BIG IDEA:
THE TAMING OF THE TONGUE IS NO SMALL MATTER — BUT IT WILL PREVENT BIG-TIME TROUBLE
INTRODUCTION:
David Nystrom: James’s thought in the present section has three layers.
- The first (3:1–2) is a proverb concerning teachers, which serves to introduce the heart of the section.
- The second layer (3:3–5) builds on this proverb by discussing the practical difficulty of controlling speech by focusing on the tongue, as if it had a mind of its own.
- The final layer (3:6–12) also furthers the thought in 3:1–2 by outlining the power of the tongue and its propensity for impropriety.
In all of these our author draws on a wealth of images, from animal husbandry to navigation to fire to horticulture, in order to illustrate the power of the tongue for evil or for good. . .
The central thrust of this passage has to do with power, and specifically with its wrong application. Persons in position of leadership fall prey to its allure, even leadership within the church. Each of us has the power to inflict pain on others through our speech. Finally, the world in which we live is awash in the abuse of power, which makes it all the more difficult and necessary to remain unattracted to the abuse of power.
The text offers us three significant issues for application. Towering over the others is the question of teachers and the power that is theirs by virtue of position. Because James offers us warnings concerning teachers and leadership, the discussion will focus on some of the perils teachers face. The second major issue has to do with the power of the tongue to inflict damage and pain. But the idea that allows these other two to achieve clarity is expressed in James’s phrase “a world of evil.” He wishes to remind his readers that Satan is capable of great evil, and he employs this phrase to create a terrible vision of warning. Without diligence, the church can become too much like this world of evil, even though those within the church are blissfully ignorant of the slide toward depravity. Certainly this was the case in the congregation to which James has directed his letter.
David Platt: Faith Speaks
Main Idea: We need to recognize that the tongue is untamable, capable of great damage, and an indicator of our hearts, but God has a gracious provision in the gospel for our sinful words.
- Recognize the great responsibility of teaching God’s Word (3:1).
- Recognize the great potential of sinning in what we say (3:2).
- Recognize the great power of the tongue (3:3-6).
- Recognize our inability to tame the tongue (3:7-10).
- Recognize that our words are an indication of our hearts (3:11-12).
Craig Blomberg: A major break occurs at the end of Jas 2. The apostle turns from unpacking the theme of riches and poverty to his elaboration of the theme of wisdom and obedience, particularly in the area of speech. This section will span 3:1 – 4:12. As a result, there are not many direct links between 3:1–12 and the immediately preceding passage, 2:14–26.
The Power of the Tongue (3:1–12)
The Problem of Too Many Teachers (3:1–2a) — Believers must not aspire to becoming teachers too hastily
- This is because teachers (who depend so heavily on their tongues) will be judged more strictly when they sin (because of their more widespread influence) ( 1).
- And teachers can sin just as often as do other people ( 2a).
The Positive Potential of Speech (3:2b–5a) — The tongue is a powerful influence for good, out of proportion to its size
- Right speech is the preeminent sign of Christian maturity ( 2b).
- The tongue is to the individual what a bridle is to a horse ( 3).
- The tongue is to the individual what a rudder is to a ship ( 4).
- In each case, a little object controls a big one, accomplishing great things ( 5a).
The Negative Potential of Speech (3:5b–8) — The tongue is a powerful influence for bad, out of proportion to its size
- The tongue is like a small spark setting a large forest on fire ( 5b–6).
- The tongue is like an untamable creature ( 7–8).
The Possibility of Inconsistency (3:9–12) — These simultaneous possibilities for good and evil create a unique inconsistency, contrary to God’s creation
- The tongue is like a small spark setting a large forest on fire (vv. 5b–6)
- The tongue is like an untamable creature (vv. 7–8).
I. (:1-2) THE TAMING OF THE TONGUE IS A MEASURE OF SPIRITUAL MATURITY
A. The Responsibility of Teaching Carries with it Greater Accountability
- Don’t Rush into the Spiritual Spotlight
“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren“
John Painter: The teacher’s role and authority in the community was recognized by Jesus, who directed a scathing criticism at (some) scribes and Pharisees as teachers who failed to live up to their responsibility (Matt. 23:1–36). “The scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Therefore, do and keep whatever they teach you, but do not do what they do” (Matt. 23:2–3). The word order in the Greek text places their position as teachers first for emphasis: “Upon the seat of Moses they sit.” That privileged place lays great responsibility on them. Jesus then pronounces a sevenfold woe on the scribes and Pharisees, labeling them as hypocrites (Matt. 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29) and drawing attention to the disparity between what they say (teach) and what they do. This is comparable to James’s critique of those who speak but do not act (James 2:16–17). But teachers can also err in what they teach, leading others astray. This was not the focus of Jesus, but it seems to have been included by James.
David Nystrom: By nature of their position teachers have an inordinately great opportunity to influence others within the congregation. It seems unavoidable that James is blaming certain teachers in the community for teaching false practice, such as favoritism and an erroneously antinomian attitude. Having dealt with each error, he now focuses on the source of those errors, the false teachers themselves.
Ralph Martin: Persons were putting themselves forward as teachers without having paused to reckon with the high standard of behavior required or having faced the temptation of ulterior motives (such as love of prestige or reward; Moo, 120). The church was evidently plagued by teachers who were insincere and were inflicting false doctrine upon unsuspecting listeners. . . they were failing to show the fruit of Christian character in their lives, a trait that most likely did have a theological error at its heart (ibid., 493, citing Matt 7:16 // Luke 6:44) as well as promoting party strife, as 3:13–18 will develop (ibid., 509). At issue was evidently the issue of authority, and 3:1–12 is a tacit plea for a recognition of James’ primacy as teacher par excellence.
- Consider the Greater Accountability
“knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment“
Curtis Vaughan: The office of teacher offered a respect, a prominence, and an authority which made some men hanker after it. Don’t, says James. Think not so much of its outward privileges as of its immense responsibilities under God. Be more concerned about your fitness for teaching than with the external trappings of the office.
Dan McCartney: The potential error is, however, not so much doctrinal as moral. Jesus said that teachers who “devour widows’ houses” would receive greater judgment (Mark 12:40). Similarly, teachers who slander, who make reckless accusations or verbal attacks, who grumble and quarrel (cf. 4:1; 5:9) will naturally cause greater damage to the community by virtue of their position and implicit authority than those who are not teachers. It is also consequent upon their wider influence that they will be judged more strictly: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required” (Luke 12:48b NASB). One can see a sad example in Moses, the great teacher of Israel, who received a severe judgment when he failed to do exactly as he was told, striking the rock instead of speaking to it (Num. 20:11–12). Hence, James’s command that few should be teachers stands as a warning that the vocation of a teacher is dangerous.
John MacArthur: James’s point is that no believer should begin any form of teaching God’s Word without a deep sense of the seriousness of this responsibility. To sin with the tongue when alone or with one or two other persons is bad enough; but to sin with the tongue in public, especially while acting as a speaker for God, is immeasurably worse. Speaking for God carries with it great implications, both for good and ill.
Daniel Doriani: Teachers should certainly guard their speech. They are especially vulnerable to failures of speech because their role demands that they speak so much. More words mean more errors. As we grow accustomed to public speaking, we can become careless. When asked to offer an opinion, we tend to comply, even if we have scant qualifications and little factual basis. Humor is a dangerous gift. It pleases the crowd, but can easily wound or mislead. Too many laughs come at someone else’s expense.
Public speech before a frequently captive audience “provides temptations to virtually every form of evil speech: arrogance and domination over students; anger and pettiness at contradiction or inattention; slander and meanness toward absent opponents; flattery of students for the sake of vainglory.” These problems are all the worse in the church since Christian teachers are expected to be models of virtue. So teachers are subject to judgment.
B. There are Many Pitfalls on the Road to Spiritual Maturity
- Universal Traps
“For we all“
Douglas Moo: But the rest of the passage makes no reference to teachers, and James’ warning about the tongue certainly has general application. Probably, then, James intends to include all his readers in the first person plural of verse 2. His warning to would-be teachers has suggested to his mind the problem of the tongue; and this is a problem for everyone in the church.
- Harmful Snares
“stumble“
- Diverse Obstacles
“in many ways“
We all sin repeatedly in many ways … but especially in the area of our speech.
C. Control of the Tongue is a True Indicator of Overall Self-Control
- Passing the Test of Taming the Tongue
“If anyone does not stumble in what he says“
- Grading the Results
“he is a perfect man“
not sinless, but a man of maturity
Alec Motyer: By perfect he means (as in 1:4) the completeness and maturity that will mark us when God has fully wrought in us all that he intends for us in Christ—in a word, the holiness of those who see him and are like him (1 Jn. 3:2).
- Extrapolating the Same Ability
“able to bridle the whole body as well“
Dan McCartney: One of the principal marks of maturity is self-discipline, and self-discipline with regard to one’s speech is rare. Hence, few should be teachers. Further, the “word” that teachers ought to bring is the word of truth that gives new birth and brings salvation (1:18, 21); it is the word that people are to do, not just hear (1:22). Therefore, it is all the more incumbent on teachers that their own lives exhibit the wholeness and integrity that the word they teach is expected to engender.
II. (:3-4) TWO ILLUSTRATIONS TO PROVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TAMING OF THE SMALL TONGUE AND SELF-CONTROL ON A LARGER SCALE
A. (:3) Powerful Horses Can be Controlled by a Small Bit
“Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they may obey us,
we direct their entire body as well“
B. (:4) Large Ships Can be Controlled by a Small Rudder
“Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong
winds, are still directed by a very small rudder,
wherever the inclination of the pilot desires.”
Warren Wiersbe: Both the bit and the rudder must overcome contrary forces. The bit must overcome the wild nature of the horse, and the rudder must fight the winds and currents that would drive the ship off its course. The human tongue also must overcome contrary forces. We have an old nature that wants to control us and make us sin.
Ralph Martin: Taken together, the first two instruments of bit and rudder do not correspond exactly with the tongue and its relationship to the human body. The bit and the rudder control the larger bodies, but the tongue does not control the human body. However, if we assume that the body is the church congregation then we have a point of agreement because all three instruments may be characterized under the rubric of pars pro toto, exercising influence over the larger body of which they form a significant part. With respect to the tongue, the text is not saying that the church at large is controlled by the tongue; rather it is saying that if we can control the latter then it will prove much easier to control the former (Adamson, 143); or better, if teachers who use their tongue to influence others are kept in firm check, the health and condition of the congregation will be assured thereby. All three examples are used to show that these small instruments determine the direction (or the destiny; Moo, 122) of the larger body.
Dan McCartney: [Argues against the interpretation of the church body] –
Several things in the text stand against this approach:
- What in the text would have clued the original readers to the notion that the “body” of the horse now represents the church? The evidence that James could have thought of “the body” as a metaphor for the church in the way Paul did is restricted to only one questionable datum: the expression “in your members” (4:1), which might mean “among the people in the church.”
- The examples of “ships,” as also “bits in the mouth of horses,” are in the plural. If the illustrations represented the church, one would expect the singular. The plural implies only a general resemblance, not an allegorical correspondence. It is only the remarkable power-versus-size differential between the ships and their rudders, or between horses and bits, that is given point, as also with forest fires.
- Decisive is 3:6. If the tongue represents teachers, then why suddenly are they regarded not just as potentially dangerous, but as “a fire” that inflames the course of life of this age and is inflamed by hell? And why are teachers now regarded as the representatives of the wicked world (literally “world of unrighteousness”) within the church?
- In 3:7–8 the tongue is said to be untamable and an unstable evil. If the tongue simply signifies an individual’s speech, then this is comprehensible (if hyperbolic), but it is unlikely that James, who classifies himself as a teacher (3:1), would say that teachers as a class are untamable and an unstable evil, even if he were speaking hyperbolically.
Hence, we must conclude that James is simply making comparisons to the outsized power of speech and warning of its susceptibility to wickedness and the consequent necessity of guarding it closely. Teachers must be especially careful because their speech is especially important, but such advice is applicable not just to teachers. The horses and ships are only illustrations; they are not intended to be metaphors for the church.
III. (:5-8) THE SMALL TONGUE CAN CAUSE BIG-TIME TROUBLE
A. Characterization — Small in Size but Huge in Potential
- Small in Size
“So also the tongue is a small part of the body“
- Huge in Potential
“and yet it boasts of great things“
John MacArthur: The tongue is you in a unique way. It is a tattletale that tells on the heart and discloses the real person. Not only that, but misuse of the tongue is perhaps the easiest way to sin. There are some sins that an individual may not be able to commit simply because he does not have the opportunity. But there are no limits to what one can say, no built-in restraints or boundaries. In Scripture, the tongue is variously described as wicked, deceitful, perverse, filthy, corrupt, flattering, slanderous, gossiping, blasphemous, foolish, boasting, complaining, cursing, contentious, sensual, and vile. And that list is not exhaustive. No wonder God put the tongue in a cage behind the teeth, walled in by the mouth!
B. Cause and Effect — Illustration of an Innocent Small Match and a Huge Destructive Forest Fire
“Behold, how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire“
Douglas Moo: In saying that the tongue sets on fire the whole course of one’s life, James clearly intends to reiterate the magnitude of the tongue’s destructive potential. . .
James does not elaborate the ways in which the destructive power of the tongue can make itself felt: but he undoubtedly would have thought of those sins of speech that are enumerated in Proverbs: thoughtless ‘chattering’ (10:8; cf. 12:18; 29:20); lying (cf. 12:19); arrogant boasting (18:12); gossiping (10:18). Think what enormous, sometimes irreversible, harm can be caused to people by unsubstantiated, often false, rumours. Such a rumour can be harder to stop than any forest fire (cf. v. 5). We know from bitter experience that the childhood taunt, ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’, reverses the truth of the matter. The wounds caused by sticks and stones heal; the wounds caused by words sometimes never heal.
C. Comparison — The Tongue Compared to a Defiling Fire
(chiastic structure: A B B A)
- Nature of the tongue
a. “And the tongue is a fire“
William Barclay: wide-ranging and quite uncontrollable
b. “the very world of iniquity“
- Function of the tongue
a. “the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body“
Curtis Vaughan: This means that the tongue, wrongly used, pollutes man’s whole personality, soils his whole nature, leaves a deadly stain upon him (cf. Matthew 15:11). It does this by permitting itself to be used as an organ for sin.
George Guthrie: Further, the tongue is set among the members of the body as that which defiles, or pollutes, the whole. Though a different Greek verb is used, this point brings to mind the teaching of Jesus that what comes out of a person defiles the person (Mk 7:20). James’s statement drives home one of the striking difficulties of dealing with the tongue—this world of unrighteousness, as a member of the body, is part of us, and the consequences of its presence are great! When uncontrolled, the tongue is an agent of spiritual and moral pollution that corrupts the entire body.
b. “and sets on fire the course of our life“
- Curse of the tongue
“and is set on fire by hell“
John MacArthur: That it is said to be set on fire by hell indicates that the tongue can be Satan’s tool, fulfilling hell’s purposes to pollute, corrupt, and destroy. It is unbelievably dangerous and destructive.
John Painter: Gehenna — The notion of the fires of hell may have developed from the Hebrew Gehinnom (Gk. geenna, Eng. “Gehenna”), the Valley (Ge) of Hinnom. In earlier times, this valley was the place where the devotees of Baal and Moloch sacrificed their children in fire. The valley later became the rubbish dump for Jerusalem, where corpses and garbage rotted and burned. In rabbinical and early Christian sources, Gehenna becomes the place of punishment for the wicked. In the NT, there are only twelve references to Gehenna, eleven of them in the Gospels and the other one in James 3:6. In the Gospels, all references are sayings attributed to Jesus. Six involve overlaps between Matthew and Mark and can be reduced to the single saying that it is better to lose one part of the body than to be cast whole into Gehenna (Matt. 5:29, 30; 18:9; Mark 9:43, 45, 47); Matt. 10:28 more or less corresponds to Luke 12:25 concerning whom to fear, the one with power to cast a person into Gehenna; Matt. 5:22 says that whoever calls someone a fool is bound for Gehenna; Matt. 23:15 speaks of the Pharisees making a convert twice as much a child of Gehenna as themselves; in Matt. 23:33 Jesus calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers and asks how they will escape Gehenna. All but Matt. 23:15 refer to Gehenna as the destination of the wicked. Matthew 23:15 refers to Gehenna as the source of the wicked: “a child of Gehenna.”
D. Contrast — Man’s Ability to Tame Wild Animals Contrasted with His Inability to Tame His Own Tongue
- Man’s ability to tame wild animals
“For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the
sea, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human race.”
John Painter: James, like Genesis, distinguishes humankind from the other kinds of creatures named and interprets the “dominion” of Genesis in terms of humans having power to tame and control every kind of beast and bird, reptile and sea creature.
- Man’s inability to tame his own tongue
“But no one can tame the tongue“
This ability can only come from God.
E. Conclusion — The Natural Tongue Reveals our Total Depravity
- “it is a restless evil“
- “and full of deadly poison“
IV. (9-12) USING THE TONGUE FOR BOTH BLESSING AND CURSING IS A CONTRADICTION BY DEFINITION
A. Unnatural by Definition — from Personal Experience
- Blessing the Creator While Cursing His Creation
“With it we bless our Lord and Father
and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God“
Douglas Moo: This activity of blessing, in which we praise and honour God, is cited by James as the highest, purest, most noble form of speech. The lowest, filthiest, most ignoble form of speech, on the other hand, is cursing. The word of the curse, which is the opposite of blessing (cf. Deut. 30:19), was seen to have great power in the ancient world. To curse someone is not just to swear at him or her; it is to desire that he or she be cut off from God and experience eternal punishment. Jesus prohibited his disciples from cursing others; indeed, they were to ‘bless those who curse you’ (Luke 6:28; cf. Rom. 12:14). What makes cursing particularly heinous is that the one whom we pronounce damned has been made in God ’s likeness (James’ further allusion to Gen. 1:26 [cf. v. 7] is clear). The rabbis cautioned against cursing for the same reason: one should not say ‘“Let my neighbour be put to shame” – for then you put to shame one who is in the image of God’ (Bereshith Rabba 24, on Gen. 5:1).
Thomas Lea: We show our moral inconsistency by using the same tongue both to bless God and to insult his creatures.
- Using the Same Mouth for Contradictory Actions
“from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing“
Dan McCartney: The undisciplined tongue is pernicious (full of poison) because it hides its evil under the guise of good. It can profess the gospel of Jesus in calling upon God as Lord and as Father (cf. 1 Pet. 1:17) while at the same time cursing another human being.
- Unnatural and Just Plain Wrong
“My brethren, these things ought not to be this way“
Douglas Moo: Like Jesus, James sees a person’s speech as a barometer of his or her spiritual state; it reveals what is in the heart. Jesus’ warning must be taken with utter seriousness: ‘But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned’ (Matt. 12:36–37). The person who is double and inconsistent with regard to the things of God in his or her heart (dipsychos; see 1:8 and 4:8) will be double and inconsistent in speech.
R. Kent Hughes: Few sections of Scripture are so graphically relentless in making a point. In addition, this is the most penetrating (and convicting) exposition of the tongue anywhere in literature, sacred or secular. One must also conclude that it was not just James’ local concern for his churches that occasioned the writing, but also the Holy Spirit’s desire that the church at large learn to control the tongue.
B. Unnatural by Illustration — from the World of Nature
- Fountain
“Does a fountain send out from the same opening
both fresh and bitter water?”
Alec Motyer: [The tongue’s] pollution, not its sweetness, prevails (11). The question James asks expects the answer ‘no’, and for a very obvious reason. Suppose two separate sources of water flowed together into the same outlet, one sweet water, the other brackish and unpalatable, we would never know of the double source because the bitter flavour would prevail. That is what would prove to be the stronger element; that is what would leave its mark. So the tongue needs guarding lest it leave a bitter taste behind it wherever it makes itself felt.
Ralph Martin: The point he makes is that one spring does not alternate between producing good and bad water. It is either one or the other, and the “tragedy of the tongue” (Moo, 129) lies, in fact, in this vacillation and consequent contamination. The spring was made to produce one type of water; likewise the tongue was created to bring forth only one type of speech—namely, a “good” speech (of blessing). Unfortunately, while the spring “stays” within its assigned boundaries (as the wild animal submits to human authority), the tongue continues to go against its nature and, ultimately, against its creator. The power (and poison) of the tongue (3:8) can be seen from the fact that while fresh water added to salt water does not produce fresh water, salt water added to fresh causes the water to be salty. The poison of the tongue is all-pervasive.
- Fig Tree
“Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives“
Dan McCartney: Figs, olives, and grapes were and are the primary staples of Mediterranean agricultural life, and the recognition that each kind of plant produces its own distinctive fruit was long proverbial in both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. The rhetorical question echoes the saying of Jesus that one cannot obtain good fruit from a rotten tree (Matt. 7:16–18; 12:33).
- Vine
“or a vine produce figs?”
- Salt Water
“Neither can salt water produce fresh“
C. Leslie Mitton: A fresh water lake can be relied on to contain fresh water, and a salt lake salt water (like the Dead Sea). But with the human tongue, fickle and unreliable, it is now one thing, now another.