Wisdom for the Tongue
Like the Pauline churches, James’ church was a church of the Spirit. Though there were formal offices, such as elder (5:14), there was no ordination process or schooling needed to teach and preach. As a result it was relatively easy for people with some ability, but worldly motivation, to put themselves forward as teachers. (Our modern seminary-ordination process makes this take longer, but it is not successful in preventing it; rather, it makes such a person a more permanent fixture in the church.) These uncalled teachers criticized others and formed cliques in the church; other church members followed suit in speaking harshly of them. James’ response is to call for control of the tongue, citing the danger of the tongue, giving the marks of God’s Spirit, and finally exposing the worldly motivation of many in the church.
3:1 My brothers indicates the beginning of a section. Not many of you should presume to be teachers: Teachers were important for the church (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11–13), but the church was also plagued by false teachers (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:7; Titus 1:11; 2 Pet. 2:1). The gift of teaching was easy to counterfeit, if someone were eloquent enough. But as surely as a person had “volunteered” to teach rather than having been impelled by the Spirit, so surely would his or her worldly motives become manifest in jealously, strife, or heresy. James values the ministry, but he realizes that its social attractiveness and power make it dangerous and that one should be reluctant to enter it.
The danger of the ministry is first of all personal: We who teach will be judged more strictly. If every casual word would be judged, how much more the words of those who dealt in words? (Matt. 12:36). If the Jewish teachers were to be judged severely, how much more, Christian teachers? (Matt. 23:1–33; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). An examination of the condemnations of false teaching both in the Gospels and in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude show that, as with elders (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1), the lifestyle of the teacher was more important than the words he or she spoke. Teachers were primarily models, secondarily intellectual instructors. By claiming this status they put both life and words under God’s scrutiny, and he would hold them responsible for misleading the flock in word or deed.
3:2 The danger is compounded by the fact that we all stumble in many ways. James cites a proverb that means that Christians not only sin frequently but also sin in many ways. This truth is acknowledged throughout scripture: 2 Chron. 6:36; Job 4:17–19; Ps. 19:3; Prov. 20:9; Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 8:46; 1 John 1:8. With if anyone is never at fault in what he says James focuses in on the particular sin that concerns him: the wagging tongue. The need to control the tongue was well known in Judaism and Christianity (Prov. 10:19; 21:23; Eccles. 5:1; Sirach 19:16; 20:1–7). James points out here, as he did in 1:26, its importance, since a person who controls his speech is a perfect [person], able to keep his whole body in check. That is, such a person is fully mature and complete in Christian character (1:4) and thus able to meet every test and temptation and control every evil impulse (1:12–15). As “Ben Zoma said: ‘Who is mighty? He who subdues his passions,’ ” or, as “Alexander of Macedon asked the Elders of the South, ‘Who is a hero?’ They said, ‘He who controls his evil passion [yêṣer hâ-râ’]’ ” (m. Aboth 4:1). James goes one step further than the rabbis. Control of evil impulses is good (as Paul agreed, 1 Cor. 9:24–27), but the hardest impulses to control are those of the tongue. Keep speech pure, and the rest will be “a snap”; that is the mark of the mature Christian.
3:3–4 James illustrates his thesis “control the tongue and you can control your whole self” through a series of analogies. First, think of horses, which are larger and faster than humans. Yet just put bits into the mouths of these animals and they are controlled: not just the head, but the whole horse, is forced to go wherever the rider wishes. A second analogy is to ships. Ships were one of the largest structures early Christians knew. Even a small fishing vessel was impressive; how much more so an ocean-going transport. Far more impressive were the forces driving them, winds before which trees bend and clouds move. Yet for all this size and power a small, tongue-shaped rudder (small at least in comparison with the ship or the wind) could be moved by the pilot at the tiller and the ship’s course changed. Both are striking analogies of “control the tongue, control the whole.”
James has shifted his argument somewhat through his illustrations. He began by saying, “If you can control the tongue, you are such a spiritual giant that you will also be able to control the rest of the body.” His illustrations speak more to the point, “If you control the tongue, you will control the rest of the body.” But this shift allows James to move on to his awareness that the tongue often incites the person to action: First you give voice to a forbidden idea, and then you give physical expression to it; first you get into a deep discussion or argument, then you commit adultery or murder. It is to this power of the tongue that James now turns, but both ideas, the difficulty of controlling speech and the fantastic power of speech, are continually playing back and forth in his mind.
3:5 Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts: The tongue is indeed small, but what great events for good or evil it can claim credit for! And how frequently the events are evil and the boasting proud; the very use of the term boasts reminds the reader of Paul’s frequent condemnation of any boasting other than boasting in Christ (Rom. 1:30; 3:27; 11:18; 2 Cor. 10:13–16; Eph. 2:9). The tongue is like a small spark, which can set a great forest on fire, whether the forest is Palestinian scrub, dried to explosive tinder by the long dry season, or a California mountainside. A fire is left unguarded or a match is dropped; the action can never be taken back, for with a whoosh and roar it is soon eating up acres at a galloping pace.
3:6 The tongue also is a fire: With this James begins to pile up almost psychedelic portraits of the evil in the tongue. As a fire it is destructive. One need only think of the oratory of an Adolf Hitler to underscore this point. Not only is the tongue destructive, but it is a world of evil; or, as an alternative translation has it, “the unrighteous world.” This unrighteous world is occupying its place among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person. The world is something that the Christian usually thinks of as “out there.” James points to his open mouth and says, “The world is in here.” The uncontrolled tongue is the embodiment and seat of the evil impulse in the body. And it is not limited in its effect to its own area, for it spreads evil or stains the whole body: The whole person is tarred by the brush of his or her tongue. Yet judgment awaits even the casual word (Matt. 12:36).
Furthermore, it sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. The problem with words is that they do not stop there: They have serious effects. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me” is profoundly false biblically. The flame of the tongue catches the passion: A temper rises, a lust is inflamed. Soon the words, whether an internal dialogue unheard outside or actual speech, burst forth into action. The emotions, the whole of the body, are uncontrollably involved. And where does this destructive fire originate? From hell itself! Here the prison of Satan and the demons stand, by metonymy, for the prisoners. Is that argument inspired by God’s Spirit? No. It is inspired, but by the devil himself. The flames of hate and prejudice, of jealousy, slander, and envy lick straight up from the lake of fire.
3:7–8 Having said some rather strong things about the tongue, James now turns to arguing his case in detail. His main point will be that the tongue, that is, human speech, is hopelessly evil. He begins with an analogy from nature: “All kinds of species are being tamed and have been tamed by humans.” He is not arguing scientifically: It would not bother him to learn that no one had yet tamed a rhinoceros or that in his day killer whales still lacked human contact; nor is James concerned about whether an animal is fully domesticated. It is enough for him that wild-cats and apes can be brought under human control. This is true, from the prisoner taming the mice and rats in his dungeon, to the elephant driver causing his beast to lift an Indian prince, to the snake charmer in the market and the merchant with birds that fly to him on command. This had been true in the past (have been tamed), but it is not part of some golden age half-forgotten—it is present experience as well (are being tamed). Furthermore, this truth is applicable to all the four major classes of animals: animals (i.e., mammals), birds, reptiles (which includes amphibians), and creatures of the sea.
But what a contrast when one comes to the tongue! No one can tame the tongue: The problem of controlling speech was a byword of the Greek and Hebrew cultures: It was a maxim that James hardly needed to prove. Did not his readers have dozens of things they wished they could “unsay” or many words they had spoken in error? Had they not learned dozens of proverbs to try to help them: “Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Prov. 12:18); “He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin” (Prov. 13:3). Surely James’ words are self-evident to every honest person.
Instead of being tamed, the tongue is a restless (or unstable) evil. As Hermas would later say, “Defamation is evil; it is a restless demon, never at peace, but always dwells in dissension” (Mandate 2.3). In contrast, God is perfectly single-minded, stable, and at peace, “For God is not a God of disorder [confusion, restlessness, instability] but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). Yet speech is frequently characterized by instability; one believes one has controlled the tongue, then in an unguarded moment a critical, defamatory word slips out. Uncontrollable, restless, unstable—those are also the characteristics of the demonic, as James will soon point out (3:16).
Furthermore, the tongue is full of deadly poison. The psalmist agreed: “They make their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s; the poison of vipers is on their lips” (Ps. 140:3). The comparison with snakes was widespread in Jewish literature, perhaps because the tongue looks a bit like a snake, perhaps because a snake kills with the mouth, and perhaps because the serpent in Eden deceived with its smooth words. There is no evidence that James is depending on any particular passage; he is simply asserting that words are not harmless; they are dangerous, as deadly as poison if they are not controlled. This is James’ answer to the modern tendency to see words as unimportant and cheap.
3:9 Having asserted the evil in the tongue and the difficulty of controlling it, James now gives some concrete examples of its uncontrollable nature. First of all, we praise our Lord and Father. Every reader would agree. Blessing or thanking God for his goodness was a part of the liturgical life of every Jew and Christian: They chanted (called “singing”) psalms such as Psalm 31:21 or 103:1, 2; they had morning and evening prayers of blessing in which God was thanked for protection during the night and the good of the day (the prayers of Acts 2:42); and there were the thanksgivings over each meal: “Blessed art thou, O, Lord God of our fathers, who gives us the fruit of the ground.…”
Unfortunately, the tongue is also used to curse men. Scripture abounds with curses, although it limits cursing and is at best uneasy about it: Genesis 9:25; 49:7; Judges 9:20; Proverbs 11:26. Curses were common because, like blessings, they not only vented emotion, but also really affected the person or things against which they were directed. Although Paul forbids casual cursing (Rom. 12:14), in practice he utters some curselike words (1 Cor. 5:1; 16:22; Gal. 1:8). Jude is virtually a long curse against heretics. Yet these more formal curses on people who do certain things are hardly the curse of anger, jealousy, or rivalry used as a weapon to separate or reject groups within the church in interparty strife, much less the casual curse of someone with a personal grudge.
James points out the inconsistency of such cursing by adding, who have been made in God’s likeness. Although a saying of Jesus forbidding cursing may be his deeper emotional basis (e.g., Luke 6:28), James uses instead this theological argument to drive home the inconsistency of the action. The Old Testament refers to humans as made in God’s likeness (Gen. 1:26), and it uses that fact to argue about the seriousness of defacing that likeness (Gen. 9:6). Even the most depraved human bears God’s likeness, and the likeness in biblical thought was seen as representing the person it depicted. To bless or thank God and then to turn around and curse his likeness is like praising a king to his face and then smashing the head off his statue as one leaves the palace. At best it is inconsistent; at root it shows uncontrolled, unrepented evil lurking within that the person does not dare show toward God but vents on people instead. James, however, sympathetically recognized the unstable nature in people and identifies with it by using we, not because he accepts it as appropriate, but because in leading people to repentance he wishes to show them a better way (3:13–18).
3:10 The obvious problem here is the fickleness of speech: Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. The problem is not so much that of blessing and cursing per se—one might, for example, curse sin quite properly: “May every angry thought that would invade my mind be buried in the depths of hell!” The problem is that both cursing and blessing are directed at the same object: God and a person-in-the-image-of-God. That shows double-thought and thus sinfulness. It is specifically this duality of speech (the “he speaks with forked tongue” of American idiom) that biblical tradition rejects (e.g., Ps. 62:4). This rejection was carried on in later Judaism (the apocryphal work Sirach 5:14 speaks of the “double-tongued sinner”) and Christianity (e.g., Didache 2:4, “Do not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for the double tongue is a snare of death”). So James is on the same theme he mentions in 1:8 and 4:8—doubleness, fickleness, instability, are a sign of the evil impulse and must not be tolerated. The Christian is called to root out all such tendencies and to arrive at singleness and sincerity of heart.
3:11–12 James concludes his argument with more analogies from nature: Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?. This was an unfortunate truth all around the Mediterranean, whether in the Lycus valley (Rev. 3:15–16 refers to the water supply of the area), Marah in Sinai (Exod. 15:23–25), or the Jordan rift valley, where the water cascading down a cliff would be such a welcome sight until a traveler discovered it was bitter. Why should humans try to do what springs do not? The analogy between the mouth of a spring and the human mouth fits very well.
Second, My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Again the analogy fits. No tree bears two species of fruit. Each produces according to its nature. It is unnatural for a human to try to do what nature does not. Yet perhaps James means something more, for Jesus used a similar illustration (Matt. 7:16–20; Luke 6:43–45; Matt. 12:33–35), but this one dealt with good and bad fruit and judging a plant by its fruit. Is James suggesting that the bad fruit (the cursing) reveals the nature of the person?
The third analogy confirms the suspicion: Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. James has shifted his analogy. Now the spring is clearly bad, salty, but still is trying to produce sweet water. That is impossible. The evil within the person produces an “inspiration,” which is frequently well hidden, but the “curses” (criticism, slander, negative remarks) mixed with the pious language show the real source of inspiration. The teacher or the Christian claims God’s Spirit or God’s wisdom, but is that true? It is not true if the person’s language reveals that he or she is really a salty spring trying to be sweet.
Having argued above for the danger inherent in the tongue and the need for purity in speech, James now moves behind speech to the motives inspiring it. This section looks two ways. On the one hand, it looks back to the teachers of 3:1 and the real problems underlying impure speech in general. On the other hand, it is a bridge between the theoretical discussion of 3:1–13 and the denunciation of the problems in the community of 4:1–12. Just as there were two births, two inspirations, in 1:12–18, so there are two “wisdoms,” two Spirits, here.
3:13 James has already argued for simple, sincere speech; now he makes an appeal. Who is wise and understanding among you? At one level this is a question that simply asks if someone fits the description, but at a deeper level one remembers that 1 Corinthians 1–3 describes a church in which rival teachers claimed superior wisdom, and perhaps that was happening in James’ community as well. At the least, he knows that the teachers of 3:1 were claiming to be understanding, for how else could they teach? It is such persons, as well as those who aspire to understanding, whom James addresses.
How are such persons to show their wisdom? By clever refutation of those who disagree with their position? By no means; rather, show it by [their] good life. Jesus had taught that one would know true teachers from false ones by how they lived (Matt. 7:15–23). James is applying his master’s teaching. Lifestyle was absolutely critical for the early church. Elders were primarily examples (1 Pet. 5:3; 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:10–11), secondarily teachers: Their qualifications stress their exemplary lives and only mention their teaching ability as one item among many (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). Lifestyle was an important witness as well (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:2, 16), for if it did not succeed in converting, it at least removed the excuses from the mouths of unbelievers at the final judgment. James states that not one’s orthodoxy (right preaching) but one’s orthopraxis (right living) is the mark of true wisdom. One must reject the teacher who does not live like Jesus; one discounts the profession that does not lead to holiness.
James stresses two marks of this lifestyle. The first is good deeds. Actions do speak louder than words (Matt. 5:16). The works one does show where the heart is really invested (e.g., Matt. 6:19–21, 24). James commends such practices as charity and caring for widows as marks of wisdom.
The second mark is performing these deeds in the humility that comes from wisdom. Unlike the hypocrites of Matthew 6:1–5, the truly wise know how to act out of humility: They are not building their own reputations. Like Moses (Num. 12:3) and Jesus (Matt. 11:29; 21:5; 2 Cor. 10:1), they are not interested in defending themselves. They avoid conflict and especially avoid advertising themselves. Humility is the mark of the truly wise.
3:14 On the other hand, if instead of being marked by a holy lifestyle, meekness, and good deeds, the Christian is marked by a heart that harbors bitter envy and selfish ambition, that is another matter. All of these adjectives describe conditions in your hearts, and they describe them from God’s standpoint. The person might not let these characteristics rise to consciousness in undisguised form. The envy James names is “harsh zeal” or “rivalry”; the same term can have a positive meaning of “zealous” elsewhere in scripture (e.g., 1 Kings 19:10), and surely the person so characterized is persuaded this is the case. But in reality it is a rigidity arising from personal pride. Bitter is an adjective describing the envy, and is not the loving and firm zeal of someone intoxicated by God but a “zeal” deeply tinged with bitterness. Whatever lofty motives are proclaimed, the very harshness in the tone and the cynicism displayed toward opponents reveal the real jealousy.
With these vices fits selfish ambition, which is better translated “party spirit” (Gal. 5:20; 2 Cor. 12:20). In the grip of rivalry, the leader feels he or she must withdraw in some way to “witness to the truth” that the main group of Christians has rejected. Here is a very sensitive issue, for church history does know of groups driven out or withdrawing in pain and sadness as a witness to the truth; there were times this was necessary. But too often what begins as a witness gets subtly invaded by rivalry, which leads to a split.
If these vices characterize your heart, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Better translated this would be “don’t lie against the truth.” People may claim, in the teeth of James’ evidence, to be filled with God’s Spirit. James pleads with them not to aggravate their problem by continuing to assert that God motivates their rivalry. By boasting in their zeal or arguing endlessly the rightness of their cause, they bring the cause of the kingdom into disrepute and further blind their own eyes.
3:15 The jealous person is not inspired by God: such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven. James did believe wisdom came from God (1:5), for it is one of his good gifts (1:17). Jewish teaching also connected wisdom to the gift or presence of God’s Spirit (e.g., Gen. 41:38–39; Exod. 31:3–4; Prov. 2:6; 8:22–31). Thus one could paraphrase James as “this behavior is not inspired by God’s Spirit.”
What, then, is the source and character of this “wisdom” that inspires them? First, it is earthly. On the surface, to say that something belongs to the earth is not bad, but it is bad if the something is claimed to come from God (1 Cor. 15:40). Thus James already argues that their inspiration is at best their own natural selves. Second, it is unspiritual, or “soulish.” The term is used in the New Testament for the person who does not have God’s Spirit (Jude 19) or who “does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). This “wisdom,” then, is not from their redeemed natures, but characterizes those to whom the true ways of the Spirit are foreign. The ways of the world—power, command (cf. Mark 10:45), strategy, prerogatives—are what such a one understands, not meekness, love, self-giving. Third, it is of the devil. There is an inspiration to this “wisdom,” but it is not godly. They claim that their rivalry is inspired. “It is inspired, all right,” retorts James. “It is inspired by the devil himself!” Here James has reached the root of the matter.
3:16 As if to clinch his argument, James continues, For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. The charge is not simply a “domino theory” argument, but a logical consequence of the first two vices. Rivalry and party spirit destroy the cohesiveness of the Christian community, which is built on unity and love. Once the “glue” is destroyed, all kinds of disorder and rebellion creep into the community. Furthermore, the self-assertion and independence assumed in jealous zeal destroy the ability of the community to discipline according to the apostolic tradition (Matt. 18:15–20; Gal. 5:25; 6:5). With the “brakes” of mutual reproof gone and with the need to be “accepting” for fear any criticism would lead a person to form his or her own party, it is easy to see how every evil practice would creep in. Community solidarity is utterly important for James, as it was for Paul (2 Cor. 12:20; Phil. 2:4), for without it moral and communal disintegration occur.
3:17 In total contrast to the demonic “wisdom” is the wisdom that comes from heaven. To stress this, James lists a catalog of its virtues that can be compared in both form and content with Paul’s catalogs for love and the Spirit (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22ff.). This wisdom is first of all pure, which means that the person is wholly and sincerely committed to following God’s moral directives; there are no crooked or unjust motives behind his or her holiness.
This purity is explained as leading to other virtues: it is peace-loving (as in Heb. 12:11; Prov. 3:17), which refers not to inner peace but community peace; considerate (Phil. 4:5; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 3:2), which points to a noncombative spirit; and submissive, which indicates a tractable or teachable spirit, a person who will gladly be corrected or learn a new truth.
Wisdom is practical, for it is full of mercy (the same root as the word for alms) and good fruit, which are the acts of charity James has already discussed (1:26–27; 2:18–26). Therefore wisdom is not primarily an intellectual concept but a practical ability to discern God’s will and act accordingly.
Finally, wisdom is impartial and sincere, i.e. free from prejudice. It is unclear whether this freedom from prejudice refers to a lack of party spirit (impartiality in receiving fellow Christians) or whether it means “having a single outlook,” “unwavering” (the opposite of 1:6–8). Perhaps it means the latter, since it comes next to “sincere” or “not hypocritical” (the Greek term is the latter, which implies the NIV translation of “sincere”). Together the two terms indicate people whose inner motives are sincere and whose outward acts are consistent. One need never doubt “where they are coming from,” for they are nonpartisan in that they act the same toward all people.
3:18 James summarizes his argument with a proverb: Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest or righteousness. The harvest of goodness or righteousness is well known in biblical literature (e.g., Isa. 32:16–18; Amos 6:12). In other words, good deeds will be produced by the actions of peacemakers. Some people try to be righteous in such a way that it splits a community. The proverb instead points to goodness as the natural fruit of a peacemaker’s life, and that is James’ point: peacemaking, not a harsh “striving for the truth,” leads to righteousness. The repetitious sow in peace simply underlines the fact that peacemaking is an activity producing true, outward peace. James himself is portrayed as a peacemaker in Acts 15 and 21, but his teaching comes not from his personal preference but from Jesus, who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matt 5:9). Conflict and combat will not produce justice; the way to justice is peace. Indeed, true peace in the community will be the result of doing justice to everyone.
Additional Notes
3:1 The teaching office developed from Judaism, in which, even in the New Testament period before formal rabbinic ordination came into being (after A.D. 70), people were honored with the title “rabbi” (Matt. 8:19; John 1:38), “scribe” (Matt. 2:4), “teacher” (Luke 2:46), or “teacher of the Law” (Luke 5:17). The early Christian communities also needed instruction in both the Old Testament and the Christian way of life, even more so as new converts poured into the church. At times this office was thought of as scribal (Matt. 13:52), but usually the term was “teacher.” They were highly valued along with prophets, for whereas one spoke by direct inspiration from God and the other explained and applied scripture and the growing Christian tradition, both brought God’s message (Acts 13:1 and Didache 13:2 include them with prophets, as does Paul in 1 Cor. 12:28). That such a powerful office attracted the unfit is not only true of the New Testament period (1 Tim. 6:3; 1 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 3) but also later in the early church: “But they praise themselves for having understanding [which they lack in reality] and wish to be teachers on an unofficial basis, though foolish as they are. So because of this haughtiness many, by exalting themselves, have been ruined, for self-determination and overconfidence are a great demon” (Hermas Similitudes 9.22.2–3).
The teaching of the severer judgment of teachers was traditional in the church, for James can say you know (as in Rom. 5:3; 6:9; Eph. 6:8). Paul considered himself a teacher, as James also did, and he like James took future judgment seriously, in light of which he disciplined himself (1 Cor. 9:27).
See further J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, pp. 241–45; S. S. Laws, James, pp. 140–43; K. Wegenast, “Teacher,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 766–68.
3:2 James uses an unusual word for stumble, used only four times in the New Testament; see also James 2:10; Rom. 11:11; 2 Pet. 1:10. The word literally means “to stumble” or “trip,” but when applied to moral issues, as here, it means “to go astray” or “to sin” or even “to be ruined or lost.”
This whole passage is tied together by catchwords. Stumble ties the proverb to the rest of the verse. Keep in check is literally “to bridle” and thus links to “bit” in verse 3, which is similar in spelling in Greek.
His whole body: the body was viewed as the seat of the passions, the evil impulse.
3:3–4 Because the illustrations do not fit exactly, some have felt there is an allegorical meaning (B. Reicke, James, p. 37) or that James has borrowed from other literature (M. Dibelius, James, pp. 185–90). It is quite possible that James is quoting popular proverbs, for surely there were plenty of popular sayings about horses and ships in those days. But to posit a rather forced allegorical meaning or a literary source without an exact literary parallel pushes the evidence too far. It may just be that James’ mind is jumping ahead of itself and he is using the illustrations as a bridge to his next thought. At any rate, horse and ship illustrations were too widespread for James to need to have found one in a written source.
3:5 The second half of this verse is probably a proverb used as a transition to the new point James will make about the tongue, namely, the evil in it.
3:6 The likening of the tongue to fire has an Old Testament background: Pss. 10:7; 39:1–3; 83:14; 120:2–4; Prov. 16:27; 26:21; Isa. 30:27. Sirach, commenting in a long passage on slander, states, “[The tongue] will not be master over the godly, and they will not be burned in its flame” (28:22; cf. Psalms of Solomon 12:2–3).
The structure of this verse is difficult, for the grammar is unclear; but the general sense is clear. The world is a symbol for the culture and institutions of the universe as organized without God and thus the antithesis of the kingdom of God; James always uses it with this meaning (1:27; 2:5; 4:4), and the adjectival phrase “unrighteous” clinches this meaning. James is very close to 1 John in his thought, although different in style. See further J. Guhrt, “Earth,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 524–26 or H. Sasse, “Kosmos,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 868–96.
That the world occupies its place among the parts of the body may be a reference to the evil impulse (Hebrew yêṣer hâ-râ’), first cited in James 1:13, which the Jews spoke of as living in one’s members. In that case James is picturing it as living in the tongue, but this is hardly a full statement of his anthropology. His language is partly metaphorical and means much the same as Jesus’ when he says that corruption is not outside but inside the person, that evil comes from the heart (Mark 7:14–23). James is dealing with community strife, prejudice, and rejection of the call to give. He pictures this as residing in the tongue, but as with Jesus, the defilement within stains not the tongue alone but the whole person. A similar image is in Jude 23 (cf. Wisdom 15:4).
The phrase the whole course of [one’s] life has occasioned much discussion, for it is similar to Orphic and other Greek expressions for reincarnation. But the expression is so widespread in later Greek literature, with such varying meanings, that one must conclude that by James’ time it had lost its connection to Orphic teaching and had taken on in Palestine a meaning like the GNB translation. See further J. B. Adamson, James, p. 160–64.
The reference to hell is interesting. Hell, or Gehenna, was apparently thought of by James and others as the place where the demons and Satan were already imprisoned (as opposed to future imprisonment in Rev. 19–20). This is clearly the sense of the Jewish work the Apocalypse of Abraham 14:31. But the image in this passage is not just one of imprisoned beings but of beings able to inspire present events, like those in Rev. 9:1–11; 20:7–8. Apparently the prison is used as a graphic image for those who will live or are living there, particularly because of the flame imagery associated with it. See further J. Jeremias, “Geenna,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 657–58.
3:7 The only other place the word tame appears in the New Testament is in Mark 5:4, where demons make a man untamable.
The four classes of animals are the four common divisions of the animal world in biblical literature, which classified by observed groupings, not modern taxonomic categories. See Gen. 1:26; 9:2; Deut. 4:17–18; Acts. 10:12; 11:6.
3:8 There is a massive amount of material on the tongue in scripture (e.g., Prov. 10:20; 15:2, 4; 21:3; 31:26) and also in intertestamental literature (e.g., Sirach 14:1; 19:6; 25:8).
The term restless is the same word that appeared in 1:8 (“undecided”) and that appears frequently in the New Testament as a noun meaning “restlessness,” “instability,” “tumult.” God’s characteristic is peace, the normal antonym to this term, not instability, Luke 21:9; 2 Cor. 6:5; 12:20. This contrast will come out clearly in the following verses and in 3:13–18. See further H. Beck and C. Brown, “Peace,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, p. 780.
On the poison image in Jewish literature, see Job 5:15; Ps. 58:4, 5; Sirach 28:17–23. Hermas Similitude 9.26.7 reads, “For just as wild beasts destroy and kill a man with their poison, so also the words of such men destroy and kill a man.” See further O. Michel, “Ios,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 334–35.
3:9 Thanking or blessing was frequently directed toward God (Matt. 11:25), so that God can be referred to simply as “the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61; Rom. 9:5); the rabbis normally referred to God as “the Holy One, blessed be He.” In the New Testament prayers frequently blessed or thanked God (Luke 1:68; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3), as did the Jewish Eighteen Benedictions used at the end of every synagogue service. In fact, God is the normal object of blessing in the New Testament, although on occasion people are blessed (e.g., Matt. 16:17). In the Lord’s Supper the blessing of God for food was applied to the special food of bread and wine: Neither at a daily meal nor at the weekly Lord’s Supper was the food blessed, but as Jesus did at the Last Supper, God was blessed or thanked for the food. In Didache 9:2, 3, “We thank you, our Father, for …” is repeated concerning the cup and the bread, showing this to be the practice of the early church. See further H. G. Link, “Blessing,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 206–15.
The title Lord and Father has no exact parallel in Jewish literature (1 Chron. 29:10 and Isa. 63:16 are the closest). It is probably a current expression of the church, combining the Lord (Kyrios) of the synagogue with Jesus’ favorite address to God in prayer.
It is clear that curses were used in the Old Testament (cf. also Prov. 24:24; Eccles. 7:21; Sirach 4:5). In the rabbinic literature the Jews also rejected cursing, for the same reason James does—people are made in God’s image. The Secrets of Enoch states: “The Lord with his hands having created man in the likeness of his own face, the Lord made him small and great. Whoever reviles the ruler’s face … has despised the Lord’s face, and he who vents anger on any man … the Lord’s great anger will cut him down” (cover the formal liturgical curses of the Eighteen Benedictions. Apparently, in the New Testament similar formal curses directed at anyone who did x or y were acceptable. Paul never curses his adversaries, even the Judaizers; neither does he accuse them of doing what he curses. Paul’s were more formal “if the shoe fits, wear it” curses, not personal, rash, or occasional ones.
3:10 The rejection of doubleness is an important concept for James, as the note on 1:8 shows. He has surely read Sirach 28:12, “If you blow on a spark, it will glow; if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth.” This is set in a wider context of Sirach 27:30–28:26. In 28:13 the double-tongued (“the deceiver,” RSV) is roundly cursed. Testament of Benjamin 6:5 reads, “The good mind hath not two tongues, of blessing and of cursing … but it hath one disposition, uncorrupt and pure, concerning all men.” In essence, whether one looks in Jewish or Christian works of the early period, the mere appearance of a double attitude (which is not just the honest admission that “I have not made up my mind yet”) is an indication of the sinful disposition.
J. B. Mayor, James, p. 123, believes the logic of this passage means that one should never curse a human. That is true, although James would most likely not have drawn this conclusion. Still it is not unusual for a New Testament teaching to have implications beyond New Testament practice, as, for example, in the case of slavery. In 2 Pet. 2:10–11 and Jude 8–10 this principle is extended to reject even the idea of cursing evil powers, including Satan.
3:11–12 Any geologically active area will have sweet and bitter springs. In the Lycus valley, Hierapolis had hot mineral springs, Colossae cool, sweet springs; Laodicea had to put up with lukewarm water piped in from a distance. In the Jordan valley the traveler would have to guess which of several springs seen in the distance were sweet and travel miles accordingly. See further E. F. F. Bishop, Apostles of Palestine, p. 187; or D. Y. Hadidian, “Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of James,” p. 228.
The King James Version reads, “So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh”; this reading follows an inferior Greek text that harmonized 3:12 with 3:11. The NIV follows a better text and thus shows James’ shifting thought, making a good transition to the next section.
3:13 The word-pair wise and understanding is frequently found in the Old Testament (Deut. 1:13, 15; 4:6; Dan. 5:12); it indicates a people living according to God’s insight.
Lifestyle is important throughout the New Testament, e.g., Heb. 13:7; Gal. 1:13. Paul constantly states that lifestyle marks the unregenerate from the regenerate (e.g., Gal. 5). The Jews likewise insisted that lifestyle was important: “[R. Eleazar ben Azariah] used to say: Everyone whose wisdom is greater than his deeds, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are many and its roots few; and the wind comes out and roots it up and turns it over on its face” (m. Aboth 3:22).
The Greeks felt meekness and humility were vices. Christians believed they were cardinal virtues (Gal. 5:23; 6:1; Eph. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:2; 1 Pet. 3:15). Thus James as a Christian opposes his self-assertive culture. See further S. S. Laws, James, pp. 160–61.
3:14 There are many places where the Greek word zēlos (envy, zeal) is translated positively (John 2:17; Rom. 10:2; 2 Cor. 7:7; 11:2; Phil. 3:6). But this virtue easily merges into jealousy and rivalry, which the same word condemns in vice lists (Acts 5:17; 13:45; Rom. 10:2; 13:13; 1 Cor. 3:3). James seems to indicate that the moment one senses even a hint of a bitter spirit, it is time to examine one’s true motivations. See further A. Stumpff, “Zēlos,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 887–88.
The problem of party spirit was well known in the early church. The first indications are in Acts 6; then follow the Galatian Judaizers, the groups in Corinth (1 Cor. 1), and other unknown groups (Phil. 1:17; 2:3). This is a chief vice in the New Testament, for in a group founded on a truth that tended to separate it from mainline Judaism, many would lose sight of the fact that the truth was a person who unified them and instead so focus on their little truths that they distorted them and then persuaded themselves that withdrawal was necessary. See further F. Büchsel, “Eritheia,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 660–61.
James 3:13–18 is a modified vice and virtue list, of which there are many in the New Testament. Didache 1–6 and Barnabas 18–21 are similar lists in later Christian literature. All, like James, trace sin back to your hearts, rather than to external forces. See further B. S. Easton, “New Testament Ethical Lists.”
3:15 Paul can speak of a “wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6) or a “human wisdom” (fleshly wisdom; 2 Cor. 1:12), but James never does, for wisdom is his term for the Holy Spirit. The link between wisdom and heaven had already been forged in Jewish teaching (e.g., Sirach 1:1–4; 24:1–12; Wisdom 7:24–27; 9:4, 6, 9–18), as had the link between wisdom and the Spirit (Wisdom 7:7, 22–23 speaks of “the spirit of wisdom” and of a “spirit that is intelligent, holy” in her). James simply makes use of the identifications in a more concrete way. See further J. A. Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdom in James.”
The term earthly normally indicates at least inferiority (John 3:12; Phil. 3:19; 2 Cor. 5:1), but it is the weakest of the terms, which are arranged in ascending order. Hermas, in meditating on James, has strengthened the idea: “ ‘So you see,’ he said, ‘that faith is from above, from the Lord, and has great power; but double-mindedness is an earthly spirit from the devil, which has no power’ ” (Mandate 9.11).
The term of the devil has already been suggested by “lying against the truth” (3:14), which characterizes the devil (John 8:46). Because James later calls on people to resist the devil (4:7) and because of the connection between testing and the devil (e.g., Matt. 6:13) to which Hermas also witnesses (Similitude 9.12; 9.23.5), it is unlikely James is simply saying they were doing things like the devil but rather saying that they were inspired by him.
3:16 The First Letter of John is also deeply concerned about sectarian behavior (1 John 2:19). The scripture recognizes the need for separation from the world, but it rejects divisions among true Christians.
That demons would be involved in every evil practice (cf. John 3:20; 5:29, which use the same term) is not surprising. Yet disorder is the primary mark of demonic activity. God is the author of peace and order (1 Cor. 14:33). The demonic realm is characterized by restlessness and rebellion (cf. Luke 21:9 and the comments on James 1:8; 3:8). See further A. Oepke, “Akatastasia,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 446–47.
3:17 Hermas, Mandate 9.8 has a catalog with a structure similar to this catalog in James that also stresses peace.
The terms submissive and impartial are found in biblical literature only here.
The term sincere (“not hypocritical”) has a massive biblical background: Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:5; 2 Tim. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:22.
3:18 Harvest of righteousness is literally the “fruit of righteousness.” See also Prov. 11:30; 2 Cor. 9:10; Phil. 1:11; Heb. 12:11. Scripture and related literature also knows “the fruit of wisdom” (Sirach 1:16) and “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:20). Goodness or righteousness is justice, where all get their due.
Some, e.g., S. S. Laws, James, pp. 165–66, connect wisdom to the fruit of righteousness and thus say peacemakers possess wisdom, for peace is the mark of its presence. Laws cites Prov. 11:30 and 3:18 as evidence. This is a possible interpretation, but not the most natural one. See further F. Hauck, “Karpos,” TDNT, vol. 3, p. 615; H. Beck and C. Brown, “Peace,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 776–83.
