James 3 and the Virtues for Controlling the Tongue
(avg. read time: 4–9 mins.)
As I noted in my last entry, James’s work is a difficult nut to crack as far as structure is concerned. It is not always clear how the different parts fit together. Chapter divisions are not necessarily helpful in this regard either, as those divisions are much later additions. Still, there are times when Stephen Langton’s chapter divisions do rightly indicate connections between units. I think that applies in the case of Jas 3 with the teachings on the taming of the tongue and the wisdom from above. That is, the virtues of the wisdom from above in vv. 17–18 are crucial for the taming of the tongue.
To explore these connections, let us go through the virtues point-by-point. First, James describes the wisdom from above (i.e., heaven) as first “pure” (ἁγνός). This term is part of a larger family of words in Greek related to holiness, sacredness, purity, and so on. It is a fitting description of something heavenly in contrast to that which is earthly and “soul-possessed,” belonging to the life of this age (3:15). In relation to the teaching on the tongue earlier in ch. 3, it signifies something like Jesus’s teaching on purity of heart or single-hearted, single-minded devotion. After all, James uses the verbal equivalent of this term in 4:8 to instruct his audience to purify their hearts so that they would no longer be “double-souled/double-minded ones” (δίψυχοι). Such a description fits one who praises the Lord and Father while also cursing those made in God’s likeness (3:9–10). The double-minded are as absurd in their conduct as a spring pouring forth sweet and bitter water from the same mouth (3:11–12). But the pure tongue is like the pure spring. Thus, what one needs in controlling the tongue is first purity, the single-hearted will to keep control according to singularity of purpose devoted to Godlikeness (which fits with what I observed of the theological-ethical framework of James in the aforementioned post). The principle fits with the analogies of the tongue in terms of bridles in horses’ mouths and rudders steering boats, where the images convey not only small things directing much larger things, but also the purpose directing those small things in turn directing the large things.
But, of course, the direct force of James’s teaching is that no human can control the tongue, hence the need for the wisdom from above. On the one hand, this fits with the general teaching of the NT that no one can ultimately sanctify themselves, but must be so sanctified by the Holy Spirit (cf. 4:4–7). On the other hand, this fits with how one of James’s first directives, which underlies his very first one, is to ask God for wisdom (1:5–8; cf. 1:2–4). The purity required to tame the tongue is not a result of our own work, but it is a result of the Spirit forming us after the image of Godlikeness, making us like Christ, which is the essence of his sanctifying work.
Second, James says that the wisdom from above, this sanctification, has the characteristic of being “peaceable” (εἰρηνικός). The -ικος suffix that we have seen before informs us that the term has the significance of that which pertains to or is characterized by peace. This is not the peace that is simply absence of conflict, because sometimes conflict needs to be initiated for the peace that is shalom proper to be formed in a dysfunctional setting. Weeds need to be plucked up for life to flourish. After all, anyone who reads this text in the larger context of James can hardly come away with the impression that James is in any way non-confrontational. The peace that is pursued here is the characteristic of God’s kingdom of harmony and wholeness, the teleology in which all things are as they are supposed to be in accordance with the will of God and thus flourish in delight of God and one another.1
What does this have to do with taming the tongue? Once the singularity of purpose in Godlikeness is established, the content of that purpose must be filled out, hence James saying that purity is “first” and only “then” does he say that the wisdom from above is peaceable (3:17). The content of that will is directed towards the peace that is shalom. And as the first commandment of loving the Lord our God with all that we are is inherently connected with loving our neighbor who is created in God’s image and likeness as ourselves, we cannot be peaceable if we attempt to follow the one commandment while scorning the other. The uncontrolled tongue brings destruction like a forest fire (3:5–6), but the one who receives wisdom from above and controls his tongue brings peace/flourishing instead. Again, as James’s own example shows, this does not mean simply speaking affirmation of everyone and everything that they do, but it does mean that one seeks what makes for peace in accordance with God’s will.
Third, the gentleness that is characteristic of wisdom from above is a necessary contrast to the contrasting realities of ch. 3. On the one hand, gentleness undermines the strife that arises from bitter envy and selfish ambition, qualities which lead to nothing but disorder and everything foul/base (3:14–16). On the other hand, gentleness curbs the inclination to the destructive tendencies of the tongue. Instead, this quality means that one looks to what is appropriate to say and do, maintaining control over the tongue with a sense of rightness formed by God’s will.
Fourth, James says the wisdom from above is εὐπειθής. This word only appears here in the NT, but in broader Greek literature it has the sense of being persuadable (or, as would be more common today, reasonable). In the context of ethical discourse in particular, this has the sense of being obedient (i.e., being persuadable as to the right course of action). This quality also contributes to the control one can have over the tongue by dedication to the will of God and commitment to do what he commands for one to do, particularly in the “royal law” summed up by the two greatest commandments (cf. 2:8).
Fifth, to complete the alliterative series of Greek terms beginning with ε, the wisdom from above is said to be full of mercy (ἔλεος) and good fruits. This is a term that appears, along with associated nouns and verbs, both in the NT and the LXX, being a translation of some key Hebrew terms especially associated with God. It describes compassion in action, forgiveness, healing, aid, and steadfast love, among other things. As the tongue can be set on fire by hell/Gehenna, which naturally implies destruction and deeds that participate in the same, leading to condemnation in judgment. But mercy triumphs over judgment, for it is the life-giving path through which God has given and will yet give life. One who operates by mercy, including in the use of the tongue, participates in the same grace in which God saves, thereby bearing the fruit of our faithful union with God.
The reference to “good fruits” should probably not be treated as a distinct virtue, as it appears to function more as a larger category that includes mercy. The adjectival modifier “good” (ἀγαθός), which appears second in the Greek, also begins a new alliterative series of Greek terms beginning with α. But more specifically for the text we are focusing on, the phrase does relate to the teaching on the tongue in terms of James’s rhetorical question in 3:12 of whether a fig tree can produce olives or a vine can produce figs. This further reinforces the imagery from 3:9–11 about the absurdity of two opposite kinds of water coming from the same spring. One who produces good fruits is thus one who can also control the tongue. But one can only do so with the wisdom from above, whence comes the life that enables one to produce fruit at all.
Sixth, the wisdom from above is unwavering (ἀδιάκριτος), both in that it operates without partiality, and in that it is given by God indiscriminately because of his generosity (cf. 1:5–8). As a virtue, this quality concerns consistency, and therefore it addresses the common inconsistency in how the tongue is used, as James writes about earlier in ch. 3. Furthermore, in the exercise of this wisdom, it is important to remember how God generously gave it, and this is done by extending generosity to others, including in how we use the tongue.
Seventh, the wisdom from above is without hypocrisy (ἀνυπόκριτος). That is to say that it is completely genuine, sincere, and has integrity. No pretense or dissimulation is involved, unlike when an actor exchanges one mask for another in the theater (where the term we get “hypocrite” comes from). This, too, is a virtue that addresses the inconsistency James speaks to of using the tongue one way in speaking to God and in an inconsistent way in speaking to those made in God’s image and likeness.
Finally, James tells us, “the fruit that is righteousness is sown in peace by the ones who make peace” (3:18). The term for “righteousness” can also be translated “justice,” and both notions fundamentally concern “rightness,” as in doing what is right, setting things aright, living uprightly, and so on. Given what we have said about “peace,” righteousness is naturally a condition that also accompanies it, as in Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. In light of all that we have said of the virtues in this text, the description also serves as an overarching category for all of them as being what characterizes what is right for a person, being made in the image and likeness of God, to be. Such fruit is sown in peace by those who make peace, which fits with what we have said about peace in this text, particularly since it is what immediately follows purity in James’s list. When one pursues peace, that is, by making peace where one can, that one also is one acting in control of the tongue, for they know that “human anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (1:20).
While Cornelius Plantinga’s Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) is a work on hamartiology (theology of sin), it also provides a fantastic exposition on the quality of shalom as what sin violates. See his work for more on the subject.