by Jung-Sik Cha

The control of the tongue is a commonplace motif which occurs in almost all ancient paraenetic writings. As an important part of self-control, the control of the tongue indeed has become a popular topic of ethical exhortation in the ancient Oriental world including Babylonian and Egyptian religion and ethic.1 It also occurs in Greek philosophy in association with the theories of language, and later in the Hellenistic philosophy as well. In particular, the striking emphasis on the misuse of the tongue is characteristic of Jewish practical wisdom. For example, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and especially Sirach develop this literary topos with particular paraenetic intentions. As part of this tradition, James 3:1-12 might, on a surface reading, be looked upon as a passage which was pieced together from contemporary wisdom literature, so that there is nothing original in it. This is partly true, considering that it is a salient feature of paraenesis to consist primarily of material that is traditional and unoriginal.2 But James 3:1-12 is by no means simply a piece of conventional wisdom to which the author had access. The unoriginal character of the genre per se does not discredit the originality of the material in its particular context in which the Sitz im Leben has been embedded. In spite of the commonplace theme regarding the control of the tongue, James 3:1-12 displays its own peculiar character. By combining interesting images, the author succeeds in articulating the essential nature of the tongue. The tongue is presented as a personified figure that maneuvers “the whole body” with its great power, as if it is the emperor of “the world of evil.” Indeed, the tongue is the world of evil itself as described in 3:6.

The following pages are therefore devoted to investigation James 3:1-12 by tracing the way in which the various images akin to that of the tongue in the paragraph are brought into mutual communication. An attempt will be made to analyze the overall composition of the text in terms of the source-critical questions. In particular, attention will be directed to the central images such as ‘tongue,’ ‘fire,’ and “the wheel of birth,’ and to the author’s intention of fusing them in the present structure. As the result of the investigation, I hope to reveal the Jacobian theology of the tongue.

Having dealt with the issues of testing, favoritism, and faith and works in chapters 1-2, the author turns to discuss a new topic on the power of the tongue. This is not actually a new topic since the same issue of bridling the tongue has been already touched upon, in 1:26, although here the tongue receives only a passing reference in the context of true religion: “If anyone thinks that he is religious, but does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, the religion of this man is futile.” Now in 3:12 the same issue recurs tied to what is required of a teacher.

There is no obvious literary connection between 3:1-12 and what precedes. This lack of connection is a literary feature characteristic of the diatribe style which is employed in the present pericope. This does not, however, suffice to clarify the seemingly clumsy arrangement of the present pericope. Only a careful reading of the whole text makes it evident that the present discussion is anticipated earlier, and retrieved here as one of the ongoing interests of the author. It is true, however, that the present pericope is placed in a different context from 1:26.

In order to tell the continuity and discontinuity between them, it is necessary to explore the way in which the author understands the concept of logos. In fact, this concept plays a significant role by offering a hermeneutical cue throughout the epistle. The first occurrence of found in 1:18 where “the logos of truth” is described as bringing to birth all creatures and making human beings (or perhaps Jews) the first fruits of them. This concept of logos used in the context of creation is shifted in 1:19 with emphasis on its soteriological function. In this verse, it is described as “the implanted logos which has the power to save your souls.” In the following verses 22-23, the author makes another shift in applying the concept of logos by stressing its practical aspect for ethics. Readers are urged not to be mere hearers, but doers of the logos. The psychology of self-deception is involved here, with the implication that a logos may be spoken in vain if efforts to fulfill the message of the logo are lacking. It is also presupposed that both acts of hearing and doing the logos are possible only when there is a teacher who teaches the logos with a correct interpretation. It is exactly in this context that the author brings into discussion the issue of the practice of logos in what follows.

The concept of logos is tangibly expressed as “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (1:25) and “the royal law” (2:8). It is an open question whether the logos in this sense indicates the Jewish Torah only, or also includes the words Jesus taught in his interpretation of the Torah as seen in the Sermon on the Mount. This question can be answered only after scrutiny of how the text has been transmitted, since it is doubtful whether the Epistle of James as a whole was originally a Christian letter, and if so, to what extent it had access to the teachings of Jesus as the authoritative interpretation of the Torah.

After the passing reference to the tongue in terms of true religion in 1:26, the author turns to deal with the teaching of logos in the present chapter (3:1ff). For the author, this turning meets the need of continuing the discussion on the practice of logos in more detail, one that has been earlier addressed in 1:22f as an introductory signal. It is therefore not surprising that we encounter the term once again in 3:2. The assumption here is that the act of teaching the logos is prior to the acts of hearing and doing the logos, and thus the former is of more importance than the latter ones. This is explicit from the fact that one can be perfect as a teacher by not stumbling in logos. By “perfect,” the author seems to refer to the attainable state of being “mature and complete, lacking in nothing” (1:4), rather than to the ontological sense of the term. But in reality everyone stumbles in many respects (3:2a). In this regard, teachers are no exception since they are bound to the capacity of human beings. But human weakness does not fully justify any misleading teachings of logos on the part of teachers. Thus the warning: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive harsher judgment” (3:1). From this observation it becomes clear that the present topic on the power of the tongue is neither abrupt nor unexpected, but is fully anticipated in the author’s persistent concern about logos.

The author does not simply narrow down the discussion within the scope of teachers’ concerns only, but he gives a general account of the danger of the misuse of tongue. Commentators take notice of the tension between vss 1-2 and the following verses. This tension is to be explained, first of all, as an example of the diatribe style of Hellenistic-Jewish origin, so that this tension is evidence that the author is drawing upon school materials as a source.3 In the author’s compositional strategy, it is also understood that “the warning against a possible [stumbling in logos] in the special situation of teaching is placed upon a broader basis through a discussion of sins of the tongue in general.”4 In any case, the author’s assumption reflected in vss 1-2 is that a teacher is heavily obliged to discipline himself to control his tongue. Then the scope of the discussion extends beyond the thematic question about the relationship between being a teacher and the careful use of the tongue, and it delves into the more comprehensive issue of speech alongside the analogical inquiry about why the tongue does matter on the fundamental level. The discussion as a whole constitutes a greatly expanded treatise on the power of tongue which was previously adumbrated. In this treatise, the author aims to argue for the integrity of speech by employing the metaphors such as horse and bridle, ship and rudder, and forest and fire.

One should note above all that the entire discussion on the tongue is subordinate to the rubric of being a teacher (3:1). Granted that the letter as a whole is in diatribe style, the author may have had in mind the oversupply of teachers as he directs the warning against being a teacher. By ‘teacher’ in 3:1 the author is more likely referring to the role of a Jewish rabbi as distinct from the official position of teacher in the Pauline churches (1 Cor 12:28f, Eph 4:11). The concept of teacher here comes close to that of the Didache (13:2, 15:1-2) where teachers are placed on a par with prophets and are higher than bishops and deacons. The Jewish background of the concept of teacher is illuminated in the later Rabbinic interpretation of the Torah regarding the heavier obligation of a teacher (or a scholar) as shown in the following example: “A scholar does not require warning . . . [Sanh. 8b in footnote]: Flagellation for violating a negative precept is imposed only if the offender was previously warned, but in the case of a scholar this is unnecessary, as he is assumed to know that the act is forbidden” (Genesis, Bereshith, XIX. I).

On the subject of the oversupply of teachers, both the Pauline and the Jacobian community share a common concern for the sake of public order. This is evident from the Pastoral epistles which are also concerned about the ones who, “having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers after their own lusts” (2 Tim 4:3), and also the others “desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they confidently affirm” (1 Tim 1:7). Paul himself also polemicizes against the Jewish teachers by referring to the complacency of the Jews who are falsely confident of being “a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes” (Rom 2:20). It is equally possible that the author stands in the stream of Jesus’ tradition, according to which the Jewish teachers (i.e. the scribes and Pharisees) are criticized as “blind leaders of the blind” (Mt 15:14) or those who sit on Moses’ seat as authoritative teachers but do not do what they teach (Mt 23:2f).

The author, including himself in the rank of teachers, addresses the reason why not many should become teachers: “we will receive harsher judgment.” The judgment here, of course, presupposes an eschatological setting where everyone will receive according to what he/she did. In respect to the basic idea, 3:1b is parallel to the Matthean context in which Jesus says that “on the day of judgment you will have to give account for every careless word you utter” (Mt 12:36 and parallels). The Jacobian context of the judgment, however, is set primarily for teachers. In this context, it is likely that the “harsher judgment” indicates a stricter criterion of judgment since teachers are responsible not only for their words but also for the words that are heard and practiced by their students.

The following clause (3:2) expands the current topic of being teachers into a further discussion on the teaching of the word. This is skillfully done by employing multiple metaphors in mutual association, the result of which is to feature the power of the tongue. The figures of horse and ship employed respectively in vss 3-4 occur as characteristically combined in Greek writings in the sense that the small instrument controls so great a body.5 With the image of bits and rudder, the tongue is portrayed as a small member of the body that boasts of great things (vs 5a). The contrast ofand leads the author to devise the contrasting picture of and (vs 5b). This metaphor brings the tongue into direct association with fire and thus leads to the announcement: “the tongue is fire” (vs 6a).6 Notably, the author avoids the analogical expression — “the tongue is like fire” - but directly expresses it. Perhaps this choice is deliberately made to create a strong impression on the mind of readers. The analogy of the tongue to fire is found in Jewish wisdom literature (Sir 28:11; Ps 120:30 as well as in Christian literature (Acts 2:3. But the Jacobian usage of it leads us to believe that it was more likely drawn from a standing simile of current Greek popular philosophy.7 In connection with the image of fire, the tongue is portrayed in its negative features. It is also “the world of evil” which sits among our members. The Greek word KóaI.toc is once used in the negative sense (1:27) and recurs in 4:4 as standing in opposition to God. But here, the term is not derived from the physical universe but is a Jewish image taken from the (Ps 9:8), rendered in the LXX, denoting the heathen nations in particular, and the heathen world in general as destructive and corruptive.8

Furthermore, it carries the connotation that the pollution of language brings out not simply the contamination of an individual body, but incurs disaster as a cosmic phenomenon. The evil nature of the tongue is explained specifically by the modifying relative clause that follows: “the tongue... which stains the whole body.” “The whole body” is picked up again here as a reminder of vs 2, and all this goes back to the language in 2:26. Taking “the whole body” in a metaphoric sense, it may indicate that the whole community is thrown into disorder by the misuse of language.9 I am rather inclined to think, however, that there is a psychological theory involved in the idea of contamination of the whole body through the tongue. Implicit is the anthropological notion that the tongue is the outward organ which communicates the desire of the inward mind. Therefore, “the whole body” is taken to signify an anthropological entity which can be either bridled (3:2b) or stained (3:6c), being dependent upon how one controls the tongue. This stands in parallel with Jesus’ saying in Matthew 15:18: “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from his heart, and this is what defiles.” In other words, the whole body is nothing but the whole embodiment of the person.

As an anthropological metaphor, the tongue is the central organ in which one’s or is expressed in its most sensitive state. It thus becomes a driving force of the whole body by which one is tempted (1:14) and led into conflicts and disputes (4:1). In addition, the author possibly had in mind the cultic sense of body based on Leviticus 15:8 according to which unclean persons contaminate anything and anyone they touch. Likewise the evil words of the tongue keep the whole body unclean insofar as the tongue remains a part of the bodily organ. It is conceivable that the author here points to the contamination of a particular member as he mentions that “the tongue sits among our members” and stains “the whole body.” In this case, one member of the body, whatever it is, brings out the pollution of all other members. What comes into focus here is that the tongue working as an influential power plays the decisive role in such pollution.

The world of evil, which is associated with the imagery of fire, brings up another important image, “the wheel of birth.” The tongue sets on fire the wheel, being set on fire by Gehenna. It is agreed among commentators that the image was originally borrowed from the Orphic idea of death and rebirth.10 In my view, the borrowing of the imagery is so purposeful and deliberate, and therefore it signifies far more than “life.”11 This position is supported by another preceding Orphic idea in 2:19b: “Even the demons believe and shudder.”12 The author’s dependence upon Orphic ideas is not accidental, but it is rather a skillful literary strategy. In mentioning “the wheel of birth,” the author seems to have had in mind the myth of Orpheus who, having a magical power of voice to fascinate creatures, went down to Hades in order to bring back to life his beloved wife Eurydice. Perhaps the author gave a twist to the Orpheus myth and the later Orphic-pythagorean idea of endless regeneration of life in order to polemicize against the fatalistic understanding of life. This is why the author does not use the image of the wheel of birth to argue for the liberation of the soul from the wheel. Nor does he go on to inquire into the way in which such a soteriological liberation comes about. What he offers instead is a paraenetic charge for a moral practice and a pursuit of true wisdom (3:13ff). The idea of transmigration of soul is not detected, either, in the formulaic expression of th’e wheel. The author’s robust position of moral responsibility stands over against the doctrine of metempsychosis, though he was probably familiar with the doctrine itself.

It is remarkable that the author combines the idea of the wheel of birth with the Jewish term Gehenna, instead of Hades. From the religio-historical point of view, this reflects the author’s cultural milieu in which Judaism had access to, and partly assimilated, the Orphic idea.13 Equally remarkable is the fact that the author makes a negative estimation of the wheel of birth by linking it with the image of Gehenna. In the Synoptic tradition, Gehenna is coupled with fire (Mt 5:22, 18:9) and also with the whole body (Mt 5:29, 30, 10:28). It is in this association that the image of fire triggers the image of the wheel of birth and that of Gehenna for the author. The question then is how the three different images (fire, the wheel of birth, Gehenna) make sense in their mutual association. It appears that the image of fire and the wheel of birth come together first by means of the Orphic-Pythagorean symbol which contains both wheel and fire. This association involving fire then brings up the popular image of Gehenna. All three images are brought together to sharpen the image of the tongue. Tracing the association of the different images in this way, it becomes clear why the tongue is presented as the world of evil. It is not only because the tongue stains the whole body by increasing the desire of life in the outward form (the wheel of birth), but also because its driving force (fire) is endlessly charged with the fuel coming from Gehenna, the source of evil world.14 In this understanding, the author caricatures the tongue as the symbolic organ in which the anthropological nature of a human being is most characteristically expressed. With this interpretation of the tongue, the author becomes skeptical about even the positive side of the tongue, namely that the tongue can also be touched by a live coal from God’s altar (Isa 6:5-7), not just set on fire by Gehenna.. This skepticism runs through the rest of the verses down to 3:12, yet is overcome in 3:13ff.

The following analogy (vss 7-8a) is an abrupt turn to the creation motif borrowed from Genesis 9:2. This motif is employed to demonstrate how difficult and even impossible it is to tame the tongue. The author’s skepticism reaches its climax when he concludes that “no human being can tame the tongue.” After articulating the uncontrollable nature of the tongue, the author makes a further account of “the world of evil” (vs 6) in a dramatic expression: “a disorderly (or restless) evil, full of deadly poison” (vs 8b). The first part of the formula - “a disord’erly evil” - is a direct definition of the tongue whereas “full of deadly poison” is a modifying phrase formulated out of the Jewish belief (Job 33:23, 4 Mac 8:17, Ps 58:4, 140:3). The popular belief was that the hissing, forked tongue of a serpent darted poison. This suggested a comparison with the human tongue which was full of abuse and malignity.15

In order to make sense of the given definition, in vs 9 the author draws on Jewish moral teaching (Gen 1:26, Sir 17:1-4) with the implication that sin against man is an attack on the divine likeness. The evil nature of tongue is mostly due to the ambivalence of its utterance. That is, the tongue is evil not simply because “in it we curse the men who are made in the likeness of God,” but rather because we also with the same tongue bless the Lord and Father (vs 9). The evil nature of the tongue thus is contingent upon the fact that it utters both blessing and curse (vs 10)16 Obviously this is self-contradictory and hypocritical, though blessing the Lord in itself is a good use of the tongue. The incompatible conduct of the tongue is therefore condemned on the principle of 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Just as the tongue stains not the part but the whole of the body, so also the whole utterance is what does matters.

The direct paraenesis of verse lOb serves as a concluding remark for the preceding discussion. This conclusion is then buttressed by the following rhetorical questions so as to reinforce the point of argument. For this purpose, the analogies of spring, fig tree, and salt water are respectively used. Although the author instructs that one ought not to speak blessing and curse from the same mouth (vs 10), the following rhetorical questions continue the ongoing skepticism about the tongue, thus proving the difficulty of being a perfect teacher. It is indeed unnatural for a spring to pour forth both fresh and bitter water from the same opening (vs 11). Nor is it possible for a fig tree to yield olives and grapevine figs (vs 12a). Nor can salt water yield fresh (12b), which stands in parallel with 4 Esdras 5:9. These analogies (especially the second one) are probably from the same source as that of Matthew 7:15-20, both of which are taken from Greek and Roman proverbial lore to bring out the unnatural habit of using the same tongue for piety and rancorous abuse.17 But the context differs. In the Sermon on the Mount the emphasis is placed on the point that we can tell whether one is good or bad by one’s fruits, whereas James lays the focus on the fact that a tree, by its nature, cannot bear two different kinds of fruits. The very order of creation is violated by what the tongue does as the world of evil. In reality, the tongue acts in a way contrary to the normal nature of other creatures by yielding both good and evil words.

Only in the following section (3:13-18) is the author’s skepticism about the tongue overcome by contrasting earthly, unspiritual, and devilish wisdom with wisdom from above. Of the many who want to be teachers, there may be some who have this wisdom and understanding from above. This wisdom and understanding is free from “the bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts” (vs 14). In other words, this is the ground on which one can tame the tongue by conquering the “disorder and wickedness of every kind” which result from bitter envy and selfish ambition. Disorder () is a characteristic reminiscent of the tongue which has been earlier defined as “the disorderly evil” (). It is through the channel of the tongue that “disorder and wickedness of every kind” is the external manifestation of the internal desire in one’s heart which is characterized as “bitter envy and selfish ambition” (vs 16). The anthropological nature of the tongue as such incurs a psychological engineering of evil, thus occupying the central place in human reality. The more efforts one makes to overcome reality, the worse disorder one experiences, since it is the uncontrollable tongue which attempts to do so. Nevertheless, hope remains because one is open to the narrow escape into the heavenly wisdom which is the only solution to “the world of evil.” Only wisdom from above is able to tame the tongue since it is “pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy” (vs 17). Whereas earthly wisdom is commanded by the insurmountable tongue, wisdom from above is beyond the capacity of the tongue. It is then implied that only those who have wisdom and understanding are qualified to be perfect teachers. Also implicit is the fact that true teaching is far from the reckless talk about all things, but it is rather careful delivery of wisdom and understanding. The tongue is valuable only when it assumes such a role, especially in a teaching setting.

In my view, the current paragraph (3:1-12) can not be fully elucidated if understood only within the scope of moral praraenesis. Insofar as the Jacobian theology of the tongue is properly defined, our text is more concerned with the doctrine of creation, rather than the doctrine of soteriology. The Genesis stories in particular, such as the Fall and the tower of Babel are interpreted in such a way as to envision the reordering of human language. By dint of radical skepticism about the tongue, the author no longer maintains the soteriological significance of logos at the present scene. Windisch is right when he understands 3:2-12 within the context of “the confused order of creation.”18 It was a well-known legend that God’s creation in the natural order was violated by the poisonous tongue of the serpent. The first man and woman fell into the trap of the evil tongue which was “full of deadly poison” (3:8c), and since then, human life starts and develops with the tragic burden of toil and pain. Humanity received the knowledge of good and evil at the expense of being expelled from Paradise. This tabooed knowledge came through the deceptive word, which marked the incipient pollution of human language. This provides the background of why the motif of self-deception is linked to the image of an unbridled tongue (1:26).

Later human beings built up the Babel tower as an attempt to reach God’s domain. But it resulted in the confusion of language and consequently the disorder of human communication. The, motif of disorder in this story is characteristic of the tongue in the Jacobian interpretation of the story, so that it alludes to the origin of “evil of disorder.” It is absolutely in accord with the creation order (Gen 9:2) that all creatures are subdued by the species of human being (James 3:7). But this creation order is violated by the tongue which “no one is able to tame.” This statement implies, first, that human beings, by nature, lack the capacity to tame the desire of the tongue. Second, it may indicate that every individual, in reality, is unable to perfectly control his or her own tongue. The text presupposes that the violation of the creation order is due to the corrupted mind which has lost control over the tongue, or the total lack of “the implanted logos.” As has been observed earlier, another violation of the creation order comes from the fact that the tongue speaks curses against those who are made in the likeness of God (Gen 1:26). According to 3:9, no one, the author included, is able to be free of the charge of being fallen in the deception of the poisonous tongue. The metaphors in the following verses (10-12) sharpen the contrast between the violation of the creation order on the part of the tongue and the observance of it on the part of other creatures.

The author’s overall concern about the tongue necessarily relates it to the and 19 as the source that brings about “the world of evil.” Throughout the letter the author is consistently concerned with the matter of how to be free from desire or impulse which is concentrated in the tongue. The evil inclination of the tongue is hard to escape since “every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts is only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5).20 This negative aspect of anthropology seems to be presupposed in the author’s mind. As exemplified in Philo (Spec. Leg., IV 90), it is notable that the tongue and desire are closely related in Greek terminology. In response to the desire of the tongue, the author exhorts us to constantly observe ourselves in the mirror of “the implanted logos which has the power to save your souls.” (1:19-25), thus being doers of the logos. In light of 1:22-25, it is arguable that we have two mirrors, albeit by implication: one presented by “nature” and another by “the law of God.”21 It is also urged that one should abandon partiality toward members within the community (2:1-7). As the proof of living faith, doing the Torah is further stressed with particular attention to social justice (2:14-17). These are all integrated in the objective of fulfilling “the royal law” (2:8). Struggling with radical skepticism about the tongue of desire (i.e. human language), the author goes on to encourage the pursuit of “the wisdom from above” along with understanding. By obtaining this, one can keep one’s mind at peace, working as a peace-maker: “fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for and by peacemakers” (3:18). The cravings from within, which bring forth “the conflicts and disputes” (4:1), are criticized from this perspective, while the author simultaneously seeks to absolve God from the charge of evil.

The warning against evil speech,recurs again (4:11-12), with emphasis on the sinful nature of judging and ill-speaking of one another. Here the concept of law-giver, law, and brother come together in a close association. Law, which conveys the spirit of the law-giver, is not merely the written Torah, but it can also be reflected in God’s image in one’s brother. Thus it is asserted: “the one who speaks ill of one’s brother or judges him, speaks ill of law and judges it. And if you judge law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy” (4:11-12). At this point, the evil propensity of the tongue is delineated in terms of judging one’s brother, rather than cursing.

The author then moves on to attack in 4:13-16 the evil of the tongue in light of boasting in arrogance with the critical comment that “all such boasting is evil.” Of chapter 5, verses 1-6 are devoted again to the issue of social justice as a way of fulfilling the law, attacking unjust rich people who have lived on the earth in luxury and pleasure.” The rest (vss 7-19) deals with the way in which the poor righteous ones win triumph over evil desire. This triumph is acquired by keeping oneself in patience, endurance, and prayer and songs of praise. The tongue can thus be used for good, so that the author has gone far beyond his skepticism about the evil nature of the tongue. When the tongue devotes itself to the single purpose of praising God with prayer, and stops cursing, condemning, and judging people who are made in the likeness of God, it is resurrected out of “the world of evil” by being tamed in accordance with the natural order of creation.

Concerning the creation theology in the current pericope, our text may be better understood when compared with some other relevant texts. In the exegesis of Genesis 3:1ff, for example, Rabbinic literature does not relate the craftiness of the serpent to the evil of the tongue, but rather makes a negative estimation of much wisdom and knowledge.22 In response to the lemma “Now the serpent was more subtle” (Gen 3:10), the cited text is Ecclesiastes 1:8 — “For in much wisdom is much anger, and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.” Here the negative feature of the serpent is explained by its much knowledge and wisdom. Without any further account of the evil nature of the serpent's deceptive word, the fact that “he was more subtle than alll” is directly reltited tci the result that “he was more cursed than all” (Gen 3:14).

With reference to the Babel tower, the midrashic interpreter makes a negative assessment of the one language and one speech, thus exposing the text (Gen 11:1) to the skeptical view of the union of language and speech.23 The lemma - “And the whole earth was of one language” - is taken to repudiate the sin of mouth and the words of lips based on Psalm 59:12-13: “For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter, consume them in wrath; consume them until they are no more.” For the midrashic interpreter, “one speech (Ahadim)... means that they spoke against two who were unique [lit, one], viz, against Abraham who was one (Ezek XXXIII, 24) and against the Lord our God, the Lord is One (Deut VI, 4).” Another interpretation is that one speech means “united in possession, what one possessed being at the other’s disposal.” Otherwise it may also mean that “they spoke sharp words.” Then it follows with further illustration:

According to the interpreter, the union of language is worse than the separation of it. This is, of course, to justify the confusion of the tongue as a legitimate deed of God. As the expression of the united mind, the union of language and speech can create inner peace. But it is interesting that the midrashic interpreter takes this peace to mean a false peace. In this respect, a positive value is not laid on the unity but rather on the division of the mind. The following paradoxical statement is then made:

The midrashic interpretation is shared in its basic pattern by Philo who, however, goes even further to give more ample accounts of Genesis stories. First of all, Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the stories sheds much light on the association of the various images in James 3:1ff. For example, a brief glimpse into the following passage explains how the image of pilot (or driver) can be combined with the nature of creation order, although James and Philo differ from each other in the contexts to which they apply them:

In James, both the image of the pilot (3:4) and the subordination of creatures to man (3:7) are employed to highlight the formidable force of the tongue as a small organ and its untamable nature. However, unlike James, Philo takes them to explicate the superiority of human beings over other creatures. In talking about the serpent, Philo interprets it to be “a fit symbol of pleasure.” For the third reason of this interpretation, Philo states that it is “because he carries in his teeth the venom with which it is his nature to destroy those whom he has bitten.” It is mostly within the scope of sensual pleasure that the serpent receives attention by Philo. He does not go further to explore the motif of the venom of the serpent in conjunction with the evil nature of the tongue. It is nonetheless interesting that Philo relates the venom of the serpent to human cravings for pleasure. Just as in James the tongue evokes the inner desire and the inner desire is expressed by means of the tongue, thus contaminating the whole body, so in Philo the serpent (as if it is a tongue) destroys other creatures by emitting a human voice from his disguised tongue.

In dealing with the Babel tower,25 Philo diverges from the Rabbinic interpreter by refuting the idea that the confusion of the tongue is brought about as a remedy for sin, to the end that men should no longer commit sin through mutual understanding. It is not so much the utterance of men as the cravings for sin in the soul that causes God to scatter the people with different languages. Because of this inner desire for iniquity, the “one lips and one voice” is a “symphony” of evils. Unlike the midrashic interpreter, Philo admits that the possession of a common language does more good than harm. But Philo does not suppose that Genesis 11:1 is the case for the good result of the universal language. He rather suggests “that by the words, ‘the earth was all one lip and one voice’ is meant a consonance of evil deeds great and innumerable, and these include the injuries which cities and nations and countries inflict and retaliate, as well as the impious deeds which men commit, not only against each other, but against the Deity.”26

The universal language, which pertains to the creation order, is therefore taken from mankind as if it were the source of evil. This tragedy, according to Philo, stems from non-spiritual elements such as anger () and desire (), loosing the control of intellect () and reason (). This is exactly the reality in which the confusion of the tongue, and the disordering of the creation order as well, are to be understood. Being aware of this disorderly situation, Philo does express a strong skepticism about speech. He realizes: “Now speech is an ally employed by those who hate virtue and love the passion to inculcate their untenable tenets, and also by man of worth for the destruction of such doctrines and to set up beyond resistance the sovereignty of those that are better, those in whose goodness there is no deceit.”27 Words of this sort are thus to be silenced, and Philo calls this “the death of words.” As thorough-going as the skepticism may be, Philo never gives up hope as James does, but overcomes the skeptical view of language and speech by employing the concept “thy Divine Logos” that is otherwise called “God’s Man.” Only those who acknowledge him attain the ultimate goal of language which is peace, and so corruption of language is eliminated and it is replaced by the “symphony” of good.

Reading our text (James 3:1-18) in light of the midrashic interpretation and Philo, it is undeniable that there are more than a few elements of creation theology involved in the Jacobian theology of the tongue. In spite of the different contexts in which those authors are situated, it is remarkable that there are ample similarities among them. In fact, our text contains more than paraenetic accounts which are traced back to the Jewish wisdom literature. Prior to the transmission through the Jewish wisdom tradition, it goes back to the Genesis stories as is also the case of most other wisdom literature. In particular, it is notable that language is the result of expressing one’s inner desire which is sensitive to one’s own physical and mental pleasure. Thus the original state of the one language and one speech in Genesis 11:1 does not do much good from their point of view, but on the contrary, it becomes the source of evil in reality. This is precisely the background for understanding the tongue as “the world of evil.”

Equally interesting is the fact that human language is essentially linked up with peace. In our text, the discussion on the tongue runs down to the conclusion: “And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for / by those make peace” (3:18). It is therefore quite natural that the author ends the present pericope with the statement about peace. As the Hebrew word ‘Shalom’ signifies, peace is related to the wholeness and integrity of one’s mind which presupposes the well-ordered state of one’s language. Philo’s concept of the Divine Logos opens the possibility that the logos is also the key to understanding the Jacobian soteriology in terms of liberation from the confusion of the tongue and re-creation of peace. Unlike Philo and the midrashic interpreter, however, the author in our text does not try to show the negative aspect of the union of language in relation to the story of the Babel tower (Gen 11:lff). Rather, he directly criticizes the misuse of the tongue and its formidable outcome, and moreover, suggests the alternative by resorting to wisdom and understanding from above. In doing so, the author seeks to envision the re-ordering of human language in peace and integrity beyond the reality of “the world of evil.

1. For the general background of the literary topos of tongue, see Gerhard Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the NT. vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan & London: WM. B Eerdmans Publishing Company), 1964, pp. 719-722.
2. L.G. Perdue, “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James,” ZNW 72 (1981), p. 242.
3. Martin Dibelius, James, revised by Heinrich Greeven, tr. by Michael A. Williams (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 1976, p. 182.
4. Ibid.
5. J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), 1916, p. 231.
6. I disagree with Spitta on the point that “the tongue is a fire; the tongue is a world of iniquity, set among our members, and it stains the whole body” (3:6) is editorial gloss, though I agree that the formulation of the phrase is based on 1:27c - “to keep oneself unstained by the world.” See Friedrich Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums (Götingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht), 1896, pp. 98-99. According to him, the editorial insertion “the tongue is fire; the world of evil” is “eine zutreffende Inhaltsangabe” for 3:1-4:12. This argument is well taken when drawing upon the polemic against “the world” (4:4) and the prolonged discussion about evil speech (4:11). If this is the case, his thesis about the insertion of the given piece of text does not stand valid. The continuation of the issues on world and speech in chapter 4 rather offers evidence for the originality of the passage in dispute.
7. J.H. Ropes (1916), p. 233.
8. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of James (London: MacMillan and Co., Limited), 1909, p. 71.
9. Bo Reicke, The Epistle of James, Peter and Jude (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), 1964, p. 36. According to him, “the author is actually thinking of the congregation whose tongue is the teacher or preacher. Thus the “body” is here, as often in the writings of Paul, a symbol of the church.”
10. According to Dibelius (1976), pp. 196-198, the image was developed thereafter and came to be used as a reference to life which is full of affliction and sorrow in Greek philosophy and later in Hellenistic Judaism as well. Less likely is Rope’s suggestion that the idea of “the wheel of creation” is based on Ezekiel 1:15-21 (1916, p. 236). Buddhistic understanding of the “wheel of becoming” is close to the Orphic one insofar as it denotes the doctrine of transmigration of soul, but it is impossible to prove that the Orphic idea was in historical contact with Buddhism.
11. Against Dibelius (1976), p. 198.
12. According to James Moffatt, The General Epistles (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company), 1928, p. 48, this verse is understood as another Orphic tag about God in the Epistle of James.
13. For the Jewish understanding of the Orphic idea, see M. L. West, The Orphic Poems (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1983, pp. 33-35.
14. As the abode of the wicked, originated from the valley of Hinnom, Gehenna is distinguished from Hades which is the unseen world for all.
15. James Moffatt (1928), p. 49.
16. The reference to the double use of the tongue finds its parallels in various places of which the Testament of Benjamin 6:5 is representative: “The good mind does not have two tongues, that of blessing and that of curse.” For further parallels and source-critical concern, see Hans Windisch, Die Katholischen Briefe (Tuingen: Paul Siebeck), 1911, p. 21.
17. James Moffatt (1928), p. 56.
18. Windisch (1911), p. 20.
19. It is agreed among commentators that the two Greek words are used interchangeably.
20. Joel Marcus, “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James,” CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 607-621 suggests that the letter should be considered as a description of “The Man Who Overcomes the Evil Inclination,” and that the key term (o corresVonds to the Hebrew word which denotes “things formed by man”, accordingly, certain negative impulses.
21. In agreement with Dibelius, the text is thus interpreted by Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Mirror of Remembrance (James 1:22-25), CBQ 50 (1988), p. 636.
22. See Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. 1, tr. by H. Freedman (London, New York: The Soncino Press), 1983, p. 148.
23. Ibid, pp. 302-306.
24. Philo, vol. 1, On the Creation, XXIX.
25. Philo, vol. III, The Confusion of Tongues.
26. Ibid., V.15
27. Ibid, X.34.