What I noticed this time through is how easily I'm able to ignore the literal words of James and understand his meaning through his figurative use of the word tongue. Here's some of what he says:
3:5 "So too the tongue is a small part of the body,yet it has great pretensions."
3:6 "And the tongue is a fire! ...The tongue represents the world of wrongdoing among the parts of our bodies. It pollutes the entire body and sets fire to the course of human existence..."
3:8 "But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison."
I don't know about you, but my tongue isn't any of those things. The American Heritage Dictionary says this:
The fleshy, movable, muscular organ, attached in most vertebrates to the floor of the mouth, that is the principal organ of taste, an aid in chewing and swallowing, and, in humans, an important organ of speech.
And yet, at the same time I understand what my tongue is, I also understand perfectly what James is saying. And I'm confident you do too. The tongue is an organ of speech, working with our lungs, vocal chords, mouth, teeth, and nose, under control of our mind (or brain if you prefer) to produce speech. James is talking about the content of that speech, the words we use, and the person we show ourselves to be when we speak.
The reason I bring this up, is to remind you of something we said in class. When we interpret the meaning of a Bible passage, one of the principles to use is to take the passage literally. And when there is figurative language in a passage, then taking the passage literally means that we recognize the language being used is figurative, and take that into account when determining the meaning. Even if that last sentence sounds confusing, this passage in James makes the point nicely. It also shows that, generally speaking, we are able to treat figurative speech as figurative, even if we don't immediately recognize it as such. We go ahead make the translation of tongue = speech. By using figurative speech, James makes what he has to say memorable. The idea that our tongue is a fire, or that it pollutes the entire body, is striking in its picture of what our speech can do. The idea of a bit in our mouths, like a horse, even more so.
(I did a quick search of how commentators talk about James 3. It's interesting that many of them make only one reference or no reference to our speech, and then just casually talk about the tongue in the rest of their commentary. That's so interesting to me that I'm going to post a comment to this post with some quotes of what others say about this passage. But I want to continue below, with a finishing thought on language.)
When does that figurative language flip or slip into literal teaching? James makes a bold statement in verse two, that if we never stumbled (sinned) in our speech, we would be perfect. How is that true? At first I thought that it was true because we would never have perfect speech, unless we were perfect. In other words, our speech reflects who we are. I still think that is true. And that's taking what James says in a figurative kind of way. Thinking about it some more, I realized that James also had in mind the literal sense of what he said. If we exercise control over what we say, we will affect and change who we are.
The kind of control needed over what we say is not simply repression. It does no good to have an angry thought and express it. Likewise, it does no good to have that same angry thought and merely repress it, although James would say that's a good start, because we stop any further damage from occurring. It's a start if we do as James said, and look on the other person as "someone made in God's image." But we need to examine where the anger came from, and do so in light of the principles we have from God. Some ideas here would include reflection and meditation: on the gift of life Jesus has given us, on the exemplary life He led, on His command to love one another, and other instructions God has given us in the Scriptures. We can ask for the Spirit's help in changing what we say. By taking control of our speech, we pay attention to it, and look for the causes reflected in that speech. Done right, our exercising control over our speech, will allow God to reshape who we are. Done wrong, we can end up a neurotic bundle of repressed speech, waiting to explode on some unsuspecting someone, or being eaten away from the inside. Done not all, and we poison ourselves and the world around us.
Jesus put it this way: "There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him."
1 comment:
Various commentaries on James 3 and their use of tongue
- William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series
Barclay slips in and out of the distinction between speech and tongue, although most of his comments talk about the tongue in the same way James does. Contrast "James is not pleading for a cowardly silence but for a wise use of speech." with "The tongue can damage at a distance."
- A.T. Robertson, Studies in the Epistle of James
Robertson uses tongue through most of his writing on chapter three, after some opening comments about speech. I did, however, come across this interruption of his use of tongue -- "Strictly speaking, of course, the tongue's merely the organ of speech, and speech is under the control of mind. By a bold figure James almost personifies the tongue as a separate personality." -- Hey, that's what I said, except for the personification label.
- Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary
This commentary is very careful to distinguish between the imagery and personification of the tongue (I'll now borrow that phrase from Robertson), and the meaning, which is, our speech. It begins with this phrase, "James now returns to his warnings against inflammatory speech...". Almost every comment that uses the word tongue instead of speech or words, uses simile and metaphor in the comment -- "the tongue is like." This is likely because the nature of this commentary is to provide background information including OT references, and similarities and differences with the cultures of the time.
- Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary
The section commenting on chapter 3 is titled "Speak with Care." The paragraph that follows makes it clear that James is writing about speech. The rest of the comments, though, are pretty well captured by the imagery of James, and stick to his use of tongue. "Spiritual maturity requires a tamed tongue." "The tongue is petite but powerful!"
- Douglas Moo, The Epistle of James (Tyndale Commentary)
Moo actually delves into the idea of imagery in his commentary, so he does handle the concept of speech. However, he begins his discussion with this: "...great effect in portraying the power and danger of the tongue."
And the point?
In the same way that we have no problem in handling James' use of tongue in a figurative way, the commentators don't try to distinguish the meaning of James' writing from the figurative language. They are as comfortable with the use of tongue as James is, and as we are. In my quick search through their comments, only Robertson took the time to actually say -- look, we all know that it's the mind, not the tongue, that's in control -- because the imagery is so powerful, so recognizable, and so easily understood.
Post a Comment