to be religious” (King James Version). In this case the meaning is “If anyone seems to others to be religious.” Most scholars, however, take the Greek to mean “If anyone thinks himself to be religious.” The adjective religious that occurs only here in the New Testament refers to an outward expression of pious and careful observance of ritual or liturgical practices. Since the “if” sentence here is not a real condition, Good News Translation has rendered it as a question: “Do any of you think that you are…?” Other ways to render this clause are “If you think you are being religious” or “Do you think that you are a religious person? Then….” In many languages the idea of religious must be expressed more precisely; for example, “worship [or, pray to] God correctly.” But taking into consideration the intent of the previous verses, the meaning of religious here is probably “Do you think that you follow [or, serve] God properly?”—in other words, “… do the correct things.”

This religious person has a problem if he does not bridle his tongue. The verb bridle, which James uses again in 3.2, does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament. It is used here metaphorically; the tongue is like a horse or wild animal, that can be controlled only by putting headgear on it. Most translators, apparently sensing that the word is not in general use, have expressed the meaning without using a metaphor by rendering it as “control.” Tongue stands for speech. In some languages bridle his tongue will be expressed as “control what he says.”

But deceives his heart: this is what happens to the person who does not know how to control his tongue. This phrase is a bit awkward in two respects. First, the author uses an adversative but, where we would normally expect “and” to be more natural. Two things can be done here. We may take it in the sense of “only”; thus, for example, “The one who does not control his tongue is only deceiving himself.” Or we may reverse the order of this phrase and the next phrase, as Good News Translation has done, separating the two and thus, in effect, providing emphasis. Secondly, “deceiving one’s heart” is somewhat unnatural as an English expression. In the Bible the heart is considered not only the seat of emotions, but also of will and thoughts. In many cases it can stand for the whole person. Here it is probably best to take it as equivalent to the pronoun “himself”; for example, “he is only deceiving himself.”

By hearing the word without putting it into practice, this man’s religion is vain. This man in Greek is a relative pronoun that can be rendered inclusively as “this person.” The true test of religion or piety is practice, without which it is “worthless” (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version), “futile” (Barclay, New English Bible), or “useless” (Phillips).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• If you think you serve God correctly, but you can’t control what you say, you are deceiving [or, fooling] yourself, and everything you do is useless.
• Do you think that you really serve God properly? If you don’t control your tongue, you are deceiving yourself, and everything you are doing is worthless.

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 concludes the comparison of the bit and the rudder. The bit and the rudder, though small in size, achieve big results. So it is with the tongue; though small it is extremely powerful.

So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things: the verse may be punctuated in different ways. What Revised Standard Version has done is one possibility. The other possibility is the rendering of Good News Translation: “So it is with the tongue; small as it is, it can boast about great things” (similarly Revised English Bible). Stylistically the latter is preferable, as it is a more natural way to introduce an application. The adverb So in Greek is actually “So also” (New Revised Standard Version); so it has the force of “In the same way” (New American Bible) and “So it is” (Good News Translation), drawing a comparison. The expression little member refers to the tongue as a small part of the body. Contemporary English Version translates “our tongues are small too.” The conjunction and has the force of “yet” (New Revised Standard Version) or “nevertheless.”

Scholars debate about the exact meaning of boasts of great things. The verb rendered boasts is “to stretch the neck and hold up the head in pride, and hence to speak with proud confidence” (Hort). It is sometimes argued that the boast refers not so much to arrogance or empty boasting, but to a justifiable sense of importance and pride. However, James obviously sees the tongue as something that is dangerous and that therefore has to be controlled. It is therefore difficult not to take “boasting” in this context as having a negative sense. For this reason some translators have tried to bring this aspect of the meaning out; for example, “but it [tongue] is a great braggart” (Translator’s New Testament) or “and yet they [our tongues] brag about big things” (Contemporary English Version). In some languages the tone can be brought out adequately by saying simply, “the tongue, though so small, can say [or, brag] big things” (similarly Today’s Chinese Version). Notice that James is making an obvious attempt to contrast little member with great things.

Some scholars have observed that this last analogy is a bit rough, as it does not follow consistently the pattern of the previous two analogies. Human tongues do not control human bodies as bits and rudders control horses and ships. But there is no need to look for exact correspondence in the analogy, since this does not seem to be James’ concern. He is simply interested in showing that a small object can control or determine the direction of a large body.

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!: beginning at this point James warns about the potentially destructive power of the tongue. It seems quite possible that he is here quoting a proverb; this can be seen not only from the content itself but also from its terseness and balanced structure, with a double use of the same adjective modifying both fire and forest. It is interesting that the same adjective, which means literally “of what size,” can mean both “how great” or “how large” and “how small” depending on the object it modifies. It “expresses magnitude in either direction” (Hort). Here fire is the small element as compared to forest, and so the adjective can mean “a tiny flame” (Good News Translation), “a little spark of fire” (Moffatt), or even “the tiniest spark” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). The meaning of the word rendered forest is understood in several ways. In addition to forest, the rendering favored by many translators, it has been suggested that the word basically means “wood,” and therefore is best translated as “timber” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). It has also been suggested that the word means “thicket” or “bush.” However, for most translators “forest” or “jungle” will be the most natural rendering here.

When it comes to translation there are a number of things to consider. First, since this is a proverbial saying, there is no need to translate the form of the saying literally. If possible the translation should be a functionally equivalent proverb in the translator’s language, but having the same meaning as the Greek. For example, a Chinese saying expresses the idea very well: “A single spark can start a prairie fire [or, can burn out a prairie].” Secondly, it is interesting that, in translating this saying, the order of the elements may be reversed without altering the meaning; that is, we can say either “a big forest is set ablaze by a small spark” or “a small spark sets ablaze a big forest.” Translators should therefore decide which order is more natural in their language. Thirdly, in the original Greek this proverbial saying is introduced by a demonstrative particle often used to call attention to something or to introduce something new. This particle, though left untranslated by Revised Standard Version, may be desirable in some languages and may be rendered, for example, “Just think…” (Good News Translation) or “Consider…” (New American Bible, New International Version). Finally, to make a better connection to what James is going to say in verse 6, it may be very effective in some languages to make the statement into a rhetorical question. In so doing the first sentence of verse 6 serves as a sort of answer: “Just think. Isn’t a single spark capable of starting a prairie fire? (6) The tongue is a fire!” (so Today’s Chinese Version).

A possible alternative rendering of the last sentence may be:
• Just think: Such a small spark can burn down such a big forest!

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 .