The tongue is a fire: the potential destructive power of the tongue has already been suggested in verse 5, but now it is clearly identified. That the tongue is a fire is a familiar analogy used in the Bible; for example, “Scoundrels concoct evil, and their speech is like a scorching fire” (Pro 16.27, NRSV). Fire is often used in the Bible as a symbol of judgment, but here it is used as a symbol of destruction. The tongue is potentially dangerous; it has destructive power similar to that of fire. In languages that will not use a metaphor here, it may be necessary to make this a simile; for example, “the tongue is like a fire” (Good News Translation). Or we may make it a descriptive sentence; for example, “Fire destroys things; the tongue is like that.”

The use of the tongue here refers to a person’s speech, but in many languages people may use some other bodily organ such as “lips” or “mouth,” and say, for example, “the lips are like a fire.” In this case translators must use the alternative term throughout the entire passage. In the case of a language that would not normally use figurative language in this context (but this is rather unlikely), we may say “our speech is like a fire.”

Up to this point the meaning is clear. What James says next, however, is extremely ambiguous and difficult to understand. There are several problems. First, there are five expressions in the nominative case but only one main verb. The problem is how to combine these words and phrases. Secondly, the meaning of several words and phrases is obscure. The fact that there are a number of textual variants shows the ambiguity in the text. (However, none of the variants is meaningful and significant enough to be included in the critical apparatus of the fourth edition of the Greek New Testament published by UBS.) To solve these problems a number of scholars consider the text to be corrupt and suggest various changes. But here again none of the changes proposed is convincing enough to win wide acceptance. The best thing therefore is to take the text as it is and try to make the best sense of it.

There is no problem in the meaning of the first sentence. James defines the tongue as an unrighteous world, literally “the world of unrighteousness [or, wickedness].” The difficulty lies in the meaning of the term world. It has sometimes been taken in the sense of “ornament” or “adornment” (compare 1 Peter 3.3)—it has been suggested that James is here saying that the tongue adorns wickedness by using flowery language to make it attractive. It has also been suggested that world here means the “sum total,” and thus the phrase means “the totality of wickedness.” This appears to be the meaning when the phrase is rendered as an unrighteous world, “a world of iniquity” (New Revised Standard Version), or “the whole wicked world” (Revised English Bible). It should be observed that the word world appears four other times in this book (1.27; 2.5; 4.4 twice), and in each instance it means the fallen and rebellious world. If the word “unrighteousness” acts as an adjective in the Greek construction “the world of unrighteousness,” this gives the meaning “the unrighteous world.” This interpretation also has the advantage of taking the definite article in “the unrighteous world” seriously. It is this sense, then, that appears to fit the context best and is therefore the one to be preferred.

In some languages, however, to talk about the tongue or “speech” being “the unrighteous [or, evil] world,” or “an evil world” will be difficult for readers to understand. For one thing, in many languages the idea of “the world” refers only to a concrete object in the universe. In such cases we may use a simile for this phrase; for example, “like a world full of evil,” or we may equate the world with an evil influence or power as Contemporary English Version does, and say “It is an evil power that….” Many translators will find this latter rendering more meaningful.

The next problem is punctuation and the structure of the whole verse. It has to do basically with the relationship between the first statement “and the tongue [is] fire” and the following clauses. In the Greek order and punctuation, the next clause is “the unrighteous world the tongue is presented [or, presents itself] among our members.” There are several possibilities:
(1) We can place a comma after “fire”; thus “And the tongue is a fire, the unrighteous world….” In this case “the unrighteous world” is in apposition to “fire,” meaning that it defines further what “tongue” is. This is the interpretation favored by some translations; for example, “And the tongue is a fire, representing in our body the whole wicked world” (Revised English Bible), and “The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body” (New International Version). It will be noted that both New International Version and Revised English Bible have left the second occurrence of “the tongue” untranslated, and that both place a period after the second statement.
(2) We can also place a comma after “fire” and a period right after “the unrighteous world” instead of taking the whole clause as a unit; thus “And the tongue is a fire, the unrighteous world” (similarly Luther 1984 and Translator’s New Testament). Instead of a period, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible has a semicolon, and La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée a colon; and then each has “the tongue” as the subject of the next clause. In both cases the effect is equivalent to a period.
(3) Most commentators and translators prefer to place a period right after “fire,” making And the tongue is a fire an independent sentence. This way the statement is seen as a comment by James on the image of the forest fire in verse 5. This understanding has the advantage of explaining that the second occurrence of “the tongue” is not redundant, and that the feminine participle, rendered as staining by Revised Standard Version, goes well as the modifier of “the tongue” (feminine gender). The series of three expressions that follow then can all be taken as modifying the tongue. The resultant translation would look something like this: “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is presented [or, presents itself] among our members as the unrighteous world; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” This is essentially what New Revised Standard Version has done.
(4) From the point of view of links between words, another arrangement of the clauses is possible. We note that there is a link between “unrighteousness [or, wickedness]” and “staining [or, polluting],” as well as between “set on fire” and “being set on fire.” The clauses may be arranged in these pairs; for example, “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue [it] is presented [or, presents itself] among our members as the unrighteous world, staining the whole body. It sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” The Good News Translation rendering reflects this understanding.

Option 3 makes the best sense from the point of view of the Greek structure, even though there is no real difference of meaning between options 3 and 4. In fact there is little difference among all the choices, but either 3 or 4 is preferable to 1 or 2.

It remains to explain some of the meanings of various terms and expressions. The Revised Standard Version rendering of the Greek verb rendered as is (in is an unrighteous world) is less than adequate. If it is taken as a passive, it means “is constituted,” “is set,” “is placed” (New Revised Standard Version), or “is installed” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). If it is taken as middle voice, it means “presents itself as,” “represents” (New English Bible), “occupies its place in” (compare Good News Translation), or “acts the part of.” The word rendered members refers to “parts of the body” (Barclay, New International Version) or “organs of the body” (Japanese New Interconfessional Translation).

Staining the whole body: the verb from which the participle staining is formed has the meaning of “to defile” (so New American Bible), “to corrupt” (so New International Version), or “to pollute” (so Revised English Bible). The word body is rendered as “being” by Good News Translation and Revised English Bible. This is a correct rendering, since what James intends to communicate is that the tongue can defile the whole person. In typical Jewish understanding the “body” always means the “whole person.” However, the word “being” may sound too philosophical and therefore be difficult to translate in some languages. If so “the whole person,” or even “the whole personality” (Wand), may be better. Here again, though, if we favor the interpretation that the author has individual members of the congregation and the church (as the body) in mind, it is all right to keep the literal renderings “member” and “body.” Staining the whole body (Good News Translation “spreading evil through our whole body”) may also be expressed as “dirties the rest of the body” (Contemporary English Version).

Setting on fire the cycle of nature: the potential evil influence of the tongue is not limited to the individual. The participle setting on fire continues the metaphor of “fire” and in fact completes the application of the danger of the tongue as “fire.” Setting on fire is not literal; the language is figurative, picturing the power of destruction. The meaning of the cycle of nature is debated. Literally it means “the wheel of beginning, origin, or birth” and was originally used in the mystery religions and philosophical circles to express the idea that our existence is nothing but an unending cycle of reincarnations from which we seek deliverance—a fatalistic belief. But it is quite possible that James’ use of the expression lacks this technical sense; it reflects rather a common and popular use of the expression to refer to the whole course of human life. James’ intention is to show the extent of the tongue’s destructive potential. The cycle of nature is therefore rendered as “the whole course of our existence” (Good News Translation; similarly Revised English Bible), “the entire course of our lives” (New American Bible).

The tongue that is described as “fire” is itself set on fire by hell. There are two kinds of fire: one is the fire that is from above, namely the Holy Spirit that purifies and illuminates (Acts 2.2, 3); the other fire comes from below, namely from the devil, and it sets human passions on fire. The word rendered hell is originally a transliteration of the Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom” into the Greek form geennēs (“Gehenna,” so New American Bible). It is a place located outside of Jerusalem, which was used as a garbage dump where refuse was being burned constantly. It was known as the valley of slaughter and the place of divine punishment (Jeremiah 19). In the New Testament it is the place of punishment of the wicked after the final judgment (Mark 9.45; Matt 5.22, 29). It will be noted that, just as “heaven” is sometimes substituted for God, hell is here intended to mean “the devil.” Whatever term translators use here, it must be made clear that hell is a place of fire. Other possible ways to express set on fire by hell are “set … by the flames that come from hell itself” (Contemporary English Version), “set on fire by the flames that come from the place of fiery punishment for dead people,” or “… the place of the fire that cannot be put out.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• And the tongue [or mouth, lips] is like a fire. It is a world full of evil that lives in our bodies and spreads evil through our whole lives. It sets our whole life on fire using flames that come right from hell.
• And the tongue is a fire. It is an evil power that dirties the rest of the body with its evil. It as it were sets a person’s whole life on fire with flames that come from the place where dead people are punished with fire.

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