Notice a progressive heightening of thoughts through verses 2-4: “faith” in withstanding the “test” produces “steadfastness,” which in turn makes the higher goals of “perfection” and “completeness” possible.

Verse 4 consists of two clauses in Greek; the first is an imperative, and the second a final purpose clause that is grammatically dependent on the imperative clause, but in thought parallel to it. The meaning of the phrase full effect can be understood as letting “endurance” develop fully and completely until it produces “full and perfect steadfastness.” It is best, however, to take it in the sense of letting steadfastness lead on to its “proper and full effect.” This is the sense favored by most modern translations; for example, “steadfastness must have full play” (Goodspeed), “until that endurance is fully developed” (Phillips [Phillips]), “this ability must go right on to the end” (Barclay), “perseverance must complete its work” (New Jerusalem Bible). In English let … have does not convey the imperative force that is in the Greek original. The New English Bible rendering that is cast in the conditional mood (“and if you give fortitude full play”) has certainly missed the force. And so most translators prefer to use the word “must.” The Good News Translation restructuring brings out the force most effectively, “Make sure that your endurance carries you all the way,” adding “without failing.” Other alternative translation models may be “Make sure that your ability to endure does not stop [or, does not become weak],” “Make sure that your heart [or, liver] endures without ever giving up,” or “Make sure that your heart endures and gets as strong as possible.” We may also follow the Contemporary English Version rendering, “But you must learn to endure everything.”

The purpose of letting the quality of steadfastness have its full effect is to grow and produce higher qualities, that you may be perfect and complete. The Greek word for perfect is a favorite term in this letter. It appears again in 1.17, 25; 2.22 (“completed”); and 3.2. The word generally means “that which is perfect” when referring to things, or “full-grown” or “mature” when used of persons. It can also mean “perfect,” or “fully developed,” or “complete goodness” in the moral sense. It always points to an end or goal. In the New Testament it often means a maturity of character that God wants Christians to attain (compare 1 Cor 2.6; Eph 4.13; Phil 3.15). The word complete means literally “whole in all its parts.” It occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Thes 5.23, where RSV renders it “kept sound,” and Good News Translation “whole being.” Since the word is often used in pairing with the word perfect, it naturally acquires a moral or ethical sense of “blameless.” It is clear from the context that both terms are related to moral integrity (for example, “men of mature character, men of integrity” (Phillips). The focus of perfect may be on attaining maturity of character, while the focus of complete is on being free from defect. It is, however, unnecessary to separate the significance of the two words. Some translations have therefore understood this “and” construction as referring to a single idea of perfection; for example, “go on to complete a balanced character” (New English Bible), “so that you may be fully mature” (New American Bible [New American Bible] 1970), and “so that you may be completely mature” (Contemporary English Version). In many languages this will be the more natural way to render these two terms; for example, “that you may be good in every way,” or “that you may become a completely good person.”

The phrase lacking in nothing is best taken as an added explanation of the quality just mentioned, not as another quality to be attained. The word lacking is used of the defeat of an army, giving up without a struggle. It means falling short of a standard. Taken with the previous expression it can be rendered in various ways; for example, “… men of integrity with no weak spots” (Phillips), “… a balanced character that will fall short of nothing” (New English Bible), “… complete, and not fail in any way” (Translator’s New Testament), “… complete, not deficient in any way” (New Jerusalem Bible).

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• Make sure that your ability to endure grows as strong as possible, so that you may become a completely good person with no defects at all.

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 .

For whoever …: James now goes on to explain the concept that whoever is guilty of one commandment is guilty of all. He elaborates on what he has said in the previous verse with an explanatory For, even though he will not draw a conclusion of what he has been saying now until verse 12. This connective particle is sometimes left untranslated. However, to show the connection between the two verses and to maintain a general train of thought, it may be desirable in some languages to keep this link by having a “For,” “Because,” “It follows that,” or even “That is why” in the sense of “the reason is” (similarly the Japanese colloquial version).

Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it: this statement is meant to explain a well-known Jewish teaching that the Law should be observed in its entirety, as there is no distinction between important and less important commandments—the Law is indivisible. Therefore to break one commandment is to be guilty of breaking all. Here the whole law obviously refers to the Law of God handed down through Moses, and may also be expressed as “everything that God has commanded us [inclusive] through Moses” or “all the commandments that God has given to us through Moses.”

The verb fails is literally “trips” or “stumbles” (so New International Version), in the sense of making a mistake or a slip (Goodspeed, Moffatt: “makes one single slip”). In this context it refers to the breaking of the Law. In many languages a literal translation of the phrase keeps the whole law but fails in one point can create a problem, for it is difficult to think and say that someone keeps the whole law and yet fails in one point—since the “whole” obviously means all, and consequently there should be no exception. It is possibly for this reason that Revised English Bible has rendered the phrase as “… breaks just one commandment and keeps all the others.” A simpler rendering is found in Contemporary English Version: “If you obey every law except one.” Another way of saying the same thing without the apparent contradiction is to render simply “breaks one commandment,” leaving the phrase keeps the whole law to be understood from the context without actually mentioning it, as Good News Translation has done (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). In many translations this can be done without losing any significant component of the meaning of the phrase.

The word guilty is a legal term that can mean “liable for punishment,” or “guilty of crime,” or “guilty in respect of the law that a person has broken.” The first two meanings seem unlikely, in that the person who breaks one law is said to be liable for all the punishments or guilty of crimes listed for all transgressions. The last meaning mentioned appears to fit the context better and is probably the one intended by the author.

The phrase all of it in Greek is one word “all.” It can be understood in two ways. First, it can be understood as in contrast to “one.” In this case if we render the “one” as “one point [or, commandment],” the “all” here means “all points [or, commandments].” This is apparently the understanding of Good News Translation when it renders the phrase as “breaking them all” (compare also Revised English Bible “breaking all of them”). Other ways of expressing this are “breaking all the commandments” (meaning the Ten Commandments), “guilty of disobeying all God’s prohibitions,” or even “guilty of doing all the things that God prohibited.” However, all can also be taken as an equivalent of “entirety” or “whole,” as in the whole law. In this instance the phrase may be rendered guilty of all of it, or “guilty in respect to all of it” (New American Bible), or “guilty of breaking the whole Law” (as in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• For whoever follows [or, obeys] all God’s commandments except for one is guilty of disobeying all of them.
• If you only disobey one of God’s commandments, it is the same as disobeying the whole Law [or, all of God’s words in the Law that he gave through Moses].

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 .

For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist: James now goes on to explain the evil consequences of false wisdom. Those who make a false claim to wisdom are people with jealousy and selfish ambition, as described in verse 14. Their wisdom is non-heavenly, unspiritual, and ungodly, contributing nothing to the building up of the Christian community. In fact it is the contrary. In many languages it will be necessary to use verbal expressions in place of the nouns jealousy and selfish ambition: for example, “Whenever people are jealous and selfish” (Contemporary English Version), “Whenever people have hearts that desire greatly to have what others have and to be better than other people.”

These negative attitudes inevitably lead to disorder and every vile practice. The adjectival form of the noun disorder has appeared in 1.8, where James speaks of the double-minded person as “unstable,” and in 3.8, where the tongue is said to be a “restless” evil. In 1 Cor 14.33 Paul uses this word in the sense of “confusion,” setting it in contrast to “peace.” The word is also used in Luke 21.9 of the commotions, or “tumults,” of war. As used to describe the troubled situation in the community, it can mean “confusion” (King James Version, Goodspeed), “chaos” (Translator’s New Testament), and “disharmony” (Phillips, New Jerusalem Bible). Again it will be better in some languages to say, for example, “such people are always causing trouble” or “such people are always fighting [or, having disagreements] with others.” The word rendered vile generally means something “bad,” “base,” “worthless,” “foul” (New American Bible), “wickedness” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version), or “cruel things” (Contemporary English Version). It is often used in the New Testament in contrast to the word “good” (John 5.29, “evil”; Rom 9.11, “bad”; 2 Cor 5.10, “evil”) and therefore is rendered as “evil” by Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible, and others. The word practice means things that are done, and therefore may also be rendered as “action” (Goodspeed) or “deed” (American Standard Version).

An alternative rendering for this verse may be:
• Whenever people are jealous and selfish, they are always causing trouble and doing every kind of evil.

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 mentions a third circumstance needing prayer, namely sickness. The theme of sickness is most likely suggested by the theme of suffering in verse 13. The verb “to be sick” in Greek can include any kind of weakness (compare Rom 14.2; 2 Cor 12.10). However, the obvious contrast with “to be suffering,” calling on the elders to pray and to anoint, and the verb “to save” in the sense of “to heal” (verse 15), all suggest that in this context “to be sick” is the intended meaning.

Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him: this is the proper response of the person who is sick. Here we can see glimpses of first-century congregational life and structure. The person who is sick is encouraged to call for the elders of the church to help. The verb call for means “to summon.” The use of the term suggests that the sick person cannot go to the elders and therefore has to summon the elders to the bedside. Maybe for this reason some translations render the verb as “send for” (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). However, in certain languages the idea of “summon” or “send for” will seem impolite and thus inappropriate. In such cases we may say “ask the church leaders to come” (similarly Contemporary English Version). The elders originally referred to people of advanced age. The word was sometimes used of older members of a Christian community and later came to be used for respected Christian leaders in a local congregation, and finally of church leaders holding official position in a local congregation. In this letter the usage apparently reflects the latest development, referring to the church officers or leaders exercising general oversight over church affairs.

The term church is often used of an assembly or a general meeting. In its Old Testament equivalent it was used for the gathering of the community of Israel (Deut 4.10). In the New Testament it is sometimes used to denote the universal church, the Body of Christ (compare Matt 16.18; Gal 1.13; Eph 1.22). It is also used of the local congregation in a particular place (Acts 5.11; Rom 16.5; Phil 4.15). In this context the church most likely refers to a local group and therefore is sometimes rendered as “congregation” (so Barclay, New English Bible), or even “group of believers [or, Christians].”

Let them pray over him: the verb to pray over suggests that the elders are standing beside the bedside of the sick person. Some scholars note that this is the only place in the New Testament where the verb “to pray” is followed by the preposition meaning “over” or “upon,” suggesting that it may involve laying hands on the sick person (compare Matt 19.13). In the early church, in addition to special gifts of prophecy and teaching, the elders were to visit the sick, not only for providing spiritual comfort, but as possessing “gifts of healing” (1 Cor 12.9). It is obvious then that the purpose of the prayer here is for healing.

The prayer is accompanied by anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The phrase anointing him with oil may be understood in several ways. The aorist participle anointing is sometimes taken as referring to an earlier time; that is, anointing takes place before praying. This understanding is reflected in the New Jerusalem Bible translation: “and they must anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him.” It is also possible to take it as happening at the same time, that is anointing and praying take place at the same time. This understanding is seen in more literal translations that take “to pray” as the primary action and “the anointing” as the accompanying action; for example, “let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (Revised Standard Version; similarly Phillips, New Revised Standard Version). Still another possibility is to take the participle with an imperative force, to go with the imperative “must pray”; for example, “they must pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (Barclay; similarly Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). This will in effect make “to pray” and “to anoint” two separate actions.

As to the function of anointing, it is well known that olive oil was often used in the ancient world for medical purposes; for example, in cleansing, soothing, and healing wounds (Isa 1.6; Mark 6.13; Luke 10.34). While not ruling out the possibility that the anointing here is for medical purposes, there are certainly other factors involved. Most probably it also has religious and symbolic purposes, reminding the sick person of God’s concern for his faithful people in time of distress, and stimulating as well as awakening faith. This is confirmed by the fact that the anointing is performed in the name of the Lord. In any case these interpretations will not in any way affect the outcome of translation. The anointing involves pouring or rubbing olive oil on the body of a person (compare Good News Translation, “and rub olive oil on him”). In cultures where olive oil is unknown, it will be better to use a more general term for vegetable oil and translate in a way similar to anointing him with oil, or “put oil on you [or, him],” or even “rub oil on you [or, him].”

The phrase in the name of the Lord is somewhat ambiguous and may be understood in various ways. There are several problems. First, there is the problem of identity. Who is the Lord here? In verses 10 and 11, the Lord is clearly God. But here the title is used in the context of healing. And in the New Testament time, the practice of healing is most often done in the name of Jesus Christ (Mark 16.17; Luke 10.17; Acts 3.6, 16; 4.10, 18). Therefore it is natural and safe to assume that the Lord here refers to Jesus Christ as well, and in some languages this will be stated clearly.

The phrase in the name of the Lord has already been used in 5.10, where it means acting as the representative of and with the authority of God. Here, however, the meaning is not so clear. One possibility is to take it as calling out the name “Jesus,” as at the time of baptism (Acts 2.38; 8.16) or in the rite of exorcism (driving out evil spirits; see Mark 9.38; Acts 16.18). This is possible, but the phrase is perhaps best taken in the sense of “by the authority of the Lord” as someone commissioned by him. This is then similar to the use of the phrase in verse 10. The only difference is that in verse 10 the title Lord refers to God, but here it is Jesus Christ as the risen Lord. The phrase then is not meant to indicate the form of words to be used in the anointing, but to provide the grounds on which the healing is to be effected. Another way to express this is “using Jesus’ authority.” For the translation of Lord referring to Christ, see 1.1 and elsewhere.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• If one of you is sick, you should ask the church leaders to come and pray for you. Also ask them to rub [or, put] oil on you, using the authority of the Lord [or, Jesus].

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 serves as a transition that links verses 12-15 and verses 17-18. It is sometimes taken as the conclusion of the previous paragraph, as Phillips and New Revised Standard Version have done, but most commentators and translations have taken it as a transition introducing a new argument.

Do not be deceived: it is not the tempter but God who is the giver of all good gifts. James does not want his readers to have any mistake about this. The expression Do not be deceived is often used as a rhetorical device in an argument (compare 1 Cor 6.9; 15.33; Gal 6.7) and can be rendered idiomatically as “Make no mistake about this” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “Do not be fooled” (the Good News Translation rendering of the same expression in 1 Cor 15.33). We may also translate this expression as “I want you to be very sure of this.” The word “this,” of course, will refer to the information in the following verses.

James often addresses the people who will receive the letter as brethren, and occasionally adds an adjective “beloved,” as here and at 1.19 and 2.5. Here brethren is obviously general and inclusive, and therefore may be rendered as “my dear friends” (Revised English Bible), or even better, “my dear brothers and sisters.”

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

The first character taken as an example from the Old Testament is Abraham our father. Abraham, one of the most respected personalities in Jewish history, is considered the standard example of faith by the New Testament writers (Acts 7.2-8; Rom 4.11, 12, 16; Gal 3.7-14; Heb 11.8). Here our father is to be understood as “our ancestor” (Good News Translation; so also Contemporary English Version, New International Version, and New Revised Standard Version) or “our forefather” (Goodspeed). Father or “ancestor” may be variously translated as “our [inclusive] great father,” “our great father of long ago,” “our grandfather in ancient times,” “our big grandfather,” and so on. The pronoun our includes all believers.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works…?: the whole verse is interrogative, expecting an affirmative answer “Yes.” It is possible, in fact preferable in many languages, to conclude the question at the end of the first clause, making the rest of the sentence an affirmative answer, as Good News Translation has done: “How was our ancestor Abraham put right with God? It was through his actions….”

In Greek the verb justified may be used in the law-court sense of “be forgiven” or “be declared innocent.” In this context, however, it should be observed that Abraham is not considered as a “justified sinner” in the Pauline sense, but as a righteous person approved and rewarded by God. Since Abraham offered his son Isaac upon the altar, God found him to be faithful and approved him as a righteous person in the light of his deeds. The focus is not on its legal sense but its moral sense. The word justified may have a different meaning in modern English usage and is therefore not the best rendering. The verb is best translated in the passive as “was considered righteous” (New International Version), “was declared acceptable,” or “was approved”; or, making God the agent of the action, “was accepted by God” (Barclay), “was recognized as being righteous by God” (Bible en français courant); or, in the active, it can be translated “God has accepted him as just” (so Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

It seems awkward to use the plural by works when only one work of offering Isaac is mentioned. Two explanations have been suggested. First, it may have been used simply as a formula meaning “by his conduct.” If this explanation is adopted we may render the expression as “by his action” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible; similarly Barclay), “by what he did” (Moffatt), or “for what he did” (New International Version). Secondly, it has been suggested that by using the plural by works James is recollecting the customary Jewish list of ten tests of Abraham, with the offering of Isaac as the final one. If this interpretation is adopted we will need to keep the plural, such as by works, “through his actions” (Good News Translation), or “for his good deeds” (Goodspeed). However, the idea of “conduct” still applies, and we may express justified by works as “God approved of [or, was pleased with] his conduct.”

When he offered his son Isaac upon the altar: there are two problems in this clause; both relate to the aorist participle rendered when he offered. First, the participle can be understood in two ways. It can mean “having offered,” indicating that the act of offering Isaac on the part of Abraham took place before God’s declaration of his approval. In other words, the two are successive events: the offering first, and then the approval. This apparently is the meaning intended by King James Version when it renders the clause as “when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar.” The majority of translators, however, understand the participle to mean a simultaneous act, thus when he offered …, or as the extension of the same act, thus “in that he offered up…” (American Standard Version), “for offering his son…” (Goodspeed), or “in offering his son…” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible).

The second problem is minor, as it does not affect the translation. The verb offered is a technical term for offering sacrifices. Here the “offering” ends only in “binding.” According to the Genesis account (22.1-14), Isaac was not killed as a sacrifice on the altar; but Abraham showed that he was ready to do so by binding him. What is meant here without being stated is the faith of Abraham; he believed in the promises and faithfulness of God. This is made clear in the next verse. In order to bring this point out, as well as to smooth out the fact that Isaac was not actually killed, some translators have resorted to expanded renderings; for example, “when his faith led him to offer…” (Phillips), “when he was willing to obey God, even if it meant offering his son Isaac to die on the altar” (Living Bible), or “by putting his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him” (Contemporary English Version).

The Hebrew altar was a stone structure on which animals were sacrificed or food was offered to God. Many modern cultures have similar elevated structures for sacrificing animals or for offering gifts to a deity. Sometimes this is a stone or wood platform or table. Such terms may be used here if it is clear that this altar is dedicated to God.

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• God accepted Abraham our [inclusive] ancestor as a good person, didn’t he? He accepted his conduct when he put his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him.

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

Be wretched and mourn and weep: the command to readers to cleanse themselves is followed by a call for their repentance. This, and what James goes on to say, is reflective of prophetic language. The three imperatives used here are virtually the same in their meaning. The verb Be wretched is used only here in the New Testament. The King James Version rendering “Be afflicted” may not be the intended meaning, in that what James wants his readers to do is not to inflict hardships on themselves as a sign of repentance, but to have a sense of sorrow. The noun form of this verb is used in Rom 7.24, where Paul describes himself as a double-minded person who sees what is right and tries to put it into action, only to find that he is not able to do it. Being in this sort of situation, he characterizes himself as “Wretched man that I am!” A wretched person is therefore someone who feels miserable and sorrowful realizing that he is in a sad situation and condition. The wide area of meaning of this verb is seen in various translations trying to express some part of its meaning; for example, “Be miserable” (Goodspeed), “Be sorrowful” (Good News Translation; so also New English Bible, Revised English Bible), “Lament” (Moffatt, New Revised Standard Version), “Grieve” (New International Version), “You should be deeply sorry” (Phillips). In many languages this idea will be expressed idiomatically, referring to the heart or liver; for example, “Your heart [or, liver] should be very unhappy” or “Let your heart [or, liver] fall.”

Mourn and weep: the inner sense of wretchedness should be matched by outward expression of sorrow. The combination of terms also appears in Luke 6.25, where woe is pronounced on “you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.” In the light of the sinful condition the Christians are in, and in view of the impending judgment, they should in fact be mourning and wailing. So mourning and wailing here are signs of repentance, not substitutes for it. Other possible ways to translate mourn are “cry in sadness” or “feel very sorry.” And if a translator must identify the reason for the sorrow, we may say, for example, “feel very sorry for your sins.” The word weep is a kind of “weep aloud” (Goodspeed) and so may be rendered as “wail” (New International Version). An alternative rendering for the first sentence can be:
• Be very unhappy, feel great sadness for your sins, and cry [or, weep] aloud.

Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to dejection: this statement expands what has just been said, and is to be considered as having essentially the same meaning. In the Bible laughter is sometimes considered a desirable thing (Psa 126.2), but often it describes the shallow laughter of the fool (Pro 29.9; Eccl 7.6)—the person who has no fear of God. Laughter is condemned because people are ignorant of their own sad condition and status before God. Therefore, when Christians accept the call to turn laughter … to mourning and joy to dejection, they will be able to enjoy true blessedness. Turning from one state to another is again the true sign of repentance. Since the joy mentioned here is obviously not the healthy kind desired, it may be rendered as “gaiety” (Revised English Bible). Translators should try to find a term that describes a negative or inappropriate type of joy. Other English terms are “frivolity” and “mirth.” The word dejection is used only here in the New Testament. Rendered as “heaviness” by King James Version, it means “gloom” (Good News Translation; so also Translator’s New Testament, Revised English Bible) and describes a downcast look, being the outward expression of a heavy heart due to remorse and shame. It gives a picture of the kind of attitude and posture the tax collector had in prayer, as recorded in Luke 18.13: “But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ” The passive imperative statement, Let your laughter be turned to mourning …, is best restructured into an active form in many languages; for example, “Turn your laughter into mourning…” (Revised English Bible) or “You must change your laughter into mourning….” (Contemporary English Version) has a helpful alternative model for the last two sentences of this verse:
• Stop laughing and start crying. Be gloomy instead of glad.

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

Obviously James is not interested in giving a full explanation of what constitutes true piety; yet he goes on to mention two things that are important, namely social concern and moral purity. True religion or piety is defined as pure and undefiled before God and the Father. The pair of adjectives pure and undefiled are often found together; they have essentially the same meaning, one representing the positive and one the negative aspect of the same requirement. In the present context these are not external or ritual requirements but ethical qualities that must be expressed in action. The pair can be rendered “pure and faultless” (Revised English Bible), or both positively “pure and genuine” (Good News Translation, Phillips), or with an intensifier “completely pure.” As in the previous verse religion in many languages must be translated in a more precise way; for example, “The deeds that God the Father considers to be…,” “What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine behavior is….”

The purity required is not to be judged according to human standards but before God and the Father, that is, in God the Father’s sight and judgment. For this reason Good News Translation has made “God” the subject of this sentence; thus “What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this….” The Contemporary English Version rendering, “Religion that pleases God the Father,” can also be used as a translation model. We may also translate this as “Behavior that pleases God….”

The expression God and the Father is actually “the God and Father,” with one article governing two nouns, and therefore can be taken as a hendiadys (expressing a single idea using two independent words or phrases connected by “and”). A literal translation might give people the idea that the Father is different from God. This obviously is not what the author wanted. It is therefore best to take it as “God the Father,” with “Father” defining the character of “God,” as most modern translations have done. In the biblical concept “Father” does not simply convey the sense of authority but also love, trust, care, and sustenance. It is quite possible that the author purposely uses Father here to highlight one particular aspect of God’s nature as the one who takes special care of the fatherless and widows (Psa 68.5). Father in some cultures must always be possessed; for example, “his father,” “their father,” or in this case “our Father” (New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version). In this context it will then be helpful to translate “God our [inclusive] Father.”

To visit orphans and widows in their affliction: the first expression of the true piety acceptable to God. The verb to visit is used in Matt 25.36, 43 of visiting the sick. In the present context it can be taken in the sense of “to look after” (Revised English Bible), “to provide help for,” or “to take care of” (Good News Translation). Care for orphans and widows is considered to be an obligation in the Old Testament (Deut 27.19; Isa 1.17), and this tradition continues in the New Testament (Acts 6.1; 1 Tim 5.3-16). Orphans in the Hebrew culture referred to children who had lost at least a father; thus they were “fatherless” or “children without a father.” In many languages the term used for “orphan” refers to a child who has lost both parents. Translators should seek a term that is the most natural in this context. Widows in some languages will be expressed as “women whose husbands have died.” Orphans and widows are often grouped together because they constitute the two social classes most open to exploitation and therefore most needing help and concern. The exact cause of their affliction is not clear. The word affliction can be rendered in general as “suffering” (Good News Translation), “trouble” (Moffatt, Revised English Bible), “hardship” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “distress” (Phillips, Barclay).

To keep oneself unstained from the world: the second expression of true piety. This saying is based on the view that the world is the source of stain and evil and is therefore opposed to God (compare 4.4). The ethical concept of the world as opposed to God is found also in other parts of the New Testament (John 15.18-19; Rom 12.2; 1 Cor 2.12; 1 John 2.15-17). To be truly religious a person has to steer himself away from being “corrupted by the world” (Good News Translation) or “contaminated by the world” (Barclay). The phrase may also be rendered “keeping oneself free from the world’s evil” (Translator’s New Testament) or “must … not let this world make you evil” (Contemporary English Version).

An alternative translation model for verses 26 and 27 may be:
• If you think that you are serving God properly, but don’t control what you say, everything you do is useless [or, worthless]. Behavior that pleases God the [or, our] Father must be completely pure. You must take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and don’t let the evil in the world contaminate you.

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