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 .

And the scripture was fulfilled: as a result of cooperation between Abraham’s faith and works, especially the faith and obedience shown in sacrificing his son Isaac, he received God’s approval and was declared “righteous.” What does it mean for James to say that the scripture was fulfilled? The scripture quoted is Gen 15.6, giving the impression that the text is a prophecy; but it does not look like a prophecy—it is a declaration. In its original context Abraham believed in God’s promise to give him his natural son and many descendants, and on this basis, that is, his faith, he was reckoned or approved by God as “righteous.” How can this declaration be said to be “fulfilled”? Actually what James has done is to connect this particular text to the event in Genesis 22, that is, the obedience shown by Abraham in sacrificing his son Isaac. This is something that happened about thirty years later than the promise to give him a natural son in Gen 15.6. Obviously James was not interested in the actual historical event of 15.6 but was more interested in seeing the event as applying to the whole of the life of Abraham. In other words the initial declaration of righteousness on the basis of faith (Gen 15.6) is given its real meaning and full significance through the final declaration of righteousness on the basis of the kind of faith accompanied by and showing itself in works (Genesis 22). The scripture here obviously means a certain passage of the Old Testament. The Contemporary English Version translation may serve as a good model: “This is what the scripture means by saying, ….” Other ways of saying this are “This is what the Holy Book means when it says” or “This is explained by what we read in God’s Book.”

The first part of the quotation is Abraham believed God. In the context of Gen 15.6, the content of faith is in God’s promise to give Abraham natural descendants. The second half of the quotation says and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. The verb reckoned is a commercial term meaning “to add to someone’s account” or “to place to someone’s credit.” This latter sense can be brought out in various ways; for example, “and this was counted to him as righteousness” (Moffatt; similarly Revised English Bible) and “and it was credited to him as righteousness” (New American Bible, New International Version). The verb is in the passive voice; the one doing the reckoning is God. In many languages it is desirable to make this clear; for example, “God accepted him as righteous” (Good News Translation; so also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) or “God approved him as a righteous person.” The word righteousness is related to the verb translated as “justified” in verse 21. Suggested translation models for this sentence are “God regarded [accepted] him as a good person” or “God considered that he had done the right thing.”

The second result of Abraham’s active faith is that he was called the friend of God. This is not part of the quotation from Gen 15.6, but the thought appears in 2 Chr 20.7, and also in Isa 41.8, where God speaks of “Abraham, my friend.” Being made a friend of God is actually a natural extension of being declared “righteous,” since to be declared “righteous” is to be restored to a right relationship, and to maintain a proper and right relationship is to be on friendly terms. Bible en français courant, taking God as the implied agent of the passive he was called, phrases the clause in the active as “God called him his friend.”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• This is what God’s Book [or, the Holy Book] means when it says, “Abraham believed God and God accepted him as a good person.” That’s how Abraham became God’s friend.

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 not speak evil against one another, brethren: it is clear that James is introducing something new here from the fact that instead of “adulteresses” and “double-minded” people he is now addressing brethren, a particular group. The expression speak evil against is a single verb in Greek, literally “to talk [someone] down” or “to speak against.” It is sometimes used of speaking against others behind their backs without giving them a chance to defend themselves, and therefore has acquired the meaning of “speaking evil against” or “slander.” In the New Testament it is sometimes listed as one of those vices and sins in the sense of false accusations (Rom 1.30; 1 Peter 2.1), and at other times it is used for harsh criticism or malicious accusation (2 Cor 12.20; 1 Peter 2.12; 3.16, “abused”). In the present context the verb is used in the sense of criticism or accusation made against others, and therefore it may be rendered as “criticize” (Good News Translation), “slander” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible), “disparage” (New English Bible; compare the noun phrase used by Barclay, “the habit of disparaging criticism”). A Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, page 51, provides a number of good alternative renderings for speak evil: “shoot people with words,” “harm others by whispering,” “spoil someone’s honor with evil words.” We can also render speak evil idiomatically as “put evil on others.” Contemporary English Version has a helpful alternative translation model for this clause: “Don’t say cruel things about others.” The word brethren refers to fellow believers and is meant to be inclusive. It may therefore be rendered as “friends” (Revised English Bible, referring to Christian friends), “fellow believers,” or “brothers and sisters” (New Revised Standard Version).

James goes on to define what he means by “speaking evil against” someone; the person who speaks evil against a brother is the one who judges him. In some languages it will be better style to begin the second sentence with “If you do [speak evil against]…” rather than translating literally He that …. It is obvious that James uses the two verbs speaks evil against and judges in the same sense, using the second to define the first. The person who speaks evil against a fellow believer is guilty of passing judgment on (or, condemning) that Christian brother or sister. Furthermore anyone who judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. What James is suggesting here is that slander is a form of passing judgment on a fellow Christian, and this is going beyond what is legitimate. The law demands that a believer love his fellow believer (see 2.8); but to slander a fellow believer is to condemn that believer, and is therefore to break the law—for in doing so he is denying the law’s authority and is setting himself above God’s authority. The offense against a fellow human being is an offense against God, who created that person (3.9). The law may refer to the Mosaic law, but in view of the reference to the “royal law” in 2.8, James is here probably referring to the same law—the “love command” of the Kingdom manifested in the teaching of Jesus (see the rendering of Barclay, “… is to disparage Christ’s law of love…”).

But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge: to judge the law is to pass judgment on it or criticize it as useless or unnecessary. The person who passes judgment on the law is therefore not a doer of the law. This person is someone who does not practice the law, but a judge. What James is arguing is this: to set yourself over against another person is to break the law of love that commands you to love your neighbor. For not keeping the law is to judge it to be invalid and to put yourself above and outside it. The violator, then, in effect puts himself into the position of being a judge. And to exercise the function of a judge is something forbidden by Jesus (Matt 7.1-5).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• My friends, do not say evil things about a fellow Christian. If you do, or if you criticize [or, condemn] another Christian, you are in fact condemning God’s law of love. And if you condemn this law you are really refusing to obey it and are putting yourself above it as if you were a judge.

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 if a man …: James has just pointed out that discrimination is inconsistent with faith in Jesus Christ. He now proceeds to give an example. The conjunction For is used here to explain what is said in verse 1, and it therefore has the force of “To illustrate” or “For instance” (New English Bible, Revised English Bible). The “if” clause can be taken as the subordinate clause of the long conditional sentence here, and verse 4 “have you not…” as the main clause. If points to a hypothetical situation, especially with the exaggerated details in the example, but we can not rule out the possibility that it reflects some typical and actual problem faced by the church. To indicate a hypothetical situation it may be more natural in some languages to begin the sentence with “Suppose” as Good News Translation has done (so also Moffatt, Phillips, New International Version, Contemporary English Version). In other languages quite different constructions are required for hypothetical statements, and such constructions should be used in this context. Since verses 2 and 3 constitute a long conditional statement, it is possible, in order to avoid confusion, to repeat if at appropriate places, as New Revised Standard Version has done, “For if a person…, and if a poor person…, and if you…,” or “suppose” as Contemporary English Version has done, “Suppose a rich person… And suppose a poor person….”

Here man, in Greek, is the word for a male person. Obviously our author is taking a male person as an example. In languages where an inclusive and general term is available, such as “person” (New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version), it is desirable to use it here. This person, wearing expensive rings and clothing, and in contrast to the poor man, is obviously a rich person. And so Good News Translation has made this clear, “a rich man” (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Bible en français courant). The context also suggests that both the poor man and the rich man mentioned here are visitors, not regular church members, for otherwise they would not need to be shown to their seat (compare the rendering “visitors” [New English Bible, Revised English Bible]). And their social status is known only by their outward appearance.

James obviously wants to paint for his readers a picture with a sharp contrast: two men, one wearing gold rings and in fine clothing, the other in shabby clothing. In Greek gold rings is one word, and it appears only here in the New Testament. The wearing of rings by men was not unknown among the Jews. In the parable of the two sons (Luke 15.11-32), a ring was put on the finger of the younger son, perhaps as a symbol of authority. Here it is no doubt used as a symbol of wealth and social status. In some languages it will be more natural to say “wearing a gold ring [singular]” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). In other languages that employ numeral classifiers, translating gold rings literally will result in an unnatural phrase; for example, “wearing ring golden several pieces.” Languages such as these usually have an expression that is not marked for number, meaning that it is neither singular nor plural. Such an expression should be used in this context.

The image of wealth and social status is further illustrated by the rich man wearing fine clothing. The expression fine clothing is literally “shining garments.” The adjective “shining” is used of the clothing of an angel (Acts 10.30) and of the clean linen worn by the bride of the Lamb (Rev 19.8). It is quite possible that the author uses this adjective to describe the clothing worn by the rich man as both elegant and luxurious as well as spotlessly clean, as contrasted to the shabby and dirty clothing worn by the poor man. Other possible ways to express fine clothing are “expensive clothes,” or even “fancy clothes” (Contemporary English Version). In certain languages it will be more natural to put the reference to clothing after the gold ring and say “wearing a gold ring and expensive clothes.” Though we cannot with any degree of certainty judge whether or not this rich man is a senator, nobleman, or politician, as has been suggested (Reicke), we cannot miss getting the impression that he is a man of wealth, power, and social standing.

In stark contrast the poor man comes in shabby clothing. The poor man in Greek denotes a beggarly person who has nothing, not just a man without property and therefore having to earn his own living. The adjective shabby, as used in this context, is meant to be a word opposite in meaning to fine. In translation, therefore, it is desirable to maintain the contrast; for example, “fine … shabby,” “well dressed … ill-clad,” “shiny-clean … dirty.”

We may note here that neither the man with gold rings and fine clothing nor the poor man is identified as a Christian, but it is generally assumed that they are; otherwise it would be strange for them to visit a Christian assembly. It is also to be assumed that they are not members of this particular Christian community but are visitors; otherwise there is no need for them to be shown where to sit.

The word rendered assembly is the word often rendered, or rather transliterated, as “synagogue” when used of the Jewish place of meeting for worship or teaching. The reason for using this word here instead of the normal word for “church,” which James uses in 5.14, is debated. It has been suggested that the word refers to a Jewish synagogue where Jewish Christians still retained their membership rights. This understanding is unlikely in that, as the expression into your assembly indicates, Christians were the ones showing where visitors would sit; they obviously had their own authority to dictate what they wanted to do. It is probably best to take assembly as a reference to a Christian assembly, as some of the early Christians occasionally called their own meeting places by this name. Another question is whether the term is to be taken as the place of meeting or the assembly of people. Most likely the latter is intended, even though a meeting is impossible without a place. The nature of the meeting is not defined. It is generally assumed that it is a meeting for worship. Recently, however, it has been suggested that it is a congregational gathering to hear a judicial case. But this is unlikely, as it seems clear that both of the people are visitors. In either case it should not affect the translation. On the whole a general rendering like “meeting” (Good News Translation; so also Phillips, Barclay, Revised English Bible) is preferable to “synagogue” (New Jerusalem Bible), “church” (Living Bible), or even “place of worship” (New English Bible; so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Other possible ways to express comes into your assembly are “comes to where you are meeting together” and “comes into the place where….”

An alternative translation model for this verse may be:
• Supposing a rich person wearing expensive-looking clothes and a gold ring [on his finger] comes into the place where you are meeting. And suppose a poor person wearing shabby [or, worn-out] clothing comes in too.

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

We can subdue and control all animal species, but no human being can tame the tongue. The particle but introduces a sharp contrast. In Greek the tongue appears first for emphasis and contrast; people can subdue wild animals, but the tongue no one can! Other ways to express this first clause are “But we cannot control our tongues” or “But our tongues get out of control” (Contemporary English Version).

The tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison: this construction is grammatically odd. The two descriptions of the tongue have been taken either as in apposition to tongue or as predicates of a separate sentence. In the first case the Revised Standard Version rendering will result (and New Revised Standard Version is the same). However, this approach will be difficult in many languages, and so translators may prefer the second option and put a period after the tongue, and then the tongue (rendered as “it”) is understood as the subject of a separate sentence, resulting in a rendering like that of Good News Translation, “… the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison” (similarly New International Version, Revised English Bible), and Contemporary English Version “But our tongues get out of control. They are restless and evil….” There is, however, a third possibility, which is to take the two descriptions as two separate statements; thus “It is a restless evil. It is full of deadly poison.” In this case the first sentence “It is a restless evil” may be taken to conclude the previous description of the tongue as an uncontrollable animal. And the second sentence “It is full of deadly poison” may be understood as introducing the following reference to the contradictory use of the tongue (verses 9-12). This interpretation also makes good sense and is reflected in the rendering of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, which begins a new paragraph with this statement. This Handbook recommends that translators follow either the second or third interpretation.

There are a couple of problems relating to the expression a restless evil. The first has to do with the meaning of the adjective restless. In place of this word King James Version follows a Greek text based on later manuscripts and translates “unruly.” While this fits better with the context, it is considered less likely to be original and is therefore rejected by most modern commentators. The same adjective was used in 1.8 in reference to the double-minded person who is “unstable” and “undecided.” As a modifier of evil it may suggest that the evil is difficult to control and disorderly, and therefore the term is rendered as “uncontrollable” by Good News Translation (so also Translator’s New Testament). To keep the image of untameable beasts in focus, Phillips renders it as “always liable to break out,” capturing the picture of a caged beast pacing back and forth seeking an opportunity to break out.

The second problem has to do with the use together of two adjectives restless evil without a connective. Two solutions have been offered. One is to take the word evil as a noun, thus rendering it as “an evil thing” (so Translator’s New Testament and Revised English Bible). The other is to take the two adjectives as a pair by providing a connective between the two, thus “restless and evil” (Contemporary English Version), or “evil and uncontrollable” (Good News Translation). This interpretation is the more likely one, and is recommended by the Handbook.

The second description of the tongue is that it is full of deadly poison, like a snake. As we have observed, this description serves as an introduction to the discussion of the contradictory use of the tongue. The word deadly occurs only here in the New Testament and means literally “death-bringing.” The poison brings about death. The idea of the tongue as full of deadly poison reflects a familiar teaching in the Old Testament about evil people; for example, “Their tongues are like deadly snakes; their words are like a cobra’s poison” (Psa 140.3, TEV; similarly Psa 58.4-5). In many oriental languages it is possible, indeed desirable, to keep the literal and more picturesque language of the original; for example, “It [the tongue] is full of poison that brings about death” (Japanese colloquial version, Japanese New Interconfessional Translation, Today’s Chinese Version).

Alternative translation models for the final part of this verse may be:
• It is restless and evil, and full of poison that brings about death.
• They [or, The tongues] are restless and evil. They are full of deadly poison.

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 .