James 3

J.W. Roberts Commentary On James 3 SECTION FIVE TO Jas_3:1-18 THE TONGUEJas_3:1-12 Chapter three treats of two subjects directly related to each other: The bridling of the tongue (a metonomy for “speech,” com­pare “word” in verse 2) and the analysis of true wisdom. These subjects both refer to the teacher; the first part relates to his re­sponsibility and control of his speech (3:1-12) and the second to the teacher’ s wisdom (3:13-18). That verses 1-12 are to be inter­preted in this manner is quite plain. But the second point must be deduced from the context. It appears that “the one wise and under­standing” of verse 13 also describes the teacher. For the evidence see the commentary on verse 13.

Ropes says, “Chapter 3 relates to the teacher and wise man. That the two are treated as substantially identical is significant.” Wisdom and speech are connected in Proverbs 31:26, “She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue.” James is demanding that the Christian allow the gospel of Christ to impose this rule upon him.

In James 3:1-12 James returns to a subject mentioned in Chapter 1:16,26. There he had said, “Be swift to hear, slow to speak.” In a sense, Chapter 1:19-27 is a development of proper hearing; in the present section the proper attitude toward speech is developed. In 1:26 lack of control of the tongue is mentioned as proof of the absence of practical application of religion that made religion vain. The whole subject is now enlarged. There may also be im­plied (in the view of the plea for consistency in verse 9) that this proper use of the tongue is to be connected in development with the consistency in faith (partiality) and demonstration of faith (faith and works.) Self-control and meekness of wisdom are fur­ther indications of pure religion or a part of the works as a Christian by which justification is achieved. As Paul would have said it, this is a part of working out our salvation as obedient children (Philippians 2:15). James 3:1 —Be not many of you teachers,—The King James has “masters,” an older usage in English, for example in “schoolmaster” or “head­master” of a school. The Greek work is didaskalos , which means “teacher.” “Master,” therefore, is not to be taken as master of a slave. (Check Malachi 2:12 in the King James and see the article “Master” in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible.) “Teachers” here must certainly be seen against the background of Jewish Rabbinical tradition. “Teacher” here equals “Rabbi.” The Rabbis were local teachers in the synagogues. They were also called “lawyers” and “scribes.” The contemporary records show that the position was esteemed as one of honor and prestige and desired as an end in itself. Jesus criticized those “who loved to be called Rabbi” (Matthew 23:7-8). The criticism is probably due to the fact that the position was used to exercise power over others. Jesus saw the charge that he was in league with Beelzebub as an attempt to turn the multitude against him and thus considered it a misuse of the tongue. He said, “By thy words thou shalt be justi­fied, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:37). Compare also Romans 2:19 f.

Some form of the title Rabbi was often applied to Jesus: Mark 9:5 Mark 11:21 Mark 14:45; John 1:38 John 3:2; John 4:31 John 6:25, etc. In the church the office of teacher seems (as in our modern Bible classes) to have depended upon ability to teach (Titus 2:3-4) and not on official appointment. Teachers are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:28; Acts 13:1; and Ephesians 4:11. In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 we have a passage which is especially instructive. Teaching (v. 26), along with the exercise of spiritual gifts, seems to have been the privi­lege of those wishing to rise to speak. The author of Hebrews in­sists that all disciples by reason of time “ought to be teachers.” The exercise of the right in the assembly was denied women (1 Corin­thians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:12), but opportunity for the exercise of the ability to instruct by them must have been found in several other places (1 Corinthians 11:5; Titus 2:3 f)- Teachers were dis­tinguished from prophets only in that the latter were inspired teachers.

With all the encouragement to teach in the N.T., it is evident that the prohibition here against “many becoming teachers” is not due to an excess of teachers or to any discouraging of the proper ambition to teach. James is warning of the dangers inherent in the responsibility of teaching, especially in view of the confusion and vileness (verses 13ff) resulting at times from the misuse of the po­sition. All teachers, among whom James classes himself, will bear heavy responsibility for their influence, which is due to their power in the eternal destiny of men whom they affect for good or ill. James, therefore, is saying in effect, “Don’ t many of you be­come teachers, if you are not certain that you can control your tongue, unless your teaching ministry will yield peaceable results and unless you are willing to shoulder the responsibility for your work.”

James 3:1 —knowing— a causal participle, calling attention to the fact that Christians who aspire to teach should already be aware of the great responsibility of teaching. Compare again Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:37.

James 3:1 —heavier (margin, greater) judgment.—The word “judgment,” which may be either good or bad, has the adverse meaning in pas­sages like Mark 12:40, where Jesus warned that those who devour widows’ houses and make long prayers will receive heavier judg­ment. The word may here signify censure for failure in duty, as it seemingly does in Romans 13:2 or 1 Corinthians 11:29 . In these passages, or course, the censure may be accompanied by pen­alty. Thus this passage may mean that the offending teacher may be condemned at the last judgment for not having lived up to his stewardship as a teacher. The one who knows and does not will receive heavier judgment (Luke 12:47 ff). One in the position of teacher is certainly assumed to know the Master’ s will.

Hence, the teacher must be prepared for greater censure and penalty for failing. The teacher proclaims God’ s will and must proclaim it as God desires (1 Peter 4:11; Galatians 1:10 f). He will be judged on how well he does this. Of course one who does not teach (though he might be judged for his neglect) is not judged for wrong teaching. Note: The damage wrought by wrong teaching in the world is colossal. In the light of the pointed instruction of the New Testa­ment we must be concerned about teaching not founded on the ex­press revelation of the Scriptures. Paul taught the seriousness of this matter (Galatians 1:6-10) in promising an anathema on those who teach a different gospel. I Timothy l:3ff shows how strife and questionings follow such teaching. In modern times the lack of restraint in teaching heresies and hobbies continually divides and keeps the church in turmoil. Such unscriptural things as dispen- sationalism (premillennialism), instrumental music, and the ex­treme legalism which spawned the “anti” spirit in the Restoration Movement cannot be looked upon in indifference.

There are those who are so anxious for peace and harmony in the church that they would let such false teachers with their undisciplined tongues take over. But Paul said, “Their mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11).

Some unthoughtful people blame the defenders of the sound doc­trine, rather than the man of party spirit, for the discord which develops. James puts the responsibility for the damage where it belongs— on the shoulders of the teacher whose tongue is not con­trolled by the law of Christ. Who is to decide what is false? This is done by an appeal to the truth of the Bible. This means free dis­cussion, free exegesis, which should be carried on in a spirit of goodwill and brotherly love. This process results inevitably in the formulation of a consensus or understanding of the truth on ques­tions. The resulting conclusion is not a creed and should not be treated as such. But it Is represented in the attitudes of elders and memberships of the local churches.

To be out of harmony with this understanding and to press one’ s dissenting views is to run the risk of dividing the church and being the cause of strife. This is partly, at least, what James is hitting at. Usually, opposition to a false teacher’ s ideas reveals further that false motives and attitudes of jealousy and faction lie at the root of the trouble. So Paul also un­masked the motives and characteristics of the false teacher (1 Timothy 6:3 ff). A teacher should be careful of his teachings and motives. All who listen should be neither gullible nor intolerant of views.

James 3:2 —For in many things we all stumble.—(The King James “of­fend” is less accurate.) James says that we all are guilty of many kinds of faults and offenses. Literally, “We all stumble with re­spect to many things.” For the use of “stumble” see James 2:10; 2 Peter 1:10; Jude 1:24. That sin is universal is an almost axiomatic assertion of the Scriptures. It is also of universal admission. “We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:24). “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (I John 1:8). There is no human infallibility. James’ point is that, since this is true, it is clear that we should avoid (on any but the noblest motives) the taking up of the calling which brings the greatest responsibility and the greatest tempta­tion of all to sin. Lenski makes a difference in this word “stumble” and the word “fall,” that is, to bring the effort to live as a Chris­tian to an end.

James 3:2 —if any stumble not in word,—The sins of the tongue seem to the writer to be the most prevalent of all sins and the most difficult to avoid. There is probably a bit of hyperbole (exaggeration for em­phasis) in the following verses of James, just as there is in Paul’ s representation of the love of money as “root of all evil” (I Timo­thy 6:10). If a person could be found who does not make a mistake in word (in his speech), he would indeed be a remarkable man. Either in teaching or in wicked or empty speech we have all sinned. For the thought compare the non-inspired Jewish work, “Who is the one not sinning with his tongue?” (Sir 19:16).

James 3:2 —the same is a perfect man,—Compare the comment of Jas 1:4, where it is said that the man who lets patience have its perfect work is perfect and entire, lacking in nothing. As explained there, the word perfect means “attaining its end or purpose, complete, nothing lacking.” Ethically it means a “mature,” a “full-grown,” “well-rounded” person. Specifically it means that as a Christian the kind of character which God is trying to develop in all of us as we grow into the image of Christ has been achieved. This does not necessarily mean a sinless man, though in this passage in view of James’ idea of its difficulty, it approaches that. The idea is that the man who has mastered the most difficult task can certainly do the others which are less difficult. Hence the one not sinning in word must be all that God desires in a Christian. Compare 1 Corinthians 9:27 for Paul’ s statement of the difficulty of keeping his body under and using it in the intended way.

James 3:2 —able to bridle the whole body also.—This is further amplifica­tion of the principle just explained. It is almost apposition. Since one has controlled what James will describe as the most unruly member, he certainly must be able to subject all the other members of the body— eyes, hands, stomach, etc. The figurative use of the term “bridle” suggests the illustration of bridling the horses in the next verse. In Matthew 5:29 we have another use of one member at odds with the whole body.

James 3:3 —Now if we put the horses’ bridles into their mouths that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also.—This verse is a simple illustration. As one controls the body of a horse by con­trolling his mouth, so, if we can control our speech, we can regu­late the entire body. There is some difficulty, however, with the text. Some commentators take the whole verse as a protasis (a de­pendent clause): “If we put bridles. . .and (if we turn). . .” This leaves the sentence unfinished.1 This would demand that we com­plete the sentence mentally with some such conclusion as, “then we should do the same with our tongues, that we may control the whole body.” However it is permissible to translate the Greek as the ASV does, making the sentence read, “If we put the horses’ bridles into the mouths, then we are able to turn their whole bodies also.” This means that, when we have controlled and directed the horse’ s mouth, we control his whole body. The application of the illustration is left unexpressed but it is plain from the context.

The change of the King James “Behold” to the ASV “If” is based upon different manuscript evidence (following the Vatican MS and the Latin versions).

From this commonplace illustration of a larger instrument con­trolled by a much smaller one, James goes on to develop in re­verse the way the tongue is a little member but influences the whole body (even the whole circle of existence) for evil.

James 3:4 —Behold, the ships also,—The particle serves to enliven a nar­rative and to call attention or consideration to something. James uses it six times: James 3:4-5 James 5:4 James 5:7 James 5:9 James 5:11. The “also” calls attention to a second illustration: “In addition to horses, consider ships, too.” Ships were a common sight on the seas of the Mediterranean world. In Palestine they could be seen on the coast, as well as on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus crossed over the latter in a small boat, with his twelve disciples. Luke records that there were 276 persons aboard the ship taking Paul to Rome (Acts 27:37). The ocean-go­ing ships were called triremes because they had three decks of oars. Such ships also made use of sails when the winds were favorable.

James 3:4 —so great—They are large in fact— to carry so many people, as shown above, but even larger in relation to the small rudder.

James 3:4 —driven by rough winds,—For the strong winds on the seas, con­sider Jesus’ experience (Matthew 14:24) and Paul’ s on the Medi­terranean (Acts 27-28). A blowing wind in a storm is indeed rough or harsh. Paul’ s ship was driven for fourteen days and nights out of control. Yet a ship uncontrolled in the face of such powers may be controlled by a small instrument.

James 3:4 —are yet turned about by a very small rudder,—The verb “turn about” in James’ characteristic style repeats the verb of verse 3. Even in winds which may blow unfavorably a ship may make prog­ress by the use of the sails and rudder . The rudder was a steering paddle or oar (not a helm, as in the King James). It worked in the back of the ship or through a porthole. An interesting illustration of a small boat with its rud­der is given in the Illustrated World of The Bible (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1961) Volume V, page 257. In Acts 27:40 (as in P. London, 1164, h, 8) the word is plural because the ship often had two paddles fastened by a crossbar and was worked by two men (See the word for “rudder” in Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament).

James 3:4 —whither the impulse of the steersman willeth.—The word “im­” means “desire,” “inclination,” or “impulse.” It is the word whence our English word “hormone.” Wherever the steersman in­tends for the ship to go, the rudder can direct the boat. The word “steersman” is a substantive participle: “the one guiding straight.” The technical word for a “pilot” or “governor” of a ship is not used by James. The one who holds the rudder can turn the ship about and thus control it.

James 3:5 —So the tongue is a little member,—The “tongue” here is the literal member of the body, a small unit indeed of our bodies. But the tongue is used here by metonomy for the thing it does; it is the organ of speech. The tongue is little, like the rudder of the ship; but, just as the rudder can determine the course of the large ship, so the tongue has power to influence man’ s whole course and des­tiny. There is more on this in the following verses. James 3:5 —and boasteth great things.—The damage such a little member can do is so great that it can boast of its power and influence. Like the bramble in Jephthah’ s fable which asked the mighty trees to take refuge in its shade, so the tongue might say to all the larger members of the body, “I can determine the course of all of you. Let all take note of my power.” James shows that unfortunately such a boast is not an idle one. For the use of such a personification by which one member of the body (like the tongue here) is individ­ualized and shown to influence the whole body compare (with Mayor) Matthew 5:29 f (of the right hand), Matthew 15:19 (of the mouth), 1 John 2:16 (the eye).

Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a fire!— The margin has “how great a forest,” and the word can have this sense (Josephus, Antiquities, 18. 357, 366). The Greek literally has the following play on words: “What size fire kindles what size forest!” It is left to our knowledge that the fire is very small on the one hand, but the thing burned is very large. One has only to envision a small match, a spark, or a cigarette lighting a fire which may burn over a whole forest of possibly millions of acres to grasp the vividness of the illustration. Many Old Testament passages as well as Classical passages utilize the same figure: Isaiah 9:18 Isaiah 10:16-18; Zechariah 12:6; Psalms 83:14. Little things often have great power. So a careless word can consume a whole church. Compare Paul’ s figure of a church devouring itself (Galatians 5:15). James 3:6 —And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our mem­bers.—The editors of the Greek texts and translators differ slightly over the way the words are to be arranged: Whether we should render “The tongue is a fire. The world of iniquity among our members is the tongue” (two complete thoughts) or “The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is that which defileth the whole body.” The thoughts are the same; but, since the original MSS. had no punctuation, either arrangement is possible. In either arrangement the language describes the tongue as a fire and a world of iniquity.

Like the small fire which kindles a whole forest, so the tongue is a fire (a use of a metaphor rather than a simile, “like a fire”). The tongue may as completely destroy the whole body as the fire a forest.

“The world of iniquity” is very expressive. Just as we say, “There is a world of wisdom in that statement,” so that phrase means there is a very large sum here (perhaps even the entire sum total), that is, the whole universe or compass of the thing. Bauer quotes the Martyrdom of Polycarp (17:2), “Christ the one suffering for the whole world of those who are saved.” Thus James says that the tongue is the whole world of iniquity. The phrase “of iniquity” may mean “world composed of iniquity”1 or “characterized by in­iquity.” Taken either way, the phrase is an assertion (somewhat hyperbolic) that the tongue is a universe of evil in itself. It voices every evil feeling and every kind of sinful thought; it sets in mo­tion or gives concreteness to every kind of sinful act. Nothing evil is beyond its power of accomplishment.

Thus the tongue is not merely a world of iniquity in itself (which would be vivid enough), but it is the world of iniquity. As has already been pointed out, this is comparable to Paul’ s thought of the love of money (1 Timo­thy 6:10). Both illustrations are to be understood in their con­texts as slight hyperbole. Some people think of sex as the principal motivation of human activity. James and Paul do not contradict each other. The fault which each is combatting is so powerful as a source of evil that figuratively it may be said to constitute the whole story.

James 3:6 —among our members is the tongue,—“Is” is somewhat weak here as a translation of the Greek word. The verb means “be appointed,” “be constituted,” “made,” or “caused to be.” Compare James 4:4, “Whoever therefore wishes to be a friend of the world is made (constituted) an enemy of God” and 2 Peter 1:8, “This makes you to be not barren.” Thus the tongue is made to be or is constituted a world of iniquity among our members, being so made that it is able to produce all the sins of the catalog. Knowling prefers to in­terpret the verb as middle (reflexive) “maketh itself,” saying that it is not so constituted by God. But it is not every tongue which is thus constituted. It is the “tongue defiling” ; the verb “defileth” is a descriptive participle modifying “tongue.”

James 3:6 —which defileth the whole body,—One member is able to bring the whole body to contamination or stain. The verb is used else­where only in Jude 1:23, where Jude says that we should snatch some out of the fire having mercy with fear, “hating even the garment spotted (defiled) by flesh.” Fire is not thought of usually as defil­ing or staining; thus there is some mixing of metaphors. James’ point is that as the fire can destroy the whole, so the tongue can de­file the whole by inflaming the whole body and bringing it to sin.

James 3:6 —and setteth on fire the wheel of nature,—The Greek has all this in modifying participial phrases all descriptive: “the fire, the world of iniquity— the one defiling the whole body, both setting on fire . . .and being set on fire.” It is hard to reproduce the vivid­ness and expressiveness of the original. It has often been remarked that James was a close observer of natural phenomena.

The words “wheel of nature” are difficult; they seem to mean “the whole course of life” : “the whole round or course of life is set on fire or inflamed by the tongue.” This is a way of saying that the evil spreads from the tongue like a fire to all the members, appetites, and passions of man’ s whole nature or life. Lenski in­terprets: We are a part of the wheel of existence; we do not live isolated lives but affect others by what we do or say. Hence the tongue of one person sets in motion a flame (for example, gossip, lying, profanity) which then spreads destruction to others like a house in a city which catches fire and by spreading burns the whole town. (So also Mayor, who thinks that the meaning is “to stir up one person against another, one class against another, one nation against another, etc., until the entire complex of existence is af­fected.) Some such idea is what is meant.

The complexity of interpretation is due to the fact that the terms used by James may have more than one meaning. “Nature” (mar­gin, birth’) may mean “birth” or “origin” (Luke 1:14) or “exist­ence,” as in James 1:23 . The other term may be accented in two ways in Greek and may mean either “wheel” or “a course” or “path.” It was used (compare Arndt and Gingrich) in the Orphic Mysteries with the sense of “the wheel of human origin,” where men were thought of as being caught up in a continuing repetition of reincarnations as a succession of renewings of the world would occur. Others, like the Concise Bible Commentary, think of the Indian idea of the wheel of life which regards man’ s endless existence through a series of transmigrations. But such ideas could hardly be attributed to James. He must refer to the whole course of one’ s existence, the whole course of life about him, or the whole circle of his own members. In some way he is saying that everything around man seems affected by the tongue.

The translations of the phrase are interesting: Phillips, “It can make the whole of life a blazing hell.” Schonfield, “The tongue . . . is the inflamer of the process of generation.” NEB, “It keeps the wheel of our existence red-hot.” Moffatt, “Setting fire to the round circle of existence.” Goodspeed, “Setting fire to the whole round of nature.”

James 3:6 —and is set on fire by hell (margin Gehenna).— Such a fire as that just described could have its orgin only in the fires of Hell. This is a figurative use of the word “hell.” Only fire such as that pic­tured in the lake of fire, the second death, could light such a de­structive fire as that spread by the tongue. Compare James’ use in 3:15 of the wisdom producing strife, etc., as being demonic or Paul’ s description in 1 Timothy 4:1 of the teaching of false teachers as being inspired by demons. Jesus traced evil speech to the heart (Matthew 15:19). James shows that the evil heart is influenced by hell.

This is the only use of the Greek Gehenna outside of the Gos­pels (Matthew 5:22 Matthew 5:29-30 Matthew 10:28 Matthew 18:9 Matthew 23:15 Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43 Mark 9:45 Mark 9:47; Luke 12:5). The King James Version translated three words by the same English word “hell” : Hades (“the unseen world, the in­termediate state where the spirit awaits the resurrection), Gehenna (literally, “the valley of Hennon,” but signifying a place of tor­ment after death for man’ s spirit), and Tartarus (In Greek and Jewish thought, the lower part of Hades, where the wicked dead are punished, cf. Job 41:20; Enoch 20:2; Josephus, Against Apius, 2:240. The word occurs only in 2 Peter 2:4 in the New Testament). The Greek thought regarding these places differed from that re­vealed in the New Testament only in that they knew of Hades and Tartarus alone (with the latter as the place of punishment for the wicked) and in that they thought of the states of the dead in these places as permanent (with no hope of a resurrection). Like the concept of Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4; Luke 23:43), the Greeks thought of the good as enjoying happiness in Hades.

The New Testament enlarges upon the use of these terms by showing that the states are only between death and the resurrection. The new term Gehenna is used of the final and eternal place of torment.NOTE ON GEHENNAGehenna is the Greek form of the Hebrew ge-henom which means the “Valley of Hennom,” (Joshua 15:8 Joshua 18:16). It is also called Topheth (2 Kings 23:10). The word appears in the form Gaienna in the Septuagint in Joshua 18:16 (B). The word was transferred in Jewish thought and used as the metaphorical name for the place of the torment of the wicked after the final judgment.

The valley of Hennom was the place of the idolatrous worship of Molech, the fire god (“Ahaz . . . burnt incense in the valley of the sons of Hinnom and burnt his children in the fire,” II Chron­icles 28:3). Compare Jeremiah 7:31 Jeremiah 32:35; 2 Chronicles 33:6 and Leviticus 18:21. As a result it became “polluted” by King Josiah (2 Kings 23:10) and became a place of refuse and abomina­tion.

The association with the valley was not the source of the idea of a place of eternal spiritual punishment by fire. That concept oc­curs throughout the Old Testament. Compare Deuteronomy 32:22, “A fire is kindled in mine anger, and burneth into the lowest Sheol.” See also Leviticus 10:2; Isaiah 30:27 Isaiah 30:30 Isaiah 30:33 Isaiah 33:14 Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 7:10; Psalms 18:8 Psalms 50:3 Psalms 97:3. Jeremiah prophesied evil against the valley of Hinnom (Jeremiah 19:2-10) and the concept of punishment by fire combined with this to develop a belief in a place of spiritual punishment to which the dread name Gehenna (already conditioned as a place of abomination) was given to it. Gaster (Interpreter’ s Bible Dictionary’) suggests that the applica­tion of the place name follows the analogy of using such Palestin­ian places as Armageddon (Revelation 16:16; Zechariah 13:11), Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26; Revelation 21:2), or Sodom (Revela­tion 11:8) to spiritual concepts.

Jewish literature shows that the idea was prevalent (Enoch 10:12-14, “sinners . . . will be led to the abyss of fire in torture and in prison they will be locked up for all eternity.” ). Compare also 18:11-16; 27:1-3; 27:1-3; Jdt 16:17; 2Es 7:36; Sir 7:17; Sibylline Oracles 1:10:3; Talmud, Aboth 1:6; I Qumran M 2:8; Assumption of Moses 10:10. Some Jewish writers thought the chosen people would be exempt and that the duration would be limited. Philo taught, however, that evil Jews would be included and that the punishment was eternal (De Proem, et Poen. 921). The spiritual nature of Gehenna is shown by the fact that the Jews placed it in the Third Heaven (Ascension of Isaiah 4:14; 2 Enoch 40:12; 41:2. But it is in’ the teaching of Jesus that the doctrine is most expli­citly identified and affirmed. He spoke of Gehenna as a place of future punishment. He spoke of “Being cast into Gehenna” (Matthew 5:29 Matthew 18:8-9; Mark 9:45 Mark 9:47 Mark 12:5); of the “Gehenna of fire” (Matthew 4:22); of destroying both body and soul in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28); of the “condemnation of Gehenna” (Matthew 23:33); of making one “a son Gehenna,” i. e., one worthy of its punishment (Matthew 23:5). It is used elsewhere in the New Test­ament only in James 3:6, our present passage. But the concept of this eternal spiritual punishment of the wicked is found frequent­ly: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Romans 2:7-9; 2 Peter 3:7; Hebrews 12:29; Revelation 14:10 Revelation 19:20 Revelation 20:10 Revelation 20:14. The New Testament clearly teaches that the punishmeilt suffered in Gehenna will be eternal (Mark 9:47-48; Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:11).

James 3:7 —For every kind of beasts and birds … is tamed, —All creatures are subject to being controlled and tamed, but by human efforts the tongue seems to be uncontrollable. Animals, birds, and fish are all included. The ‘‘for” points to the fact that this statement con­tains the evidence for the preceding statement of the hellish source of the tongue’ s evil. That it (of all creatures) cannot be tamed by man is proof of the tongue’ s perverseness. It is more vicious than any of the wild creatures. In the “are tamed” and “have been tamed” James unites the present and perfect tenses of what is now going on and what has long been going on. The art of taming is as old as man and is continuing. The verb “tamed” is used elsewhere in the N.T. only in Mark 5:4, of subduing demons.

James says “every kind of” meaning “every individual nature” (qualitative) of beast, etc. The Greek word is phusis. The manner of speaking is tautological; the word means “species” and as such often is not translated: “The phusis of the stars” simply means “the stars” themselves. So the expression means simply “all ani­mals, birds, and fishes.” The enumeration of living creatures in this way (classifying all living creatures except man) is based up­on the Greek Old Testament (Genesis 1:26 Genesis 9:2; 1 Kings 4:33).

James 3:7 —by mankind:—The margin has (as the Greek) “by the human nature” . Other species are in subjection to the human species. This is as God said it would be (Genesis 1:26). James 3:7 —but the tongue can no man tame;—Nothing in the human spe­cies is able to subdue the tongue as it can wild creatures. Augus­tine interpreted this to mean that if it is ever done it must be done by divine help. Such help from God may be had by prayer. Only in this way may we hope to “refrain our tongue from evil” (Psalms 34:13; cf. 1 Peter 3:10). So David prayed that God might “set a watch before my mouth, and keep the door of my lips” (Psalms 141:3). Johnson interprets somewhat differently: “cannot control the tongue as a whole. Some may rule their own, but the organ it­self as a whole does its evil work still in the world.” Augustine’ s view seems to bring out the force of the “no one of man” accurately.

James 3:8 —it is a restless evil,—“Restless” here is the same word James used in James 1:8 of the unstable man. The sense “unstable” or “incon­sistent” could apply here as agreeing with the inconsistent action of both blessing and cursing in verse 9. But the vividness of the figure of the tongue as a wild and restless evil, which like a caged beast never is still but walks back and forth, back and forth, is striking and is probably the meaning. How like this is the wag­ging tongue of gossip, of profanity, or the mouthings of a con­ceited hobbyist, speculator, or false teacher. But the restlessness is not mere restlessness; it is restless evil. Not merely disagreeable or destructive, the tongue is evil, bringing sin. Hermas (Mandate 2:3) says, “Slander is evil; it is a restless demon.” Grammatically “restless evil” could be taken as an appositive with “tongue”: No man is able to tame the tongue, “a restless evil.” But the ASV is perhaps correct in taking it as the predicate nom­inative of an independent sentence: “It (the tongue) is a restless evil.” Some commentators (e. g., Erdman) read “uncontrollable” with some witnesses (C, the Koine, Peshitto Syriac), but ASV text (the better attested reading) makes good sense. James 3:8 —full of deadly poison.—“full of deathbearing poison.” Compare “full of adultery” (2 Peter 2:14); “full of envy” (Romans 1:29). Undoubtedly the term is drawn from Psalms 140:3 (Psalms 58:4) quoted in Romans 3:13, “The poison of asps is in their lips.” This is the last of James’ vivid metaphors describing the great influence of small things as the tongue.

In verses 9-12 James points to the inconsistency of the tongue (as he has just demonstrated its wickedness). We bless God with it and thus profess ourselves His children. Yet as Christians we curse men who are made in His likeness and are His children in another sense. Even nature is more consistent than this. James chooses this inconsistent cursing of our fellowmen as one of the improper uses of the tongue. He might have chosen many others.

James 3:9 —Therewith—that is, with the tongue.

James 3:9 —bless we the Lord and Father;—Mayor cites the custom of the Jews when they spoke God’ s name of adding “blessed (be) He.” From this arose the name for God— “the blessed.” Compare Mark 14:61, “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” If James is not thinking of this custom specifically, then the verb means cus­tomarily to “praise or extol someone,” as in a eulogy, prayer, or song of praise. See Luke 1:64, “He spoke blessing God.” It also means “to give thanks” (Mark 14:19; 26:26; 1 Corinthians 14:16). The opposition with “curse” probably shows that the meaning of “praising” or “extolling” is the proper one. ,

James 3:9 —curse we men,—To curse is to put someone under an impreca­tion, to invoke evil or, even sometimes, damnation upon him. This is what we do when we damn someone. The incongruous combi­nation of blessing and cursing is often noted: Psalms 62:4, “They bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly.” See Romans 12:13, “Bless and curse not.” Compare 1 Corinthians 4:12. An ex­ample of cursing men is the bitter description of the chief priests and Pharisees who spoke of the common folk as “this crowd who knoweth not the law are accursed” (John 7:49).

James 3:9 —who are made after the likeness of God.—By this the inconsist­ency is made to stand out. The Greek echoes the exact wording of the Greek Old Testament (LXX) “Let us make man after our image and likeness” (Genesis 1:26 cf. Genesis 5:21 Genesis 9:6). James uses the perfect tense, “has been made and remains in his likeness.”

The argument is that, since man bears the image or likeness of God, to harm him is in a sense the same as harming God. So for this reason one must not kill (Genesis 9:6), oppress the poor , or hate his brother (1 John 4:20).

Interpreters have argued as to what sense man is made in the likeness of God. The consensus is that it is in his being a partaker in such attributes as reason, conscience, knowledge, the power of dominion, and the capacity to assimilate the moral and spiritual holiness of God. Man even in his fall is still an immortal spirit. Mayor says that, though such an image is traceable in every child of God, only in Christ as the perfect image of God (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4) do we see the perfection of this image. It is our task as Christians through the Gospel and the in­dwelling of the Spirit to transform ourselves more and more into such an image (Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24; 2 Corinthians 3:18). The process is progressive (2 Corinthians 7:2; Romans 8:29; II Peter l:4ff) and will be completed at the Second Coming of Christ (Philippians 3:21; cf. 1 John 3:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:5 If).

Then indeed we shall bear the perfect image of God and Christ. But even now unregenerate man bears the impress of that image. Some have thought of Jewish Christians cursing Gentile Christians in order to get the “one made in the image of God” to mean a Christian. It could be that this is the cursing that James has in mind, but the principle of the likeness of God remaining in fallen man is certainly sustainable from Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:7; Genesis 1:26 Genesis 5:1 Genesis 9:6; Malachi 2:10). James includes himself (“we”) as the representative of the people guilty.

James 3:10 —out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing.— Mayor has a long note as to why the Old Testament allowed many curses (Proverbs 11:26 Proverbs 24:24; Genesis 9:25 Genesis 49:7; Joshua 6:26; Judges 5:23 Judges 9:20 Judges 9:57), since cursing is not allowable by James. He finds the answer in the combination of cursing and blessing here. The mixture of cursing proves the unreality or insincerity of blessing. Cf. Matthew 12:34 Matthew 12:23 f. But Lenski seems to be more nearly right when he argues that no curse of our own can be pro­nounced by a Christian upon a fellow man without reflecting the curse upon the God whose image man bears.

Only the curses which God Himself has pronounced upon the men whom He has had to curse may a Christian repeat (such as 1 Corinthians 16:22; Gala­tians 1:9). Otherwise he usurps God’ s place as judge and reviles God. “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?” (Numbers 22:8) James 3:10 —these things ought not so to be.—The “so” is somewhat redun­dant, but it sums up what James has said about the combining of blessing and cursing with an uncontrolled tongue. Inconsistency ought not to exist in such a fashion.

James 3:11 —Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening—As is characteristic James enforces his argument with illustrations drawn from nature. Nature is not so incongruous that one may expect contradictory produce from the same sources. He begins his Greek sentence with an introductory interrogative particle which expects a negative answer: “A fountain doesn’ t send forth . . . does it?” Compare the use of the same particle in 2:14, “Can that faith save?” Thus James pointedly rejects his own hypothetical illustration. Such could not be; yet Christians were doing what was comparable to it.

James 3:11 —sweet water and bitter?—The words are usual ones for a spring of water (Revelation 8:10 Revelation 14:7 Revelation 16:4) or a cleft or opening (compare Hebrews 11:38). “Bitter water” means “salty” or “brack­ish” water (cf. Exodus 15:23), of the waters of Marah; Revelation 8:11). James is probably thinking of the Dead Sea, which is so salty one floats in it. Into its waters flow springs which give off both kinds of water, but not from the same source. The word for “send forth” above is more commonly used of the bursting forth of flowers or of spring. “Sweet” (water) is pure or fresh water.

James 3:12 —can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs?—James, as in the last verse, begins with the particle expecting a neg­ative answer again, using the same verb as in 2:14: “A fig tree cannot, can it . . .?” The fig, olive, and grapevine were all very common in Palestine and the area of the Great Sea. It was a com­mon saying that a tree must bear fruit after its kind (Genesis 1:11; and compare Matthew 7:16 Matthew 7:20 Matthew 12:33). One would not expect to find a mixture of fruit on one tree. Yet the fruit of James’ readers’ lips was a mixture of blessings and cursings. James 3:12 —neither can salt water yield sweet.—The Greek word for “salt” (water) may mean “a spring” (Arndt and Gingrich), but else­where in the Bible it is used only as an adjective describing the Dead Sea as the “Salt Sea” (Numbers 34:12; Deuteronomy 3:17). The text of the last clause of the verse is quite uncertain, with some MSS. reading “thus neither” and others reading “no salt spring also.” But the sense is not materially affected by these dif­ferences. THE TRULY WISE TEACHERJas_3:13-18 This portion of the third chapter of James is best interpreted as a continuation of the subject begun in verse 1 on the influence and use of the tongue. After mentioning the teacher in the first verse, James digresses in a sense to the more specific subject of the tongue’ s influence and evil. In verse 13 he reverts to the subject of verse 1 (the teacher). Under the contrast of heavenly and earthly wisdom he sets forth the deadliness of the sins of the tongue of the unwise teacher and the beauty of righteousness as the fruit of the truly wise teacher. There is abundant evidence that the term “wise man” is to be taken in the sense of “teacher.” The truly wise teacher will have his fruit in peace and understanding leading to righteousness, and not in faction, jealousy, and vile deeds. This is an admonition which every individual who teaches or preaches God’ s word needs to study and take to heart.

He should ask whether the fruit of his ministry indicates that his wisdom is from above or below. He may be sure that if faction, strife, and division follow his work, the source is not the “wisdom from above.”

James 3:13—who is wise and understanding—These words are connected1 in Deuteronomy 1:13, referring to judges. The term “wise man” was frequently used of learned men such as philosophers and teachers (Romans 1:14 Romans 1:22; I Corinthians 1:19, 26ff; 3:20). It was used in the New Testament for the Jewish teachers (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21) and by Jesus to describe the teachers whom He would send out (Matthew 23:34). Jesus’ use in the latter passage is in the same sense as that of James in this passage.

This usage does not mean that James infers that wisdom is the possession of the teacher alone, but as a rule the teacher posed and gained the reputation of having more skill and knowledge than the ordinary man. The argument is that, since this is true, he should show by his conduct that it is true in fact. An analogy might be drawn between this and the use of the word “widow” in I Timo­thy 5:3ff, where the term widow is from the root “need.” Thus there is a play on the word in that some widows would be widows “indeed” (destitute) and some not (having an income from rela­tives). The word “understanding” means “skilled” or “scientific” as opposed to what is untrained or unskilled . James’ point is that the reputation of Christian teachers as wise and skilled men is to be justified in a practical way by the right kind of deeds and influence. Compare the reputation of Apollos as a teacher (Acts 18:24).

James 3:13 —let him show—The sense of the verb (as in 2:18 and Acts 10:23) is “prove” or “demonstrate.” A tree is known by its fruits, a prin­ciple which James has alluded to in the preceding verses.

James 3:13 —by his good life—The King James “conversation” is older Eng­lish which has changed its meaning. The Greek word means “con­duct,” or “manner of life” (literally one’ s turnings or “meanderings” in life). In Latin the word conversatio meant the same and from this came the term “conversation.” It earlier in English meant “conduct.” It is now limited to speech, so the rendering is no long­er adequate (see also 1 Peter 2:15 and Galatians 2:13). The term translated “good” means “excellent,” “noble,” “beautiful or ideal” conduct. This is the kind expected of all Christians. The same ad­jective describes Jesus (John 10:11) as the Good Shepherd. We should excel in conduct as He does in his work. The sense of the passage would be that of conduct which manifests real goodness.

James 3:13 —his works in meekness of wisdom.—Goodspeed renders “show that what he does is done in the humility of wisdom.” The sense is “Let him prove by his conduct that he has meekness, doing what he does in the kind of meekness or humility that comes from wis­dom. If the teacher’ s deeds are the right kind (and James goes on to develop this), they will be characterized by meekness and such meekness as will demonstrate that wisdom is present. A lack of meekness proves a lack of wisdom.

As an ethical attitude “meekness” means “gentleness,” “humil­ity,” “courtesy,” and “consideration toward others” ; it is the op­posite of a rough, egotistic, unyielding attitude. Notice how James elaborates on the right attitude in verse 17. The key words are “peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy.” Passages elsewhere in the New Testament which illustrate the usage include 1 Corinthians 4:21; 2 Corinthians 10:1; Titus 3:2; Galatians 6:1; and 2 Timothy 2:25.

On the word “wisdom,” see comment on 1:5. It is used here against the background of its Old Testament use for practical good judgment or common sense in the face of the concerns and duties of life, especially as those judgments are shaped by the teachings of God’ s word. Meekness is coupled with teaching in the Old Testament: Psalms 25:9. It is not only the wise who know how to receive instruction (Proverbs 12:15), but the wise teacher also knows both what kind of counsel to give and how to give it (Prov­erbs 11:14; 17:28; 29:9).

James 3:14 —But if you have bitter jealousy—The man whose conduct re­veals jealousy and faction shows by the absence of meekness that wisdom is missing. Notice that James assumes that jealousy and faction are opposite in character to the deeds of wisdom. The wise man will never produce such fruits. “Jealousy” in Greek is a neutral word and may have either a good sense of zeal or ardor (2 Corinthians 7:7 2 Corinthians 11:2) or the bad sense of envy or jealousy (as in 1 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20). The use of the descriptive adjective “bitter” and the connection with “faction” (verses 14, 16) show that James has the bad sense in mind here. The word “bitter” means “harsh” and refers to the feeling of anger or animosity inherent in such jealousy. James likely refers to the jealousy between the teach­ers in the local churches in their vying for positions and seeking for honors and the praise of their hearers. Or one might think of the following chapter and the questions concerning the sources of wars and fightings among the readers. Jealousy can certainly provoke bitter feeling and strife.

The mod­ern proverbial speech sees jealousy as green-eyed. The attitudes of jealousy and strife were much in evidence among the Jews on a national level, especially politically in the party bickerings and cleavage in the years preceding the outbreak of the Jewish wars. The rise of the Zealot party and the revolution which brought on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman army sharply divided the Jewish people and produced bickering and strife. See Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 135ff, for the story of the rise of this party. And see Introduction pp. 22ff.

James 3:14 —faction in your hearts,—This is a word of uncertain meaning. NEB renders “selfish ambition.” Moffatt and Goodspeed have “rivalry.” It has been customary to derive the word from eris mean­ing “strife” or “discord.” In Galatians 5:20 and II Corinthians 12:20 this word is found with eris and thus it has been argued that they are not related. But some writers (Dibelius, Leitzmann, and Sichenberger, according to Arndt and Gingrich) still hold to this meaning and would translate “strife” or “contention,” especially in view of the use in Philippians 1:17 and 15. On the other hand the Classical meaning (Aristotle, Politics, 5.3p. 1302b, 4; 1303a, 14) is that of unethical political seeking. This seems to fit the context of all the New Testament uses: Philippians 1:17; 2:3; Romans 2:8; II Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20) (In the last passage the plural would mean “disputes” or “outbreaks of selfishness.” See Arndt and Gingrich and see Funk, Section 142).

“The heart” is used in the Bible as the seat of the faculty of thinking and so of moral and re­ligious actions. See also James 4:8 and Matthew 15:19. If a man has these attitudes in his heart, they will come out in “confusion and vile deeds” (verse 16). Actions proceed from the heart. The pre­tense of wisdom when the heart and life are not right is valueless and under such circumstances is a lie.

James 3:14 —glory not and lie not against the truth.—The word “glory” means “boast” or “brag.” The idea seems to be that a pretense of wisdom is a boast, especially if it shows itself in a gloating over another on grounds of superiority. Such in effect is the wearing of the name “wise man” as a designation of a teacher. But if one does not demonstrate the wisdom in actual life, he should not bear the title or pretend to be wise; such a boast is really then a lie against the truth. “Truth” here means either simply “what is true”— his actual condition (the article being used with the abstract noun) or “the Gospel truth” . “The boast would be lying to the great injury of the Gospel Truth, and this must stop” (Lenski). The former ex­planation seems preferable. For one to pose as a wise man is a lie against reality when the fruit of foolishness is so plainly mani­fested.

James 3:15 —This wisdom— A “wisdom” which produced jealousy and selfish ambition (or strife), if it could be called wisdom at all, would be wisdom of the wrong kind. James is here ironic— this would not in the terms of Biblical teaching be wisdom. A man with great learning and knowledge and with potential skill in imparting his ideas might be exceedingly wicked in his heart. Any wisdom which might be attributed to him would (like the fire which sets the tongue aflame from hell in verse 6) be from the lower regions.

James 3:15 —is not a wisdom that cometh down from above,—The phrase “cometh down from above” is a descriptive participle. It defines the kind of wisdom a teacher ought to have: it is a “coming down from above” wisdom; it is a God-given wisdom. Wisdom has al­ready been described as God’ s gift in answer to prayer. Jewish thought often personified wisdom and pictures her as coming from God. But with the “not” James affirms that the wisdom of the factious is in opposition to this heavenly wisdom.

James 3:15 —but is earthly, sensual, devilish.—James describes positively the nature of a .“wisdom” which produces jealousy and selfishness. First, it is “earthly.” This word is usually used in opposition to what is heavenly and often has the sense of “human” as against something divine. Thus Hermas, a second century Christian, (.Mandates, 11:6) uses the adjective to describe the human and false prophet as opposed to the divinely commissioned and inspired one. Compare Paul’ s description of those who “mind earthly things” (Philippians 3:19)and the “wisdom which is of this world” (1 Corinthians 1:20). Thus James means that the wisdom from v/hich jealousy and selfishness come is a product of fallen human, earthly sources.

The word “sensual” is derived from the word psuche> which is ordinarily translated “soul.” That a word derived from it may have a bad meaning, as here, may seem strange. But the word often had a meaning con­nected with natural life as opposed to the spiritual or supernatural. Thus it might mean the “unspiritual” or “merely human,” as in 1 Corinthians 2:14, or the physical man and the physical body, as in 1 Corinthians 15:44 . Perhaps “carnal” could often translate the sense as in James here. The phrase has been explained as “man as he is as a result of Adam.” While the root word is often translated “soul,” the adjective form in this passage could not rightly be rendered into English by a derivative of that word, as “soul” usually expresses the spiritual and higher nature of man. In this sense “soul” is equivalent to “spirit.” When the three terms “body, soul, and spirit” are used together, the soul is probably to be thought of as the life of man which he has in com­mon with natural life around him. It is from this, then, that the meaning in the present passage is derived.

“Devilish” should be “demonic” or “demoniacal” as in the mar­gin, as the word is connected with the word “demon” and not “devil.” Demons are evil spirits in the service of Satan (the prince or ruler of demons, the same as Beelzebub, Matthew 12:24). Brit­ish translators for some unknown reason (the Revisors as well as the NEB) persist in mistranslating the term “demon” by “devil.” The term “devil” without the article is always merely an adjective, “slanderous.” There is only one devil. 1 Timothy 4:1 ascribes false doctrines to the influence of demons. They may influence others to be the instruments of the spread of heresy, but this is the real work of demons or of such as they are. So it is the work of demons to spread jealousy and selfish ambition and every vile deed. Those who possess these in their hearts are acting, at least, as demons do. The wisdom which begets this action is then demonic.

Note: This writer is amazed that students often express surprise that he as a teacher of the New Testament should believe that there were such things as demons really in existence. Much of our modern world is like the Sadducees of Jesus’ day who “did not be­lieve in spirits.” It is often asserted that the belief in demons in the New Testament was merely an accommodation to a popular cur­rent superstition or was a part of the so-called “human element” in which they were involved. But one can hardly read the New Testa­ment documents without seeing that Jesus actually acknowledged the existence of these unclean spirits. They showed superhuman knowledge of the sonship of Jesus. Jesus taught that power to cast them out was a sign of the coming of the Kingdom (Matthew 12:28). To attribute the power by which they were cast out to the devil was a blasphemy, a sin which was unforgivable (Mark 3:29-30).

While at times Jesus seemed to connect sickness and de­mon possession, at other times he distinguished between them. The Bible does not offer an explanation of the origin of demons (wheth­er they were fallen spirits or the spirits of the wicked dead who were allowed to return and possess people). Nor does the Bible give any hint as to whether we may still be faced with the phenom­enon and unable to recognize it at present. Some have thought that the statements about the demons being sent back into the abyss (Luke 8:31) and being tormented ’’ before their time” imply the termination of their power to affect men. For a good discussion of the subject of demons see R. C.

Trench, On the Miracles, on the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum; also Unger, Biblical De­monology; and the article by Sweet in the New International Stand­ard Bible Encyclopedia. James 3:16 —For where jealousy and faction are, there is confusion and every vile deed.—Jealousy and faction, which have already been mentioned as being in the hearts of the false teachers, produce their natural fruits of confusion and vile deeds. This is the proof that the wisdom behind these attitudes is earthly, sensual, and demonic; confusion and vileness are the natural fruits of the evil world and the under­world. The word rendered ’’ confusion” has the sense of disturbance, disorder, or unruliness. The New Testament instances of its use are 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 6:5 2 Corinthians 12:20, “insurrections” ; Luke 21:9. The passage from Luke refers to political tumults; those from the epistles have to do with church disturbances. Notice the opposition to the word in this passage is “peace.”

The word “vile” in “every vile deed” means evil in its “good- for-nothing” sense. It is what is opposed to the “good.” The an­tithesis here is with the “full of mercy and good fruits” of the fol­lowing passage. The basic meaning is “worthless,” but it can also have the meaning of “wicked” or “bad,” ’’ malignant.” (Romans 9:11; Titus 2:8).

James 3:17 —But the wisdom that is from above—True wisdom is now described. It has already been mentioned in verse 15 in a negative way. The wisdom which truly becomes a teacher (and any other Christian) proceeds from above, being a gift from God (James 1:5). This is, of course, the kind that James recommends, though he is content with definition and leaves the admonition to the read­er himself. Notice that the wisdom from above has seven charac­teristics, as does the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22 f) and the Christian graces (2 Peter 1:5-9). Perhaps seven is thought of by James as the typical or complete number.

James 3:17 —is first pure,—The prime quality (above everything else) of wisdom is purity. Both God (1 John 3:3) and His word (Psalms 12:6) are pure. What is pure is dedicated to God and hence is holy. Therefore the wisdom from above is chaste and without defilement. True wisdom produces only what is holy and pure (not the evil things mentioned in the context). The adjective often has the quality as an ethical term of the “clean” or holy inward moral at­titude: Philippians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Peter 3:2. Lenski comments “It is pure wisdom, unmixed. Clean in all respects.”

James 3:17 —peaceable,—The word here is used of orderliness as opposed to confusion (compare 1 Corinthians 7:15 1 Corinthians 14:33). It means “not given to conflict,” “that which is harmonious and unifying” as opposed to the strife and vile deeds of the earthly wisdom. Much is said by Paul (in whose churches there was doctrinal and personal strife) of this harmony and unity. In a striking passage in Colos- sians Paul said that peace should “be the umpire” in our lives, like the official judge at the races (Colossians 3:15). This is the mean­ing of the word translated “rule.” Paul urged the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). This is connected to, but it is also different from, the full meaning in the New Testament of peace to express the Messianic salvation, that is, peace of mind flowing from a consciousness of peace with God through the forgiveness of sins. (Compare Philippians 4:7).

James 3:17 —gentle,—This is another word in Greek which is hard to render into English. It is variously defined as “kindness,” “being yield­ing or forbearing” (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 3:2; 1 Peter 2:18). The corresponding noun appears in Acts 24:4 (of the governor’ s graciousness). In 2 Corinthians 10:1 it is the ‘‘graciousness” or “gen­tleness” of Christ. It is rendered “forbearance” in Philippians 4:5. The commentators like to mention the phrase coined by Mat­thew Arnold “sweet reasonableness” in connection with it.

It some­times has the meaning of “yielding” when one does not need to, that is, to inferiors: not insisting on one’ s rights. Trench illustrates with Matthew 18:23 as an opposite characteristic in the man who was forgiven and was himself implacably harsh. Thus it is seen that the word carries the idea of “reasonableness” and “graciousness,” the absence of bad manners and quick temper. James 3:17 —easy to be entreated,—This word ordinarily means “obedient,” or “compliant,” “openminded,” “yielding to entreaty.” Its etymol­ogy leads back to the meaning “of good, i. e. easy, persuasion.” In a teacher, as here, it would be the opposite of dogmatic and un­yielding. The teacher must himself be teachable— ready to be taught and guided in turn. It is a poor teacher who does not learn from his pupils. The word is not used elsewhere in the New Testament.

James 3:17 —full of mercy and good fruits,—in opposition to “vile deeds.” “Mercy” means “compassion” or “pity” and is generally used in the Bible as a description of a human attribute associated with deeds of charity toward the poor and sick (James 2:13; Luke 10:37). “Good fruits” refers to deeds or acts, the “produce” or “effects” of the Christian religion that are “good” rather than evil. The use of “full of” to express the presence of something in large degree in a person’ s character is common. Compare “full of hypoc­risy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:38), “full of all unrighteousness” (Romans 1:29), and “full of goodness” (Romans 15:14). James would insist that not only in the disposition to avoid confusion, but also in the practical results of life the teacher must demon­strate true wisdom. His life must be one of moral and spiritual usefulness. It was said of Jesus that “He went about doing good” (Acts 10:38).

If pure and undefiled religion is to do such things as visit the widows and orphans in their affliction, it is certainly to be expected that the teachers of that religion excel in demonstrat­ing this fruit in their lives. Compare Paul’ s advice to Titus, “Show­ing yourself a pattern of good works” (Titus 2:7). Especially can they use their tongues as productive of good works and acts of mercy, rather than to sow discord. “A tongue controlled by divine grace can be a mighty influence for good.” James 3:17 —without variance,—The word means “a lack of discord,” then “lack of uncertainty or partiality.” Here the word seems to mean “not vacillating,” “not acting one way in one circumstance and an­other in a different one.” James is saying that a teacher in his at­titudes should be consistent. Paul often charged Timothy and his helpers to do nothing with partiality (1 Timothy 5:21). The leader loses the confidence of his followers if they get the idea that there is no consistency in his words and deeds or in his attitude toward others.

James 3:18 —And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace—The “And” (Greek de) indicates an additional thought. But this is not a part of the description of wisdom. It is an enlargement of the “full of good fruits.” That fruit might also be described as “the fruit of righteousness.” The expression is equivalent to “and the fruit, righteousness” or “the fruit is righteousness, which is sown . . . .”1 For the expression, compare Proverbs 11:30 and Amos 6:12. Knowling calls attention to Old Testament parallels where “fruit of righteousness” is used opposite to “bitterness” (Amos 5:7; Hosea 10:12; Proverbs 9:21; and Isaiah 32 :l6f). Thus a righteous life of good deeds or fruits is what is reaped by the one who sows in the right way. The construction logically is one where the pro­duce is put for the seed sown. “In peace” stresses that the sowing which produces this fruit is done under conditions of peace (not jealousy and faction leading to confusion and vile deeds).

Under these conditions alone will the preaching and teaching of God’ s word grow and develop into a life of righteousness. Peace is as­sumed as the climate necessary for producing righteousness.

Note further that “righteousness” here evidently means “good fruits or deeds.” It is conduct and action pleasing to God as in Matthew 5:6; 1 John 2:29; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:11. Com­pare the note on 1:20.

James 3:18 —for them that make peace.—The phrase, as in Ephesians 2:15, means to establish or bring about peace, to so act that peace will result. Compare our word “pacifist” which originally meant the same. See the noun form of the word in Matthew 5:9. James emphasizes that righteousness is produced in the atmosphere of peace and is produced only by those who are peaceable.

In conclusion it might well be stressed that this is a gripping and instructive passage. Its full force perhaps is too little grasped (if it has been correctly interpreted here), because the connection in the context with the activity of the teacher is not generally under­stood. Its message of peace is applicable to all Christians, for we must all seek peace and pursue it. But understood as applicable in a special way to teachers, it becomes a powerful rebuke and a stern admonition to those who “would be teachers” and who thus bear “heavier judgment.” It emphasizes that greater responsibility for peace and harmony that those who take up the yoke of Jesus to impose it upon His disciples are under. Elders need to look into the records of those whom they employ as teachers and preachers. A trail of disturbed churches and divided classes given to agitation and confusion are bad signs. No matter how “wise and understand­ing” one might be in reputation, if one’ s life is not righteous, if the sowing is not in peace, he ought to be avoided as a teacher. James Chapter ThreeVerse 1 This entire chapter is a “self-contained section dealing with the bridling of the tongue,"[1] and fitting exactly into James’ overall theme of “perfection” (see introduction). By such a vigorous address to this area of human behavior, in which the totality of all mankind is revealed as transgressors, either in small or in great degree, it must not be thought that James was requiring sinless perfection of Christians, his object being rather that of turning all men to Jesus Christ our Lord who alone is perfect, and in whom alone perfection is available for any mortal (see Matthew 5:48 andColossians 1:28,29). In this chapter, as throughout the epistle, the remarkable consonance with the teachings of Christ should be noted. Had not Christ himself said, “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned?” (Matthew 12:37); and did he not also caution his followers against seeking the adulation accorded teachers, saying, “Be not ye called Rabbi (teacher),” etc. (Matthew 23:1-12)? ENDNOTE: [1] W. E. Oesterley, Expositor’s Greek New Testament, Vol. IV (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 449. Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that ye shall receive heavier judgment. (James 3:1) Be not many of you teachers … The word “teachers” in this place replaces “masters” in the KJV, a very valid and instructive change. However, it is deplorable that here, as in so many similar places, scholars go out of their way to condemn the inaccuracy of the King James Version; and this is as good a place as any to put such “errors” of the KJV in the proper perspective. THE KJV AND Not for a moment should it be considered that the translators of the KJV were, in any sense, lacking in zeal, dedication, scholarship or intelligence, being in every such category fully on a parity with the scholarship of our own or of any other generation. The need for a new version did not arise from any superiority of “modern” translators over those of the seventeenth century. Indeed, there may be some question of the scholarship of our own age even equaling that of theirs. On the other hand, the need for a new version did become recognized because: (1) There were linguistic changes in the English language itself. For example, this verse, using “masters” instead of teachers, derived from the exact meaning of “masters” in the year 1611, at which time it was understood throughout the English-speaking world as a short-form of “schoolmasters.” It was the change in that usage which made “masters” archaic in the present era. (2) Three of the great uncial manuscripts, the Vatican, the Alexandrinus and the Sinaitic, were not available to the KJV translators; and in a few instances, their work needed correction in the light of the manuscript authority of those uncials. (3) Archeological discoveries, in a very few instances, have shed further light on the science of translation, which was not available to KJV translators. However, modern translators are all too frequently carried away from the truth by wild, speculative, subjective assumptions, which generally did not characterize the work of the KJV translators. Therefore, because of these considerations and many others, the KJV today should be carefully studied by anyone with a desire to know the truth; especially in light of the fact of its value in general as authoritative presentation of the sacred text, and in not a few instances for its fidelity in giving the only true rendition of the Greek New Testament. For an example of this, see extensive comment in my Commentary on Romans, pp. 118ff and my Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians 43ff. Another example of notorious mistranslation by the English Revised Version (1885) is Romans 10:16, which ought to read, “They have not all obeyed the gospel.” There are many other such errors which flaw the work of “modern” translators. This comment is not intended to demean the great scholars through whose labors we are able to understand the New Testament, but rather to suggest that appreciation for those of other generations who labored in the same field is also appropriate. NOT MANY In saying, “Be not many teachers,” James did not seek to discourage any who might have been qualified for such work. As Harper suggested, “His words were meant to remind us of our responsibilities, rather than to deter us from our duties.” [2] The need for such a caution grew out of a number of circumstances: (1) The Christian meetings were open, unstructured and informal; and anyone wishing to be heard could rise and speak (see 1 Corinthians 14:26-40). The great honor attached to the work of teaching, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 12:28, where teachers were ranked second only to apostles and prophets, naturally led self-seekers to attempt to teach, whether or not they were qualified. (3) Some of James’ readers, perhaps many of them, had come out of Judaism; and the characteristic of many of those was described by Paul in Romans 2:17-24, to the effect that their total lack of any true qualification did not deter their conceited and arrogant assumption of the office of “teacher” for all mankind! (4) The Judaizers who attempted to graft the forms and ceremonies of Mosaic law upon the church were a particularly troublesome element of the church which sorely needed the caution here expressed by James. As Macknight said: “These teachers of the Law in the Christian church were the great corrupters of Christianity."[3] Paul likewise addressed stern words to this group, thus, “Some … have turned aside unto vain talking, desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they confidently affirm” (1 Timothy 1:7). Greater judgment … (as in the ASV margin) is reminiscent of Jesus’ declaration that hypocrites making long prayers for show, and at the same time devouring widows’ houses, would also receive “the greater condemnation” (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). It is not necessary to soften this to “judgment”; because such false teachers, because of their being unqualified, must be reckoned among the most vicious and destructive influences in the whole history of Christianity. As Lenski said: The damage that wrong teaching may cause is indicated by what James later says of the tongue. Untold damage may result. We see it everywhere to this day. This text about the judgment that teachers shall receive cannot be impressed too deeply upon all who teach today, whether professionally or as volunteers[4][2] A. F. Harper, Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol. X (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), p. 220. [3] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles and Commentary, Vol. V Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1969 (reprint)), p. 372. [4] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of … the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), p. 600. Verse 2 For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.In many things we all stumble … We cannot agree with Lenski who labeled this “James’ great confession of sin."[5] The “we” in this place is accommodative, through considerations of tact, and is used in exactly the same manner as Paul’s frequent use of it in such passages as Hebrews 2:3 Hebrews 6:3, etc. (where it is likewise misunderstood by many). James was not here making some great confession of his own sins, but rather pointing out the universality of sin and error in all men, not excluding himself of course, nor meaning it as his “confession.” In Hebrews 6:3, where the writer said, “we” will stop lingering upon first principles and go on to perfection, he did not, in any sense, mean it as a confession that he himself had been merely a “first principles” Christian. If any stumbleth not in word … Macknight pointed out that, “In Scripture, walking denotes the course of a man’s conduct; stumbling denotes a lesser failing than falling (Romans 11:11)."[6] Macknight also indicated that it is in this lesser degree of error that James, “in order to mitigate the harshness of his reproof, here ranked himself among the persons to whom he wrote."[7]The same is a perfect man … Most present-day commentators change the meaning of “perfect” to that of “innocence,"[8] “perfect in comparison with others,” “mature, full-grown, or complete,"[9] etc. However, as pointed out by Vine, the word here is that of Mat 5:48; James 1:4 (2part) and James 3:2, meaning complete goodness, without necessary reference to maturity.[10] It is exactly the same word and usage as in Jesus’ reference to God as “perfect” (Matthew 5:48); and for this reason, James’ words here should be referred to the New Testament theology of “perfection,” unattainable by men, but receivable by them “in Christ,” whose absolute and total perfection is available through sinners’ believing and obeying the gospel, thus being united with Christ, in Christ, and “as Christ,” therefore accounted perfect (Colossians 1:28-29). His purpose here, therefore, was not that of explaining how men could achieve perfection through bridling the tongue, but rather that of demonstrating the absolute inability of any mortal to attain perfection apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. See my Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians pp. 130-133.

A great deal of the teachings of Christ himself, for example the parable of the good Samaritan, had exactly the same purpose as that in view here. See exegesis of that in my Commentary on Luke, pp. 224-231. Able to bridle the whole body also … The thought is that if one attains mastery over the tongue, which is the most unruly and rebellious member of the body, he should also be able to control all of the others as well. Apparently, James’ use of “bridle” at this point prompted the employment of the horse metaphor in the next verse. [5] Ibid. [6] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 373. [7] Ibid., p. 374. [8] R. V. G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), p. 73. [9] J. W. Roberts, The Letter of James (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1977), p. 103. [10] W. E. Vine, Expository Greek Dictionary, Vol. III (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), p. 174. Verse 3 Now if we put the horses’ bridles into their mouths that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also.Now if … Punchard criticized this rendition of this introductory remark thus: This is a more clumsy reading than “Behold.” The supporters of such curious corrections (?) argue that the least likely is the most so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than the Received Text in believers of verbal inspiration.[11]It is high time that this kind of monkey business on the part of translators was rejected out of hand. Gerhard Maier also decried the critical bias in preferring the more difficult reading thus: The more difficult reading (“lectio Difficilior”), which generally is given preference, could possibly be the result of a scribal error and therefore have little meaning … The theologian should also guard against falling prey to the good-manuscripts myth, thereby following in blind confidence wherever certain manuscripts provide certain readings.[12]In view of the above, we should accept the KJV rendition of this place, “Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths” … Admittedly, this is a small point, the passage meaning the same either way; but what is denounced here is the fact of modern translators, through their adherence to an unscientific and unprovable methodology, presuming to “correct” the sacred text. There are three comparisons introduced by James with this verse with reference to the tongue. These are: (1) the bit, James 3:3; (2) the rudder, James 3:4, and (3) the small fire, James 3:6. The first two of these stress the importance and power of such a small instrument as the tongue, and the third stresses the astounding damage resulting from such a small beginning. [11] E. G. Punchard, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 369. [12] Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1977), p. 81. Verse 4 Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and driven by rough winds, are yet turned about by a very small rudder, whither the impulse of the steersman willeth.Just as the tongue is a very small member, the rudder of a great ship is likewise a very small instrument in comparison with the whole ship; but the guidance of the entire vessel is accomplished by means of that tiny rudder. The Venerable Bede, the earliest of English translators, “understood the ships here as an image of ourselves, and the winds as impulses of our own minds, by which we are driven hither and thither."[13]The steersman willeth … The RSV “corrected” this to read “wherever the will of the pilot directs”; but again, this can be no better than in the ASV. Roberts pointed out that: The word “pilot” is a substantive participle, “the one guiding straight,” and not the technical word for a “pilot” or “governor” of a ship. The one who holds the rudder (the steersman) can turn the ship about and thus control it.[14]For comment on Luke’s use of the term “rudders,” see in my Commentary on Acts, pp. 507-509. The point James was making here is that a little rudder controls a great ship, there being no reference in this illustration to the damage caused by the tongue, that being outlined in the following illustration of the little fire out of control. As Lenski said: This corrects another view that James had borrowed these figures from a book he had read, but that he confused the figures when he began to use them. These figures were independently arrived at by James himself, and he used them with keen insight and great skill.[15][13] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 369. [14] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 105. [15] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 603. Verse 5 So the tongue also is a little member and boasteth great things. Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a fire!The first sentence in this verse is the application of the two illustrations of the bit and the rudder, its power being out of all proportion to its size. “The magic of words has played an incalculable part in the long story of human endeavor and human suffering.” [16] It is evident, then, that James here referred to the nearly incredible power of human speech to move men to either noble or destructive purposes. Think of the example of Adolph Hitler in the latter case, or of Henry Clay in the other. There is also another application of the words as a reference to the untruthfulness and boastfulness of the tongue. Oesterley, however, agreed with Mayor that: “There is no idea of vain boasting; the whole argument turns upon the reality of the power which the tongue possesses."[17]Behold how much wood is kindled by how small a fire … In this illustration, James will show how fantastically overwhelming is the evil that can ensue upon a Christian’s (or anyone’s) failure to control his tongue. The essential difference in this third illustration is seen in the fact of the horse and the ship being under control; where here, the tiny fire that kindles a whole forest is out of control. [16] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 75. [17] W. E. Oesterley, op. cit., p. 451. Verse 6 And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell.The world of iniquity … As Roberts noted, the literal meaning of this is “a world of unrighteousness,"[18] as Ward indicated, being the same as the state of “the steward of unrighteousness” (Luke 16:8), and “the judge of unrighteousness” (Luke 18:6).[19] Here is the key to understanding what was said a little later. An uncontrolled tongue is closely allied with the inherent wickedness of unregenerated human carnality. Every conceivable form of lust, greed, deception, hatred, malignity and every evil, is aided, encouraged and propagated by means of the tongue. Which defileth the whole body … Jesus himself mentioned “railing,” one of the sins of the tongue, as being among those things which proceed from within, and defile the man (Mark 7:23), and thus James is still inspired, as throughout the epistle, by the exact teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, the thought here is not that of the damage which the tongue does to the body of Christ, or to the whole world of the social order, but the staining and defiling effect upon the uncontrolled tongue’s possessor. As Carson pointed out, “James emphasizes the effect of the tongue upon the person himself."[20] This indicates that the setting on fire of the “wheel of nature,” mentioned in this connection, refers to the inflammation of the carnal passions within man himself. And setteth on fire the wheel of nature … This disputed text is made the basis for all kinds of wild claims. Barclay, for example, thought James was influenced by the ancient Orphic religion with its false notions of reincarnation, seeing a possible reference here to “the weary treadmill of constant reincarnation."[21] There is absolutely no justification for such an interpretation. The literal Greek in this passage means “the wheel of existence,"[22] or “the whole round of human life and activity,"[23] and has the obvious implication of being man’s whole animalistic nature, which can be, and often is, inflamed and kindled into the most outrageous wickedness by the tongue. Bruce illustrated the meaning thus: “The whole wheel of human nature” is a figure for the whole course of human life. Just as excessive friction in the axle of a wheel can make the axle red hot, so that the fire spreads outward along the spokes and sets the whole wheel afire; so the mischief engendered by an irresponsible tongue can inflame human relationships and cause irreparable destruction to the whole round of life.[24]There is no need to seek the basis of James’ quite original and unusual figure in some ancient religion, nor in some pagan author. As Lenski said, “James invented this figure, and there is nothing occult, Jewish or pagan about it."[25]And is set on fire by hell … The word used here is Gehenna, this being the only usage of it in the New Testament, aside from the use of it by Jesus himself in the gospels; thus, James continues to be strictly loyal to the teaching of the Master. Gehenna … is the Greek form of a Hebrew word meaning “the valley of Hinnom,” where the worship of Molech was conducted. King Josiah defiled it, and it became a place of refuse and abomination. Due to the Hebrew detestation of the place, the name came to stand for the idea of eternal punishment for the wicked, as taught in Deuteronomy 32:22; Leviticus 10:2; Isaiah 30:27-33 Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 7:10; Psalms 18:8, etc. For further comment on “hell,” see in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 411-413. [18] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 106. [19] Ronald A. Ward, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1230. [20] T. Carson, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 577. [21] William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, Revised (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), p. 88. [22] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 607. [23] W. E. Vine, op. cit., p. 103. [24] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 126. [25] W. E. Vine, op. cit. (Vol. p. 109. Verse 7 For every kind of beasts and birds, of creeping things, and things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind:Tamed … Vine gives “subdued” as the first meaning of this word, and it would be better understood thus in this place, making it unnecessary to see the passage as hyperbolic. It is a literal fact that mankind, in response to the original directive of the Creator for man “to subdue” the earth and the sea and everything in them (Genesis 1:28), has indeed done that very thing. How strange it is, and how tragic, that he has had no success in the matter of “subduing” his tongue! Verse 8 but the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison.Carson’s observation that “Fortunately James did not say that God cannot control the tongue (or tame it),"[26] while true enough, fails to touch the problem, namely, that the tongue is indeed out of control because of man’s failure to exercise the dominion over it that God commanded. It was true in James’ day, as it is in this, that: It is a restless evil … It is like a caged beast, even under the best of circumstances, ever seeking an opportunity to break forth and set the whole world on fire. James does not mean here that a Christian cannot tame his tongue. “If he could not, he would hardly be responsible for its vagaries; but in James 3:10, he said, My brethren, these things ought not to be so.'"[27]It is full of deadly poison ... This is similar to "full of adultery" (<a href="/bible/parallel/2PE/2/14" class="green-link">2 Peter 2:14</a>), and "full of envy" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ROM/1/29" class="green-link">Romans 1:29</a>). Paul also made use of the same metaphor: "The venom of asps is under their lips" (<a href="/bible/parallel/ROM/3/13" class="green-link">Romans 3:13</a>). [26] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 577. [27] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 370. Verse 9 Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God:Bless we ... curse we ... Note the use of "we" as in <a href="/bible/parallel/JAS/3/2" class="green-link">James 3:2</a>; here again the use of it does not indicate any guilt on the part of James in this particular. As Ward said, "The we of pastoral tact shows how far James could go in his desire to win rather than repel."[28]Bless we the Lord ... "The Jewish custom, whenever they named God, of adding, Blessed be he,’"[29] very likely lies behind this. The Lord and Father … Scholars have busied themselves to find out where James got this expression, but as Lenski said, “He coined it!"[30] The two titles have only one article, showing that James intended for us to read both titles as pertaining to Jesus Christ our Saviour, attesting his divinity and Godhead. Made after the likeness of God … is a reference to Genesis 1:26, the sin and inconsistency of the same tongue blessing God and cursing men lying in the fact of man’s likeness to God, any curse of men, therefore, being actually a curse against God in the likeness of men, therefore being actually a curse against God in the likeness of his creation. [28] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1230. [29] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 611. [30] Ibid. Verse 10 out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.In the admonition here and in the preceding verse (James 3:9) Macknight thought that James might have had reference to a widespread custom of early Christian times, in which Christians were “cursed bitterly in Jewish synagogues."[31] It would appear, however, that it is not particularly the sins of Jews in cursing Christians that James dealt with, but the habit of some “brethren” engaged in the awful business of cursing men! All such unchristian conduct is vigorously denounced. ENDNOTE: [31] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 378. Verse 11 Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?The use of the interrogative here is from a Hebrew idiom which carries the meaning of “you do not suppose, do you, that the same fountain, etc.” It was used to convey a very strong negative. It is said that along the Dead Sea there were both salt-water and fresh-water fountains; so James made his meaning clear by adding “from the same opening.” The illustration shows that man’s behavior in blessing God and cursing men with the same tongue was a monstrous perversion of nature, in fact an altogether impossibility in nature. Verse 12 can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs? neither can salt water yield sweet.Once more, James used illustrations drawn from the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 12:34-35). Neither can salt water yield sweet … Here the tremendous thrust of James’ teaching is made. Just as, in nature, it is impossible for a fountain to be both salt and sweet, so it is with men. The “cursing” shows the real character of them that do it. Even their “blessing” is in no sense to be construed as “sweet.” Their character denies any goodness that might otherwise have appeared in their pious talk. Verse 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? let him show by his good life his works in meekness of wisdom.The application this has for teachers was thus presented by Tasker: Any contentiousness or arrogance, any tendency to self-assertion, any desire to glory over others, is an infallible sign that the essential qualifications are in fact lacking.[32]There is a moral foundation in all true wisdom, there being an utter impossibility of any wicked person being, in any sense, wise. The true wisdom is found alone in those of moral and upright character. ENDNOTE: [32] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 80. Verse 14 But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth.A pretended wisdom in one whose life and character are out of harmony with the Lord can never be the truth, even in areas where it might seem to coincide with it, the sum total of such a person’s life being a lie against the truth. Bitter jealousy and strife … Oesterley and many others deduce from this that “The personal abuse heaped upon one another by partisans of rival schools of thought”[33] represents the type of sins condemned in this passage. Of course, such are included, but it is doubtful if the meaning may be thus restricted. The “truth” against which such evil strivings “lie” is the “truth of the gospel."[34] However, more is meant than merely contradicting the content of that which must be allowed as truthful. As Punchard observed: Falsehood is not merely the hurt of some abstract virtue, or bare rule of right and wrong, but a direct blow at the living Truth (John 14:6) … All faintest shades of falsehood tend to the dark one of a fresh betrayal of the Son of man.[35]No class of persons is any more in constant danger of falling short in this category than is the group of teachers and preachers of religious truth. Such persons are accustomed to speaking and having their words accepted; and their attitude tends to become like that mentioned by Shakespeare: I am Sir Oracle, And when I open my lips, let no dog bark[36]Thus is stressed the greater need for all who “contend earnestly for the faith” to do so in a manner becoming the meekness and modesty of truly Christian teachers. [33] W. E. Oesterley, op. cit., p. 455. [34] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 617. [35] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 371. [36] William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene 1, Line 193. Verse 15 This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.No better comment on this verse was found than that of Macknight who paraphrased the verse thus: This outrageous method of spreading religion is not the wisdom that comes from God, but is earthly policy, suggested by your animal passions, and belongs to demons who inspire you with it.[37]Devilish … is better understood as “demonic,” there being but one “devil,” as contrasted with many “demons.” However, if James meant that Satan himself inspired such factious divisiveness, then “devilish” should be retained, contrary to the suggestions of so many translators. Vine notes that the word here does not mean satanic, but demonic. ENDNOTE: [37] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 381. Verse 16 For where jealousy and faction are, there is confusion and every vile deed.In the preceding verse, James described much so-called “wisdom” in an advancing series as: Pertaining to earth, not to the world above; to mere nature, not to the spirit; and to the hostile spirits of evil, and not to the living God. 16 follows as proof of what has just been said.[38]In the inherent wickedness of factious and partisan defenders of human systems of religion, it appears here that honesty, fairness and truth will be conspicuously missing from their presentations. ENDNOTE: [38] Walter W. Wessel, Wycliffe New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 957. Verse 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without variance, without hypocrisy.This sevenfold description (taking mercy and good fruits as one quality) of the wisdom that is from above is most instructive. The wisdom that is from above … This does not mean that mortals are directly inspired by such wisdom, but that God is the ultimate source from which their wisdom is actually received; and the means of their receiving it, while not in view in this text, must surely be allowed as the gospels and apostolic writings themselves, there being no other possible source of it. As Dummelow observed, “The wisdom described here is moral rather than intellectual."[39]Pure … The word of God is not to be alloyed with human speculations, philosophy and opinions, the word itself taking precedence over everything else. Peaceable … The tendency of the true wisdom is not that of producing faction and strife, but that of healing divisions, and pouring oil upon the troubled waters of human relationships. These qualities, including that of purity just mentioned, are exactly those extolled by the Master in the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount; thus James continues his fidelity to the teaching of the Lord. Gentle … Paul stressed this, notably in 2 Timothy 2:24. Gibson says this means “forbearance, even under provocation."[40] All who teach others should ever be conscious of the fact that a rude or thoughtless word may wound to death an immortal soul. Easy to be entreated … has the meaning of being easily “persuaded to forgiveness."[41] This is the very opposite of the cold, haughty and unyielding hardness of some religious teachers. Full of mercy and good fruits … Again, the Saviour’s own requirement that those who would be forgiven must themselves be willing to forgive others inspires James’ comment in his epistle (see Matthew 7, 9 andMatthew 6:14,15). Without variance … Gibson tells us that scholars are not altogether sure of the meaning of the word thus rendered, “without variance, without doubtfulness or without partiality,"[42] all being possible denotations of it. “Variance,” the rendition here, means without inconsistency, vacillation or erratic changes. Without hypocrisy … We are on firm ground for the meaning of this. Hypocrisy was a vice which Jesus exposed and denounced with all the vehemency of his being, the entire 23chapter of Matthew being given over to such a purpose, the conduct of those ancient Pharisees being the perfect example of what Christian teachers today ought not to be and ought not to do. [39] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1036. [40] E. C. S. Gibson, Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 21, James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 45. [41] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 381. [42] E. C. S. Gibson, op. cit., p. 45. Verse 18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace.“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9) is the beatitude James certainly had in mind here. As Dummelow expressed the thought, “The wise man is the peacemaker who sows good seed that in God’s time will bear precious fruit."[43] The behavior in view here “is the result of true wisdom,"[44] to which this paragraph is entirely related. Barclay’s discussion of that “wisdom” is very appropriate in this connection: “True wisdom” is from [@epiekes], of all Greek words in the New Testament, the most untranslatable. Aristotle defined it as that “which is just beyond the law.” It means “justice and better than justice.” It is that which steps in to correct things when the law itself becomes unjust. It is impossible to find an English word to translate this quality … (it is) the sweet reasonableness we would wish to receive ourselves.[45]The most outstanding thing in this chapter is the profusion of the spirit and teaching of Jesus Christ which dominates every line of it. In the introduction, it was noted that James is the most Christian of all the New Testament writings, in the sense of being based absolutely upon the declarations of the Master himself; and this chapter affords the most remarkable demonstration of that fact. How amazing it is that some commentators can see nothing here except James’ alleged preoccupation with the law of Moses! We may indeed thank God who enabled this Christian writer to remember and expound so faithfully the precious words of Jesus himself. Despite the fact of there being nothing funny regarding the vicious sins of the tongue, men sometimes laugh at themselves for their gross conduct in this sector. One of the most astounding rebukes of gossip, for example, occurred half a century ago in San Augustine, Texas. Illustration: The noted revivalist, Cowboy Crimm (North Texas and Oklahoma, during the 1930’s and 1940’s), at San Augustine under a huge tent, preached a rousing sermon on “The Tongue.” The town’s most notorious gossip, who was also a religious leader, responded, saying: Oh Brother Crimm, I have come forward to lay my tongue on the altar of God. Crimm replied: I apologize, Sister, our altar is only ten feet long; but whatever part of it you can get on there, go right ahead! The stark enormity of the sins of the tongue was appropriately rebuked in such a remark. [43] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1036. [44] W. E. Oesterley, op. cit., p. 456. [45] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 95. “THE EPISTLE OF JAMES”

Chapter ThreeO IN THE CHAPTER

1. To appreciate the power and danger of the tongue

2. To understand the difference between heavenly wisdom, and that which is earthly, sensual, and demonic

SUMMARY James begins this chapter with a caution against many becoming teachers. In view of the stricter judgment that awaits teachers, one should be sure they possess the maturity and self-control necessary to control the tongue. James then provides a series of illustrations to demonstrate the power and danger of the tongue, and how we can easily be inconsistent in our use of it (James 3:1-12).

Perhaps some sought to be teachers so as to appear wise. Yet James writes that wisdom and understanding are to be shown by one’s conduct, done in meekness. He then defines and contrasts the difference between two kinds of wisdom. There is wisdom which is earthly that causes confusion and every evil thing. On the other hand, there is wisdom which is heavenly that produces the peaceable fruit of righteousness (James 3:13-18).

OUTLINE I. TRUE THE TONGUE (James 3:1-12) A. A CAUTION AGAINST (James 3:1-2)1. Teachers shall receive a stricter judgment 2. Maturity and self-control are required not to stumble in word

B. THE POWER OF THE TONGUE (James 3:3-4)1. Like a bit which controls the horse 2. Like a small rudder which directs the ship

C. THE DANGER OF THE TONGUE (James 3:5-6)1. A little member which boasts great things 2. Like a little fire which kindles a great forest fire 3. Indeed, the tongue can be a fire, a world of iniquity a. Capable of defiling the whole body b. Capable of setting on fire the course of nature, being set on fire by hell

D. THE OF TAMING THE TONGUE (James 3:7-12)1. Man can control creatures of land and sea, but not the tongue 2. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison 3. With it we bless God, and then curse man made in His image a. Thus blessing and cursing proceed from the same mouth b. Something which should not be so

1. For no spring sends forth both fresh and salt water
2. Neither does a fig tree bear olives, nor a grapevine bear figs

II. TRUE WISDOM (James 3:13-18) A. THE TRUE DISPLAY OF WISDOM AND (James 3:13)1. To be seen in one’s conduct 2. With works done in meekness

B. THE DISPLAY OF EARTHLY WISDOM (James 3:14-16)1. Full of bitter envy, self-seeking, boasting and lying 2. A wisdom not from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic 3. Producing confusion and every evil thing

C. THE DISPLAY OF WISDOM (James 3:17-18)1. Wisdom from above is first pure, then it is… a. Peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits b. Without partiality and without hypocrisy 2. The fruit of righteousness is produced by peacemakers who sow in peace

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- True religion controls the tongue (James 3:1-12)

• True religion displays heavenly wisdom (James 3:13-18)

2. Why does James caution against many becoming teachers? (James 3:1)- Teachers shall receive a stricter judgment

3. What is one indication of maturity and self-control? (James 3:2)- The ability to bridle the tongue

4. What two illustrations does James use to show the power of the tongue? (James 3:3-4)- Like a bit which controls the horse

• Like a rudder which controls the ship

5. What illustration is used to show the danger of the tongue? (James 3:5)- Like a small fire which kindles a large forest fire

6. How does James describe the tongue? (James 3:6-8)- A fire, a world of iniquity

• Set among our members that it defiles the whole body
• Sets on fire the course of nature, being set on fire by hell
• That which no man can tame
• An unruly evil, full of deadly poison

7. What example does James use to show how the tongue is often misused? (James 3:9-10)- Blessing God and cursing man who is made in His image

8. What illustrations does James provide to show the incongruity of such speech? (James 3:11-12)- A spring does not send forth both fresh and salt (bitter) water

• A fig tree does not bear olives, nor a grapevine bear figs

9. How is the wise and understanding person to manifest himself? (James 3:13)- By good conduct done in meekness

10. What characterizes wisdom that does not descend from above? (James 3:14)- Bitter envy and self-seeking, boasting and lying against the truth

11. What is the source of such wisdom? (James 3:15)- It is earthly, sensual, and demonic

12. What exists when there is envy and self-seeking? (James 3:16)- Confusion and every evil thing

13. What are the qualities of wisdom that is from above? (James 3:17)- It is first pure

• Then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy

14. Who produces the fruit of righteousness? (James 3:18)- Peacemakers who sow in peace Questions by E.M. Zerr On James 31. What kind of masters are meant in first verse?

2. State what this would cause us to receive.
3. How do we offend all?
4. How may we be perfect in this connection?
5. On what theory is he considered perfect?
6. Compare verse 2 with 1 Corinthians 9:27.
7. Do horses’ bits manage them mechanically?
8. Does the tongue manage us mechanically?
9. Show argument from the ships’ rudders.
10. To what member is all this likened?
11. Through what trait does the tongue do evil?
12. Does a great fire require a great lighter?
13. Might the work of the tongue become greater 1
14. What kind of world is attributed to it?
15. Among whom docs it become such?
16. What body is meant in sixth verse?
17. State what course or fuel it ignites.
18. From where did the “light” originate r
19. How many kinds of brutes have been tamed?
20. By whom have they been tamed?
21. What law in Genesis agrees with this?
22. Is the “man” verse 8 same as verse ‘( r
23. Why can no man tame this tongue?
24. Of what is it full?
25. If no man can tame it why blame it?
26. What contradictory use is made of the tongue?
27. State a natural law that would shame this.
28. On this principle where is the divided tongue?
29. Explain “conversation” verse 13.
30. Of what should it consist?
31. What kind of man is expected to do this?
32. Show relation between meekness and wisdom.
33. Would this cause the tongue to be tamed?
34. Describe bitter envying.
35. Where do these evils originate?
36. What system of truth meant in 14th verse?
37. Is the above one form of wisdom?
38. Where does it belong?
39. Explain being sensual.
40. Why is it devilish?
41. State results of envying and strife.
42. Does this violate Colossians 3:15?
43. From where does the desired wisdom come?
44. What is its first characteristic?
45. Compare the 2nd with Romans 12:18.
46. Is it easy to be persuaded?
47. Full of what?
48. How does it differ from James 2:1, etc.? 4D. What fruit is sown by such like persons?
49. In what condition is it sown?

James 3:1

James 3:1. Masters is from , and it is the same word rendered “teachers” in Hebrews 5:12. In that place Paul says the brethren ought to be teachers, using the word in a good sense, while James says for the brethren not to have many of them. We must therefore consider the connection in which it is used in order to get the meaning in any given case. In our verse it is plain that James is writing of men who put themselves up as teachers who do not properly control their tongues. Such people are to be condemned all the more because they do harm by their words.

James 3:2

James 3:2. For in many things. If we do have too many of such professed teachers we will offend all or all (of us) will offend or stumble. The importance of our language is the subject in several verses. If a man does not offend (or stumble) with the improper use of his tongue he will prove to be a perfect or complete man, controlling even his body.

James 3:3

James 3:3. The great influence of apparently small things is the idea James is illustrating in this and the next verse. In size and weight a bridle bit is very small, yet with it we control the direction of the entire animal.

James 3:4

James 3:4. The same thing is true of the helm or rudder of a ship. It is but a few inches or feet long, yet it may guide a ship that is many hundreds of feet in length.

James 3:5

James 3:5. The application of the illustration is made to the tongue. The last word is from GLOSSA, which means as its first definition the literal organ that is a member of the fleshly body. The Greek term is used because the tongue is the instrument by which the speech or words of a person are produced. Actually it is the language of the individual that is being considered, although the form of the phrases is related to the physical organ of speech. James uses another illustration for the same purpose as that in verses 3 and 4. If a man wished to burn a structure as tall as a tower, he would need only to use a torch an inch long.

James 3:6

James 3:6. James calls the tongue a fire because he had just used the illustration of “a little fire.” It is called a world of iniquity because the original word for world means mankind. The evil use of the tongue will affect mankind in general if it is not curbed. Defiles the whole body. Our organ of speech if allowed to work sinfully will result in evil conduct of the whole body. Course literally means “a wheel” according to Thayer, and nature means the procedure of human existence.

The figure represents it as a wheel that is rolling onward. James means that the evil tongue sets this wheel on fire. It is set on fire of hell (GEHENNA); not literally, of course. But a torch has to be “lighted” from some source, and James regards a wicked tongue as so bad that he renre-sents its owner as having applied to hell to “get a light.”

James 3:7

James 3:7. The facts of controlling a horse with a bit, guiding a ship with a rudder or training a beast by man all have one thing in common, namely, the feat is accomplished by another party; the things controlled are acted upon by an outside force.

James 3:8

James 3:8. Such a feat cannot be accomplished upon the tongue because of its characteristic of poison which defies being subdued by another man than its owner. James does not say a man cannot subdue his own tongue; in truth he teaches that a man can and should bridle his own tongue (chapter 1:26).

James 3:9

James 3:9. The main point in this and the next verse is to show the inconsistency in the uncontrolled tongue. Man is made after the similitude of God, therefore He should be regarded with respect. Yet the evil tongue will bless one and curse the other.

James 3:10

James 3:10. This repeats the thought of the preceding verse in another form of expression. The words same mouth emphasize the inconsistency in a more direct way.

James 3:11-12

James 3:11-12. James refers to the consistency of the things in the natural creation, to shame the man who is double-minded in the use of his tongue. The same God who made the inanimate things named also created man and gave him a tongue wherewith to express his intelligence. How inexcusable it is therefore in him to make such an evil use of the blessing of speech.

James 3:13

James 3:13. Wise man is one who has learned to exercise good judgment, and knowledge means information concerning which he may exercise that good judgment. James gives some specific suggestions on how such a man may manifest those traits in his conversation, which means conduct or manner of life. He is to do it with meekness of wisdom; a truly wise man will be meek or humble and not boastful of his knowledge.

James 3:14

James 3:14. Bitter envying denotes a mind that is resentful toward another person who is fortunate. The original word for strife means an attempt to outdo some other person by fair means or otherwise. Should such a person succeed he is admonished not to glory in it. Lie not against the truth. Certainly all lies are against the truth, but the special thought Is that an envious person cannot oppose a righteous or fortunate one without contradicting the truth involved.

James 3:15

James 3:15. Wisdom is from a Greek word that has a great variety of meanings. Thayer comments on this phase of the subject as follows: “Used of knowledge of very diverse matters. so that the shade of meaning in which the word is taken must be discovered from the context [connection] in every particular case.” In general the word refers to knowledge or Information that a person may have (or claim to have), whether it be good or bad. true or false. This should prepare us to see why James calls something by the word wisdom when he is sneaking of that which he disapproves. Earthly is used as a contrast to above; sensual pertains to the natural or animal part of our nature; devilish is an adjective and means something that has the character of demons.

James 3:16

James 3:16. James verifies his description of this wisdom (preceding verse) by repeating virtually the sentiments of verse 14. He emphasizes it by adding the results of such “wisdom.” namely, confusion and every evil work.

James 3:17

James 3:17. In verses 14-16 James designates the kind of wisdom that does not come from above (or heaven); the present verse describes the kind that does come from the higher source. First pure signifies that it is of the most importance for a man’s information to be pure or unmixed with anything false. Then peaceable indicates that peace is not to be desired unless it is according to the truth. That is why Paul placed it on condition in Romans 12:18. Gentle means to be mild and fair in one’s temperament even when insisting on truth as being preferable to peace.

Easy to be in-treated is all from one Greek word that means to be of a yielding disposition and not stubborn when the heavenly wisdom is presented. Full of mercy means that one’s life is merciful toward those in difficulties whenever the occasion arises, and not only when it is the most convenient to be so. Fruits are the deeds that are performed and heavenly wisdom will prompt one to produce good deeds. Without partiality denotes an attitude that does not show respect of persons. (See chapter 2:1-4.) Without hypocrisy means that our expressions of friendliness to others will be sincere and not a mere pretense. A tree Is known by its fruit, hence if a man is being influenced by the wisdom that is from above, he will exhibit the characteristics that are described in this verse.

James 3:18

James 3:18. If a man possesses good fruit he usually wishes to reproduce it by sowing or planting it. Hence he will sow it righteously by conforming to the rules of peace that have been formed in harmony with the pure wisdom.