An Exegetical Analysis of Physis and the Taming of Creation in James 3:7
This exegetical study of “An Exegetical Analysis of Physis and the Taming of Creation in James 3:7″ is based on an online b-greek discussion concerning James 3:7. The discussion initially sought clarification on the semantic range of the term φύσις within this particular verse, particularly its two occurrences. The initial inquiry suggests that while the general sense of the verse appears straightforward, the precise meaning of φύσις in both “πᾶσα φύσις” (all nature) and “τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ” (by human nature) warrants closer examination.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise nuance of φύσις in its dual appearance in James 3:7. The first instance, “πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων,” could be understood as “every kind/species of animals” or “the entire realm of animal creation.” The second instance, “τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ,” similarly presents a semantic choice: does it refer to “humanity/mankind” as a collective entity, or more abstractly, to the “inherent nature of humanity” that enables such dominion? Understanding the interplay between these two uses is crucial for an accurate translation and theological interpretation of James’s argument regarding the power of the tongue.
πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ: (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text of James 3:7 is identical to Nestle 1904, differing only in the final punctuation (a period instead of a colon), which is an editorial convention and not a textual variant.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
Textual Criticism (NA28): A review of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) critical apparatus for James 3:7 reveals no significant textual variants affecting the meaning or wording of the verse. The text is remarkably stable across major manuscript traditions, indicating a high degree of certainty regarding its original form.
Lexical Notes: The term φύσις (physis) is central to the interpretative challenge of James 3:7. Its polysemous nature in Koine Greek necessitates careful consideration of its contextual usage here.
- BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, 3rd ed., 2000): This lexicon offers several relevant meanings for φύσις:
- 1. nature, natural constitution, basic character. In this sense, it can refer to the inherent characteristics of an animal species or of humankind. James 3:7 is cited under this category, specifically referring to ‘species’ or ‘kind’ for the first occurrence (πᾶσα φύσις θηρίων), and ‘humanity’ or ‘mankind’ for the second (τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ), implying the collective human race capable of taming.
- 2. that which one is by birth or origin. While more focused on lineage, this sense supports the idea of inherent attributes.
The lexicon’s entries suggest that in James 3:7, φύσις denotes ‘kind’ or ‘species’ when referring to animals, and ‘mankind’ or ‘the human race’ when referring to the subject doing the taming.
- KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IX): The entry for φύσις (physis) traces its usage from classical Greek through the Septuagint and into the New Testament. In the NT, φύσις often refers to:
- The essence or constitution of a thing (e.g., Gal 2:15, “by nature Jews”).
- The natural order or course of things (e.g., Rom 1:26, “contrary to nature”).
- Species or kind, particularly in classifications of living beings. James 3:7 is discussed in this context, where the first φύσις denotes ‘every species’ or ‘every kind’ of living creature (land animals, birds, reptiles, sea creatures). The second φύσις (τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ) is interpreted as “by humanity” or “by the human race,” emphasizing humanity’s created dominion over the animal kingdom. Kittel highlights that James is appealing to a common understanding of human capacity to control animals, contrasting it with the difficulty of controlling the tongue.
Both lexicons concur that the two instances of φύσις in James 3:7, while related to ‘nature,’ carry distinct applications within the context: the first as ‘species’ or ‘kind’ of animal, and the second as ‘mankind’ or ‘humanity’ as the agent.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The grammatical structure of James 3:7 is straightforward, featuring a compound verb (δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται – “is being tamed and has been tamed”) in the passive voice, indicating a continuous and perfected action. The subject is “πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων” (every kind of wild animal, bird, reptile, and sea creature). The agent of this action is “τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ,” which is a dative of agent, typically translated “by…”
The rhetorical force of the verse lies in its contrast, setting up the subsequent discussion about the untamable tongue. James draws on a widely recognized observation of human dominion over the animal kingdom, presenting it as an established fact (perfect tense δεδάμασται). The challenge for translation lies in conveying the precise scope of each φύσις while maintaining this rhetorical contrast.
- The first φύσις (πᾶσα φύσις θηρίων…) refers to the *categories* or *species* of animals. The list “θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων” is comprehensive, covering all known classes of living creatures, emphasizing the totality of animal life. Translating it as “every kind of animal” effectively captures this sense.
- The second φύσις (τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ) is modified by the adjective ἀνθρωπίνῃ (human). This phrase could be interpreted as:
- “by human nature”: referring to an inherent quality or capacity of humanity.
- “by humanity/mankind”: referring to the human race as the collective agent.
Given the context of dominion and the practical act of taming, the second interpretation is generally preferred by lexicons and commentaries, seeing “human nature” here as metonymy for “humanity” or “people.” It refers to humankind as a collective entity that exercises this control, rather than an abstract quality.
The use of the dative without a preposition (e.g., ὑπὸ) for the agent is common in Koine Greek, especially with passive verbs, and unambiguously marks “humanity” as the taming force. The conjunctions τε…καὶ…τε…καὶ serve to link the exhaustive list of animal categories.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegetical analysis confirms that while the Greek term φύσις maintains its core semantic range of ‘nature’ or ‘kind,’ its specific application in James 3:7 is nuanced in each occurrence. The first instance refers to ‘every kind/species of animal,’ encompassing the entire animal kingdom. The second instance, modified by ‘human,’ signifies ‘humanity’ or ‘the human race’ as the agent of taming. James uses this established fact of human dominion over animals to underscore the greater challenge of controlling the tongue.
Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered, each emphasizing a slightly different aspect while remaining faithful to the Greek text:
- For every kind of wild animal, bird, reptile, and sea creature is tamed and has been tamed by humankind.
This translation emphasizes the classification of animals and the collective agency of humanity, offering a clear and direct rendering. - Indeed, every species of beast, bird, creeping thing, and creature of the sea is being subdued and has been subdued by human beings.
This option uses slightly more formal English for the animal categories and clarifies “human beings” as the collective agent, highlighting both the ongoing and completed aspects of the taming process. - For every form of life among beasts, birds, serpents, and those in the sea is tamed and has been tamed by the nature of humanity.
This translation maintains a more literal rendering of “φύσις” in both instances, allowing “the nature of humanity” to imply humanity’s inherent capacity and collective existence, which is responsible for this dominion.
It isn’t necessary, or particularly desirable, to understand φύσις FUSIS to have the same significance in each usage. We don’t do this in English, and I rather suspect that almost no language always uses a word in the same sense. In the first instance I would suggest that it be understood in the sense of “species” — “for every species of animal” (list). In the second case, probably “disposition” would be a better choice.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I can understand the first instance as it is ‘the nature (of the creatures) be tamed’. I get stumbled on the second instance ‘?? tamed by the nature belonging to man’.
Oun Kwon.
You are still attempting to understand φύσις FUSIS in the same sense in each instance.
“When you see a fork in the road, take it.” What does fork mean here (obviously some context would be needed). “Bear left at the fork when you see a truck bearing hay but watch out for the bear.” (homophones)
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Not quite. Not about the meaning of FUSIS, but the dative phrase of TH FUSEI THi ANQRWPINHi. As most renders as ‘by man’, is it instrumental? Then, how does ‘FUSIS’ come into play?
Oun Kwon.
Thank you Iver, I hear you well. Now the sentence comes clear to me. BDAG had more details on the lexicographic level. Taking both as ‘species’ makes the English rendering understandable. I found several which rendered it as ‘nature’ – DRB and those based on Peshitta (Rotherham, Etheridge, Murdock).
Since The human being as a species has not, in fact, ‘tamed every species’ (or ‘every kind’ – KJV) of animal kingdom, should I take the expression ‘every’ as rhetorical hyperbole?
David Stein’s Jewish New Testament seems to succeed to give a best English-like one to bring what the author is trying to tell about the problem of taming the tongue.
“For people have tamed and continue to tame all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures;”
Oun Kwon.
This verse is part of a series of echoes and allusions to the creation and re-creation (flood) narratives in Genesis. The verse in question here parallels Genesis 1:26 and 9:2-3, in which God gave the animals into the hands of humanity. The apparent redundancy of the present and perfect tenses of DAMAZW “tame” reflects those two events in Genesis. In this light, I would not understand the taming of animals in James 3 as hyperbole.
Rather than indicating humanity’s general dominion over the animal kingdom in the past and present, the present and perfect tenses of DAMAZW denotes the present process of taming animals by humans and the fact that this order was already established at creation. Since James has already alluded repeatedly to the account of Noah in this passage, the submission of animals in the renewed world after the flood is likely in view as well as their submission in the original creation of Gen. 1-2. Humanity occupies the highest place in the creation order recorded in Genesis. Yet, James suggests that the wild nature of the tongue (and the human heart) is disparate from the nature of all other “species” of God’s creation. No one among humanity is able to tame it. Thus, while I believe it is a fair translation of FUSIS to use “species” for both the animals and the human species that tames them in 3:7, what James is really talking about within the larger context here is the “nature” of humanity and our inability to tame the tongue.
And–in order to not stray too far from the purposes of the B-Greek list here–let me point out that the key word in 3:8 is ANQRWPWN. As Steve Runge was pointing out about the bracketed text in the current discussion of Rev 21:3, here in Jas. 3:8 it is ANQRWPWN that is a right dislocation. This, however, is not a right dislocation of a whole noun phrase, but of the genitive modifier ANQRWPWN, modifying OUDEIS, which lies on the other side of the verb. The addition of ANQRWPWN here at the end of the clause should not be understood simply as an idiomatic way of saying “no one”. It is truly adding new salient information. It is not that no one is able to tame the tongue, but no one of humanity. It should remind us of Jesus’ saying that PARA ANTHRWPOIS TOUTO ADUNATON ESTIN, PARA DE THEW PANTA DUNATA (Mt. 19:26). And it is only because it is new and salient that James can go on to decry the pattern of duplicitous speech in the community. Otherwise, how could James expect the impossible of his audience?
I have written a thesis on the allusions to Noah in James 3:1-12, if anyone would like to receive a PDF of that.
Benjamin Pehrson
Trainer in Advanced Biblical Studies
Ukarumpa Training Center
Papua New Guinea
It isn’t necessary, or particularly desirable, to understand φύσις FUSIS to have the same significance in each usage. We don’t do this in English, and I rather suspect that almost no language always uses a word in the same sense. In the first instance I would suggest that it be understood in the sense of “species” — “for every species of animal” (list). In the second case, probably “disposition” would be a better choice.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I can understand the first instance as it is ‘the nature (of the creatures) be tamed’. I get stumbled on the second instance ‘?? tamed by the nature belonging to man’.
Oun Kwon.
You are still attempting to understand φύσις FUSIS in the same sense in each instance.
“When you see a fork in the road, take it.” What does fork mean here (obviously some context would be needed). “Bear left at the fork when you see a truck bearing hay but watch out for the bear.” (homophones)
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Not quite. Not about the meaning of FUSIS, but the dative phrase of TH FUSEI THi ANQRWPINHi. As most renders as ‘by man’, is it instrumental? Then, how does ‘FUSIS’ come into play?
Oun Kwon.
Thank you Iver, I hear you well. Now the sentence comes clear to me. BDAG had more details on the lexicographic level. Taking both as ‘species’ makes the English rendering understandable. I found several which rendered it as ‘nature’ – DRB and those based on Peshitta (Rotherham, Etheridge, Murdock).
Since The human being as a species has not, in fact, ‘tamed every species’ (or ‘every kind’ – KJV) of animal kingdom, should I take the expression ‘every’ as rhetorical hyperbole?
David Stein’s Jewish New Testament seems to succeed to give a best English-like one to bring what the author is trying to tell about the problem of taming the tongue.
“For people have tamed and continue to tame all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures;”
Oun Kwon.
This verse is part of a series of echoes and allusions to the creation and re-creation (flood) narratives in Genesis. The verse in question here parallels Genesis 1:26 and 9:2-3, in which God gave the animals into the hands of humanity. The apparent redundancy of the present and perfect tenses of DAMAZW “tame” reflects those two events in Genesis. In this light, I would not understand the taming of animals in James 3 as hyperbole.
Rather than indicating humanity’s general dominion over the animal kingdom in the past and present, the present and perfect tenses of DAMAZW denotes the present process of taming animals by humans and the fact that this order was already established at creation. Since James has already alluded repeatedly to the account of Noah in this passage, the submission of animals in the renewed world after the flood is likely in view as well as their submission in the original creation of Gen. 1-2. Humanity occupies the highest place in the creation order recorded in Genesis. Yet, James suggests that the wild nature of the tongue (and the human heart) is disparate from the nature of all other “species” of God’s creation. No one among humanity is able to tame it. Thus, while I believe it is a fair translation of FUSIS to use “species” for both the animals and the human species that tames them in 3:7, what James is really talking about within the larger context here is the “nature” of humanity and our inability to tame the tongue.
And–in order to not stray too far from the purposes of the B-Greek list here–let me point out that the key word in 3:8 is ANQRWPWN. As Steve Runge was pointing out about the bracketed text in the current discussion of Rev 21:3, here in Jas. 3:8 it is ANQRWPWN that is a right dislocation. This, however, is not a right dislocation of a whole noun phrase, but of the genitive modifier ANQRWPWN, modifying OUDEIS, which lies on the other side of the verb. The addition of ANQRWPWN here at the end of the clause should not be understood simply as an idiomatic way of saying “no one”. It is truly adding new salient information. It is not that no one is able to tame the tongue, but no one of humanity. It should remind us of Jesus’ saying that PARA ANTHRWPOIS TOUTO ADUNATON ESTIN, PARA DE THEW PANTA DUNATA (Mt. 19:26). And it is only because it is new and salient that James can go on to decry the pattern of duplicitous speech in the community. Otherwise, how could James expect the impossible of his audience?
I have written a thesis on the allusions to Noah in James 3:1-12, if anyone would like to receive a PDF of that.
Benjamin Pehrson
Trainer in Advanced Biblical Studies
Ukarumpa Training Center
Papua New Guinea