Text -- James 2:1-11 (NET)

Prejudice and the Law of Love

2:1 My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. 2:2 For if someone comes into your assembly wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a poor person enters in filthy clothes, 2:3 do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and to the poor person, “You stand over there,” or “Sit on the floor”? 2:4 If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives? 2:5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Did not God choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor! Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging you into the courts? 2:7 Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to? 2:8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 2:9 But if you show prejudice, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as violators. 2:10 For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 2:11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a violator of the law.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Jam 2:1

My brethren ( adelphoi mou ).

Transition to a new topic as in Jam 1:19; Jam 2:5, Jam 2:14; Jam 3:1; Jam 5:7.

Robertson: Jam 2:1

Hold not ( mē echete ).

Present active imperative of echō with negative mē , exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned.

Robertson: Jam 2:1

The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ ( tēn pistin tou kuriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou ).

Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,"like echete pistin theou (Mar 11:22), "have faith in God."See the same objective genitive with pistis in Act 3:6; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Rev 14:12. Note also the same combination as in Jam 1:1 "our Lord Jesus Christ"(there on a par with God).

Robertson: Jam 2:1

The Lord of Glory ( tēs doxēs ).

Simply "the Glory."No word for "Lord"(kuriou ) in the Greek text. Tēs doxēs clearly in apposition with tou kuriou Iēsou Christou . James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ"the Shekinah Glory of God. See Heb 9:5 for "the cherubim of Glory."Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are Rom 9:4; 2Co 4:6; Eph 1:17; Heb 1:3. Cf. 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:5-11.

Robertson: Jam 2:1

With respect of persons ( en prosōpolēmpsiais ).

A Christian word, like prosōpolēmptēs (Act 10:34) and prosōpolēmpteite (Jam 2:9), not in lxx or any previous Greek, but made from prosōpon lambanein (Luk 20:21; Gal 2:6), which is a Hebrew idiom for panim nasa , "to lift up the face on a person,"to be favorable and so partial to him. See prosōpolēmpsia in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in Rom 2:11; Col 3:25; Eph 6:9 (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.

Robertson: Jam 2:2

For ( gar ).

An illustration of the prohibition.

Robertson: Jam 2:2

If there come in ( ean eiselthēi ).

Condition of third class (supposable case) with ean and second (ingressive) aorist active subjunctive of eiserchomai .

Robertson: Jam 2:2

Into your synagogue ( eis sunagōgēn humōn ).

The common word for the gathering of Jews for worship (Luk 12:11) and particularly for the building where they met (Luk 4:15, Luk 4:20, Luk 4:28, etc.). Here the first is the probable meaning as it clearly is in Heb 10:25 (tēn episunagōgēn heautōn ), where the longer compound occurs. It may seem a bit odd for a Christian church (ekklēsia ) to be termed sunagōgē , but James is writing to Jewish Christians and this is another incidental argument for the early date. Epiphanius ( Haer. XXX. 18) states that the Ebionites call their church sunagōgē , not ekklēsia . In the fourth century an inscription has sunagōgē for the meeting-house of certain Christians.

Robertson: Jam 2:2

A man with a gold ring ( anēr chrusodaktulios ).

"A gold-fingered man,""wearing a gold ring."The word occurs nowhere else, but Lucian has chrusocheir (gold-handed) and Epictetus has chrusous daktulious (golden seal-rings). "Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, sent as a great trophy to Carthage, three bushels of gold-rings from the fingers of Roman knights slain in battle"(Vincent).

Robertson: Jam 2:2

In fine clothing ( en esthēti lamprāi ).

"In bright (brilliant) clothing"as in Mat 11:8; Luk 23:11; Act 10:30. In contrast with "vile clothing"(en ruparāi esthēti ), "new glossy clothes and old shabby clothes"(Hort). Ruparos (late word from rupos , filth, 1Pe 3:21) means filthy, dirty. In N.T. only here and Rev 22:11 (filthy).

Robertson: Jam 2:2

Poor man ( ptōchos ).

Beggarly mendicant (Mat 19:21), the opposite of plousios (rich).

Robertson: Jam 2:3

And ye have regard to ( epiblepsēte de epi ).

First aorist active subjunctive (still with ean of Jam 2:2) of epiblepō , followed by repeated preposition epi , to gaze upon, old compound, in N.T. only here and Luk 1:48; Luk 9:38.

Robertson: Jam 2:3

Weareth ( phorounta ).

"Wearing,"present active participle of the old frequentative verb phoreō (from pherō ), to bear constantly, to wear (Mat 11:8). Note repeated article tēn (the) with esthēta pointing to Jam 2:2.

Robertson: Jam 2:3

And say ( kai eipēte ).

Continuing the third-class condition with ean and second aorist active subjunctive of eipon .

Robertson: Jam 2:3

Sit thou here in a good place ( su kathou hōde kalōs ).

Emphatic position of su , "Do thou sit here in a good place."Present middle imperative of kathēmai to sit for the literary kathēso . See Mat 23:6 for the first seats in the synagogue (places of honour).

Robertson: Jam 2:3

And ye say to the poor man ( kai tōi ptōchōi eipēte ).

Third class condition with ean continued as before (eipēte ). Note article tōi pointing to Jam 2:2.

Robertson: Jam 2:3

Stand thou there ( su stēthi ekei ).

Second aorist (intransitive) active imperative of histēmi , to place. Ingressive aorist, Take a stand. Su emphatic again. The MSS. vary in the position of ekei (there).

Robertson: Jam 2:3

Or sit under my footstool ( ē kathou hupo to hupopodion mou ).

For this use of hupo "down against"or "down beside"see Exo 19:17 hupo to oros ("at the foot of the mountain") and hupo se ("at thy feet") (Deu 33:3). Conquerors often placed their feet on the necks of the victims (Luk 20:43).

Robertson: Jam 2:4

Are ye not divided in your own mind? ( ou diekrithēte en heautois̱ ).

First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of diakrinō , to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see 1Co 7:28. "Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?"Cf. Jam 1:6; Mat 21:21.

Robertson: Jam 2:4

Judges with evil thoughts ( kritai dialogismōn ponērōn ).

Descriptive genitive as in Jam 1:25. Dialogismos is an old word for reasoning (Rom 1:21). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see Mat 15:19 (ponēroi ) and Mar 7:21 (kakoi ) for evil reasonings, and 1Ti 2:8 without an adjective. See Jam 1:8; Jam 4:8 for dipsuchos . They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.

Robertson: Jam 2:5

Did not God choose? ( ouch ho theos exelexato̱ ).

Affirmative answer expected. First aorist middle (indirect, God chose for himself) indicative of eklegō , the very form used by Paul three times of God’ s choice in 1Co 1:27.

Robertson: Jam 2:5

As to the world ( tōi kosmōi ).

The ethical dative of interest, as the world looks at it as in Act 7:20; 1Co 1:18; 2Co 10:4; Jam 4:4. By the use of the article (the poor) James does not affirm that God chose all the poor, but only that he did choose poor people (Mat 10:23-26; 1Co 1:26-28).

Robertson: Jam 2:5

Rich in faith ( plousious en pistei ).

Rich because of their faith. As he has shown in Jam 1:9.

Robertson: Jam 2:5

Which he promised ( hēs epeggeilato ).

Genitive of the accusative relative hēn attracted to the case of the antecedent basileias (the Messianic kingdom), the same verb and idea already in Jam 1:12 (epēggeilato ). Cf. the beatitude of Jesus in Mat 5:3 for the poor in spirit.

Robertson: Jam 2:6

But ye have dishonoured the poor man ( humeis de ētimasate ton ptōchon ).

First aorist active indicative of atimazō , old verb from atimos , dishonoured (Mat 13:57). In the act of partiality pictured in Jam 2:3.

Robertson: Jam 2:6

Oppress you ( katadunasteuousin humōn ).

Not very common compound (katadunasteuō , present active indicative, from kata and dunastēs , potentate, Luk 1:52), used of the devil in Act 10:38 (only other N.T. example). Examples in papyri of harsh treatment by men in authority. Already poor Christians are feeling pressure from rich Jews as overlords.

Robertson: Jam 2:6

Drag you ( helkousin humas ).

Old and vigorous word for violent treatment, as of Paul in Act 16:19; Act 21:30. Cf. such violence in Luk 12:58; Act 8:3.

Robertson: Jam 2:6

Before the judgment-seats ( eis kritēria ).

"To courts of justice"as in 1Co 6:2, 1Co 6:4 (only other N.T. examples). Common in the papyri in this sense. From krinō to judge, kritēs (judge), place where judgment is given.

Robertson: Jam 2:7

Blaspheme ( blasphēmousin ).

Present active indicative of common verb blasphēmeō (from blasphēmos , speaking evil, blax or blaptō and phēmē ), as in Luk 22:65.

Robertson: Jam 2:7

The honourable name ( to kalon onoma ).

"The beautiful name."

Robertson: Jam 2:7

By the which ye were called ( to epiklēthen eph' humās ).

"The one called upon you"(first aorist passive articular participle of epikaleō , to put a name upon, to give a surname to, as Act 10:18). What name is that? Almost certainly the name of Christ as we see it in Act 11:26; Act 26:28; 1Pe 4:14, 1Pe 4:16. It was blasphemy to speak against Christ as some Jews and Gentiles were doing (Act 13:45; Act 18:6; Act 26:11; 1Co 12:3; 1Ti 1:13). Cf. Act 15:17.

Robertson: Jam 2:8

Howbeit ( mentoi ).

Probably not adversative here, but simply confirmatory, "if now,""if indeed,""if really."Common in Xenophon in this sense. See the contrast (de ) in Jam 2:9.

Robertson: Jam 2:8

If ye fulfil ( ei teleite ).

Condition of first class, assumed as true with ei and present active indicative of teleō , old verb, to bring to completion, occurring in Rom 2:27 also with nomos (law). Jesus used plēroō in Mat 4:17. James has tēreō in Jam 2:10.

Robertson: Jam 2:8

The royal law ( nomon basilikon ).

Old adjective for royal, regal (from basileus king), as of an officer (Joh 4:46). But why applied to nomos ? The Romans had a phrase, lex regia , which came from the king when they had kings. The absence of the article is common with nomos (Jam 4:11). It can mean a law fit to guide a king, or such as a king would choose, or even the king of laws. Jesus had said that on the law of love hang all the law and the prophets (Mat 22:40), and he had given the Golden Rule as the substance of the Law and the prophets (Mat 7:12). This is probably the royal law which is violated by partiality (Jam 2:3). It is in accord with the Scripture quoted here (Lev 19:18) and ratified by Jesus (Luk 10:28).

Robertson: Jam 2:9

But if ye have respect of persons ( ei de prosōpolēmpteite ).

Condition of first class by contrast with that in Jam 2:8. For this verb (present active indicative), formed from prosōpon lambanō , here alone in the N.T., see in Jam 2:1. A direct reference to the partiality there pictured.

Robertson: Jam 2:9

Ye commit sin ( hamartian ergazesthe ).

"Ye work a sin."A serious charge, apparently, for what was regarded as a trifling fault. See Mat 7:23, hoi ergazomenoi tēn anomian (ye that work iniquity), an apparent reminiscence of the words of Jesus there (from Psa 6:8).

Robertson: Jam 2:9

Being convicted ( elegchomenoi ).

Present passive participle of elegchō , to convict by proof of guilt (Joh 3:20; Joh 8:9, Joh 8:46; 1Co 14:24).

Robertson: Jam 2:9

As transgressors ( hōs parabatai ).

For this word from parabainō , to step across, to transgress, see Gal 2:18; Rom 2:25, Rom 2:27. See this very sin of partiality condemned in Lev 19:15; Deu 1:17; Deu 16:19. To the law and to the testimony.

Robertson: Jam 2:10

Whosoever shall keep ( hostis tērēsēi ).

Indefinite relative clause with hostis and aorist active subjunctive of tēreō , old verb, to guard (from tēros guarding), as in Mat 27:36, without an (though often used, but only one example of modal ean =an in James, viz., Jam 4:4). This modal an (ean ) merely interprets the sentence as either more indefinite or more definite (Robertson, Grammar , p. 957f.).

Robertson: Jam 2:10

And yet stumble in one point ( ptaisēi de en heni ).

First aorist active subjunctive also of ptaiō , old verb, to trip, as in Jam 3:2; Rom 11:11. "It is incipient falling"(Hort).

Robertson: Jam 2:10

He is become ( gegonen ).

Second perfect indicative of ginomai , "he has become"by that one stumble.

Robertson: Jam 2:10

Guilty of all ( pantōn enochos ).

Genitive of the crime with enochos , old adjective from enechō (to hold on or in), held in, as in Mar 3:29. This is law. To be a lawbreaker one does not have to violate all the laws, but he must keep all the law (holon ton nomon ) to be a law-abiding citizen, even laws that one does not like. See Mat 5:18. for this same principle. There is Talmudic parallel: "If a man do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all and each."This is a pertinent principle also for those who try to save themselves. But James is urging obedience to all God’ s laws.

Robertson: Jam 2:11

He that said ( ho eipōn )

- said also (eipen kai ). The unity of the law lies in the Lawgiver who spoke both prohibitions (mē and the aorist active subjunctive in each one, moicheusēis , phoneusēis ). The order here is that of B in Exod 20 (Luk 18:20; Rom 13:9), but not in Mat 5:21, Mat 5:27 (with ou and future indicative).

Robertson: Jam 2:11

Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest ( ei de ou moicheueis , phoneueis de ).

Condition of first class with ou (not mē ) because of the contrast with de , whereas ei mē would mean "unless,"a different idea. So ou in Jam 1:23.

Robertson: Jam 2:11

A transgressor of the law ( parabatēs nomou )

as in Jam 2:9. Murder springs out of anger (Mat 5:21-26). People free from fleshly sins have often "made their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual sins"(Hort).

Vincent: Jam 2:1

Have ( ἔχετε )

Rev., hold, not in the sense of hold fast, cleave to, but of possessing, occupying, and practising, as a matter of habit. Thus we say that a man holds his property by a certain tenure. A rented estate is a holding. So of an opinion, or set of opinions, with which one is publicly identified. We say that he holds thus and so.

Vincent: Jam 2:1

With respect of persons ( ἐν προσωπολημψίαις )

From πρόσωπον , the countenance, and λαμβάνω , to receive. To receive the countenance is a Hebrew phrase. Thus Leviticus 19:15 (Sept.): Οὐ λήψῃ προσωπον πτωχοῦ : Thou shalt not respect the person ( receive the countenance ) of the poor. Compare Luk 20:21; Rom 2:11; and Jud 1:16.

Vincent: Jam 2:1

The Lord of glory

Compare 1Co 2:8; Act 7:2; Eph 1:17.

Vincent: Jam 2:2

Assembly ( συναγωγὴν )

The word synagogue is a transcript of this. From σύν , together, and ἄγω , to bring. Hence, literally, a gathering or congregation, in which sense the word is common in the Septuagint, not only of assemblies for worship, but of gatherings for other public purposes. From the meeting itself the transition is easy to the place of meeting, the synagogue; and in this sense the term is used throughout the New Testament, with the following exceptions: In Act 13:43, it is rendered congregation by the A. V., though Rev. gives synagogue; and in Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9, the unbelieving Jews, as a body, are called synagogue of Satan. As a designation of a distinctively Jewish assembly or place of worship it was more sharply emphasized by the adoption of the word ἐκκλησία , ecclesia , to denote the Christian church. In this passage alone the word is distinctly applied to a Christian assembly or place of worship. The simplest explanation appears to be that the word designates the place of meeting for the Christian body, James using the word most familiar to the Jewish Christians; an explanation which receives countenance from the fact that, as Huther observes, " the Jewish Christians regarded themselves as still an integral part of the Jewish nation, as the chosen people of God." As such a portion they had their special synagogue. From Act 6:9, we learn that there were numerous synagogues in Jerusalem, representing different bodies, such as the descendants of Jewish freedmen at Rome, and the Alexandrian or Hellenistic Jews. Among these would be the synagogue of the Christians, and such would be the case in all large cities where the dispersed Jews congregated. Alford quotes a phrase from the " Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:" the synagogue of the Gentiles. Compare Heb 10:25, " the assembling together (ἐπισυναγωγὴν ) of yourselves."

Vincent: Jam 2:2

With a gold ring ( χρυσοδακτύλιος )

Only here in New Testament. Not a man wearing a single gold ring (as A. V. and Rev.), which would not attract attention in an assembly where most persons wore a ring, but a gold-ringed man, having his hands conspicuously loaded with rings and jewels. The ring was regarded as an indispensable article of a Hebrew's attire, since it contained his signet; and the name of the ring, tabbath, was derived from a root signifying to impress a seal. It was a proverbial expression for a most valued object. See Isa 22:24; Hag 2:23. The Greeks and Romans wore them in great profusion. Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, sent as a trophy to Carthage, three bushels of gold rings from the fingers of the Roman knights slain in battle. To wear rings on the right hand was regarded as a mark of effeminacy; but they were worn profusely on the left. Martial says of one Charinus that he wore six on each finger, and never laid them aside, either at night or when bathing. The fops had rings of different sizes for summer and winter. Aristophanes distinguishes between the populace and those who wear rings, and in his comedy of " The Clouds" uses the formidable word σφραγιδονυχαργοκομῆται , lazy, long-haired fops, with rings and well-trimmed nails. Demosthenes was so conspicuous for this kind of ornament that, at a time of public disaster, it was stigmatized as unbecoming vanity. Frequent mention is made of their enormous cost. They were of gold and silver, sometimes of both; sometimes of iron inlaid with gold. The possible beauty of these latter will be appreciated by those who have seen the elegant gold and iron jewellery made at Toledo, in Spain. Sometimes they were of amber, ivory, or porcelain. The practice of wearing rings was adopted by the early Christians. Many of their rings were adorned with the symbols of the faith - the cross, the anchor, the monogram of Christ, etc. Among the rings found in the catacombs are some with a key, and some with both a key and a seal, for both locking and sealing a casket.

Vincent: Jam 2:2

Goodly apparel ( ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ )

Lit., bright or shining clothes. Rev., fine clothing.

Vincent: Jam 2:2

Vile ( ῥυπαρᾷ )

Compare Jam 1:21; and see on 1Pe 3:21.

Vincent: Jam 2:3

Ye have respect ( ἐπιβλέψητε )

Lit., ye look upon, with the idea of respectful consideration; ye regard. Compare Luk 1:48; Luk 9:38.

Vincent: Jam 2:3

In a good place ( καλῶς )

Lit., honorably; in a seat of honor.

Vincent: Jam 2:3

Under

Not literally underneath, but down on the ground beside. Compare Mat 23:6, on the fondness of the Jews for the chief places in the synagogue.

Vincent: Jam 2:4

Are ye not partial in yourselves? ( οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς )

Wrong. The constant sense of the verb in the New Testament is doubt, except Act 11:2; Jud 1:9, where it means dispute. Compare Jam 1:6. The meaning here is, therefore, that, in making a distinction between the rich and the poor, they expressed a doubt concerning the faith which they professed, and which abolished such distinctions. Hence, Rev., rightly, Are ye not divided in your own mind?

Vincent: Jam 2:4

Judges of evil thoughts ( κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν )

Better, as Rev., " judges with evil thoughts." The form of expression is the same as in Luk 18:6, κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας , the judge of injustice, i.e., the unjust judge. So Jam 1:25, a hearer of forgetfulness. The word thoughts is, rather, reasonings. See on deceiving yourselves (Jam 1:22). Compare Luk 5:21. Their evil processes of thought lead to these unjust discriminations.

Vincent: Jam 2:5

Hearken, my beloved brethren

Alford cites this phrase as one of the very few links which connect this epistle with the speech of James in Act 15:13.

Vincent: Jam 2:5

The poor of this world ( τοὺς πτωχοὺς τοῦ κόσμου )

But the correct reading is τῷ κόσμῳ , to the world; and the expression is to be explained in the same way as ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ , fair unto God, Act 7:20, and δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ , mighty through (Rev., before ) God, 2Co 10:4. So Rev., poor as to the world, in the world's esteem. Poor, see on Mat 5:3.

Vincent: Jam 2:5

Rich in faith

The Rev., properly, inserts to be, since the words are not in apposition with poor, but express the object for which God has chosen them. Faith is not the quality in which they are to be rich, but the sphere or element; rich in their position as believers. " Not the measure of faith, in virtue of which one man is richer than another, is before the writer's mind, but the substance of the faith, by virtue of which every believer is rich" (Wiesinger, cited by Alford).

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Despised ( ἠτιμάσατε )

Not strong enough. They had manifested their contempt; had done despite to them. Rev., correctly, dishonored. From the use of the aorist tense, ye dishonored, which the A. V. and Rev. render as a perfect, ye have dishonored, the reference would appear to be to a specific act like that described in Jam 2:2, Jam 2:3.

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Oppress ( καταδυναστεύουσιν )

Only here and Act 10:38. The preposition κατά , against, implies a power exercised for harm. Compare being lords over, 1Pe 5:3, and exercise dominion, Mat 20:25, both compounded with this preposition.

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Draw ( ἕλκουσιν )

Not strong enough. The word implies violence. Hence, better, as Rev., drag. Compare Livy's phrase, " a lictoribus trahi, to be dragged by the lictors to judgment;" Act 8:3, of Saul haling or hauling men and women to prison; and Luk 12:58.

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Judgment-seats ( κριτήρια )

Only here and 1Co 6:2, 1Co 6:4.

Vincent: Jam 2:7

They ( αὐτοὶ )

Emphatic. " Is it not they who blaspheme?"

Vincent: Jam 2:7

Worthy ( καλὸν )

Rev., better, because stronger, honorable. By this epithet the disgracefulness of the blasphemy is emphasized.

Vincent: Jam 2:7

By the which ye are called ( τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ ' ὑμᾶς )

Lit., which is called upon you; the name of Christ, invoked in baptism. The phrase is an Old-Testament one. See Deu 28:10, where the Septuagint reads that the name of the Lord has been called upon race. Also, 2Ch 7:14; Isa 4:1. Compare Act 15:17.

Vincent: Jam 2:8

Fulfil the royal law ( νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν )

The phrase occurs only here and Rom 2:27. Τελεῖν , fulfil, is stronger than the more common word τηρεῖν , observe or keep , which appears in Jam 2:10. Compare, also, Mat 19:17; Mat 23:3; Joh 14:15, etc. James here speaks of a single commandment, the proper word for which is ἐντολή , while νόμος is the body of commandments. It is appropriate here, however, since this special commandment sums up the entire law. See Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14. It is the royal law; the king of all laws.

The phrase royal law is of Roman origin ( lex regia ) . In the kingly period of Roman history it did not signify a law promulgated by the absolute authority of the king, but a law passed by a popular assembly under the presidency of the king. In later times the term was applied to all laws the origin of which was attributed to the time of the kings. Gradually the term came to represent less of the popular will, and to include all the rights and powers which the Roman people had formerly possessed, so that the emperor became what formerly the people had been, sovereign. " It was not," says Gibbon, " before the ideas and even the language of the Romans had been corrupted, that a royal law ( lex regia ) and an irrevocable gift of the people were created....The pleasure of the emperor, according to Justinian, has the vigor and effect of law, since the Roman people, by the royal law, have transferred to their prince the full extent of their own power and sovereignty. The will of a single man, of a child, perhaps, was allowed to prevail over the wisdom of ages and the inclinations of millions; and the degenerate Greeks were proud to declare that in his hands alone the arbitrary exercise of legislation could be safely deposited" (" Decline and Fall," ch. xliv.).

Vincent: Jam 2:9

Ye have respect to persons ( προσωπολημπτεῖτε )

Only here in New Testament. See on Jam 2:1.

Vincent: Jam 2:9

Ye commit sin ( ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε )

Lit., " work sin." Compare Mat 7:23; Act 10:35; Heb 11:33. The phrase is rather stronger than the more common ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖν , to do sin , Joh 8:34; Jam 5:15; 1Pe 2:22. The position of sin is emphatic: " it is sin that ye are working."

Vincent: Jam 2:9

And are convinced ( ἐλεγχόμενοι )

Rather, as Rev., convinced . The word, which is variously rendered in A. V. tell a fault, reprove, rebuke, convince, while it carries the idea of rebuke, implies also a rebuke which produces a conviction of the error or sin. See on Joh 8:46. Compare Joh 3:20; Joh 8:9; 1Co 14:24, 1Co 14:25.

Vincent: Jam 2:10

Keep ( τηρήσῃ )

See on Jam 2:8.

Vincent: Jam 2:10

Offend ( πταίσῃ )

Lit., as Rev., stumble.

Vincent: Jam 2:10

He is guilty ( γέγονεν ἔνοχος )

Lit., he is become guilty. Ἔνοχος , guilty, is, strictly, holden; within the condemning power of. Compare Mat 26:66; Mar 3:29; 1Co 11:27. Huther cites a Talmudic parallel: " But if he perform all, but omit one, he is guilty of every single one."

Vincent: Jam 2:11

A transgressor ( παραβάτης )

From παρά , beyond, and βαίνω , to go . A transgressor, therefore, is one who goes beyond the line. So, also, trespass, which is transpass, from the Latin trans, across, and passus, a step. A similar word occurs in Homer, ὑπερβασία , a transgression or trespass, from ὑπέρ , over, and βαίνω , to go.

Wesley: Jam 2:1

The equality of Christians, intimated by this name, is the ground of the admonition.

Wesley: Jam 2:1

Of which glory all who believe in him partake.

Wesley: Jam 2:1

That is, honour none merely for being rich; despise none merely for being poor.

Wesley: Jam 2:2

Which were not then so common as now.

Wesley: Jam 2:3

With respect.

Wesley: Jam 2:4

To which the most respect is due, to the poor or to the rich.

Wesley: Jam 2:4

reasoning judges - You reason ill, and so judge wrong: for fine apparel is no proof of worth in him that wears it.

Wesley: Jam 2:5

As if he had said, Stay, consider, ye that judge thus.

Wesley: Jam 2:5

That is, are not they whom God hath chosen, generally speaking, poor in this world? who yet are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom - Consequently, the most honourable of men: and those whom God so highly honours, ought not ye to honour likewise?

Wesley: Jam 2:6

By open violence; often drag you - Under colour of law.

Wesley: Jam 2:7

Of God and of Christ. The apostle speaks chiefly of rich heathens: but are Christians, so called, a whit behind them?

Wesley: Jam 2:8

The supreme law of the great King which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich, ye do well. Lev 19:18.

Wesley: Jam 2:9

By that very law. Exo 23:3.

Wesley: Jam 2:10

Is as liable to condemnation as if he had offended in every point.

Wesley: Jam 2:11

For it is the same authority which establishes every commandment.

JFB: Jam 2:1

The equality of all Christians as "brethren," forms the groundwork of the admonition.

JFB: Jam 2:1

That is, the Christian faith. James grounds Christian practice on Christian faith.

JFB: Jam 2:1

So 1Co 2:8. As all believers, alike rich and poor, derive all their glory from their union with Him, "the Lord of glory," not from external advantages of worldly fortune, the sin in question is peculiarly inconsistent with His "faith." BENGEL, making no ellipsis of "the Lord," explains "glory" as in apposition with Christ who is THE GLORY (Luk 2:32); the true Shekinah glory of the temple (Rom 9:4). English Version is simpler. The glory of Christ resting on the poor believer should make him be regarded as highly by "brethren" as his richer brother; nay, more so, if the poor believer has more of Christ's spirit than the rich brother.

JFB: Jam 2:1

Literally, "in respectings of persons"; "in" the practice of partial preferences of persons in various ways and on various occasions.

JFB: Jam 2:2-3

"If there chance to have come" [ALFORD].

JFB: Jam 2:2-3

Literally, "synagogue"; this, the latest honorable use, and the only Christian use of the term in the New Testament, occurs in James's Epistle, the apostle who maintained to the latest possible moment the bonds between the Jewish synagogue and the Christian Church. Soon the continued resistance of the truth by the Jews led Christians to leave the term to them exclusively (Rev 3:9). The "synagogue" implies a mere assembly or congregation not necessarily united by any common tie. "Church," a people bound together by mutual ties and laws, though often it may happen that the members are not assembled [TRENCH and VITRINGA]. Partly from James' Hebrew tendencies, partly from the Jewish Christian churches retaining most of the Jewish forms, this term "synagogue" is used here instead of the Christian term "Church" (ecclesia, derived from a root, "called out," implying the union of its members in spiritual bonds, independent of space, and called out into separation from the world); an undesigned coincidence and mark of truth. The people in the Jewish synagogue sat according to their rank, those of the same trade together. The introduction of this custom into Jewish Christian places of worship is here reprobated by James. Christian churches were built like the synagogues, the holy table in the east end of the former, as the ark was in the latter; the desk and pulpit were the chief articles of furniture in both alike. This shows the error of comparing the Church to the temple, and the ministry to the priesthood; the temple is represented by the whole body of worshippers; the church building was formed on the model of the synagogue. See VITRINGA [Synagogue and Temple].

JFB: Jam 2:2-3

As the Greek, is the same in both, translate both alike, "gay," or "splendid clothing."

JFB: Jam 2:3

Though ye know not who he is, when perhaps he may be a heathen. It was the office of the deacons to direct to a seat the members of the congregation [CLEMENT OF ROME, Apostolical Constitutions, 2.57, 58].

JFB: Jam 2:3

Not in the best manuscripts. Thus "thou" becomes more demonstratively emphatic.

JFB: Jam 2:3

At a distance from where the good seats are.

JFB: Jam 2:3

Near the speaker.

JFB: Jam 2:3

Not literally so; but on the ground, down by my footstool. The poor man must either stand, or if he sits, sit in a degrading position. The speaker has a footstool as well as a good seat.

JFB: Jam 2:4

Literally, "Have ye not made distinctions" or "differences" (so as to prefer one to another)? So in Jud 1:22.

JFB: Jam 2:4

In your minds, that is, according to your carnal inclination [GROTIUS].

JFB: Jam 2:4

The Greek words for "judges" and for "partial," are akin in sound and meaning. A similar translation ought therefore to be given to both. Thus, either for "judges," &c. translate, "distinguishers of (that is, according to your) evil thoughts"; or, do ye not partially judge between men, and are become evilly-thinking judges (Mar 7:21)? The "evil thoughts" are in the judges themselves; as in Luk 18:6, the Greek, "judge of injustice," is translated, "unjust judge." ALFORD and WAHL translate, "Did ye not doubt" (respecting your faith, which is inconsistent with the distinctions made by you between rich and poor)? For the Greek constantly means "doubt" in all the New Testament. So in Jam 1:6, "wavering." Mat 21:21; Act 10:20; Rom 4:20, "staggered not." The same play on the same kindred words occurs in the Greek of Rom 14:10, Rom 14:23, "judge . . . doubteth." The same blame of being a judge, when one ought to be an obeyer, of the law is found in Jam 4:11.

JFB: Jam 2:5

James brings to trial the self-constituted "judges" (Jam 2:4).

JFB: Jam 2:5

The best manuscripts read, "those poor in respect to the world." In contrast to "the rich in this world" (1Ti 6:17). Not of course all the poor; but the poor, as a class, furnish more believers than the rich as a class. The rich, if a believer, renounces riches as his portion; the poor, if an unbeliever, neglects that which is the peculiar advantage of poverty (Mat 5:3; 1Co 1:26-28).

JFB: Jam 2:5

Their riches consist in faith. Luk 12:21, "rich toward God." 1Ti 6:18, "rich in good works" (Rev 2:9; compare 2Co 8:9). Christ's poverty is the source of the believer's riches.

JFB: Jam 2:5

(Luk 12:32; 1Co 2:9; 2Ti 4:8).

JFB: Jam 2:6

The world's judgment of the poor contrasted with God's.

JFB: Jam 2:6

Christians, from whom better things might have been expected; there is no marvel that men of the world do so.

JFB: Jam 2:6

Literally, "dishonored." To dishonor the poor is to dishonor those whom God honors, and so to invert the order of God [CALVIN].

JFB: Jam 2:6

As a class.

JFB: Jam 2:6

Literally, "abuse their power against" you.

JFB: Jam 2:6

Translate, "is it not they (those very persons whom ye partially prefer, Jam 2:1-4) that drag you (namely, with violence)" [ALFORD].

JFB: Jam 2:6

Instituting persecutions for religion, as well as oppressive lawsuits, against you.

JFB: Jam 2:7

"Is it not they that blaspheme?" &c. as in Jam 2:6 [ALFORD]. Rich heathen must here chiefly be meant; for none others would directly blaspheme the name of Christ. Only indirectly rich Christians can be meant, who, by their inconsistency, caused His name to be blasphemed; so Eze 36:21-22; Rom 2:24. Besides, there were few rich Jewish Christians at Jerusalem (Rom 15:26). They who dishonor God's name by wilful and habitual sin, "take (or bear) the Lord's name in vain" (compare Pro 30:9, with Exo 20:7).

JFB: Jam 2:7

Which is "good before the Lord's saints" (Psa 52:9; Psa 54:6); which ye pray may be "hallowed" (Mat 6:9), and "by which ye are called," literally, "which was invoked" or, "called upon by you" (compare Gen 48:16; Isa 4:1, Margin; Act 15:17), so that at your baptism "into the name" (so the Greek, Mat 28:19) of Christ, ye became Christ's people (1Co 3:23).

JFB: Jam 2:8

The Greek may be translated, "If, however, ye fulfil," &c., that is, as ALFORD, after ESTIUS, explains, "Still I do not say, hate the rich (for their oppressions) and drive them from your assemblies; if you choose to observe the royal law . . . well and good; but respect of persons is a breach of that law." I think the translation is, "If in very deed (or 'indeed on the one hand') ye fulfil the royal law . . . ye do well, but if (on the other hand) ye respect persons, ye practice sin." The Jewish Christians boasted of, and rested in, the "law" (Act 15:1; Act 21:18-24; Rom 2:17; Gal 2:12). To this the "indeed" alludes. "(Ye rest in the law): If indeed (then) ye fulfil it, ye do well; but if," &c.

JFB: Jam 2:8

The law that is king of all laws, being the sum and essence of the ten commandments. The great King, God, is love; His law is the royal law of love, and that law, like Himself, reigns supreme. He "is no respecter of persons"; therefore to respect persons is at variance with Him and His royal law, which is at once a law of love and of liberty (Jam 2:12). The law is the "whole"; "the (particular) Scripture" (Lev 19:18) quoted is a part. To break a part is to break the whole (Jam 2:10).

JFB: Jam 2:8

Being "blessed in your deed" ("doing," Margin) as a doer, not a forgetful hearer of the law (Jam 1:25).

JFB: Jam 2:9

Respect of persons violates the command to love all alike "as thyself."

JFB: Jam 2:9

Literally, "ye work sin," Mat 7:23, to which the reference here is probably, as in Jam 1:22. Your works are sin, whatever boast of the law ye make in words (see on Jam 2:8).

JFB: Jam 2:9

Old English for "convicted."

JFB: Jam 2:9

Not merely of this or that particular command, but of the whole absolutely.

JFB: Jam 2:10

The best manuscripts read, "Whosoever shall have kept the whole law, and yet shall have offended (literally, 'stumbled'; not so strong as 'fall,' Rom 11:11) in one (point; here, the respecting of persons), is (hereby) become guilty of all." The law is one seamless garment which is rent if you but rend a part; or a musical harmony which is spoiled if there be one discordant note [TIRINUS]; or a golden chain whose completeness is broken if you break one link [GATAKER]. You thus break the whole law, though not the whole of the law, because you offend against love, which is the fulfilling of the law. If any part of a man be leprous, the whole man is judged to be a leper. God requires perfect, not partial, obedience. We are not to choose out parts of the law to keep, which suit our whim, while we neglect others.

JFB: Jam 2:11

He is One who gave the whole law; therefore, they who violate His will in one point, violate it all [BENGEL]. The law and its Author alike have a complete unity.

JFB: Jam 2:11

Selected as being the most glaring cases of violation of duty towards one's neighbor.

Clarke: Jam 2:1

My brethren, have not - This verse should be read interrogatively: My brethren, do ye not make profession of the faith or religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with acceptance of persons? That is, preferring the rich to the poor merely because of their riches, and not on account of any moral excellence, personal piety, or public usefulness. Πιστις, faith, is put here for religion; and της δοξης, of glory, should, according to some critics, be construed with it as the Syriac and Coptic have done. Some connect it with our Lord Jesus Christ - the religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Others translate thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus. There are many various readings in the MSS. and versions on this verse: the meaning is clear enough, though the connection be rather obscure.

Clarke: Jam 2:2

If there come unto your assembly - Εις την συναγωγην· Into the synagogue. It appears from this that the apostle is addressing Jews who frequented their synagogues, and carried on their worship there and judicial proceedings, as the Jews were accustomed to do. Our word assembly does not express the original; and we cannot suppose that these synagogues were at this time occupied with Christian worship, but that the Christian Jews continued to frequent them for the purpose of hearing the law and the prophets read, as they had formerly done, previously to their conversion to the Christian faith. But St. James may refer here to proceedings in a court of justice

Clarke: Jam 2:2

With a gold ring, in goodly apparel - The ring on the finger and the splendid garb were proofs of the man’ s opulence; and his ring and his coat, not his worth, moral good qualities, or the righteousness of his cause, procured him the respect of which St. James speaks

Clarke: Jam 2:2

There come in also a poor man - In ancient times petty courts of judicature were held in the synagogues, as Vitringa has sufficiently proved, De Vet. Syn. l. 3, p. 1, c. 11; and it is probable that the case here adduced was one of a judicial kind, where, of the two parties, one was rich and the other poor; and the master or ruler of the synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid particular deference to the rich man, and neglected the poor man; though, as plaintiff and defendant, they were equal in the eye of justice, and should have been considered so by an impartial judge.

Clarke: Jam 2:3

Sit here under my footstool - Thus evidently prejudging the cause, and giving the poor man to see that he was to expect no impartial administration of justice in his cause.

Clarke: Jam 2:4

Are ye not then partial - Ου διεκριθητε· Do ye not make a distinction, though the case has not been heard, and the law has not decided

Clarke: Jam 2:4

Judges of evil thoughts? - Κριται διαλογισμων πονηρων· Judges of evil reasonings; that is, judges who reason wickedly; who, in effect, say in your hearts, we will espouse the cause of the rich, because they can befriend us; we will neglect that of the poor, because they cannot help us, nor have they power to hurt us.

Clarke: Jam 2:5

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world - This seems to refer to Mat 11:5 : And the poor have the Gospel preached to them. These believed on the Lord Jesus, and found his salvation; while the rich despised, neglected, and persecuted him. These had that faith in Christ which put them in possession of the choicest spiritual blessings, and gave them a right to the kingdom of heaven. While, therefore, they were despised of men, they were highly prized of God.

Clarke: Jam 2:6

Do not rich men oppress you - The administration of justice was at this time in a miserable state of corruption among the Jews; but a Christian was one who was to expect no justice any where but from his God. The words καταδυναστευουσιν, exceedingly oppress, and ἑλκουσιν εις κριτηρια, drag you to courts of justice, show how grievously oppressed and maltreated the Christians were by their countrymen the Jews, who made law a pretext to afflict their bodies, and spoil them of their property.

Clarke: Jam 2:7

Blaspheme that worthy name - They took every occasion to asperse the Christian name and the Christian faith, and have been, from the beginning to the present day, famous for their blasphemies against Christ and his religion. It is evident that these were Jews of whom St. James speaks; no Christians in these early times could have acted the part here mentioned.

Clarke: Jam 2:8

The royal law - Νομον βασιλικον . This epithet, of all the New Testament writers, is peculiar to James; but it is frequent among the Greek writers in the sense in which it appears St. James uses it. Βασιλικος, royal, is used to signify any thing that is of general concern, is suitable to all, and necessary for all, as brotherly love is. This commandment; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, is a royal law, not only because it is ordained of God, and proceeds from his kingly authority over men, but because it is so useful, suitable, and necessary to the present state of man; and as it was given us particularly by Christ himself, Joh 13:34; Joh 15:12, who is our King, as well as Prophet and Priest, it should ever put us in mind of his authority over us, and our subjection to him. As the regal state is the most excellent for secular dignity and civil utility that exists among men, hence we give the epithet royal to whatever is excellent, noble, grand, or useful.

Clarke: Jam 2:9

But if ye have respect to persons - In judgment, or in any other way; ye commit sin against God, and against your brethren, and are convinced, ελεγχομενοι, and are convicted, by the law; by this royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; as transgressors, having shown this sinful acceptance of persons, which has led you to refuse justice to the poor man, and uphold the rich in his oppressive conduct.

Clarke: Jam 2:10

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, etc. - This is a rabbinical form of speech. In the tract Shabbath, fol. 70, where they dispute concerning the thirty-nine works commanded by Moses, Rabbi Yochanan says: But if a man do the whole, with the omission of one, he is guilty of the whole, and of every one. In Bammidar rabba, sec. 9, fol. 200, and in Tanchum, fol. 60, there is a copious example given, how an adulteress, by that one crime, breaks all the ten commandments, and by the same mode of proof any one sin may be shown to be a breach of the whole decalogue. The truth is, any sin is against the Divine authority; and he who has committed one transgression is guilty of death; and by his one deliberate act dissolves, as far as he can, the sacred connection that subsists between all the Divine precepts and the obligation which he is under to obey, and thus casts off in effect his allegiance to God. For, if God should be obeyed in any one instance, he should be obeyed in all, as the authority and reason of obedience are the same in every case; he therefore who breaks one of these laws is, in effect, if not in fact, guilty of the whole. But there is scarcely a more common form of speech among the rabbins than this, for they consider that any one sin has the seeds of all others in it. See a multitude of examples in Schoettgen.

Clarke: Jam 2:11

For he that said - That is, the authority that gave one commandment gave also the rest; and he who breaks one resists this authority; so that the breach of any one commandment may be justly considered a breach of the whole law. It was a maxim also among the Jewish doctors that, if a man kept any one commandment carefully, though he broke all the rest, he might assure himself of the favor of God; for while they taught that "He who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt, and so has he done who has broken even one precept,"(Mechilta, fol. 5, Yalcut Simeoni, part 1, fol. 59), they also taught, "that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law;"(Kiddushin, fol. 39); and they give for example, "If a man abandon idolatry, it is the same as if he had fulfilled the whole law,"(Ibid., fol. 40.) To correct this false doctrine James lays down that in the 11th verse. Thus they did and undid.

Calvin: Jam 2:1

This reproof seems at first sight to be hard and unreasonable; for it is one of the duties of courtesy, not to be neglected, to honor those who are elevated in the world. Further, if respect of persons be vicious, servants are to be freed from all subjection; for freedom and servitude are deemed by Paul as conditions of life. The same must be thought of magistrates. But the solution of these questions is not difficult, if what James writes is not separated. For he does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love.

Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context and surely ambitions is that honor, and full of vanity, which is shewn to the rich to the contempt of the poor. Nor is there a doubt but that ambition reigns and vanity also, when the masks of this world are alone in high esteem. We must remember this truth, that he is to be counted among the heirs of God’s kingdom, who disregards the reprobate and honors those who fear God. (Psa 15:4.)

Here then is the contrary vice condemned, that is, when from respect alone to riches, anyone honors the wicked, and as it has been said, dishonors the good. If then thou shouldest read thus, “He sins who respects the rich,” the sentence would be absurd; but if as follows, “He sins who honors the rich alone and despises the poor, and treats him with contempt,” it would be a pious and true doctrine.

1.Have not the faith, etc. , with respect of persons. He means that the respect of persons is inconsistent with the faith of Christ, so that they cannot be united together, and rightly so; for we are by faith united into one body, in which Christ holds the primacy. When therefore the pomps of the world become preeminent so as to cover over what Christ is, it is evident that faith hath but little vigor.

In rendering τὢς δόξης, “on account of esteem,” ( ex opinione ,) I have followed Erasmus; though the old interpreter cannot be blamed, who has rendered it “glory,” for the word means both; and it may be fitly applied to Christ, and that according to the drift of the passage. For so great is the brightness of Christ, that it easily extinguishes all the glories of the world, if indeed it irradiates our eyes. It hence follows, that Christ is little esteemed by us, when the admiration of worldly glory lays hold on us. But the other exposition is also very suitable, for when the esteem or value of riches or of honors dazzles our eyes, the truth is suppressed, which ought alone to prevail. To sit becomingly means to sit honorably.

Calvin: Jam 2:4

4.Are ye not then partial in yourselves ? or, are ye not condemned in yourselves. This may be read affirmatively as well as interrogatively, but the sense would be the same, for he amplifies the fault by this, that they took delight and indulged themselves in so great a wickedness. If it be read interrogatively, the meaning is, “Does not your own conscience hold you convicted, so that you need no other judge?” If the affirmative be preferred, it is the same as though he had said, “This evil also happens, that ye think not that ye sin, nor know that your thoughts are so wicked as they are.” ¹¹²

Calvin: Jam 2:5

5.Hearken, my beloved brethren. He proves now by a two-fold argument, that they acted preposterously, when for the sake of the rich they despised the poor: The first is, that it is unbecoming and disgraceful to cast down those whom God exalts, and to treat reproachfully those whom he honors. As God honors the poor, then every one who repudiates them, reverses the order of God. The other argument is taken from common experience; for since the rich are for the most part vexatious to the good and innocent, it is very unreasonable to render such a reward for the wrongs they do, so that they should be more approved by us than the poor, who aid us more than they wrong us. We shall now see how he proceeds with these two points.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? Not indeed alone, but he wished to begin with them, that he might beat down the pride of the rich. This is also what Paul says, that God hath chosen, not many noble, not many mighty in the world, but those who are weak, that he might make ashamed such as are strong (1Co 1:25.) In short, though God pours forth his grace on the rich in common with the poor, yet his will is to prefer these to those, that the mighty might learn not to flatter themselves, and that the ignoble and the obscure might ascribe in what they are to the mercy of God, and that both might be trained up to meekness and humility.

The rich in faith are not those who abound in the greatness of faith, but such as God has enriched with the various gifts of his Spirit, which we receive by faith. For, doubtless, since the Lord deals bountifully with all, every one becomes partaker of his gifts according to the measure of his own faith. If, then, we are empty or needy, that proves the deficiency of our faith; for if we only enlarge the bosom of faith, God is always ready to fill it.

He says, that a kingdom is promised to those who love God: not that the promise depends on love; but he reminds us that we are called by God unto the hope of eternal life, on this condition and to this end, that we may love him. Then the end, and not the beginning, is here pointed out.

Calvin: Jam 2:6

6.Do not the rich. He seems to instigate them to vengeance by bringing forward the unjust rule of the rich, in order that they who were unjustly treated, might render like for like: and yet we are everywhere bid to do good to those who injure us. But the object of James was another; for he only wished to shew that they were without reason or judgment who through ambition honored their executioners, and in the meantime injured their own friends, at least those from whom they never suffered any wrong. For hence appeared more fully their vanity, that they were induced by no acts of kindness: they only admired the rich, because they were rich; nay, they servilely flattered those whom they found, to their own loss, to be unjust and cruel.

There are, indeed, some of the rich who are just, and meek, and hate all unrighteousness; but few of such men are to be found. James, then, mentions what for the most part usually happens, and what daily experience proves true. For as men commonly exercise their power in doing what is wrong, it hence happens, that the more power any one has, the worse he is, and the more unjust towards his neighbors. The more careful then ought the rich to be, lest they should contract any of the contagion which everywhere prevails among those of their own rank.

Calvin: Jam 2:7

7.Worthy, or good name. I doubt not but that he refers here to the name of God and of Christ. And he says, by, or, on, the which ye are called; not in prayer, as Scripture is wont sometimes to speak, but by profession; as the name of a father, in Gen 48:16, is said to be called on his offspring, and in Isa 4:1, the name of a husband is called on the wife. It is, then, the same as though he had said, “The good name in which ye glory, or which ye deem it an honor to be called by; but if they proudly calumniate the glory of God, how unworthy are they of being honored by Christians!”

Calvin: Jam 2:8

Now follows a plainer declaration; for he expressly points out the cause of the last reproof, for they were officiously attentive to the rich, not from love, but on the contrary, from a vain desire of attaining their favor: And it is in anticipation, by which he obviated an excuse on the other side; for they might have objected and said, that he ought not to be blamed, who humbly submiteth himself to the unworthy. James, indeed, concedes that this is true, but he shews that it was falsely pretended by them, because they shewed this submission of homage, not from love to their neighbors, but from respect of persons.

In the first clause, then, he acknowledges as right and praiseworthy, as the duties of love which we perform towards our neighbors. In the second, he denies that the ambitious respect of persons ought to be deemed as of this kind, for it widely differs from what the law prescribes. And the hinge of this answer turns on the words “neighbor” and “respect of persons,” as though he had said, “If you pretend that there is a sort of love in what you do, this may be easily disproved; for God bids us to love our neighbors, and not to shew respect of persons.” Besides, this word “neighbor” includes all mankind: he, then, who says, that a very few, according to his own fancy, ought to be honored, and others passed by, does not keep the law of God, but yields to the depraved desires of his own heart. God expressly commends to us strangers and enemies, and all, even the most contemptible. To this doctrine the respect of persons is wholly contrary. Hence, rightly does James assert, that respect of persons is inconsistent with love.

8.If ye fulfill the royal law. The law here I take simply as the rule of life; and to fulfill, or perform it, is to keep it with real integrity of heart, and as they say, roundly, ( rotunde ;) and he sets such a keeping in opposition to a partial observance of it. It is said, indeed, to be a royal law, as it is the royal way, or road; that is, plain, straight, and level, which, by implication, is set in opposition to sinuous by-paths and windings.

Allusion however is made, as I think, to servile obedience which they rendered to the rich, when they might, by serving in sincerity their neighbors, be not only free men, but live as kings.

Calvin: Jam 2:9

When, in the second place, he says, that those who had respect of persons were convinced, or reproved by the law, the law is taken according to its proper meaning. For since we are bidden by God’s command to embrace all mortals, every one who, with a few exceptions, rejects all the rest, breaks the bond of God, and inverts also his order, and is, therefore, rightly called a transgressor of the law.

Calvin: Jam 2:10

10.For whosoever shall keep the whole law. What alone he means is, that God will not be honored with exceptions, nor will he allow us to cut off from his law what is less pleasing to us. At the first view, this sentence seems hard to some, as though the apostle countenanced the paradox of the Stoics, which makes all sins equal, and as though he asserted that he who offends in one thing ought to be punished equally with him whose whole life has been sinful and wicked. But it is evident from the context that no such thing entered into his mind.

For we must always observe the reason anything is said. He denies that our neighbors are loved when a part only of them is through ambition chosen, and the rest neglected. This he proves, because it is no obedience to God, when it is not rendered equally according to his command. Then as the rule of God is plain and complete or perfect, so we ought to regard completeness; so that none of us should presumptuously separate what he has joined together. Let there be, therefore, a uniformity, if we desire rightly to obey God. As, for instance, were a judge to punish ten thefts, and leave one man unpunished, he would betray the obliquity of his mind, for he would thus shew himself indignant against men rather than against crimes; because what he condemns in one he absolves in another.

We now, then, understand the design of James, that is, that if we cut off from God’s law what is less agreeable to us, though in other parts we may be obedient, yet we be come guilty of all, because in one particular thing we violate the whole law. And though he accommodates what is said to the subject in hand, it is yet taken from a general principle, — that God has prescribed to us a rule of life, which it is not lawful for us to mutilate. For it is not said of a part of the law, “This is the way, walk ye in it;” nor does the law promise a reward except to universal obedience.

Foolish, then, are the schoolmen, who deem partial righteousness, as they call it, to be meritorious; for this passage and many others, clearly shew that there is no righteousness except in a perfect obedience to the law.

Calvin: Jam 2:11

11.For he that said, or he who hath said. This is a proof of the former verse; because the Lawgiver is to be considered rather than each particular precept apart. The righteousness of God, as an indivisible body, is contained in the law. Whosoever, then, transgresses one article of the Law, destroys, as far as he can, the righteousness of God. Besides, as in one part, so in every part, God’s will is to try our obedience. Hence a transgressor of the law is every one who offends as to any one of its commandments according to this saying,

“Cursed is he who fulfills not all things.”
(Deu 27:26.)

We further see, that the transgressor of the law, and the guilty of all, mean the same according to James.

Defender: Jam 2:2

This is the same word translated (in fact, transliterated from the Greek) as "synagogue." It is further indication of the very early date of James' epistle. Jewish Christians continued to call their assemblies by the same name they had known before, even though now they were Christian "synagogues." Eventually, with increasing hostility by non-Christian Jews, along with more Gentiles coming into the assemblies, the name "church" became adopted everywhere."

Defender: Jam 2:8

This law was first set forth in Scripture in Lev 19:18. It was cited by Christ as a parallel law to that of loving God (Mat 22:39; Mar 12:31; Luk 10:27). It is also quoted in Mat 5:43; Mat 19:19; and Gal 5:14 (where Paul says it sums up the whole body of the Mosaic laws as they deal with human behavior and relationships). Thus, the Bible cites it specifically eight times. No wonder it is called the royal law."

Defender: Jam 2:10

James, no doubt, realized that his Jewish readers, accustomed as they had been to trusting in the law for salvation, needed to realize fully that they could never be justified before God by keeping the law, since no one could ever keep it perfectly. Not only Jews but all men need to realize that they can never be saved by their good works (Eph 2:8, Eph 2:9; Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16). One unforgiven sin is enough for condemnation."

TSK: Jam 2:1

the faith : Act 20:21, Act 24:24; Col 1:4; 1Ti 1:19; Tit 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; Rev 14:12

the Lord : Psa 24:7-10; 1Co 2:8; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:3

with : Jam 2:3, Jam 2:9, Jam 3:17; Lev 19:15; Deu 1:17, Deu 16:19; 2Ch 19:7; Pro 24:23, Pro 28:21; Mat 22:16; Rom 1:11; 1Ti 5:21; Jud 1:16

TSK: Jam 2:2

assembly : Gr. synagogue

gold : Est 3:10, Est 8:2; Luk 15:22

goodly : Gen 27:15; Mat 11:8, Mat 11:9

in vile : Isa 64:6; Zec 3:3, Zec 3:4

TSK: Jam 2:3

ye : Jud 1:16

in a good place : or well, or, seemly

to the : Jam 2:6; Isa 65:5; Luk 7:44-46; 2Co 8:9

TSK: Jam 2:4

partial : James 1:1-27; Job 34:19; Mal 2:9

judges : Jam 4:11; Job 21:27; Psa 58:1, Psa 82:2, Psa 109:31; Mat 7:1-5; Joh 7:24

TSK: Jam 2:5

Hearken : Jdg 9:7; 1Ki 22:28; Job 34:10, Job 38:14; Pro 7:24, Pro 8:32; Mar 7:14; Act 7:2

Hath not : Jam 1:9; Isa 14:32, Isa 29:19; Zep 3:12; Zec 11:7, Zec 11:11; Mat 11:5; Luk 6:20; Luk 9:57, Luk 9:58, Luk 16:22, Luk 16:25; Joh 7:48; 1Co 1:26-28; 2Co 8:9

rich : Pro 8:17-21; Luk 12:21; 1Co 3:21-23; 2Co 4:15, 2Co 6:10; Eph 1:18, Eph 3:8; 1Ti 6:18; Heb 11:26; Rev 2:9, Rev 3:18, Rev 21:7

heirs : Mat 5:3, Mat 25:34; Luk 12:32, Luk 22:29; Rom 8:17; 1Th 2:12; 2Th 1:5; 2Ti 4:8, 2Ti 4:18; 1Pe 1:4; 2Pe 1:11

the : or, that which, Jam 1:12; Exo 20:6; 1Sa 2:30; Pro 8:17; Mat 5:3; Luk 6:20, Luk 12:32; 1Co 2:9; 2Ti 4:8

TSK: Jam 2:6

ye : Jam 2:3; Psa 14:6; Pro 14:31, Pro 17:5; Ecc 9:15, Ecc 9:16; Isa 53:3; Joh 8:49; 1Co 11:22

Do : Jam 5:4; Job 20:19; Psa 10:2, Psa 10:8, Psa 10:10,Psa 10:14, Psa 12:5; Pro 22:16; Ecc 5:8; Isa 3:14, Isa 3:15; Amo 2:6, Amo 2:7, Amo 4:1, Amo 5:11, Amo 8:4-6; Mic 6:11, Mic 6:12; Hab 3:14; Zec 7:10

and : Jam 5:6; 1Ki 21:11-13; Act 4:1-3, Act 4:26-28, Act 5:17, Act 5:18, Act 5:26, Act 5:27, Act 13:50, Act 16:19, Act 16:20; Act 17:6, Act 18:12

TSK: Jam 2:7

blaspheme : Psa 73:7-9; Mat 12:24, Mat 27:63; Luk 22:64, Luk 22:65; Act 26:11; 1Ti 1:13; Rev 13:5, Rev 13:6

worthy : Psa 111:9; Son 1:3; Isa 7:14, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7; Jer 23:6; Mat 1:23; Act 4:12; Phi 2:9-11; Rev 19:13, Rev 19:16

by : Isa 65:15; Act 11:26; Eph 3:15

TSK: Jam 2:8

the royal : Jam 2:12, Jam 1:25; 1Pe 2:9

Thou : Lev 19:18, Lev 19:34; Mat 22:39; Mar 12:31-33; Luk 10:27-37; Rom 13:8, Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Gal 6:2; 1Th 4:9

ye do : Jam 2:19; 1Ki 8:18; 2Ki 7:9; Jon 4:4, Jon 4:9; Mat 25:21, Mat 25:23; Phi 4:14

TSK: Jam 2:9

if : Jam 2:1-4; Lev 19:15

are : Joh 8:9, Joh 8:46, Joh 16:8 *marg. 1Co 14:24; Jud 1:15

transgressors : Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7-13; Gal 2:19; 1Jo 3:4

TSK: Jam 2:10

For : While the Jews taught that ""he who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt; and so has he done who has only broken one precept;""they also taught, ""that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law,""and gave for an example the forsaking of idolatry. To correct this false doctrine was the object James had in view.

whosoever : Deu 27:26; Mat 5:18, Mat 5:19; Gal 3:10

TSK: Jam 2:11

he said that, or, that law, which said

Do not commit : Exo 20:13, Exo 20:14; Deu 5:17, Deu 5:18; Mat 5:21-28, Mat 19:18; Mar 10:19; Luk 18:20; Rom 13:9

Now : Lev 4:2, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22; Psa 130:3, Psa 130:4

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Jam 2:1

My brethren - Perhaps meaning brethren in two respects - as Jews, and as Christians. In both respects the form of address would be proper.

Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ - Faith is the distinguishing thing in the Christian religion, for it is this by which man is justified, and hence, it comes to be put for religion itself. Notes, 1Ti 3:9. The meaning here is, "do not hold such views of the religion of Christ, as to lead you to manifest partiality to others on account of their difference of rank or outward circumstances."

The Lord of glory - The glorious Lord; he who is glorious himself, and who is encompassed with glory. See the notes at 1Co 2:8. The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord should be in no way dishonored.

With respect of persons - That is, you are not to show respect of persons, or to evince partiality to others on account of their rank, wealth, apparel, etc. Compare Pro 24:23; Pro 28:21; Lev 19:15; Deu 1:17; Deu 10:17; 2Ch 19:7; Psa 40:4. See the subject explained in the Act 10:34 note; Rom 2:11 note.

Barnes: Jam 2:2

For if there come into your assembly - Margin, as in Greek, "synagogue."It is remarkable that this is the only place in the New Testament where the word "synagogue"is applied to the Christian church. It is probably employed here because the apostle was writing to those who had been Jews; and it is to be presumed that the word synagogue would be naturally used by the early converts from Judaism to designate a Christian place of worship, or a Christian congregation, and it was probably so employed until it was superseded by a word which the Gentile converts would be more likely to employ, and which would, in fact, be better and more expressive - the word church. The word "synagogue"( συναγωγὴν sunagōgēn ) would properly refer to the whole congregation, considered as "assembled together,"without respect to the question whether all were truly pious or not; the word "church"( ἐκκλησία ekklēsia ) would refer to the assembly convened for worship as called out, referring to the fact that they were called out from the world, and convened as worshippers of God, and would, therefore, be more applicable to a body of spiritual worshippers.

It is probable that the Christian church was modelled, in its general arrangements, after the Jewish synagogue; but there would be obviously some disadvantages in retaining the name, as applicable to Christian worship. It would be difficult to avoid the associations connected with the name, and hence it was better to adopt some other name which would be free from this disadvantage, and on which might be engrafted all the ideas which it was necessary to connect with the notion of the Christian organization. Hence the word "church,"liable to no such objection as that of "synagogue,"was soon adopted, and ultimately prevailed, though the passage before us shows that the word "synagogue"would be in some places, and for a time, employed to designate a Christian congregation. We should express the idea here by saying. "If a man of this description should come into the church."

A man with a gold ring - Indicative of rank or property. Rings were common ornaments of the rich; and probably then, as now, of those who desired to be esteemed to be rich. For proof that they were commonly worn, see the quotations in Wetstein, in loc.

In goodly apparel - Rich and splendid dress. Compare Luk 16:19.

A poor man in vile raiment - The Greek here is, filthy, foul; the meaning of the passage is, in sordid, shabby clothes. The reference here seems to be, not to those who commonly attended on public worship, or who were members of the church, but to those who might accidentally drop in to witness the services of Christians. See 1Co 14:24.

Barnes: Jam 2:3

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing - If you show him superior attention on account of his rich and gay apparel, giving him a seat by himself, and treating others with neglect or contempt. Religion does not forbid proper respect to rank, to office, to age, or to distinguished talents and services, though even in such cases it does not require that we should feel that such persons have any peculiar claims to salvation, or that they are not on a level with all others, as sinners before God; it does not forbid that a man who has the means of procuring for himself an eligible pew in a church should be permitted to do so; but it requires that men shall be regarded and treated according to their moral worth, and not according to their external adorning; that all shall be considered as in fact on a level before God, and entitled to the privileges which grow out of the worship of the Creator. A stranger coming into any place of worship, no matter what his rank, dress, or complexion, should be treated with respect, and everything should be done that can be to win his heart to the service of God.

And say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place - Margin, as in Greek, "well"or "seemly;"that is, in an honorable place near the pulpit; or in some elevated place where he would be conspicuous. The meaning is, you treat him with distinguished marks of respect on the first appearance, merely from the indications that he is a rich man, without knowing any thing about his character.

And say to the poor, Stand thou there - Without even the civility of offering him a seat at all. This may be presumed not often to occur in a Christian church; yet it practically does sometimes, when no disposition is evinced to furnish a stranger with a seat.

Or sit here under my footstool - Perhaps some seats in the places of worship were raised, so that even the footstool would be elevated above a lower seat. The meaning is, that he would be treated as if he were not worth the least attention.

Barnes: Jam 2:4

Are ye not then partial in yourselves? - Among yourselves. Do you not show that you are partial?

And are become judges of evil thoughts - There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting this passage, yet the sense seems not to be difficult. There are two ideas in it: one is, that they showed by this conduct that they took it upon themselves to be judges, to pronounce on the character of men who were strangers, and on their claims to respect (Compare Mat 7:1); the other is, that in doing this, they were not guided by just rules, but that they did it under the influence of improper "thoughts."They did it not from benevolence; not from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character; but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honor to men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real worth. The wrong in the case was in their presuming to "judge"these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction, and then by doing it under the influence of such an unjust rule of judgment. The sense is, that we have no right to form a decisive judgment of men on their first appearance, as we do when we treat one with respect and the other not; and that when we make up our opinion in regard to them, it should be by some other means of judging than the question whether they can wear gold rings, and dress well, or not. Beza and Doddridge render this, "ye become judges who reason ill."

Barnes: Jam 2:5

Hearken, my beloved brethren - The apostle now proceeds to show that the rich, as such, had no special claim on their favor, and that the poor in fact might be made more entitled to esteem than they were. For a view of the arguments by which he does this, compare the analysis of the chapter.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? - Those who are poor so far as this world is concerned, or those who have not wealth. This is the first argument which the apostle suggests why the poor should not be treated with neglect. It is, that God has had special reference to them in choosing those who should be his children. The meaning is not that he is not as willing to save the rich as the poor, for he has no partiality; but that there are circumstances in the condition of the poor which make it more likely that they will embrace the offers of the gospel than the rich; and that in fact the great mass of believers is taken from those who are in comparatively humble life. Compare the notes at 1Co 1:26-28. The fact that God has chosen one to be an "heir of the kingdom"is as good a reason now why he should not be treated with neglect, as it was in the times of the apostles.

Rich in faith - Though poor in this world’ s goods, they are rich in a higher and more important sense. They have faith in God their Saviour; and in this world of trial and of sin, that is a more valuable possession than piles of hoarded silver or gold. A man who has that is sure that he will have all that is truly needful for him in this world and the next; a man who has it not, though he may have the wealth of Croesus, will be utterly without resources in respect to the great wants of his existence.

"Give what thou wilt, without thee we are poor;

And with thee rich, take what thou wilt away."

Faith in God the Saviour will answer more purposes, and accomplish more valuable ends for man, than the wealth of the Indies could: and this the poor may have as well as the rich. Compare Rev 2:9.

And heirs of the kingdom ... - Margin, "that."Compare the notes at Mat 5:3.

Barnes: Jam 2:6

But ye have despised the poor - Koppe reads this as an interrogation: "Do ye despise the poor?"Perhaps it might be understood somewhat ironically: "You despise the poor, do you, and are disposed to honor the rich! Look then, and see how the rich treat you, and see whether you have so much occasion to regard them with any peculiar respect."The object of the apostle is to fix the attention on the impropriety of that partiality which many were disposed to show to the rich, by reminding them that the rich had never evinced towards them any such treatment as to lay the foundation of a claim to the honor which they were disposed to render them.

Do not rich men oppress you? - Referring probably to something in their conduct which existed particularly then. The meaning is not that they oppressed the poor as such, but that they oppressed those whom James addressed. It is probable that then, as since, a considerable portion of those who were Christians were in fact poor, and that this would have all the force of a personal appeal; but still the particular thought is, that it was a characteristic of the rich and the great, whom they were disposed peculiarly to honor, to oppress and crush the poor. The Greek here is very expressive: "Do they not imperiously lord it over you?"The statement here will apply with too much force to the rich in every age.

And draw you before the judgment-seats - That is, they are your persecutors rather than your friends. It was undoubtedly the case that many of the rich were engaged in persecuting Christians, and that on various pretences they dragged them before the judicial tribunals.

Barnes: Jam 2:7

Do they not blaspheme that worthy name? - This is another argument to show that the rich had no special claim to the honor which they were disposed to show them. The "worthy name"here referred to is, doubtless, the name of the Saviour. The thing here affirmed would, of course, accompany persecution. They who persecuted Christians, would revile the name which they bore. This has always occurred. But besides this, it is no improbable supposition that many of those who were not disposed to engage in open persecution, would revile the name of Christ, by speaking contemptuously of him and his religion. This has been sufficiently common in every age of the world, to make the description here not improper. And yet nothing has been more remarkable than the very thing adverted to here by James, that notwithstanding this, many who profess to be Christians have been more disposed to treat even such persons with respect and attention than they have their own brethren, if they were poor; that they have cultivated the favor, sought the friendship, desired the smiles, aped the manners, and coveted the society of such persons, rather than the friendship and the favor of their poorer Christian brethren. Even though they are known to despise religion in their hearts, and not to be sparing of their words of reproach and scorn towards Christianity; though they are known to be blasphemers, and to have the most thorough contempt for serious, spiritual religion, yet there is many a professing Christian who would prefer to be at a party given by such persons than at a prayer-meeting where their poorer brethren are assembled; who would rather be known by the world to be the associates and friends of such persons, than of those humble believers who can make no boast of rank or wealth, and who are looked down upon with contempt by the great and the gay.

Barnes: Jam 2:8

If ye fulfil the royal law - That is, the law which he immediately mentions requiring us to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is called a "royal law,"or kingly law, on account of its excellence or nobleness; not because it is ordained by God as a king, but because it has some such prominence and importance among other laws as a king has among other men; that is, it is majestic, noble, worthy of veneration. It is a law which ought to govern and direct us in all our intercourse with men - as a king rules his subjects.

According to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself - Lev 19:18. Compare Mat 19:19. See it explained by the Saviour, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Luk 10:25-37. In regard to its meaning, see the notes at Mat 19:19.

Ye do well - That is, "if you fairly comply with the spirit of this law, you do all that is required of you in regulating your intercourse with others. You are to regard all persons as your "neighbors,"and are to treat them according to their real worth; you are not to be influenced in judging of them, or in your treatment of them, by their apparel, or their complexion, or the circumstances of their birth, but by the fact that they are fellow-beings."This is another reason why they should not show partiality in their treatment of others, for if, in the true sense, they regarded all others as "neighbors,"they would treat no one with neglect or contempt.

Barnes: Jam 2:9

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin - You transgress the plain law of God, and do wrong. See the references on Jam 2:1.

And are convinced of the law as transgressors - Greek "By the law."The word convinced is now used in a somewhat different sense from what it was formerly. It now commonly refers to the impression made on a man’ s mind by showing him the truth of a thing which before was doubted, or in respect to which the evidence was not clear. A man who doubted the truth of a report or a proposition may be convinced or satisfied of its truth; a man who has done wrong, though he supposed he was doing what was proper, may be convinced of his error. So a man may be convinced that he is a sinner, though before he had no belief of it, and no concern about it; and this may produce in his mind the feeling which is technically known as conviction, producing deep distress and anguish. See the notes at Joh 16:8. Here, however, the word does not refer so much to the effect produced on the mind itself, as to the fact that the law would hold such an one to be guilty; that is, the law pronounces what is done to be wrong. Whether they would be personally convinced of it, and troubled about it as convicted sinners, would be a different question, and one to which the apostle does not refer; for his object is not to show that they would be troubled about it, but to show that the law of God condemned this course, and would hold them to be guilty. The argument here is not from the personal distress which this course would produce in their own minds, but from the fact that the law of God condemned it.

Barnes: Jam 2:10

For whosoever shall keep the whole law - All except the single point referred to. The apostle does not say that this in fact ever did occur, but he says that if it should, and yet a man should have failed in only one particular, he must be judged to be guilty. The case supposed seems to be that of one who claimed that he had kept the whole law. The apostle says that even if this should be admitted for the time to be true in all other respects, yet, if he had failed in any one particular - in showing respect to persons, or in anything else - he could not but be held to be a transgressor, The design of this is to show the importance of yielding universal obedience, and to impress upon the mind a sense of the enormity of sin from the fact that the violation of any one precept is in fact an offence against the whole law of God. The whole law here means all the law of God; all that he has required; all that he has given to regulate us in our lives.

And yet offend in one point - In one respect; or shall violate any one of the commands included in the general word law. The word offend here means, properly, to stumble, to fall; then to err, or fail in duty. See the notes at Mat 5:29; Mat 26:31.

He is guilty of all - He is guilty of violating the law as a whole, or of violating the law of God as such; he has rendered it impossible that he should be justified and saved by the law. This does not affirm that he is as guilty as if he had violated every law of God; or that all sinners are of equal grade because all have violated some one or more of the laws of God; but the meaning is, that he is guilty of violating the law of God as such; he shows that be has not the true spirit of obedience; he has exposed himself to the penalty of the law, and made it impossible now to be saved by it. His acts of obedience in other respects, no matter how many, will not screen him from the charge of being a violator of the law, or from its penalty. He must be held and treated as a transgressor for that offence, however upright he may be in other respects, and must meet the penalty of the law as certainly as though he had violated every commandment.

One portion of the law is as much binding as another, and if a man violates any one plain commandment, he sets at nought the authority of God. This is a simple principle which is everywhere recognised, and the apostle means no more by it than occurs every day. A man who has stolen a horse is held to be a violator of the law, no matter in how many other respects he has kept it, and the law condemns him for it. He cannot plead his obedience to the law in other things as a reason why he should not be punished for this sin; but however upright he may have been in general, even though it may have been through a long life, the law holds him to be a transgressor, and condemns him. He is as really condemned, and as much thrown from the protection of law, as though he had violated every command. So of murder, arson, treason, or any other crime. The law judges a man for what he has done in this specific case, and he cannot plead in justification of it that he has been obedient in other things.

It follows, therefore, that if a man has been guilty of violating the law of God in any one instance, or is not perfectly holy, he cannot be justified and saved by it, though he should have obeyed it in every other respect, any more than a man who has been guilty of murder can be saved from the gallows because he has, in other respects, been a good citizen, a kind father, an honest neighbor, or has been compassionate to the poor and the needy. He cannot plead his act of truth in one case as an offset to the sin of falsehood in another; he cannot defend himself from the charge of dishonesty in one instance by the plea that he has been honest in another; he cannot urge the fact that he has done a good thing as a reason why he should not be punished for a bad one. He must answer for the specific charge against him, and none of these other things can be an offset against this one act of wrong. Let it be remarked, also, in respect to our being justified by obedience to the law, that no man can plead before God that he has kept all his law except in one point. Who is there that has not, in spirit at least, broken each one of the ten commandments? The sentiment here expressed by James was not new with him. It was often expressed by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been an admitted principle among the Jews. See Wetstein, in loc., for examples.

Barnes: Jam 2:11

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill - That is, these are parts of the same law of God, and one is as obligatory as the other. If, therefore, you violate either of these precepts, you transgress the law of God as such, and must be held to be guilty of violating it as a whole. The penalty of the law will be incurred, whatever precept you violate.

Poole: Jam 2:1

Jam 2:1-9 It is not agreeable to the Christian profession to

regard the rich, and despise the poor.

Jam 2:10-12 The guilt of any one breach of the law.

Jam 2:13 The obligation to mercy.

Jam 2:14-19 Faith without works is dead.

Jam 2:20-26 We are justified, as Abraham and Rahab were, by

works, and not by faith only.

Have not profess not yourselves, and regard not, or esteem not in others.

The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ i.e. faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; not the author but the object of faith is meant, as Gal 2:20 Gal 3:22 Phi 3:9 .

The Lord of glory ; Lord not being in the Greek, glory may be joined with faith, ( admitting only a trajection in the words, so frequent in the sacred writers), and then the words will run thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. the faith of his being glorified, which by a synecdoche may be put for the whole work of redemption wrought by him, which was completed by his glorification, as the last part of it; or, by a Hebraism, the faith of the glory, may be for the glorious faith. But the plainest way of reading the words is (as our translators do) by supplying the word Lord just before mentioned; Lord of glory, ( Christ being elsewhere so called, 1Co 2:8 ), i.e. the glorious Lord; as the Father is called the Father of glory, Eph 1:17 , i.e. the glorious Father: and then it may be an argument to second what the apostle is speaking of; Christ being the Lord of glory, a relation to him by faith puts an honour upon believers, though poor and despicable in the world; and therefore they are not to be contemned.

With respect of persons the word rendered persons signifies the face or countenance, and synecdochically the whole person; and, by consequence, all those parts or qualities we take notice of in the person. To respect a person is sometimes taken in a good sense, Gen 19:21 1Sa 25:35 . Mostly in an evil, when either the person is opposed to the cause, we give more or less to a man upon the account of something we see in him which is altogether foreign to his cause, Lev 19:15 , or when we accept one with injury to or contempt of another. To have, then, the faith of Christ with respect of persons, is to esteem the professors of religion, not for their faith, or relation to Christ, but according to their worldly condition, their being great or mean, rich or poor; this the apostle taxeth in the Hebrews to whom he wrote, that whereas in the things of God all believers are equal, they respected the greater and richer sort of professors, because great or rich; so as to despise those that were poor or low. The Greek hath the word plurally, respects, which may intimate the several ways of respecting persons, in judgment or out, of judgment. This doth not exclude the civil respect we owe to magistrates and superiors upon the account of their places or gifts; but only a respecting men in the things of religion upon such accounts as are extrinsical to religion; or, with prejudice to others as considerable in religion as themselves, though inferior to them in the world.

Poole: Jam 2:2

For if there come unto your assembly either church assemblies for worship, Heb 10:25 ; and in these we find some respect of men’ s persons, which may here be blamed: see 1Co 11:20-22 . Or their assemblies for disposing church offices, and deciding church controversies, &c.; for he speaks of such respecting men’ s persons as is condemned by the law, Jam 2:9 , which was especially in judgment.

A man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel the usual ensigns of honourable or rich persons, Gen 38:18,25 41:42 Luk 15:22 16:19 .

And there come in also a poor man the word signifies one very poor, even to beggarliness.

In vile raiment filthy and sordid, Zec 3:3,4 , the sign of extreme poverty.

Poole: Jam 2:3

And ye have respect to him Greek, look upon, viz. with respect and veneration, or a care and concern to please him.

Sit thou here in a good place an honourable place, either contrary to the usual orders of the churches, according to which, (as some say) the elder sat in chairs, the next to them on benches; and the novices on the pavement at their feet; the apostle taxing their carnal partiality in disposing these places to the people as rich, not as Christians; or it may note their disposing church offices to them that were rich, or favouring them in their causes rather than the poor.

Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool the meanest places, and belonging to the youngest disciples: both are expressions of contempt.

Poole: Jam 2:4

Are ye not then partial in yourselves? Either, are ye not judged in yourselves, convicted by your own consciences of partiality, and accepting men’ s persons? Or, have ye not made a difference? viz. out of a corrupt affection rather than a right judgment; and then it falls in with our translation; Are ye not partial? The Greek word is used in this sense, Act 15:9 Jud 1:22 .

And are become judges of evil thoughts i.e. judges that have evil thoughts, or are evil affected: q.d. You evidence the corruptness of your affections by your thus perversely judging.

Poole: Jam 2:5

Hath not God chosen the poor? Not that God hath chosen all the poor in the world, but his choice is chiefly of them, 1Co 1:26,28 . Poor he means in the things of this world, and in the esteem of worldly men; they are opposed to those that Paul calls rich in this world, 1Ti 6:17,18 .

Rich: some insert the verb substantive to be between this and the former clause, and read: Hath not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich, &c. So Rom 8:29 , predestinate to be conformed: the like defective speeches we find, Joh 12:46 2Co 3:6 . And the verb understood here is expressed, Eph 1:4 , after the same word we have in this text. And yet if we read the words as they stand in our translation, they do not prove that foresight of faith is previous to election, any more than that being heirs of the kingdom is so too.

In faith either in the greatness and abundance of their faith, Mat 15:28 Rom 4:20 ; or rather, rich in those privileges and hopes to which by faith they have a title.

And heirs of the kingdom an instance of their being rich, in that they are to inherit a kingdom.

Which he hath promised to them that love him: see Jam 1:12 , where the same words occur, only that which is here a kingdom, is there a crown.

Poole: Jam 2:6

But ye have despised the poor God’ s poor, viz. by your respecting persons.

Do not rich men? Either those that were unbelieving Jews or heathen; or such as made a profession of Christianity, but were not cordial friends to it; or, both may be included.

Oppress you insolently abuse you, and unrighteously, either usurping a power over you which belongs not to them, or abusing the power they have.

And draw you before the judgment-seats especially before unbelieving judges, 1Co 6:1,6 : they would colour their oppression with a pretence of law, and therefore drew the poor saints before the judgment-seat.

Poole: Jam 2:7

Do not they blaspheme? If the rich here spoken of were Christians, then they may be said to blaspheme Christ’ s name, when by their wicked carriage they caused it to be blasphemed by others, unbelievers, among whom they were, Rom 2:24 Tit 2:5 , &c.; 1Ti 6:1 : but if rich unbelievers be here meant, the rich men of those times being generally great enemies to Christianity; he would from thence show how mean a consideration riches were, to incline the professors of religion to such partiality as he taxeth them for.

That worthy name or, good or honourable (as good place, Jam 2:3 , for honourable) name of Christ; they blaspheme what they should adore.

By the which ye are called or, which is called upon you, either, which was called upon over you, when you were baptized into it; or rather it is a Hebrew phrase, and, implies no more than (as we read it) their being called by it, as children are after their fathers, and wives after their husbands, Gen 48:16 Isa 4:1 ; for so God’ s people are called by his name, Deu 28:10 Eph 3:15 .

Poole: Jam 2:8

If ye fulfil or, perfect; the word signifnies to accomplish perfectly, but no more is meant by it than sincerity in observing the duties of the law in an indifferent respect to one as well as another, which he seems to oppose to their partiality in the law, by respecting some and neglecting others.

The royal law either the law of God the great King, or Christ the King of saints; or rather, the royal law is the king’ s law, i.e. the great law which is the same to all, rich and poor, the common rule by which all are to act, as, the king’ s way, Num 21:22 , i.e. the great plain way in which all are to travel. Here may likewise be a tacit reflection on the servile disposition of these accepters of men’ s persons, evil becoming them that pretended to be governed by the royal law, which was to be observed with a more free and king-like spirit.

According to the Scripture: see Mat 22:39 Gal 5:14 .

Ye do well ye are not to be blamed, but commended. The apostle seems here to answer an objection they might make in their own defence; that in the respect they gave to rich men, they did but act according to the law which commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves: to this he replies partly in this verse by way of concession, or on supposition; that if the respect they gave to rich men were indeed in obedience to the law of charity, which commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves, then they did well, and he found no fault with them; but the contrary he shows in the next verse.

Poole: Jam 2:9

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin the second part of the apostle’ s answer, in which he sets persons in opposition to neighbour: q.d. If you, instead of loving your neighbour, which excludes no sort of men, poor no more than rich, choose and single out (as ye do) only some few (viz. rich men) to whom ye give respect, despising others, ye are so far from fulfilling the royal law, that ye sin against it.

And are convinced of the law either by the particular law against respecting persons, Lev 19:15 , or rather, by that very law you urge; your thus partially respecting the rich to the excluding of the poor, being so contrary to the command of loving your neighbour, which excludes none.

As transgressors i.e. to be transgressors, viz. of the whole law, as fellows.

Poole: Jam 2:10

For whosoever shall keep: this is not an assertion, that any man doth keep the whole law so as to offend but in one point, but a supposition that if, or admitting, such a one were.

The whole law all the rest of the law, that one point only of the whole being excepted.

And yet offend in one point slip, or trip, or stumble at; it seems to signify the least failing in any point of the law.

He is guilty of all guilty of the breach, and obnoxious to the punishment, of all; not distributively, or separately, as if he transgressed every precept distinctly; but:

1. Conjunctively or copulatively; he is guilty of not keeping the whole law, though not of breaking each particular command; he breaks the whole law, though not the whole of the law: as he that wounds a man’ s arm wounds the whole man, though not the whole of the man; he that breaks one link breaks the whole chain, and he that fails in one musical note spoils the whole harmony.

2. He sins against charity, which is the sum of the law, and upon which all the commands depend; and so though he keep most of them, as to the substance, yet he keeps none of them in a right manner, because none out of love, which should be the principle out of which he observes all of them.

3. He sins against the authority of the whole law, which is the same in every command.

4. He is liable to the same punishment, though not the same degree of it, as if he had broken all the commandments, Gal 3:1 ; and his keeping most, cannot exempt him from the punishment due for the breach of that one. This he speaks either in opposition to the Pharisees among the Jews, who thought themselves righteous if they kept most of the law, though in some things they came short; or rather, against hypocrites among Christians, who would pick and choose duties, obey some commands and neglect others; whereas no obedience to God is right, but that which is impartial, and respects all the commands, Psa 119:6 Mat 5:19 .

Poole: Jam 2:11

All proof of what he laid down in the former verse, by instancing in these two commands, there being the same reason of all the rest, the same sovereignty and righteousness of God appearing in them, and it being the will of God to try our obedience in one as well as another.

Thou art become a transgressor of the law viz. by contemning the authority and holiness of God, which appears in the whole law, and every command of it.

Haydock: Jam 2:1

With respect of persons. This partial respect of persons is several times condemned both in the Old and New Testament. St. James here speaks of it as it was committed in the assemblies, by which many understand the meetings of Christians, in[1] synagogues and places where they celebrated the divine service, or met to keep the charitable feast, called Agape. Others expound it of meetings where causes were judged. If it be meant of Church meetings, the apostle might have even greater reason to condemn such a partiality at that time than at present; for when the poorer sort of people, of which was the greatest number of converts, saw themselves so neglected and despised, and any rich man when he came thither so caressed and honoured, this might prove a discouragement to the meaner sort of people, and an obstacle to their conversion. But if we expound it of meetings where causes were judged betwixt the rich and others of a lower condition, (which exposition the text seems to favour) the fault might be still greater, when the judges gave sentence in favour of great and rich men, biassed thereunto by the unjust regard they had for men rich and powerful. This was a transgression of the law: (Leviticus xix. 15.) Respect not the person of the poor, nor honour the countenance of the mighty. But judge thy neighbour according to justice. See also Deuteronomy i. 17. (Witham) ---

Respect, &c. The meaning is, that in matters relating to faith, the administering of the sacraments and other spiritual functions in God's Church, there should be no respect of persons: but that the souls of the poor should be as much regarded as those of the rich. ([Deuteronomy?] Chap. i. 17) (Challoner)

Haydock: Jam 2:2

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In conventum vestrum, Greek: eis ten sunagogen umon. Synagogue is also taken for a meeting of kings, judges, &c. See Matthew x. 17.

Haydock: Jam 2:4

Are become judges of (or with ) unjust thoughts, [2] when against justice you favour the rich. Or, if in Church assemblies you discover a wrong and partial judgment in you minds and thoughts, by the high value and esteem you shew to the rich on account of their riches, and the contempt you have of poverty and of the poor, when they are perhaps more deserving in the sight of God, who hath chosen them who are rich in faith, whom he hath made his adoptive children, and heirs of his kingdom. These are much the greater riches: this is a dignity far surpassing that of the greatest king or emperor. And you have less reason to shew such distinguishing marks of honour and esteem for the rich of this world, since it is they who by might and violence oppress you, draw you to judgment-seats: and they are less worthy of your honour and esteem, when by their scandalous behaviour they blaspheme, or cause to be blasphemed and ill-spoken of, the good and holy name of God, which is invoked upon you. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Judices cogitationum iniquarum: it is the same in the Greek, Greek: kritai dialogismon poneron: the sense is, Judices inique cogitantes.

Haydock: Jam 2:8

If then you fulfil the royal law,...thou shalt love, &c. you do well. By these words, the apostle explains what he had said before of the particular respect paid to rich and powerful men, that if these were no more than some exterior marks paid them without any injustice or interior contempt of such as were poor, so that they took care to comply with that royal precept given to every one by Almighty God, the King of kings, thou shalt love thy neighbour, that is, every one without exception, as thyself; in this you do well; and the respect of persons was less blameable. (Witham)

Haydock: Jam 2:10

Is become guilty of all. It is certain these words are not to be taken merely according to the letter, nor in the sense which at first they seem to represent, as if a man by transgressing one precept of the law transgressed and broke all the rest: this appears by the very next verse, that a man may commit murder by killing another, and not commit adultery. And it is certain, as St. Augustine observes, that all sins are not equal, as the Stoic philosophers pretended. See St. Augustine, Epist. clxvii, (nov. ed. tom. 2, p. 595) where he consults St. Jerome on this very place out of St. James, and tells us that such a man may be said to be guilty of all, because by one deadly sin he acts against charity,[3] (which is the love of God and of our neighbour) upon which depends the whole law and all its precepts; so that by breaking one precept, he loseth the habit of charity, and maketh the keeping, or not breaking of all the rest, unprofitable to him. Secondly, it may be added, that all the precepts of the law are to be considered as one total and entire law, and as it were a chain of precepts, where by breaking one link of this chain the whole chain is broken, or the integrity of the law, consisting of a collection of precepts. Thirdly, it may be said, that he who breaks any one precept, contemns the authority of the lawgiver, who enjoined them all, and under pain of being for ever excluded from his sight and enjoyment. A sinner, therefore, by a grievous offence against any one precept, forfeits his heavenly inheritance, becomes liable to eternal punishments, as if he had transgressed all the rest: not but that the punishments in hell shall be greater against those who have been greater sinners, as greater shall be the reward in heaven for those who have lived with greater sanctity and perfection. (Witham) ---

Guilty, &c. That is, he becomes a transgressor of the law in such a manner, that the observing of all other points will not avail him to salvation; for he despises the lawgiver, and breaks through the great and general commandment of charity, even by one mortal sin. (Challoner)

Haydock: Jam 2:10-11

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Augustine, Ep. lxvii. num. 16. p. 600. An forte quia plenitudo legis charitas est, qua Deus, proximusque diligitur, in quibus præceptis charitatis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, merito fit reus omnium, qui contra illam facit ex qua pendent omnia.

====================

Gill: Jam 2:1

My brethren,.... As the apostle is about to dissuade from the evil of having respect to persons, this is a very fit introduction to it, and carries in it an argument why it should not obtain; since the saints are all brethren, they are children of the same Father, belong to the same family, and are all one in Christ Jesus, whether high or low, rich, or poor:

have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons: that is, such as have, and hold, and profess the faith of Christ, ought not along with it to use respect of persons, or to make such a distinction among the saints, as to prefer the rich, to the contempt of the poor; and in this exhortation many things are contained, which are so many arguments why such a practice should not be encouraged; for faith, whether as a doctrine or as a grace, is alike precious, and common to all; and is the faith of Christ, which, as a doctrine, is delivered by him to all the saints, and as a grace, he is both the author and object of it; and is the faith of their common Lord and Saviour, and who is the Lord of glory, or the glorious Lord; and the poor as well as the rich are espoused by him, as their Lord and husband; and are redeemed by him, and are equally under his government and protection, and members of his body: the Syriac Version reads, "have not the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus", &c. meaning either the glory which Christ is possessed of, whether as the Son of God, in the perfections of his nature, or as man and Mediator, being now crowned with glory and honour, and which is seen and known by faith; or else that glory which Christ has in his hands, to bestow upon his people, and to which they are called, and will appear in, when he shall appear, and about which their faith is now employed: and since this glory equally belongs to them all, no difference should be made on account of outward circumstances, so as to treat any believer with neglect and contempt.

Gill: Jam 2:2

For if there come unto your assembly,.... The place of religious worship where saints are assembled together for that purpose; though some think a civil court of judicature is intended, and to which the context seems to incline; see Jam 2:6

a man with a gold ring; on his finger, which shows him to be a man of dignity and wealth; so those of the senatorian and equestrian orders among the Romans were distinguished from the common people by wearing gold rings; though in time the use of them became promiscuous ^q; the ancients used to wear but one ^r, as here but one is mentioned; and only freemen, not servants, might wear it: however, by this circumstance, the apostle describes a rich man, adding,

in goodly apparel; gay clothing, bright shining garments, glistering with gold and silver, very rich and costly, as well as whole, neat, and clean:

and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; mean and despicable, filthy and ragged: in the courts of judicature with the Jews, two men, who were at law with one another, might not have different apparel on while they were in court, and their cause was trying: their law runs thus ^s;

"two adversaries (at law with each other), if one of them is clothed "with precious garments", (Myrqy Mydgb, "goodly apparel",) and the other is clothed with בגדים בזויין, "vile raiment", (the judge) says to the honourable person, either clothe him as thou art, while thou contendest with him, or be clothed as he is, that ye may be alike, or on an equal foot.''

Gill: Jam 2:3

And ye have respect to him that wears the gay clothing,.... Take notice of him, and show favour to him, to the neglect and contempt of the other. This is an instance of respect of persons condemned and dissuaded from:

and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; the best place; whether it be in a religious assembly, or in a civil court of judicature:

and say to the poor, stand thou there; or in a lower and meaner place:

or sit thou here under my footstool; this also was contrary to the Jewish canons ^t, that one should sit, and another stand, while their cause was trying; the law runs thus:

"one shall not sit, and another stand, but both shall stand; but if the sanhedrim, or court, please to let them sit, they sit; but one does not sit above, and the other below; but one by the side of the other.''

Gill: Jam 2:4

Are ye not then partial in yourselves,.... That is, guilty of such partiality as must appear to yourselves, and your own consciences must accuse you of; or do not ye distinguish, or make a difference among yourselves, by such a conduct, towards the rich and the poor:

and are become judges of evil thoughts; or "are distinguishers by evil thoughts"; that is, make a distinction between the rich and the poor, by an evil way of thinking, that one is better than the other, and to be preferred before him.

Gill: Jam 2:5

Hearken, my beloved brethren,.... As to a matter of importance, and worthy of attention and regard; being an instance of the divine conduct towards the poor, and carries in it a strong argument against respect of persons:

hath not God chosen the poor of this world? this interrogative is equal to a strong affirmative; and the sense is, that God has chosen the poor of this world; and which is to be understood, not of the choice of them to an office, either in church or state; though sometimes this has been the case, as the instances of David, and the apostles of Christ, show; nor merely to the Gospel, and the outward means of grace, though the poor have the Gospel preached unto them; nor of the effectual calling, though this is true; but of eternal election, which is the act of God the Father, and passed before the foundation of the world; and is an act of sovereign grace, and is irrespective of faith, holiness, and good works; and is the source of all grace, and remains immutable and irrevocable: now the objects of this are, "the poor of this world"; that is, who are poor with respect to the things of this world, but not with respect to the things of another world; for they are chosen to be heirs of a kingdom, and shall enjoy it; though these are not all chosen by God, nor are they the only persons that are chosen; there are some poor men that are not chosen, and are miserable here and hereafter; and there are some rich men that are chosen; but for the most part, or generally speaking, they are not many mighty, nor noble, but the poorer sort, which God has made choice of to partake both of grace and glory. It may be the apostle has some peculiar respect to the poor among the Gentiles, whom God had chosen; it was usual with the Jews to call the Gentiles the world, and they were Jews the apostle now writes to, and who were scattered abroad among the Gentiles; and therefore he might very aptly call them "this world", among whom they lived; and suggest to them, that God had chosen some of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, and even some of the poorer sort of them; and it was usual with the Jews to distinguish between עניי ישראל, "the poor of Israel", and עניי עולם, "the poor of the world", or עניי אומות העולם "the poor of the nations of the world" ^u: the Alexandrian copy, and some others, leave out the word "this", and so the Syriac and Arabic versions, which makes the phrase more agreeable to the Jewish way of speaking. The Gentiles, in common, were despicable with the Jews, and especially the poor of them; and yet God chose these:

rich in faith; not that they were so, or were considered as such, when chosen, and so were chosen because of their faith; for then also they were, or were considered as heirs of the kingdom, which would be monstrously absurd; and yet there is as much reason, from the text, for the one, as for the other; but the sense is, that they were chosen "to be rich in faith"; and so the Syriac version supplies in the next clause, "that they might be heirs"; which if it had been placed before this clause also, would have been right; election to grace is signified in the one, and election to glory in the other: men are chosen, not because they do believe, or shall believe, but that they might believe; and which faith they have in consequence of election; and which when they have, they are rich: faith is a rich precious grace itself; it is a part of the riches of grace, and is more worth than thousands of gold and silver; and it is the means of receiving and enjoying much riches, as Christ the pearl of great price himself, and all spiritual blessings along with him; such as the rich robe of his righteousness, full pardon of sin, which is according to the riches of his grace, and adoption, which makes men heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, and even the eternal inheritance itself, both the promise of it, and a right unto it; all which are said to be received by faith; and therefore believers, how poor soever they may be, to this world's goods, are truly rich men:

and heirs of the kingdom; of glory, which is prepared for all the chosen ones, from the foundation of the world; and is freely given to them by their Father, and to which they are called in the effectual calling; and hence they are made kings and priests unto God, and have crowns and thrones provided for them: the Alexandrian copy reads, "heirs of the promise which he hath promised to them that love him"; that is, which God has promised them, as the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read; not that their love to God is the cause of this kingdom, or of their choice to it, or of the promise of it to them; all which flow from the love of God to them; but this is descriptive of the persons who shall enjoy it, and may expect to enjoy it, as in Jam 1:12.

Gill: Jam 2:6

But ye have despised the poor,.... Or dishonoured, and reproached them, by showing respect of persons, in preferring the rich to them, and in distinguishing them in such a manner as was to their contempt and injury; which is a reproaching not only of them, but their Maker; and is in effect saying, that God has done either a weak or a wrong thing, in choosing them to be rich in faith, and heirs of a kingdom, it being directly contrary to his conduct:

do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? which may be understood either of rich men that were unbelievers; and these either the Heathen magistrates, who ruled over them in a tyrannical way, and with rigour, and often summoned them before them, and persecuted them with violence; or their own countrymen, the Jews, who stirred up the chief men of the Gentiles against them, and drew them to their judgment seats, as they drew Paul to the judgment seat of Gallio, Act 13:50 or else of rich professors of religion, who assumed a despotic power over the poor brethren of the church, and loved to have the pre-eminence over them, as Diotrephes did, and set up tribunals in the churches, and tried and condemned them in an arbitrary way; or else upon civil accounts had them before heathen magistrates, and went to law with them in their courts, before unbelievers, which is a practice condemned in 1Co 6:1, and seeing now rich men used them so ill, the apostle mentions this as an argument to dissuade them from respect of persons; seeing they had but little reason to show so much regard unto them, who had treated them in so evil a manner: this is not to be understood of all rich men; nor is the apostle's design to destroy that natural and civil order there is among men, by reason of their different stations, offices, and circumstances; it being highly proper that honour should he given to whom honour is due, but not to the dishonour of another.

Gill: Jam 2:7

Of Christ, or Christians;

by the which ye are called? and which, as before, may design either unbelieving rich men, whether among Jews, or Gentiles, who blasphemed and cursed the name of Christ, and compelled others to do so likewise; or such who professed the Christian religion, who by their supercilious and disdainful treatment of their poor brethren, and by their dragging of them to the tribunals of the Heathens, and distressing them with vexatious law suits there, caused the name of Christ, after which they were called Christians, to be blasphemed and evil spoken of, among the Gentiles.

Gill: Jam 2:8

If ye fulfil the royal law,.... Which is the law of love to men, without distinction of rich and poor, high and low, bond and free; and is so called, because it is the law of the King of kings; hence the Syriac version renders it, "the law of God", it is the law of Christ, who is King of saints; and because it is a principal law, the chief of laws; as love to God is the sum of the first and great commandment in the law, and may be called the king of laws; so love to the neighbour is the second and next unto it, and may very well bear the name of the queen of laws, and so has royalty in it; and indeed this last is said to be the fulfilling of the law, Rom 13:8 and it is also submitted to, and obeyed by such who are made kings and priests to God; and that in a royal manner, with a princely spirit, willingly, and with all readiness: the same word, in the Hebrew language, נדיבים, signifies "princes", and to be willing. The Jews frequently ascribe royalty to the law, and often speak of כתר תורה, "the crown of the law" ^w; and they suppose the Israelites had crowns upon their heads, when the law was given them on Mount Sinai, in which were engraven the name of God, and which they were stripped of when they made the golden calf ^x: now this royal law is fulfilled, when it is regarded without respect of persons,

according to the Scripture, in Lev 19:18

thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself; and which is to be understood of every nation, without distinction of Jews and Gentiles, and of persons of every state and condition, rich and poor, without any difference: and when this law is so observed, it is commendable:

ye do well: that which is right, and which is a man's duty to do; this, when done from right principles, and to a right end, is a good work, and is doing a good work well.

Gill: Jam 2:9

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, &c. This is not doing well, but is a transgression of the law, as every sin is; hence it follows,

and are convinced of the law as transgressors; which carries on a formal process against such persons; it accuses them of sin, and charges them with it; it proves it upon them, and convicts them of it; it pronounces them guilty, and curses them for it; and passes the sentence of condemnation and death upon them; wherefore care should be taken not to commit this sin, and so fall under the convictions and reproofs of the law.

Gill: Jam 2:10

For whosoever shall keep the whole law,.... Or the greatest part of it, excepting only in one point, as follows: Adam, in a state of innocence, was able to keep the whole law, but by sin he lost that power, nor can any of his posterity now keep it perfectly: they are all transgressors of it, and liable to its penalty; unregenerate men are not obedient to it, and have an aversion to it, and despise it, and cast it behind their backs; regenerate persons, who love it, and delight in it, after the inner man, do not keep it perfectly; the several parts of the law may be indeed kept by a believer, and that sincerely, but not to a perfect degree, for in many things they all offend; Christ only has perfectly kept it, and is the fulfilling end of it for righteousness; men of a pharisaical disposition may fancy they have kept it wholly, as the young man in the Gospel, and Saul, before his conversion; but this is but a fancy, and a sad mistake: the case in the text is only a supposed one, and, as it is here put, implies perfection; for it follows,

and yet offend in one point; sin, which is a transgression of the law, is an offense to God the Father, who is of purer eyes than to behold it; to Jesus Christ, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and to the blessed Spirit who is grieved and vexed by it; and to the justice of God, which being injured by it, demands satisfaction; and to the law of God, which accuses, convinces, reproves, and condemns for it. The word used signifies to "fall", and designs more than stumbling, even an open breach and violation of the law; and which being made, by any, in a single instance,

he is guilty of all: this seems to agree with some common sayings of the Jews, that he that is suspected in one thing, is suspected in the whole law ^y; and he that keeps this or the other command, keeps the whole law; and he that breaks this, or the other command, breaks the whole law; as whether it respects the sabbath, or adultery, or that command. Thou shall not covet, or any other ^z: and this must be understood, not of every particular command in the law, as if he that is guilty of murder is in that instance also guilty of adultery; or he that is guilty of adultery is in that instance guilty of murder; but the sense is, that he is guilty of the breach of the whole law, though not of the whole of the law; as he that breaks anyone condition of a covenant, which may consist of many, though he does not violate every condition, yet breaks the whole covenant; so he that transgresses in anyone point of the law, breaks the whole, commits sin, and is deserving of death, and is treated by the law as a transgressor of it, let it be in what instance it will. But it does not follow from hence, that all sins are equal, as the Stoics say ^a, for there are greater and lesser sins, Joh 19:11 though not some venial, and others mortal, for the wages of every sin is death; nor that the punishment of sin will be alike, as all sins were punishable alike by Draco's laws, but not by the law of God, Mat 11:22 but this may be fairly concluded from hence, that there can be no justification in the sight of God, by an imperfect obedience to, the law, or by a partial righteousness: the law requires perfect obedience, and in failure of that, though but in one point, curses and condemns; and likewise it may be inferred from hence, that a man is not at liberty to obey and neglect what commandments of the law he pleases, but should have respect to them all; which seems greatly the design of the apostle, as appears by what follows.

Gill: Jam 2:11

For he that said, Do not commit adultery,.... That same lawgiver, who is but one, and is God, that gave out the seventh command, and forbids adultery,

said also, Do not kill; delivered the sixth command, which forbids murder.

Now if thou commit no adultery; do not break the seventh command;

yet if thou kill, break the sixth command,

thou art become a transgressor of the law; not of that particular precept of the law, the seventh command, for the contrary is supposed before, but of the sixth only; and yet by so doing, a man becomes a violator of the whole law; for the law is but one, though it consists of various precepts; and the breach of one precept, as well as of another, is the breach of the law: and besides, there is but one lawgiver, who has enjoined one command, as well as another, and whose legislative power and authority is despised and trampled upon by the violation of one command, as of another. This is the apostle's argument, and way of reasoning, proving the above assertion, that he that breaks the law in one particular instance, is guilty of the breach of the whole law.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Jam 2:1

¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:2.

² tn Or “partiality.”

³ tn Grk “do not have faith with personal prejudice,” with emphasis on the last phrase.

⁴ tn Grk “our Lord Jesus Christ of glory.” Here δόξης (doxhs) has been translated as an attributive genitive.

NET Notes: Jam 2:2

¹ tn The word for “man” or “individual” here is ἀνήρ (anhr), which often means “male” or “man (as opposed to woman).” But as BDAG 79 s.v. 2 says, “equivalent to τὶς someone.”

² tn Grk “synagogue.” Usually συναγωγή refers to Jewish places of worship (e.g., Matt 4:23, Mark 1:21, Luke 4:15, John 6:59). The word can be used generally to refer to a place of assembly, and here it refers specifically to a Christian assembly (BDAG 963 s.v. 2.b.).

NET Notes: Jam 2:3

¹ tn Grk “and you pay attention…and say,” continuing the “if” clauses from v. 2. In the Greek text, vv. 2-4 form one long sentence.

² tn Or “sit here, please.”

³ tn Grk “sit under my footstool.” The words “on the floor” have been supplied in the translation to clarify for the modern reader the undesirability of this seating arrangement (so also TEV, NIV, CEV, NLT). Another option followed by a number of translations is to replace “under my footstool” with “at my feet” (NAB, NIV, NRSV).

NET Notes: Jam 2:4

¹ tn Grk “have you not made distinctions” (as the conclusion to the series of “if” clauses in vv. 2-3).

² tn Grk “judges of evil reasonings.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:5

¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:2.

NET Notes: Jam 2:6

¹ tn This is singular: “the poor person,” perhaps referring to the hypothetical one described in vv. 2-3.

NET Notes: Jam 2:7

¹ tn Grk “that was invoked over you,” referring to their baptism in which they confessed their faith in Christ and were pronounced to be his own. To have the Lord’s name “named over them” is OT imagery for the Lord’s ownership of his people (cf. 2 Chr 7:14; Amos 9:12; Isa 63:19; Jer 14:9; 15:16; Dan 9:19; Acts 15:17).

NET Notes: Jam 2:8

¹ tn Grk “according to the scripture.”

² sn A quotation from Lev 19:18 (also quoted in Matt 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14).

NET Notes: Jam 2:9

¹ tn Or “transgressors.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:10

¹ tn Or “stumbles.”

² tn Grk “guilty of all.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:11

¹ sn A quotation from Exod 20:14 and Deut 5:18.

² sn A quotation from Exod 20:13 and Deut 5:17.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:1

My ^{( 1 )} brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of ^{( a )} glory, with respect of persons.

^{( 1 )} The first: charity which proceeds from a true faith, cannot exist with the respecting of people: which he proves plainly by using the example of those who, while having reproach or disdain for the poor, honour the rich.

^{( a )} For if we knew what Christ's glory is, and esteemed it as we should, there would not be the respecting of people that there is.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:3

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a ^{( b )} good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

^{( b )} In a worshipful and honourable place.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:4

Are ye not then partial in ^{( c )} yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

^{( c )} Have you not within yourselves judged one man to be preferred over another (which you should not do) by means of this?

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:5

^{( 2 )} Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the ^{( d )} poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

^{( 2 )} He shows that those who prefer the rich over the poor are wicked and disobedient judges, since God on the other hand prefers the poor (whom he has enriched with true riches) over the rich.

^{( d )} The needy and wretched, and (if we measure it after the opinion of the world) the most degraded of all men.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:6

But ye have despised the poor. ^{( 3 )} Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

^{( 3 )} Secondly, he proves them to be fools: since the rich men are rather to be held detestable and cursed, considering that they persecute the church, and blaspheme Christ: for he speaks of wicked and profane rich men, as most of them have always been, beside whom he contrasts the poor and degraded.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:7

Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are ^{( e )} called?

^{( e )} Literally, "which is called upon of you".

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:8

^{( 4 )} If ye fulfil the ^{( f )} royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

^{( 4 )} The conclusion: charity which God prescribes cannot agree with the respecting of people, seeing that we must walk in the king's highway.

^{( f )} The law is said to be royal and like the king's highway, in that it is simple and without changes, and that the law calls everyone our neighbour without respect, whom we may help by any kind of duty.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:10

^{( 5 )} For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of ^{( g )} all.

^{( 5 )} A new argument to prove the same conclusion: Those who neglect some and ambitiously honour others do not love their neighbours. For they do not obey God if they remove from the commandments of God those things that are not convenient for them. Rather they are guilty of breaking the whole law, even though they observe part of it.

^{( g )} Not that all sins are equal, but because he who breaks one small part of the law, offends the majority of the given law.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:11

^{( 6 )} For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

^{( 6 )} A proof: because the Lawmaker is always one and the same, and the contents of the law cannot be divided.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Jam 2:1-26

1 It is not agreeable to Christian profession to regard the rich, and to despise the poor brethren;

13 rather we are to be loving and merciful;

14 and not to boast of faith where no deeds are;

17 which is but a dead faith;

19 the faith of the devils;

21 not of Abraham;

25 nor Rahab.

Maclaren: Jam 2:1

Faith In His Name

The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.'--James 2:1.

THE rarity of the mention of Jesus in this Epistle must strike every attentive reader; but the character of the references that are made is equally noticeable, and puts beyond doubt that, whatever is the explanation of their fewness, lower thoughts of Jesus, or less devotion to Him than belonged to the other New Testament writers, are not the explanation. James mentions Christ unmistakably only three times. The first occasion is in his introductory salutation, where, like the other New Testament writers, he describes himself as the slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ'; thus linking the two names in closest union, and proffering unlimited obedience to his Master. The second case is that of my text, in which our Lord is set forth by this solemn designation, and is declared to be the object of faith. The last is in an exhortation to patience in view of the coming of the Lord to be our Judge.

So James, like Peter and Paul and John, looked to Jesus, who was probably the brother of James by birth, as being the Lord, whom it was no blasphemy nor idolatry to name in the same breath as God, and to whom the same absolute obedience was to be rendered; who was to be the object of men's unlimited trust, and who was to come again to be our Judge.

Here we have, in this remarkable utterance, four distinct designations of that Saviour, a constellation of glories gathered together; and I wish now, in a few remarks, to isolate, and gaze at the several stars --the faith of our Lord--Jesus--Christ--the Lord of glory.

I. Christian Faith Is Faith In Jesus.

We often forget that that name was common, wholly undistinguished, and borne by very many of our Lord's contemporaries. It had been borne by the great soldier whom we know as Joshua; and we know that it was the name of one at least of the disciples of our Master. Its disuse after Him, both by Jew and Christian, is easily intelligible. But though He bore it with special reference to His work of saving His people from their sins, He shared it, as He shared manhood, with many another of the sons of Abraham. Of course, Jesus is the name that is usually employed in the Gospels. But when we turn to the Epistles, we find that it is comparatively rare for it to stand alone, and that in almost all the instances of its employment by itself, it brings with it the special note of pointing attention to the manhood of our Lord Jesus. Let me just gather together one or two instances which may help to elucidate this matter.

Who does not feel, for example, that when we read let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith,' the fact of our brother Man having trodden the same path, and being the pattern for our patience and perseverance, is tenderly laid upon our hearts? Again, when we read of sympathy as being felt to us by the great High Priest who can be' touched with a feeling of our infirmities, even Jesus,' I think we cannot but recognise that His humanity is pressed upon our thoughts, as securing to us that we have not only the pity of a God, but the compassion of a Man, who knows by experience the bitterness of our sorrows.

In like manner we read sometimes that Jesus died for us,' sometimes that Christ died for us'; and, though the two forms of the statement present the same fact, they present it, so to speak, from a different angle of vision, and suggest to us different thoughts. When Paul, for example, says to us, If we believe that Jesus died and rose again,' we cannot but feel that he is pressing on us the thought of the true manhood of that Saviour who, in His death, as in His resurrection, is the Forerunner of them that believe upon Him, and whose death will be the more peaceful, and their rising the more certain, because He, who, forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood likewise took part of the same,' has thereby destroyed death, and delivered them from its bondage. Nor, with less emphasis, and strengthening triumphant force, do we read that this same Jesus, the Man who bore our nature in its fulness and is kindred to us in flesh and spirit, has risen from the dead, hath ascended up on high, and is the Forerunner, who for us, by virtue of His humanity, has entered in thither. Surely the most insensitive ear must catch the music, and the deep significance of the word which says, We see not yet all things put under him (i.e., man), but we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour.'

So, then, Christian faith first lays hold of that manhood, realises the suffering and death as those of a true humanity, recognises that He bore in His nature all the ills that flesh is heir to,' and that His human life is a brother's pattern for ours; that, He having died, death hath no more terrors for, or dominion over, us, and that whither the Man Jesus has gone, we sinful men need never fear to enter, nor doubt that we shall enter, too.

If our faith lays hold on Jesus the Man, we shall be delivered from the misery of wasting our earthly affections on creatures that may be false, that may change, that must be feeble, and will surely die. If our faith lays hold on the Man Jesus, all the treasures of the human love, trust, and obedience, that are so often squandered, and return as pain on our deceived and wounded hearts, will find their sure, sweet, stable object in Him. Human love is sometimes false and fickle, always feeble and frail; human wisdom has its limits, and human perfection its flaws; but the Man Jesus is the perfect, the all-sufficient and unchangeable object for all the love, the trust, and the obedience that the human heart can pour out before Him.

II. Christian Faith Is Faith In Jesus Christ.

The earliest Christian confession, the simplest and sufficient creed, was, Jesus is the Christ. What do we mean by that? We mean, first and plainly, that He is the realisation of the dim figure which arose, majestic and enigmatical, through the mists of a partial revelation. We mean that He is, as the word signifies etymologically, anointed' with the Divine Spirit, for the discharge of all the offices which, in old days, were filled by men who were fitted and designated for them by outward unction--prophet, priest, and king. We mean that He is the substance of which ancient ritual was the shadow. We mean that He is the goal to which all that former partial unveiling of the mind and will of God steadfastly pointed. This, and nothing less, is the meaning of the declaration that Jesus is the Christ; and that belief is the distinguishing mark of the faith which this Hebrew of the Hebrews, writing to Hebrews, declares to be the Christian faith.

Now I know, and I am thankful to know, that there are many men who earnestly and reverently admire and obey Jesus, but think that they have nothing to do with these old Hebrew ideas of a Christ. It is not for me to decide which individual is His follower, and which is not; but this I say, that the primitive Christian confession was precisely that Jesus was the Christ, and that I, for my part, know no reason why the terms of the confession should be altered. Ah, these old Jewish ideas are not, as one great man has called them, Hebrew old clothes'; and I venture to assert that they are not to be discarded without woefully marring the completeness of Christian faith.

The faith in Jesus must pass into faith in Christ; for it is the office described in that name, which gives all its virtue to the manhood. Glance back for a moment to those instances which I have already quoted of the use of the name suggesting simple humanity, and note how all of them require to be associated with this other thought of the function of Christ, and His special designation by the anointing of God, in order that their full value may be made manifest.

For instance, Jesus died.' Yes, that is a fact of history. The Man was crucified. What is that to me more than any other martyrdom and its story, unless it derives its significance from the clear understanding of who it was that died upon the Cross? So we can understand that significant selection of terms, when the same Apostle, whose utterances I have already been quoting in the former part of this sermon, varies the name, and says, This is the gospel which I declared unto you, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.'

Again, suppose we think of the example of Jesus as the perfect realised ideal of human life. That may become, and I think often does become, as impotent and as paralysing as any other specimen without flaw, that can be conceived of or presented to man. But if we listen to the teaching that says to us, Christ died for us, leaving us an example that we should follow His steps,' then the ideal is not like a cold statue that looks down repellent even in its beauty, but is a living person who reaches a hand down to us to lift us to His own level, and will put His spirit within us, that, as the Master is, so may also the servants be.

Again, if we confine ourselves to the belief that the Man named Jesus has risen again, and has been exalted to glory, then, as a matter of fact, the faith in His Resurrection and Ascension will not long co-exist with the rejection of anything beyond simple humanity in His person. If, however, that faith could last, then He might be conceived of as filling a solitary throne, and there might be no victory over death for the rest of us in His triumph. But when we can ring out as the Apostle did, Now is Christ risen from the dead,' then we can also say, and is become the first-fruits of them that slept.'

So, brethren, lift your faith in Jesus, and let it be sublimed into faith in Christ. Whom say ye that I am?' The answer is--may we all from our hearts and from our minds make it!--Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

III. Christian Faith Is Faith In Jesus Christ The Lord.

Now, I take it that that name is here used neither in its lowest sense as a mere designation of politeness, as we employ sir,' nor in its highest Sense in which, referred to Jesus Christ, it is not unfrequently used in the New Testament as being equivalent to the Jehovah' of the Old; but that it is employed in a middle sense as expressive of dignity and sovereignty.

Jesus is Lord. Our brother, a Man, is King of the universe, The new thing in Christ's return to the glory which He had with the Father before the world was' is that He took the manhood with Him into indissoluble union with the divinity, and that a man is Lord. So you and I can cherish that wonderful hope: I will give to him that overcometh to sit with Me on My throne.' Nor need we ever fear but that all things concerning ourselves and our dear ones, and the Church and the world, will be ordered aright; for the hand that sways the universe is the hand that was many a time laid in blessing upon the sick and the maimed, and that gathered little children to His bosom.

Christ is Lord. That is to say, supreme dominion is based on suffering. Because the vesture that He wears is dipped in blood, therefore there is written upon it, King of kings, and Lord of lords.' The Cross has become the throne. There is the basis of all true rule, and there is the assurance that His dominion is an everlasting dominion. So our faith is to rise from earth, and, like the dying martyr, to see the Son of Man at the right hand of the majesty of the heavens.

IV. Lastly, Christian Faith Is Faith In Jesus Christ, The Lord Of Glory.'

Now, the last words of my text have given great trouble to commentators. A great many explanations, with which I need not trouble you, have been suggested with regard to them. One old explanation has been comparatively neglected; and yet it seems to me to be the true one. The Lord' is a supplement which ekes out a meaning, but, as I think, obscures the meaning. Suppose we strike it out and read straight on. What do we get? The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.'

And is that not intelligible? Remember to whom James was writing--Jews. Did not every Jew know what the Shekinah was, the light that used to shine between the Cherubim, as the manifest symbol of the divine presence, but which had long been absent from the Temple? And when James falls back upon that familiar Hebrew expression, and recalls the vanished lustre that lay upon the mercy-seat, surely he would be understood by his Hebrew readers, and should be understood by us, as saying no more and no other than another of the New Testament writers has said with reference to the same symbolical manifestation--namely, The Word became flesh tabernacled among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as the only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.' James's sentence runs on precisely the same lines as other sentences of the New Testament. For instance, the Apostle Paul, in one place, speaks of' Our Lord Jesus Christ, our hope.' And this statement is constructed in exactly the same fashion, with the last name put in opposition to the others,' The Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.'

Now, what does that mean? This--that the true presence of God, that the true lustrous emanation from, and manifestation of, the abysmal brightness, is in Jesus Christ, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His person.' For the central blaze of God's glory is God's love, and that rises to its highest degree in the name and mission of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Men conceive of the glory of the divine nature as lying in the attributes which separate it most widely from our impotent, limited, changeable, and fleeting being. God conceives of His highest glory as being in that love, of which the love of earth is a kindred spark; and whatever else there may be of majestic and magnificent in Him, the heart of the Divinity is a heart of love.

Brethren, if we would see God, our faith must grasp the Man, the Christ, the Lord, and, as climax of all names--the Incarnate God, the Eternal Word, who has come among us to reveal to us men the glory of the Lord.

So, brethren, let us make sure that the fleshy tables of our hearts are not like the mouldering stones that antiquarians dig up on some historical site, bearing half-obliterated inscriptions and fragmentary names of mighty kings of long ago, but bearing the many-syllabled Name written firm, clear, legible, complete upon them, as on some granite block from the stone cutter's chisel. Let us, whilst we cling with human love to the Man that was born in Bethlehem, discern the Christ that was prophesied from of old, to whom all altars point, of whom all prophets spoke, who was the theme end of all the earlier Revelation. Let us crown Him Lord of All in our own hearts, and let us, beholding in Him the glory of the Father, lie in His Light until we are changed into the same image. Be sure that your faith is a full-orbed faith; grasp all the many sides of the Name that is above every name. And let us, like the apostles of old, rejoice if we are counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name. Let us go forth into life for the sake of the Name, and, whatsoever we do in word or deed, let us do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.

MHCC: Jam 2:1-13

Those who profess faith in Christ as the Lord of glory, must not respect persons on account of mere outward circumstances and appearances, in a manner not agreeing with their profession of being disciples of the lowly Jesus. St. James does not here encourage rudeness or disorder: civil respect must be paid; but never such as to influence the proceedings of Christians in disposing of the offices of the church of Christ, or in passing the censures of the church, or in any matter of religion. Questioning ourselves is of great use in every part of the holy life. Let us be more frequent in this, and in every thing take occasion to discourse with our souls. As places of worship cannot be built or maintained without expense, it may be proper that those who contribute thereto should be accommodated accordingly; but were all persons more spiritually-minded, the poor would be treated with more attention that usually is the case in worshipping congregations. A lowly state is most favourable for inward peace and for growth in holiness. God would give to all believers riches and honours of this world, if these would do them good, seeing that he has chosen them to be rich in faith, and made them heirs of his kingdom, which he promised to bestow on all who love him. Consider how often riches lead to vice and mischief, and what great reproaches are thrown upon God and religion, by men of wealth, power, and worldly greatness; and it will make this sin appear very sinful and foolish. The Scripture gives as a law, to love our neighbour as ourselves. This law is a royal law, it comes from the King of kings; and if Christians act unjustly, they are convicted by the law as transgressors. To think that our good deeds will atone for our bad deeds, plainly puts us upon looking for another atonement. According to the covenant of works, one breach of any one command brings a man under condemnation, from which no obedience, past, present, or future, can deliver him. This shows us the happiness of those that are in Christ. We may serve him without slavish fear. God's restraints are not a bondage, but our own corruptions are so. The doom passed upon impenitent sinners at last, will be judgment without mercy. But God deems it his glory and joy, to pardon and bless those who might justly be condemned at his tribunal; and his grace teaches those who partake of his mercy, to copy it in their conduct.

Matthew Henry: Jam 2:1-7

The apostle is here reproving a very corrupt practice. He shows how much mischief there is in the sin of prosōpolēpsia - respect of persons, which seemed to be a very growing evil in the churches of Christ even in those early ages, and which, in these after-times, has sadly corrupted and divided Christian nations and societies. Here we have,

I. A caution against this sin laid down in general: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, Jam 2:1. Observe here, 1. The character of Christians fully implied: they are such as have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; they embrace it; they receive it; they govern themselves by it; they entertain the doctrine, and submit to the law and government, of Christ; they have it as a trust; they have it as a treasure. 2. How honorably James speaks of Jesus Christ; he calls him the Lord of glory; for he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person. 3. Christ's being the Lord of glory should teach us not to respect Christians for any thing so much as their relation and conformity to Christ. You who profess to believe the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the poorest Christian shall partake of equally with the rich, and to which all worldly glory is but vanity, you should not make men's outward and worldly advantages the measure of your respect. In professing the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, we should not show respect to men, so as to cloud or lessen the glory of our glorious Lord: how ever any may think of it, this is certainly a very heinous sin.

II. We have this sin described and cautioned against, by an instance or example of it (Jam 2:2, Jam 2:3): For if there come into your assembly a man with a gold ring, etc. Assembly here is meant of those meetings which were appointed for deciding matters of difference among the members of the church, or for determining when censures should be passed upon any, and what those censures should be; therefore the Greek word here used, sunagōgē , signifies such an assembly as that in the Jewish synagogues, when they met to do justice. Maimonides says (as I find the passage quoted by Dr. Manton) "That is was expressly provided by the Jews' constitutions that, when a poor man and a rich plead together, the rich shall not be bidden to sit down and the poor stand, or sit in a worse place, but both sit or both stand alike."To this the phrases used by the apostle have a most plain reference, and therefore the assembly here spoken of must be some such as the synagogue-assemblies of the Jews were, when they met to hear causes and to execute justice: to these the arbitrations and censures of their Christian assemblies are compared. But we must be careful not to apply what is here said to the common assemblies for worship; for in these certainly there may be appointed different places of persons according to their rank and circumstances, without sin. Those do not understand the apostle who fix his severity here upon this practice; they do not consider the word judges (used in Jam 2:4), nor what is said of their being convected as transgressors of the law, if they had such a respect of persons as is here spoken of, according to Jam 2:9. Thus, now put the case: " There comes into your assembly (when of the same nature with some of those at the synagogue) a man that is distinguished by his dress, and who makes a figure, and there comes in also a poor man in vile raiment, and you act partially, and determine wrong, merely because the one makes a better appearance, or is in better circumstances, than the other."Observe hence, 1. God has his remnant among all sorts of people, among those that wear soft and gay clothing, and among those that wear poor and vile raiment. 2. In matters of religion, rich and poor stand upon a level; no man's riches set him in the least nearer to God, nor does any man's poverty set him at a distance from God. With the Most High there is no respect of persons, and therefore in matters of conscience there should be none with us. 3. All undue honouring of worldly greatness and riches should especially be watched against in Christian societies. James does not here encourage rudeness or disorder. Civil respect must be paid, and some difference may be allowed in our carriage towards persons of different ranks; but this respect must never be such as to influence the proceedings of Christian societies in disposing of the offices of the church, or in passing the censures of the church, or in any thing that is purely a matter of religion; here we are to know no man after the flesh. It is the character of a citizen of Zion that in his eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoureth those that fear the Lord. If a poor man be a good man, we must not value him a whit the less for his poverty; and, if a rich man be a bad man (though he may have both gay clothing and a gay profession), we must not value him any whit the more for his riches. 4. Of what importance it is to take care what rule we go by in judging of men; if we allow ourselves commonly to judge by outward appearance, this will too much influence our spirits and our conduct in religious assemblies. There is many a man, whose wickedness renders him vile and despicable, who yet makes a figure in the world; and, on the other hand, there is many a humble, heavenly, good Christian, who is clothed meanly; but neither should he nor his Christianity be thought the worse of on this account.

III. We have the greatness of this sin set forth, Jam 2:4, Jam 2:5. It is great partiality, it is injustice, and it is to set ourselves against God, who has chosen the poor, and will honour and advance them (if good), let who will despise them. 1. In this sin there is shameful partiality: Are you not then partial in yourselves? The question is here put, as what could not fail of being answered by every man's conscience that would put it seriously to himself. According to the strict rendering of the original, the question is, " Have you not made a difference? And, in that difference, do you not judge by a false rule, and go upon false measures? And does not the charge of a partiality condemned by the law lie fully against you? Does not your own conscience tell you that you are guilty?"Appeals to conscience are of great advantage, when we have to do with such as make a profession, even though they may have fallen into a very corrupt state. 2. This respect of persons is owing to the evil and injustice of the thoughts. As the temper, conduct, and proceedings, are partial, so the heart and thoughts, from which all flows, are evil: " You have become judges of evil thoughts; that is, you are judges according to those unjust estimations and corrupt opinions which you have formed to yourselves. Trace your partiality till you come to those hidden thoughts which accompany and support it, and you will find those to be exceedingly evil. You secretly prefer outward pomp before inward grace, and the things that are seen before those which are not seen."The deformity of sin is never truly and fully discerned till the evil of our thoughts be disclosed: and it is this which highly aggravates the faults of our tempers and lives - that the imagination of the thoughts of the heart is evil, Gen 6:5. 3. This respect of persons is a heinous sin, because it is to show ourselves most directly contrary to God (Jam 2:5): " Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith? etc. But you have despised them, Jam 2:6. God has made those heirs of a kingdom whom you make of no reputation, and has given very great and glorious promises to those to whom you can hardly give a good word or a respectful look. And is not this a monstrous iniquity in you who pretend to be the children of God and conformed to him? Hearken, my beloved brethren; by all the love I have for you, and all the regards you have to me, I beg you would consider these things. Take notice that many of the poor of this world are the chosen of God. Their being God's chosen does not prevent their being poor; their being poor does not at all prejudice the evidences of their being chosen. Mat 11:5, The poor are evangelized. "God designed to recommend his holy religion to men's esteem and affection, not by the external advantages of gaiety and pomp, but by its intrinsic worth and excellency; and therefore chose the poor of this world. Again, take notice that many poor of the world are rich in faith; thus the poorest may become rich; and this is what they ought to be especially ambitious of. It is expected from those who have wealth and estates that they be rich in good works, because the more they have the more they have to do good with; but it is expected from the poor in the world that they be rich in faith, for the less they have here the more they may, and should, live in the believing expectation of better things in a better world. Take notice further, Believing Christians are rich in title, and in being heirs of a kingdom, though they may be very poor as to present possessions. What is laid out upon them is but little; what is laid up for them is unspeakably rich and great. Note again, Where any are rich in faith, there will be also divine love; faith working by love will be in all the heirs of glory. Note once more, under this head, Heaven is a kingdom, and a kingdom promised to those that love God. We read of the crown promised to those that love God, in the former chapter (Jam 2:12); we here find there is a kingdom too. And, as the crown is a crown of life, so the kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom. All these things, laid together, show how highly the poor in this world, if rich in faith, are now honoured, and shall hereafter be advanced by God; and consequently how very sinful a thing it was for them to despise the poor. After such considerations as these, the charge is cutting indeed: But you have despised the poor, Jam 2:6. 4. Respecting persons, in the sense of this place, on account of their riches or outward figure, is shown to be a very great sin, because of the mischiefs which are owing to worldly wealth and greatness, and the folly which there is in Christians' paying undue regards to those who had so little regard either to their God or them: " Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seat? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called? Jam 2:7. Consider how commonly riches are the incentives of vice and mischief, of blasphemy and persecution: consider how many calamities you yourselves sustain, and how great reproaches are thrown upon your religion and your God by men of wealth, and power, and worldly greatness; and this will make your sin appear exceedingly sinful and foolish, in setting up that which tends to pull you down, and to destroy all that you are building up, and to dishonour that worthy name by which you are called."The name of Christ is a worthy name; it reflects honour, and gives worth to those who wear it.

Matthew Henry: Jam 2:8-13

The apostle, having condemned the sin of those who had an undue respect of persons, and having urged what was sufficient to convict them of the greatness of this evil, now proceeds to show how the matter may be mended; it is the work of a gospel ministry, not only to reprove and warn, but to teach and direct. Col 1:28, Warning every man, and teaching every man. And here,

I. We have the law that is to guide us in all our regards to men set down in general. If you fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, you do well, Jam 2:8. Lest any should think James had been pleading for the poor so as to throw contempt on the rich, he now lets them know that he did not design to encourage improper conduct towards any; they must not hate nor be rude to the rich, any more than despise the poor; but as the scripture teaches us to love all our neighbours, be they rich or poor, as ourselves, so, in our having a steady regard to this rule, we shall do well. Observe hence, 1. The rule for Christians to walk by is settled in the scriptures: If according to the scriptures, etc. It is not great men, nor worldly wealth, nor corrupt practices among professors themselves, that must guide us, but the scriptures of truth. 2. The scripture gives us this as a law, to love our neighbour as ourselves; it is what still remains in full force, and is rather carried higher and further by Christ than made less important to us. 3. This law is a royal law, it comes from the King of kings. Its own worth and dignity deserve it should be thus honoured; and the state in which all Christians now are, as it is a state of liberty, and not of bondage or oppression, makes this law, by which they are to regulate all their actions to one another, a royal law. 4. A pretence of observing this royal law, when it is interpreted with partiality, will not excuse men in any unjust proceedings. In is implied here that some were ready to flatter rich men, and be partial to them, because, if they were in the like circumstances, they should expect such regards to themselves; or they might plead that to show a distinguished respect to those whom God in his providence had distinguished by their rank and degree in the world was but doing right; therefore the apostle allows that, so far as they were concerned to observe the duties of the second table, they did well in giving honour to whom honour was due; but this fair pretence would not cover their sin in that undue respect of persons which they stood chargeable with; for,

II. This general law is to be considered together with a particular law: " If you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors, Jam 2:9. Notwithstanding the law of laws, to love your neighbour as yourselves, and to show that respect to them which you would be apt to look for yourselves if in their circumstances, yet this will not excuse your distributing either the favours or the censures of the church according to men's outward condition; but here you must look to a particular law, which God, who gave the other, has given you together with it, and by this you will stand fully convicted of the sin I have charged you with."This law is in Lev 19:15, Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt though judge thy neighbour. Yea, the very royal law itself, rightly explained, would serve to convict them, because it teaches them to put themselves as much in the places of the poor as in those of the rich, and so to act equitably towards one as well as the other. Hence he proceeds,

III. To show the extent of the law, and how far obedience must be paid to it. They must fulfil the royal law, have a regard to one part as well as another, otherwise it would not stand them in stead, when they pretended to urge it as a reason for any particular actions: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all, Jam 2:10. This may be considered, 1. With reference to the case James has been upon: Do you plead for your respect to the rich, because you are to love your neighbour as yourselves? Why then show also an equitable and due regard to the poor, because you are to love your neighbour as yourself: or else your offending in one point will spoil your pretence of observing that law at all. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, if he offend in one point, wilfully, avowedly, and with continuance, and so as to think he shall be excused in some matters because of his obedience in others, he is guilty of all; that is, he incurs the same penalty, and is liable to the same punishment, by the sentence of the law, as if he had broken it in other points as well as that he stands chargeable with. Not that all sins are equal, but that all carry the same contempt of the authority of the Lawgiver, and so bind over to such punishment as is threatened on the breach of that law. This shows us what a vanity it is to think that our good deeds will atone for our bad deeds, and plainly puts us upon looking for some other atonement. 2. This is further illustrated by putting a case different from that before mentioned (Jam 2:11): For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. One, perhaps, is very severe in the case of adultery, or what tends to such pollutions of the flesh; but less ready to condemn murder, or what tends to ruin the health, break the hearts, and destroy the lives, of others: another has a prodigious dread of murder, but has more easy thoughts of adultery; whereas one who looks at the authority of the Lawgiver more than the matter of the command will see the same reason for condemning the one as the other. Obedience is then acceptable when all is done with an eye to the will of God; and disobedience is to be condemned, in whatever instance it be, as it is a contempt of the authority of God; and, for that reason, if we offend in one point, we contemn the authority of him who gave the whole law, and so far are guilty of all. Thus, if you look to the law of the old, you stand condemned; for cursed is every that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them, Gal 3:10.

IV. James directs Christians to govern and conduct themselves more especially by the law of Christ. So speak and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty, Jam 2:12. This will teach us, not only to be just and impartial, but very compassionate and merciful to the poor; and it will set us perfectly free from all sordid and undue regards to the rich. Observe here, 1. The gospel is called a law. It has all the requisites of a law: precepts with rewards and punishments annexed; it prescribes duty, as well as administers comfort; and Christ is a king to rule us as well as a prophet to teach us, and a priest to sacrifice and intercede for us. We are under the law to Christ. 2. It is a law of liberty, and one that we have no reason to complain of as a yoke or burden; for the service of God, according to the gospel, is perfect freedom; it sets us at liberty from all slavish regards, either to the persons or the things of this world. 3. We must all be judged by this law of liberty. Men's eternal condition will be determined according to the gospel; this is the book that will be opened, when we shall stand before the judgment-seat; there will be no relief to those whom the gospel condemns, nor will any accusation lie against those whom the gospel justifies. 4. It concerns us therefore so to speak and act now as become those who must shortly be judged by this law of liberty; that is, that we come up to gospel terms, that we make conscience of gospel duties, that e be of a gospel temper, and that our conversation be a gospel conversation, because by this rule we must be judged. 5. The consideration of our being judged by the gospel should engage us more especially to be merciful in our regards to the poor (Jam 2:13): For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath shown no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. Take notice here, (1.) The doom which will be passed upon impenitent sinners at last will be judgment without mercy; there will be no mixtures or allays in the cup of wrath and of trembling, the dregs of which they must drink. (2.) Such as show no mercy now shall find no mercy in the great day. But we may note, on the other hand, (3.) That there will be such as shall become instances of the triumph of mercy, in whom mercy rejoices against judgment: all the children of men, in the last day, will be either vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy. It concerns all to consider among which they shall be found; and let us remember that blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Barclay: Jam 2:1

Respect of persons is the New Testament phrase for undue and unfair partiality; it means pandering to someone, because he is rich or influential or popular. It is a fault which the New Testament consistently condemns. It is a fault of which the orthodox Jewish leaders completely acquitted Jesus. Even they were bound to admit that there was no respect of persons with him (Luk 20:21; Mar 12:14; Mat 22:16). After his vision of the sheet with the clean and unclean animals upon it, the lesson that Peter learned was that with God there is no respect of persons (Act 10:34). It was Paul's conviction that Gentile and Jew stand under a like judgment in the sight of God, for with God there is no favouritism (Rom 2:11). This is a truth which Paul urges on his people again and again (Eph 6:9; Col 3:25).

The word itself is curious--prosopolempsia (4382). The noun comes from the expression prosopon (4383) lambanein (2983). Prosopon (4383) is the "face"; and lambanein (2983) here means "to lift up." The expression in Greek is a literal translation of a Hebrew phrase. To lift up a person's countenance was to regard him with favour, in contradistinction perhaps to casting down his countenance.

Originally it was not a bad word at all; it simply meant to accept a person with favour. Malachi asks if the governor will be pleased with the people and will accept their persons, if they bring him blemished offerings (Mal 1:8-9). But the word rapidly acquired a bad sense. It soon began to mean, not so much to favour a person, as to show favouritism, to allow oneself to be unduly influenced by a person's social status or prestige or power or wealth. Malachi goes on to condemn that very sin when God accuses the people of not keeping his ways and of being partial in their judgments (Mal 2:9). The great characteristic of God is his complete impartiality. In the Law it was written, "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour" (Lev 19:15). There is a necessary emphasis here. A person may be unjust because of the snobbery which truckles to the rich; and may be equally unjust because of the inverted snobbery which glorifies the poor. "The Lord," said Ben Sirach, "is judge and with him is no respect of persons" (Sir 35:12).

The Old and New Testaments unite in condemning that partiality of judgment and favouritism of treatment which comes of giving undue weight to a man's social standing, wealth or worldly influence. And it is a fault to which every one is more or less liable. "The rich and the poor meet together," says Proverbs, "the Lord is the maker of them all" (Pro 22:2). "It is not meet," says Ben Sirach, "to despise the poor man that hath understanding; neither is it fitting to magnify a sinful man that is rich" (Sir 10:23). We do well to remember that it is just as much respect of persons to truckle to the mob as it is to pander to a tyrant.

Barclay: Jam 2:2-4

It is James' fear that snobbery may invade the Church. He draws a picture of two men entering the Christian assembly. The one is well-dressed and his fingers are covered with gold rings. The more ostentatious of the ancients wore rings on every finger except the middle one, and wore far more than one on each finger. They even hired rings to wear when they wished to give an impression of special wealth. "We adorn our fingers with rings," said Seneca, "and we distribute gems over every joint." Clement of Alexandria recommends that a Christian should wear only one ring, and that he should wear it on his little finger. It ought to have on it a religious emblem, such as a dove, a fish or an anchor; and the justification for wearing it is that it might be used as a seal.

So, then, into the Christian assembly comes an elegantly dressed and much beringed man. The other is a poor man, dressed in poor clothes because he has no others to wear and unadorned by any jewels. The rich man is ushered to a special seat with all ceremony and respect; while the poor man is bidden to stand, or to squat on the floor, beside the footstool of the well-to-do.

That the picture is not overdrawn is seen from certain instructions in some early service order books. Ropes quotes a typical passage from the Ethiopia Statutes of the Apostles: "If any other man or woman enters in fine clothes, either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place for them, the lover of brothers and sisters, will rise, and leave a place for them ... And if a poor man or woman of the district or of other districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be the respecting of the person of man but of God." Here is the same picture. It is even suggested that the leader of the service might be liable, when a rich man entered, to stop the service and to conduct him to a special seat.

There is no doubt that there must have been social problems in the early church. The Church was the only place in the ancient world where social distinctions did not exist. There must have been a certain initial awkwardness when a master found himself sitting next his slave or when a master arrived at a service in which his slave was actually the leader and the dispenser of the Sacrament. The gap between the slave, who in law was nothing more than a living tool, and the master was so wide as to cause problems of approach on either side. Further, in its early days the Church was predominantly poor and humble; and therefore if a rich man was converted and came to the Christian fellowship, there must have been a very real temptation to make a fuss of him and treat him as a special trophy for Christ.

The Church must be the one place where all distinctions are wiped out. There can be no distinctions of rank and prestige when men meet in the presence of the King of glory. There can be no distinctions of merit when men meet in the presence of the supreme holiness of God. In his presence all earthly distinctions are less than the dust and all earthly righteousness is as filthy rags. In the presence of God all men are one.

In Jam 2:4there is a problem of translation. The word diekrithete (1252) can have two meanings: (i) It can mean, "You are wavering in your judgments, if you act like that." That is to say, "If you pay special honour to the rich, you are torn between the standards of the world and the standards of God and you can't make up your mind which you are going to apply." (ii) It may mean, "You are guilty of making class distinctions which in the Christian fellowship should not exist." We prefer the second meaning, because James goes on to say, "If you do that, you are judges whose thoughts are evil." That is to say, "You are breaking the commandment of him who said, 'Judge not that you be not judged' " (Mat 7:1).

Barclay: Jam 2:5-7

"God," said Abraham Lincoln, "must love the common people because he made so many of them." Christianity has always had a special message for the poor. In Jesus' first sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth his claim was: "He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor" (Luk 4:18). His answer to John's puzzled inquiries as to whether or not he was God's Chosen One culminated in the claim: "The poor have good news preached to them" (Mat 11:5). The first of the Beatitudes was "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Mat 5:3). And Luke is even more definite: "Blessed are you poor; for yours is the Kingdom of God (Luk 6:20). During the ministry of Jesus, when he was banished from the synagogues and took to the open road and the hillside and the seaside, it was the crowds of common men and women to whom his message came. In the days of the early church it was to the crowds that the street preachers preached. In fact the message of Christianity was that those who mattered to no one else mattered intensely to God. "For consider your call, brethren," wrote Paul to the Corinthians, "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth" (1Co 1:26).

It is not that Christ and the Church do not want the great and the rich and the wise and the mighty; we must beware of an inverted snobbery, as we have already seen. But it was the simple fact that the gospel offered so much to the poor and demanded so much from the rich, that it was the poor who were swept into the Church. It was, in fact, the common people who heard Jesus gladly and the rich young ruler who went sorrowfully away because he had great possessions. James is not shutting the door on the rich--far from that. He is saying that the gospel of Christ is specially dear to the poor and that in it there is a welcome for the man who has none to welcome him, and that through it there is a value set on the man whom the world regards as valueless.

In the society which James inhabited the rich oppressed the poor. They dragged them to the law-courts. No doubt this was for debt. At the bottom end of the social scale men were so poor that they could hardly live and moneylenders were plentiful and extortionate. In the ancient world there was a custom of summary arrest. If a creditor met a debtor on the street, he could seize him by the neck of his robe, nearly throttling him, and literally drag him to the law-courts. That is what the rich did to the poor. They had no sympathy; all they wanted was the uttermost farthing. It is not riches that James is condemning; it is the conduct of riches without sympathy.

It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name Christian by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for called (epikaleisthai, 1941) is the word used for a wife taking her husband's name in marriage or for a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.

The rich and the masters would have many a reason for insulting the name Christian. A slave who became a Christian would have a new independence; he would no longer cringe at his master's power, punishment would cease to terrorize him and he would meet his master clad in a new manhood. He would have a new honesty. That would make him a better slave, but it would also mean he could no longer be his master's instrument in sharp practice and petty dishonesty as once he might have been. He would have a new sense of worship; and on the Lord's Day he would insist on leaving work aside in order that he might worship with the people of God. There would be ample opportunity for a master to find reasons for insulting the name of Christian and cursing the name of Christ.

Barclay: Jam 2:8-11

The connection of thought with the previous passage is this. James has been condemning those who pay special attention to the rich man who enters the Church. "But," they might answer, "the law tells me to love my neighbour as myself. Therefore we are under duty to welcome the man when he comes to Church." "Very well," answers James, "If you are really welcoming the man because you love him as you do yourself, and you wish to give him the welcome you yourself would wish to receive, that is fine. But, if you are giving him this special welcome because he is a rich man, that is respect of persons and that is wrong--and so far from keeping the law, you are in fact breaking it. You don't love your neighbour, or you would not neglect the poor man. What you love is wealth--and that is not what the law commands."

James calls the great injunction to love our neighbour as ourselves the royal law. There can be various meanings of the phrase. It may mean the law which is of supreme excellence; it may mean the law which is given by the King of the kings; it may mean the king of all laws; it may mean the law that makes men kings and is fit for kings. To keep that greatest law is to become king of oneself and a king among men. It is a law fit for those who are royal, and able to make men royal.

James goes on to lay down a great principle about the law of God. To break any part of it is to become a transgressor. The Jew was very apt to regard the law as a series of detached injunctions. To keep one was to gain credit; to break one was to incur debt. A man could add up the ones he kept and subtract the ones he broke and so emerge with a credit or a debit balance. There was a Rabbinic saying, "Whoever fulfils only one law, good is appointed to him; his days are prolonged and he will inherit the land." Again many of the Rabbis held that "the Sabbath weighs against all precepts," and to keep it was to keep the law.

As James saw it, the whole law was the will of God; to break any part of it was to infringe that will and therefore to be guilty of sin. That is perfectly true. To break any part of the law is to become a transgressor in principle. Even under human justice a man becomes a criminal when he has broken one law. So James argues: "No matter how good you may be in other directions, if you treat people with respect of persons, you have acted against the will of God and you are a transgressor."

There is a great truth here which is both relevant and practical. We may put it much more simply. A man may be in nearly all respects a good man; and yet he may spoil himself by one fault. He may be moral in his action, pure in his speech, meticulous in his devotion. But he may be hard and self-righteous; rigid and unsympathetic; and, if so, his goodness is spoiled.

We do well to remember that, though we may claim to have done many a good thing and to have resisted many an evil thing, there may be something in us by which everything is spoiled.

Constable: Jam 2:1-26

III. Partiality and Vital Faith 2:1-26

"In the epistle of James, the Holy Spirit has given the church a commentary on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain, a commentary that is rich in applications for daily life."⁷⁹

The similarities appear both in subject matter and in structure. Note the parallels between Matthew 7:1-27 and James 2:1-26 below.⁸⁰

Matthew 7			James 2
1-2	Prohibition against judging		1	Prohibition against judgmental favoritism
3-5	Illustration of removing one's own faults so that one can help remove others' faults		2-4	Illustration of removing one's own partiality so that one can judge or instruct others
6	Warning not to despise what is sacred in favor of dogs or pigs that will harm you		5-7	Warning not to despise brothers who are rich in faith in favor of others who harm you
7-11	Encouragement to ask and to believe
12	Summary of the law as doing to others what you would want for yourself		8-11	Summary of the law as loving others as yourself
13-14	Summary admonition to follow the narrow way that leads to life		12-13	Summary admonition to follow the law that gives freedom
15-23	Warning against false prophets, with the true test presented: deeds		14-19	Warning against dead faith, with the true test presented: deeds
24-27	Parable to illustrate putting Christ's words into practice		20-26	Examples to illustrate putting faith into practice

Constable: Jam 2:1-13

A. The Problem of Favoritism 2:1-13

James' previous reference to hypocritical religiosity (1:26-27) seems to have led him to deal with one form of this problem that existed among Christian Jews of his day. It is still with us today. It is the problem of inconsistent love for other people that manifests itself in how we treat them. He wrote this chapter to exhort his readers to deal with this very basic inconsistency in their lives.

"The connection of this warning against social discrimination with the previous ch. 1 seems fairly obvious. Truckling to the rich and apathy or worse toward the poor are two sides of the same base coin rejected by the touchstone of 1:27 and of 2:8."⁸¹

Constable: Jam 2:1

1. The negative command 2:1

James came right to the point; we know exactly what his concern was. Personal favoritism is hardly a glorious characteristic, and it is inconsistent for a Christian who worships the glorious Lord Jesus Christ to practice it (cf. Matt. 22:16). It was especially appropriate for James to address his readers as "my brethren" here since he proceeded to encourage them to practice brotherly kindness. Such behavior would be glorious, in harmony with their "glorious Lord Jesus Christ."

". . . a Christian is (or should be) the last person to be impressed by the sham glory of social status."⁸²

It may be helpful to distinguish partiality or favoritism (Gr. prosopolepsia; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; cf. Acts 10:34) from some of its synonyms. One definition of prosopolepsia is as follows.

It is "the fault of one who when called on to requite or to give judgment has respect to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is rich, high-born, or powerful, to another who is destitute of such gifts."⁸³

Partiality implies an inclination to favor a person or thing because of strong fondness or attachment. We say that an orchestra conductor, for example, has a partiality for the works of Brahms. Treating people with partiality may spring from predilection, or from prejudice, or from bias. Predilection implies a preconceived liking formed as a result of one's background, temperament, etc., that inclines one to a particular preference. We might say a certain person has a predilection for murder mysteries. Prejudice implies a preconceived and unreasonable judgment or opinion, usually an unfavorable one, marked by suspicion, fear, intolerance, or hatred. We might say racial prejudice incited the lynch mob. Bias implies a mental leaning in favor of or against someone or something without passing judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of the preference. One might say someone has a bias toward the color blue. James was dealing primarily with partiality.

Constable: Jam 2:2-4

2. The present improper practice 2:2-4

The hypothetical⁸⁴ or familiar⁸⁵ situation James constructed in verses 2 and 3 presents what some have called the case of the nearsighted usher.

2:2-3 "Assembly" is literally "synagogue." In the early history of the church Jewish believers met in Jewish synagogues until their unbelieving Jewish brethren forced them out. This reference indicates that James wrote this epistle early in the history of the church.

There is some debate among the commentators about whether a public worship service or a congregational meeting for the purpose of hearing a judicial case is in view.⁸⁶ The term "synagogue" meant a public worship service in early Christian literature, but the following verses may suggest a judicial setting. This issue does not affect the meaning of the passage significantly.

2:4 The form of James' question in the Greek text expects a positive answer: "You have, haven't you?" The usher made two errors. First, he showed favoritism because of what the rich man might do for the church if he received preferential treatment. He should have treated everyone graciously, as God does. This reflects a double-minded attitude, thinking like the world in this case while thinking as God thinks in other respects (1:8).

Second, the usher, who represents all the believers, manifested evil motives in judging where to seat the two visitors. His motive was what the church could obtain from them rather than what it could impart to them. The Christian and the church should seek primarily to serve others rather than getting others to serve them (cf. Mark 10:45).

"Prejudice is an evil that exhibits the character of the one who practices it."⁸⁷

Constable: Jam 2:5-7

3. The inconsistency of favoritism 2:5-7

James' three questions in these verses all expect positive answers, as is clear in the construction of the Greek text.

2:5 Since God has chosen the poor of this world to be the recipients of His blessings it is inconsistent for Christians to withhold blessings from them (cf. Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20). Really God has chosen more poor people than rich (Luke 1:52; 1 Cor. 1:26). The "kingdom" is probably the messianic millennial kingdom in which Christians will participate with Christ whom they love.⁸⁸ This seems clear from the context. The heirs of this kingdom, those who will receive it, are believers (cf. 1:12; Matt. 5:3, 5; Mark 10:17-22; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5).

2:6 When a Christian dishonors the poor he or she treats them exactly opposite to the way God treats them (cf. 1 Cor. 11:22; 1 Pet. 2:17). Instead of favoring Christians James reminded his readers that the characteristic response of the rich to them had been to oppress them (cf. Acts 4:1-3; 13:50; 16:19; 29:23-41). How inconsistent it is to despise one's friends and honor one's foes! The oppression in view could have been physical and or legal.

2:7 The rich not only typically oppose Christians, they also typically speak against Christ. This was true in James' world as it is in ours. It is inconsistent to give special honor to those who despise the Lord whom believers love and serve. To blaspheme or slander (Gr. blasphemeo) means to mock deliberately or to speak contemptuously of God. Perhaps those who were blaspheming Christ's name were unbelieving Jews (cf. Acts 13:45).⁸⁹

Constable: Jam 2:8-9

4. The Christian's duty 2:8-9

2:8 James did not mean Christians should avoid honoring the rich but that we should love everyone and treat every individual as we would treat ourselves (Matt. 7:12; cf. Lev. 19:18). The "royal" (Gr. basilikos) law is royal in that it is the law of the King who heads the kingdom (Gr. basilikon) that believers will inherit (v. 5).⁹⁰ It is also royal in that it is primary; it governs all other laws dealing with human relationships (Matt. 22:39; cf. Lev. 19:18). Moreover it is "conduct of a high order that is worthy of a king."⁹¹

2:9 In this verse James used the verb form of the same Greek word he used in verse 1, namely, prosopolepteo. The type of preferential treatment James dealt with in this pericope (2:1-13) violates the royal law because it treats some as inferior and others as sources of special favor (cf. Acts 10:34). It also violates specific commands found in God's Word that reveal God's will in interpersonal dealings (Matt. 7:12; cf. Lev. 19:15).

"The passage calls us to consistent love, not just polite ushering. People of low income are to be fully welcomed into the life of the church. The passage calls us to be blind to economic differences in how we offer our ministries. The poor person is as worthy of our discipling and pastoral care and love as the person who has the means to rescue our church from its budget crisis."⁹²

"Anyone who shows favoritism breaks the supreme law of love for his neighbor, the law that comprehends all laws governing one's relationships to one's fellowmen."⁹³

Constable: Jam 2:10-11

5. The importance of partiality 2:10-11

2:10 James anticipated that some of his readers might feel that preferential treatment was not very important. Consequently he pointed out that the practice of preferring certain individuals makes one a violator of God's law. We become guilty of all in the sense that we have violated God's law, not that we have violated every commandment in that law. One can never claim to behave righteously because he or she keeps only part of God's laws.

"Our obedience to God's will cannot be on a selective basis; we cannot choose that part that is to our liking and disregard the rest. God's will is not fragmentary; the entire law is the expression of His will for His people; it constitutes a grand unity. To break out one corner of a window pane is to become guilty of breaking the whole pane. He who crosses a forbidden boundary at one point or another is guilty of having crossed the boundary."⁹⁴

2:11 James illustrated this point with a hypothetical case involving two very severe violations of the law. All sins are not equally serious in that the consequences of some sins are greater than others, but all sins are equally serious in that any sin is a violation of God's will.

College: Jam 2:1-26

JAMES 2

VII. JUDGING BY APPEARANCE (2:1-13)

A. FAVORITISM (2:1-7)

¹ My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. ² Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. ³ If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," ⁴ have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

⁵ Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? ⁶ But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? ⁷ Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

This section is in the form of a diatribe, an ancient literary style used particularly in discussions of morality. Diatribe is usually a polemic, a strong denunciation against immoral actions. It involves a lively style characterized by direct address of the readers, a dialogue with an imaginary opponent, and striking imaginary examples. It was a style associated with schools and learning, especially the learning of morality. Here James schools his readers against the deadly effects of favoritism.

2:1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ,

He begins his strong warning against favoritism with a gentle introduction, "my brothers" (later, in v. 5, "my dear brothers"). His harsh words are tempered by this warm greeting. James is no arrogant, superior teacher, but a loving shepherd who cares enough for his flock to alert them to the subtle dangers of partiality. His repeated use of "brothers" also reminds them of the true basis of their relationship to one another. Christians do not choose their brothers because they are rich, powerful, or good looking. All are chosen by grace to be children of God. That is what makes them brothers. If the relationship is made by God, the brothers must not break it through partiality and prejudice.

don't show favoritism.

James says the brothers cannot have faith in Jesus and show favoritism. The term "favoritism" or "partiality" (proswpolhmyiva , prosôpolçmpsia ) comes from the Greek root for "face" (provswpon , prosôpon ). Favoritism is judging others based on appearance, that is, at face value. It reflects the Hebrew idiom "to lift up the face," that is, to show favor to someone. What is condemned here is injustice, preferring the rich to the poor and the powerful to the helpless. James ended the last chapter by calling for the truly religious to care for orphans and widows. Here he says one cannot genuinely care for the poor while being partial to the rich.

Partiality, that is, judging appearance instead of the heart, is directly contrary to the character of God. "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing" (Deuteronomy 10:17-18). To have faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, means following the example of Jesus who brought good news to the poor (Luke 4:18). It means imitating the character of this glorious, impartial, generous God. It means Christians will not be fooled by the apparent glory of the rich but will recognize the one is truly glorious. It also means caring for orphans and widows as God himself does, thus tying this section on partiality to the pure religion discussed in 1:27. To fail to care for the poor is to be partial toward the rich.

The impartial and just nature of God is a leading theme of the New Testament. Peter tells Cornelius that God does not show favoritism but accepts those who fear him from every nation (Acts 10:34-35). Paul agrees that salvation is for Jew and Gentile, since "God does not show favoritism" (Romans 2:11). Masters are to treat their slaves well because they have a Master in heaven who shows no favoritism (Ephesians 6:9). Slaves who do wrong will be punished by the Lord Christ, without favoritism (Colossians 3:25). Even when the enemies of Jesus seek to trap him, they have to admit he is impartial, literally, that he does not "see people's faces" (Mark 12:14).

Both Testaments are consistently witness that God and Christ do not play favorites. They do not prefer rich to poor, master to slave, or even Jew to Gentile. They judge fairly, by looking at the heart. Those who claim Jesus Christ as their Lord must also judge fairly and not at face value. "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:15).

2:2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.

James could have ended his admonition with this bare prohibition of favoritism. However, he puts teeth into it with a hypothetical example. He talks of two men who come into the "meeting." The Greek word here is sunagwghv , "synagogue," an unusual term for a Christian assembly. It might point to an early date for James, a time when Christianity was still thought of as merely a sect of Judaism. This meeting may be a worship assembly or may reflect a meeting for judging between Christians.

2:3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet,"

If a worship assembly is the setting, the example is one of treating people differently ("discriminated among yourselves," v. 4) on the basis of appearance alone. A visitor enters who possibly is a non-Christian but probably a new convert or a Christian from another church, since the distinction made is "among yourselves" (v. 4). He wears a gold ring, a sign of both wealth and position, and bright, splendid clothes. Here is a man of refinement who oozes power, money, and success. Some might think this is the kind of affluent professional person who can provide the social and financial stability the church needs. He is greeted effusively and given a good seat (the Greek can also mean, "have a seat, please"). In the meantime, a man in filthy rags slips in and is told to stand or (literally in Greek) to "sit under my footstool." This is mockery. He can sit on the floor or hide under the footstool or (best of all) just leave. The church wants this man simply to disappear.

It may be, however, that the setting James has in mind is not a worship assembly but an assembly where the church is settling a dispute between members (see Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 6:1-8; 1 Timothy 5:19-24). If so, "have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts" (v. 4) means they are guilty not just of social but legal discrimination. The richly dressed man is shown preference by being allowed to sit (in Rabbinical courts, the parties to the case usually stood). The shabbily dressed man must stand or even grovel ("under my footstool") before the judges. The case, therefore, is decided by the church before testimony is given. They have become evil because they do not judge fairly, a direct violation of the prohibition of Leviticus 19:15.

2:4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

In either case, a grievous sin is committed because Christians are judging others by the world's standards, not by God's. A clear choice is given. The world's measurement is the opposite of God's. The phrase, "discriminated (diakrivnw , diakrinô ) among yourselves" points not only to division in the church but to division in the heart; it can be translated, "divided within yourselves." Trying to hold to faith in Jesus and the standards of the world at the same time is an impossible task. Like doubt in prayer, it makes one "double-minded" (James 1:8)

2:5 Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

James urges his brothers to be consistent. To have faith in Jesus is to judge by his standards. They must listen to the difficult message that God chooses those they would not choose, those poor (ptwcov" , ptôchos ) in the eyes of the world (see 1 Corinthians 1:27-28). It is the poor who will inherit the kingdom of God (Luke 6:20). Again, as in 1:9-11, God's power reverses earthly status; the poor and lowly are exalted, and the rich and powerful are brought low. True religion is to help widows and orphans, not to grovel before the rich. Christians must keep themselves from being polluted by worldly measurements of value (James 1:27).

2:6 But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?

Discriminating against the poor goes against the very nature of the God who is no respecter of persons. To James, it also makes no practical sense. Why insult (ajtimavzw , atimazô , "dishonor") the poor, when they are loved by God? Why fawn over and toady to the rich, when they are the ones who oppress Christians? Here James probably does not have rich Christians in mind but those wealthy and powerful persecutors of the church. Rich owners exploit powerless workers (see James 5:3-6). They use the legal system to cheat the poor.

2:7 Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

They even blaspheme the name of Christ to whom Christians belong (in Greek, "the noble (kalov" , kalos ) name called over you"). These poor had been baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11) and carried his name with them (Revelation 2:13). The rich cause them to suffer because the poor bear this name (Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 4:14). Why then should Christians prefer the rich either inside or outside the church?

The basic question behind their attitude toward the rich is this: "Who controls the world?" If the rich really are in charge, then poor Christians must keep their proper place if they are to survive. Deference must be shown to those who pay them wages. Workers should be servile, always giving preference to the rich who hold their means of livelihood in their hands. Rich and powerful patrons could help the church in its mission. Even if the rich could not be won over to help the church, at least honoring them might allow Christians to escape being dragged away to jail. Not to favor the rich may have consequences - oppression, imprisonment, and slander. But James has already said that such trials are pure joy that end in the perfection of the believers (James 1:2-4).

However, if Christ is truly the glorious Lord of the world, then he, not the rich, should be served. Indeed, to serve the rich is to side with those who curse Jesus. It puts one on the side of Satan, not God. The one who claims to follow the glorious Lord Jesus and then shows favoritism to the rich is guilty of having a divided allegiance. He is like the double-minded man (James 1:7-8). He wants to do the impossible, to befriend God and the world (James 4:4).

But it is not enough to avoid preferring the rich; one must also not despise the poor (Proverbs 14:21). This is what James accuses them of doing (v. 6). He has gone beyond the specific example above to a wider application. It is not just a matter of where poor and rich should sit in the assembly but an overall prejudice for the rich and against the poor that James condemns. In the ancient world, honor and shame were all-important concepts. God has honored the poor. Christians must not shame them.

B. THE ROYAL LAW (2:8-13)

⁸ If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," ^a you are doing right. ⁹ But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰ For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ¹¹ For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," ^b also said, "Do not murder." ^c If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

¹² Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, ¹³ because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

^a 8 Lev. 19:18 ^b 11 Exodus 20:14; Deut. 5:18 ^c 11 Exodus 20:13; Deut. 5:17

2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

Favoritism is more than foolish; it is sin. One who believes in the Lord Jesus commits himself to keep the law of Christ, specifically the royal law to love (ajgapavw , agapaô ) neighbor as self. This is a royal law because it comes from the King and is the law of the kingdom the poor will inherit (v. 5). "Royal" also implies it is a supreme principle, not a petty regulation. Love of neighbor is an Old Testament law (Leviticus 19:18), occurring in the context of a prohibition against favoritism (Leviticus 19:15). Jesus calls it the second great commandment, love for God being first (Matthew 19:19; 22:39). Paul says love of neighbor sums up all the commandments (Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14).

2:9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

Those claiming to keep the law of love while showing favoritism may have thought they could choose their neighbors. The neighbor was someone like themselves or someone they wished to imitate, one with fine clothes, gold rings, and power. Jesus answers the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by telling the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). No doubt the priest and the Levite who passed by the wounded man might have helped him if they had believed he was wealthy and prominent. However, all they knew was that he was one in need. It was the Samaritan who actively showed mercy to this stranger and proved to be his neighbor. The point is clear: Christians must be neighbors to anyone in need. To withhold assistance on the basis of appearance is to break the law of love.

2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Partiality or favoritism violates the law, "Love your neighbor as yourself," and so makes one guilty of breaking the whole law. The idea that breaking a single law makes one guilty of breaking all of it was a common one in Stoic philosophy and also among certain Jewish rabbis. At first, such a principle makes James look like the worst of legalists, demanding perfection from his readers. It seems he equates all commands, not making the distinction Jesus did between lesser and more important laws (Matthew 23:23-24). But this is a misunderstanding of James.

2:11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

In context, the purpose for citing the principle of "break one law, break all" is to combat the legalism of those who view favoritism as a "little" sin. They claim to follow Christ and keep his laws. They avoid the "big" sins, adultery and murder, sins that Jesus himself clearly condemned (Matthew 5:21, 27; 19:18; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:20), but they ignore another command from the same Lawgiver, the command to avoid favoritism. They are so self-deceived that they cannot see that favoritism is a violation of the command to love their neighbor. It is no slight imperfection but a sin as bad as adultery and murder.

What James promotes is not legalism but consistency between a claimed faith and visible actions. He knows that the point of the royal law is to show obedience to the King who loves us, not just to be better than others in keeping a list of commands. He battles the hypocrisy of those who claim faith in Jesus on the basis of a partial obedience, but who reject the heart of Jesus who loves the downtrodden. One cannot obey the law without imitating the Lawgiver. Love of neighbor is not just one rule among many. It is a reflection of the character of God.

2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,

Believers should judge others as they wish to be judged (Matthew 7:1-2). They judged the two men who entered their meeting on outward appearance. They do not want to be judged that way by God. No one wants to be judged by a harsh, stringent law but by "the law that gives freedom." To James, the true purpose of the law is not to chain the evildoer but to set him free. The law of Christ gives freedom from sin but also sets one free from selfishness. It frees from fawning over the rich to gain their influence. It frees from the oppression from the rich, turning trials into joy. It frees one to love those who are unlovable by worldly standards. It frees from the constant competition and self-promotion society takes for granted.

2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

That law of freedom is also a law of mercy. All want God to judge them not based on their outward appearance, or wealth, or even on their ability to keep his law perfectly. They want mercy. Christians have received mercy and forgiveness through the cross. In turn, they must show not just impartiality but mercy in dealing with others. In the hypothetical example above, some had spoken harshly to the poor man and treated him badly in the assembly. Instead, they must speak and act as those who desire mercy. There is an echo here of the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35). The one who shows no mercy will receive none. Or to put it positively, in the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" (Matthew 5:7).

James' scathing denunciation of favoritism is meant to help, not to harm his beloved brothers. In this section, he forces his readers to look intently into the mirror of the law of liberty (James 1:25). In that mirror, they see themselves as they really are, self-deceived hypocrites who claim faith in Jesus but who fail the test of love for those in need. Such a sight is shocking and painful. After seeing themselves, they have a choice. They can, with God's grace, repent of their favoritism by showing acts of mercy to the needy. Or they can forget what they have seen and so cut themselves off from God's mercy.

Section Summary and Application:

The very idea that Christians can hold faith in Christ and then judge people by such worldly standards is absurd. To do so makes us judges with evil thoughts. James clearly confronts our human tendency to prefer those outwardly successful to those on the margins of society. His example hits home. This kind of partiality can be seen in many churches and many hearts today.

God's standards challenge our common sense ideas of how the church should be. They call for conversion, for complete reversal of the way we judge others and do church. If the church should target anyone, it is not the influential opinion leaders of the community, but the poor who need to hear good news. Perhaps one reason churches fail to grow today is that we try to build churches on those who think they are self-sufficient, instead of on those in need.

To disassociate with the poor is to cut oneself off from those who are God's chosen. It is to align ourselves with those who blaspheme Christ. It is a sin as bad as murder or adultery. It places us in danger of judgment without mercy because we have failed to show mercy.

VIII. FAITH THAT WORKS (2:14-26)

A. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS (2:14-17)

¹⁴ What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? ¹⁵ Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. ¹⁶ If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? ¹⁷ In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

As in the section above, James here condemns those who claim faith but do not put their faith into practice by caring for others. This is one of the best known and most often misunderstood sections in James. Since the early Christian centuries, some have seen a contradiction (or, at least, a difference in emphasis) between Paul who says one is saved by faith without works and James who clearly says faith without works cannot save. We will see below that there is no contradiction between James and Paul. Each believes one is saved by grace through faith, a faith shown by actions.

James has a different purpose for writing about faith and works than Paul has in Galatians. His purpose is pastoral. He wants to convince Christians that half-hearted ("double-minded") faith is no true faith at all. Such faith can only be claimed, not shown. Such faith is no good. It makes no difference in one's life or in the lives of others. It cannot save. James condemns such "faith" as mere intellectual agreement to a set of doctrines without a change of life. He fights the idea that salvation by faith is purely personal, that it does not require obligation to others and does not lead to compassion for the needy. Even this early in the history of the church, there were uninvolved church members, considering themselves religious (James 1:26), sure they were saved by faith but living like the world around them. This is a false view of faith.

2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

True faith moves one to true religion: to care for orphans and widows (James 1:27) and to love neighbor as self (James 2:8). James shows the inadequacy of a merely claimed faith by the use of another powerful hypothetical example. Someone who is more than a neighbor, a brother or sister in Christ, comes to you in obvious need of the bare necessities of life. What should you do?

2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 2:16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

If your faith is merely verbal, you greet him piously, "I wish you well" (literally, "go in peace," the typical biblical greeting, cf. Judges 18:6; 1 Samuel 1:17; 20:42; 29:7; 2 Samuel 15:9; 2 Kings 5:19; Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; Acts 16:36). You wish him no harm and even hope he finds warmth and food. Yet such a greeting is actually a dismissal. The contemporary equivalent would be, "Good-by and good luck." You feel uncomfortable in the presence of the needy, so you usher them out quickly with religious clichés. But if one is cold and hungry, what good are pious platitudes? None at all. Those in need go away just as cold and hungry as they came.

2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

The very idea that anyone with an ounce of human kindness could turn away such needy people is beyond comprehension. What is more astounding is that they can turn them away while claiming to be people of faith. Turning a needy brother or sister away is the direct opposite of the practice of the first church in Jerusalem. "They shared everything they had" so "there were no needy persons among them" (Acts 4:32, 34). By contrast, it is empty sentimentality to think that sympathetic feelings are enough to help others. Such faith does the needy no good. It is a dead faith, that is, no faith at all. In this instance a dead faith spreads death. The needy starve in the presence of such "faith."

Yet some are so self-deceived, they can withhold assistance from the needy and still think they are faithfully following God and the Lord Jesus. This hypocrisy and self-deception are not new. Even in the Old Testament, there were many who thought they were right with God because they believed the right thing and worshipped correctly, while they oppressed and neglected the poor. God reminded them that true worship is to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and clothe the naked (Isaiah 58:6-10).

Jesus himself warns that when the Son of Man comes, some will call him Lord and yet be cast into eternal fire. Why? "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me" (Matthew 25:42-43). When did they fail to help Jesus? "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do it for me" (Matthew 25:45). In the passage on the last day from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). James makes the same point in his example; to claim faith while dismissing the needy is not doing God's will. It is not genuine faith. It only leads to death.

B. FAITH WITH WORKS (2:18-26)

¹⁸ But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. ¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.

²⁰ You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless ^a ? ²¹ Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? ²² You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. ²³ And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," ^b and he was called God's friend. ²⁴ You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

²⁵ In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? ²⁶ As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

^a 20 Some early manuscripts dead ^b 23 Gen. 15:6

2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."

What is clear in the hypothetical example of verses 15-16 is a general principle for James; there is a necessary unity between action and attitude. An imaginary opponent objects to this unity: "You have faith; I have deeds." The thrust of this objection is that faith and deeds can be separated; some are better at one, some at the other. In this view, the church has "believers" and "doers." Both are necessary, argues this opponent, and each should tolerate the other.

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

James will have none of this separation. An unseen faith is no faith at all. Thus, "Show me your faith without deeds," is an ironic statement. It is an impossible request. Faith cannot be seen without action. Faith is seen only in deeds of love and compassion. It is always wrong to separate faith and deeds.

This separation has led to much misunderstanding throughout Christian history. Some have misunderstood Paul's contention that one is saved by faith apart from the works of the Law, to mean that one is saved by faith alone without that faith being shown in actions. However, in Galatians, where he most clearly fights salvation through works of the Law, Paul summarizes his position by saying, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6). The words translated "expressing itself" is the verb form of the word "work" or "deed," the same word James uses. Thus Paul, like James, does not separate faith from action. Like James, Paul uses phrases like "your work produced by faith" (1 Thessalonians 1:3) and "every act prompted by your faith" (2 Thessalonians 1:11).

One is correct, then, to deny the doctrine of "faith only" in the sense of salvation by faith apart from the deeds of faith. James later will specifically refute justification by "faith alone" (v. 24). On the other hand, some have misunderstood James to mean that good works are needed in addition to faith, that is, apart from faith. James, however, never separates deeds from faith. He would agree with Paul, that Christians are saved by grace through faith, not through law-keeping (Romans 3:28). It is the implanted word humbly accepted through faith that saves (James 1:21). Deeds are no good unless they grow out of faith.

James does not discuss baptism in his letter, but his teaching on faith and deeds has implications for the doctrine of baptism. If believers separate any command, even the command to be baptized, from faith, they have made it a legalistic work that cannot save. Baptism does not follow faith as if they were separate, unrelated actions. Baptism shows faith. It is the natural outgrowth of faith. It is not a legal requirement but an act of faith.

2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.

What is true of baptism is true of all Christian acts. Our deeds must show our faith. Merely to believe in God, even to fear him, is not enough. To make a verbal confession of faith is not enough. The basic biblical confession is that "God is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 19:17; Mark 12:29; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5). This confession, called the Shema , is still heard in synagogues today. It is also the heart of the Christian faith.

James says if you believe in one God, then so far, so good. However, if this is just a verbal faith it is not enough. Even the demons make this confession and shudder (frivssw , phrissô , "tremble with fear") in the presence of the Holy God and his Christ (Mark 1:23-24; 5:7; Acts 16:17, 19:15). Demons have faith. They believe the true orthodox doctrine that there is one God. Are they saved? Of course not! Why not? They do not put that faith into practice by caring for humans; instead they try to destroy them. One who is certain of his orthodoxy but refuses to help others has this same demonic faith.

James is not in tension with Paul when it comes to faith and works. He may, however, be fighting a misconception of Paul's teaching, a misunderstanding Paul himself confronts. Having painted a vibrant picture of salvation by grace through faith, Paul asks, "Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase?" (Romans 6:1). Some were taking Paul's teaching on grace and faith as a license for immorality (Romans 3:8). He reminds them that they died to sin in baptism and no longer live under its power (Romans 6:1-14).

James may be fighting the same misunderstanding, that as long as one has an inward "faith" then one is saved, no matter how one acts. But even the demons have such faith. They even recognize Jesus as God's Son, when others do not believe in him (Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34). No one believes such demonic faith can save. James is not a legalist, but he speaks to those who have left legalism for an easy "faith" that does not even feed the hungry.

2:20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

To think that such faith without deeds can save is foolish. To illustrate, James gives two Old Testament examples. The first is Abraham, the father of the faithful and the great example of faith from the Old Testament. God promised a son to Abraham in his old age. "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6, quoted by James in James v. 23).

However, Abraham's faith was not merely inward. He showed his faith by his actions, particularly by his sacrifice of Isaac. He did not actually kill Isaac; but by laying him bound on the altar and raising the knife, Abraham showed his willingness to obey God and so passed the test of faith. Although God had already credited Abraham's faith, it is when Abraham raised the knife that the angel of the Lord says, "Now I know that you fear God . . ." (Genesis 22:12).

2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"

The faith that counted for righteousness for Abraham was an active faith, not just a verbal one. His actions completed his faith, that is, they showed it was living, true faith. To James, the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 fulfills the prediction of Genesis 15:6 that Abraham's faith was credited (logivzomai , logizomai ) to him as righteousness.

and he was called God's friend.

As a result of the faith he displayed, Abraham is called the "friend" (fivlo" , philos ) of God (cf. 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8). No closer relationship to God can be imagined. Jesus uses this same language of "friends" for his disciples (John 15:13-15). Later James gives a clear choice to his readers. They can be either friends of the world or friends of God (James 4:4). Here Abraham becomes God's friend through the faith he put into action. If Christians are to be friends of God, they, like Abraham, must put faith into practice. One is reminded of Jesus' statement to those who claimed to be Abraham's children: "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did" (John 8:39).

2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

The conclusion James draws from the Abraham example is "that one is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." Paul uses Abraham to make a very different point, namely, that he was justified without works because his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Romans 4:1-5; Galatians 3:5-9). This raises several questions: Do Paul and James contradict each other? Is James correcting Paul, or is Paul correcting James? If they are not reacting to the other, why do they both use Abraham as an example?

First, it does appear that verbally Paul and James disagree. Paul says Abraham was justified by faith without works. James says he was justified by works, not by faith alone. On closer examination, the disagreement disappears. They use the words "works" and "faith" differently. By "works," Paul means the works of the Law, including the ceremony of circumcision. One is not saved by such works but by faith.

James would agree with this, but when he uses "works" he means not works of the Law but works that spring from faith. As we have seen above, to Paul, "faith" includes action. James uses "faith" in two ways: for faith that is merely claimed and therefore dead and for the true faith that shows itself in deeds. So was Abraham justified by faith or works? By faith, not by works of the Law. Yet not by a dead faith, but by a faith that showed itself in the act of sacrificing Isaac.

Paul and James are fighting different enemies. Paul fights the circumcision group who insists both Jews and Gentiles are saved by keeping the Law. James fights those nominal Christians who claim faith but do not practice it. This is why they use the Abraham example differently. But why do they both use that example? As we saw above, James may be correcting the misconception that Paul's view of faith demanded less obedience from Christians. If so, he may have intentionally chosen the Abraham example to show that Abraham was saved by an obedient faith.

However, it is quite possible that Paul and James are not reacting to each other at all, but that each independently chose to speak of Abraham. After all, Abraham is the prime example of faith in the Old Testament. In the Apocrypha, he is even an example of one found faithful for his deeds (1 Maccabees 2:51-52). The writer of Hebrews says Abraham offered up Isaac by faith (Hebrews 11:17). Thus, if one wants to speak of faith or deeds, Abraham springs to mind.

2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did

Rahab, the second example of working faith, may seem at first to be an odd choice. Of all the Old Testament examples James could have chosen, why pick a Gentile and a prostitute? The answer may lie in the previous warning against favoritism. Christians are not to prefer rich to poor, so James gives both the rich and powerful Abraham and the despised prostitute Rahab as examples of faith. James's readers may have thought the example of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was too heroic for them to imitate. James says if one cannot be an Abraham, one can at least be a Rahab. Interestingly, the writer of Hebrews also gives both examples (Hebrews 11:31).

when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

Rahab hid the Israelite spies from their enemies in Jericho because she knew the Lord their God was the God of heaven and earth (Joshua 2:11). Unlike the demons and those who say "keep warm and well-fed," she confessed God and put that confession into practice by caring for God's people. Although they were strangers to her, she saved their lives for the sake of their God. Even though she was a stranger to the Law, as a result of her faithful actions, she and her household were saved from the destruction of Jericho and welcomed into Israel (Joshua 6:25). She is the embodiment of those who show mercy to others and so receive mercy from God.

2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James ends this section on faith and deeds by repeating that faith without action is dead (cf. 2:17). Such faith is like the body without the spirit, that is, without the life-giving force, the breath of life, that sustains it (cf. Genesis 6:17; 7:15; Psalm 104:29; Luke 23:46; John 19:30). This breath or spirit is not a mere addition to the body but the force that animates it. To separate faith from deeds is like separating the spirit from the body. It is death.

Section Summary and Application:

Again, James presents us with a clear choice. We can claim faith without works. We can look religious and even deceive ourselves into thinking we are people of faith while we neglect the needs of our brothers and sisters. Such a "faith" is really no faith at all. It does not help the needy. It cannot save. It is the faith of the demons. It is dead. Faith shown by deeds is the faith that saves, the faith of Abraham and Rahab. Like them, we must trust and obey.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Jam 2:7

Witnessing to blasphemers . If you hear God’s name taken in vain, don’t tell the person it’s offensive; use it as an opening for the gospel. Greet him, talk about something in the natural realm, then give him a gospel tract. Gently say, " I noticed that you used God’s name in vain. Do you know what you’re actually doing when you do that?" Most people will say no. Then say, " Instead of using a filth word to express disgust, you’re putting God’s name in place of that word. That’s called ‘blasphemy,’ and the Bible says, ‘The Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.’"

Evidence: Jam 2:8

Using the Law in evangelism. In Jam 2:8-12 James uses the Law (in conjunction with future punishment) to bring the knowledge of sin. See Joh 8:4-5 footnote.

Evidence: Jam 2:10

THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW

"It is of great importance that the sinner should be made to feel his guilt, and not to the impression that he is unfortunate. Do not be afraid, but show him the breadth of the divine Law, and the exceeding strictness of its precepts. Make him see how it condemns his thoughts and life. By a convicted sinner, I mean one who feels himself condemned by the Law of God, as a guilty sinner.

"I remark that this [the Law] is the rule, and the only just rule by which the guilt of sin can be measured...Every man need only consult his own consciousness faithfully and he will see that it is equally affirmed by the mind's own intuition to be right." Charles Finney

Gal 3:10 warns that the sinner must continue to do " all things" that are written in the Law. The strict demands of the Law cannot be kept by sinful man and should send the sinner to the Savior. See Mat 5:48 footnote.

" God’s Law is unified; it all hangs together and is inseparable. It is like hitting a window with a hammer. You may hit it only once, and that rather lightly, but the whole window is shattered." John MacArthur

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: James (Book Introduction)

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

BEFORE a.d. 50

By Way of Introduction

The Author

He claims to be James, and so the book is not anonymous. It is either genuine or pseudonymous. He does not claim to be the brother of the Lord Jesus, as one might expect. James the brother of John was put to death by Herod Agrippa I about a.d. 44 (Act_12:2). But James the brother of Jesus (Gal_1:19) was still alive and became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Act_12:17), presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem (Act_15:13-21) and apparently writing the message from the Conference to the Gentile churches (Act_15:22-29), and was still the leading elder in Jerusalem on Paul’s last visit (Act_21:18-25). James does not claim here to be an apostle and he was not one of the twelve apostles, and the dispute about accepting it of which Eusebius spoke was about its apostolicity since James was only an apostle by implication (Gal_1:19) in the general sense of that term like Barnabas (Act_14:14), perhaps Silas and Timothy (1Th_2:7), certainly not on a par with Paul, who claimed equality with the twelve. James, like the other brothers of Jesus, had once disbelieved his claims to be the Messiah (Joh_7:6.), but he was won by a special vision of the Risen Christ (1Co_15:7) and was in the upper room before the great pentecost (Act_1:14). It is plain that he had much to overcome as a zealous Jew to become a Christian, though he was not a mere cousin of Jesus or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. He was strictly the half-brother of Jesus, since Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he was a Nazirite. We know that he was married (1Co_9:5). He came to be called James the Just and was considered very devout. The Judaizers had counted on him to agree with them against Paul and Barnabas, but he boldly stood for Gentile freedom from the ceremonial law. The Judaizers still claimed him at Antioch and used his name wrongly to frighten Peter thereby (Gal_2:12). But to the end he remained the loyal friend to Paul and his gospel rightly understood (Act_21:18-25). Clement of Alexandria ( Hypot . vii) says that, when he bore strong testimony to Jesus as the Son of man, they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club. But Josephus ( Ant . XX. ix. I) says that the Sadducees about a.d. 62 had James and some others brought before the Sanhedrin (Ananus presiding) and had them stoned as transgressors of the law. At any rate he won a martyr’s crown like Stephen and James the brother of John.

The Date

If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about a.d. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about a.d. 48, the other about a.d. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after a.d. 50. If written after a.d. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter James 2 reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in Rom 4; Gal 3 after the Jerusalem Conference (a.d. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between a.d. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests " on very slight and intangible grounds." So we place the book before a.d. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

The Readers

The author addresses himself " to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (Jam_1:1). Clearly, then, he is not writing to Gentiles, unless he includes the spiritual children of Abraham in the term Diaspora as Paul does for believers (Gal_3:29; Rom_9:6.). The word diaspora occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in Joh_7:35; 1Pe_1:1. It apparently has the spiritual significance in 1Pe_1:1, but in Joh_7:35 the usual meaning of Jews scattered over the world. The use here of " the twelve tribes" makes the literal sense probable here. Clearly also James knew nothing of any " lost" tribes, for the Jews of the Dispersion were a blend of all the twelve tribes. It is probable also that James is addressing chiefly the Eastern Dispersion in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia as Peter writes to five provinces in the Western Dispersion in Asia Minor. It is possible that James has in mind Christian and non-Christian Jews, not wholly non-Christian Jews as some hold. He may have in mind merely Christian Jews outside of Palestine, of whom there were already many scattered since the great pentecost. The use of synagogue as a place of worship (Jam_2:2) like church (Jam_5:14) argues somewhat for this view. He presents the Mosaic law as still binding (Jam_2:9-11; Jam_4:11). As the leading elder of the great church in Jerusalem and as a devout Jew and half-brother of Jesus, the message of James had a special appeal to these widely scattered Jewish Christians.

The Purpose

If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as " the Lord Jesus Christ." In Jam_2:1 he presents Jesus as the object of faith: " as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt’s Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in Jam_5:6 and the second coming in Jam_5:8. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. So then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century a.d. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

The Style

James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James " a veritable Epistle of straw." Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul’s teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones ( New Testament in the Twentieth Century , p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate Koiné Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary Koiné , not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick ( James the Lord’s Brother , p. 298) holds that he " had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek." This does not follow, though he does use the manner " of the Hellenistic diatribe" (Ropes, Int. and Crit. Comm ., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (Jam_2:18.; Jam_5:13.) as is the presence of paradox (Jam_1:2, Jam_1:10; Jam_2:5; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master’s use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the lxx, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). " The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord’s sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels" (Hort).

JFB: James (Book Introduction)

THIS is called by EUSEBIUS ([Ecclesiastical History, 2.23], about the year 330 A.D.) the first of the Catholic Epistles, that is, the Epistles intended for general circulation, as distinguished from Paul's Epistles, which were addressed to particular churches or individuals. In the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament extant, they stand before the Epistles of Paul. Of them, two only are mentioned by EUSEBIUS as universally acknowledged (Homologoumena), namely, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First Epistle of John. All, however, are found in every existing manuscript of the whole New Testament.

It is not to be wondered at that Epistles not addressed to particular churches (and particularly one like that of James, addressed to the Israelite believers scattered abroad) should be for a time less known. The first mention of James' Epistle by name occurs early in the third century, in ORIGEN [Commentary on John 1:19, 4.306], who was born about 185, and died A.D. 254. CLEMENT OF ROME ([First Epistle to the Corinthians, 10]; compare Jam 2:21, Jam 2:23; [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11]; compare Jam 2:25; Heb 11:31) quotes it. So also HERMAS [Shepherd] quotes Jam 4:7. IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 4.16.2] is thought to refer to Jam 2:23. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA commented on it, according to CASSIODORUS. EPHREM THE SYRIAN [Against the Greeks, 3.51] quotes Jam 5:1. An especially strong proof of its authenticity is afforded by its forming part of the old Syriac version, which contains no other of the disputed books (Antilegomena, [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25]), except the Epistle to the Hebrews. None of the Latin fathers before the fourth century quote it; but soon after the Council of Nicea it was admitted as canonical both by the East and West churches, and specified as such in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (397 A.D.). This is just what we might expect; a writing known only partially at first, when subsequently it obtained a wider circulation, and the proofs were better known of its having been recognized in apostolic churches, having in them men endowed with the discernment of spirits, which qualified them for discriminating between inspired and uninspired writings, was universally accepted. Though doubted for a time, at last the disputed books (James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation) were universally and undoubtingly accepted, so that no argument for the Old Testament Apocrypha can be drawn from their case: as to it the Jewish Church had no doubt; it was known not to be inspired.

LUTHER'S objection to it ("an Epistle of straw, and destitute of an evangelic character") was due to his mistaken idea that it (Jam 2:14-26) opposes the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, taught by Paul. But the two apostles, while looking at justification from distinct standpoints, perfectly harmonize and mutually complement the definitions of one another. Faith precedes love and the works of love; but without them it is dead. Paul regards faith in the justification of the sinner before God; James, in the justification of the believer evidently before men. The error which James meets was the Jewish notion that their possession and knowledge of the law of God would justify them, even though they disobeyed it (compare Jam 1:22 with Rom 2:17-25). Jam 1:3; Jam 4:1, Jam 4:12 seem plainly to allude to Rom 5:3; Rom 6:13; Rom 7:23; Rom 14:4. Also the tenor of Jam 2:14-26 on "justification," seems to allude to Paul's teaching, so as to correct false Jewish notions of a different kind from those which he combatted, though not unnoticed by him also (Rom 2:17, &c.).

Paul (Gal 2:9) arranges the names "James, Cephas, John," in the order in which their Epistles stand. James who wrote this Epistle (according to most ancient writers) is called (Gal 1:19), "the Lord's brother." He was son of Alpheus or Cleopas (Luk 24:13-18) and Mary, sister of the Virgin Mary. Compare Mar 15:40 with Joh 19:25, which seems to identify the mother of James the Less with the wife of Cleopas, not with the Virgin Mary, Cleopas' wife's sister. Cleopas is the Hebrew, Alpheus the Greek mode of writing the same name. Many, however, as HEGESIPPUS [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 23.1], distinguish the Lord's brother from the son of Alpheus. But the Gospel according to the Hebrews, quoted by JEROME, represents James, the Lord's brother, as present at the institution of the Eucharist, and therefore identical with the apostle James. So the Apocryphal Gospel of James. In Acts, James who is put foremost in Jerusalem after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, is not distinguished from James, the son of Alpheus. He is not mentioned as one of the Lord's brethren in Act 1:14; but as one of the "apostles" (Gal 1:19). He is called "the Less" (literally, "the little," Mar 15:40), to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee. ALFORD considers James, the brother of the Lord, the author of the Epistle, to have been the eldest of the sons of Joseph and Mary, after Jesus (compare Mat 13:55), and that James the son of Alpheus is distinguished from him by the latter being called "the Less," (that is, junior). His arguments against the Lord's brother, the bishop of Jerusalem, being the apostle, are: (1) The Lord's brethren did not believe on Jesus at a time when the apostles had been already called (Joh 7:3, Joh 7:5), therefore none of the Lord's brethren could be among the apostles (but it does not follow from Joh 7:3 that no one of them believed). (2) The apostles' commission was to preach the Gospel everywhere, not to be bishops in a particular locality (but it is unlikely that one not an apostle should be bishop of Jerusalem, to whom even apostles yield deference, Act 15:13, Act 15:19; Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9, Gal 2:12. The Saviour's last command to the apostles collectively to preach the Gospel everywhere, is not inconsistent with each having a particular sphere of labor in which he should be a missionary bishop, as Peter is said to have been at Antioch).

He was surnamed "the Just." It needed peculiar wisdom so to preach the Gospel as not to disparage the law. As bishop of Jerusalem writing to the twelve tribes, he sets forth the Gospel in its aspect of relation to the law, which the Jews so reverenced. As Paul's Epistles are a commentary on the doctrines flowing from the death and resurrection of Christ, so James's Epistle has a close connection with His teaching during His life on earth, especially His Sermon on the Mount. In both, the law is represented as fulfilled in love: the very language is palpably similar (compare Jam 1:2 with Mat 5:12; Jam 1:4 with Mat 5:48; Jam 1:5; Jam 5:15 with Mat 7:7-11; Jam 2:13 with Mat 5:7; Mat 6:14-15; Jam 2:10 with Mat 5:19; Jam 4:4 with Mat 6:24; Jam 4:11 with Mat 7:1-2; Jam 5:2 with Mat 6:19). The whole spirit of this Epistle breathes the same Gospel-righteousness which the Sermon on the Mount inculcates as the highest realization of the law. James's own character as "the Just," or legally righteous, disposed him to this coincidence (compare Jam 1:20; Jam 2:10; Jam 3:18 with Mat 5:20). It also fitted him for presiding over a Church still zealous for the law (Act 21:18-24; Gal 2:12). If any could win the Jews to the Gospel, he was most likely who presented a pattern of Old Testament righteousness, combined with evangelical faith (compare also Jam 2:8 with Mat 5:44, Mat 5:48). Practice, not profession, is the test of obedience (compare Jam 2:17; Jam 4:17 with Mat. 7:2-23). Sins of the tongue, however lightly regarded by the world, are an offense against the law of love (compare Jam 1:26; Jam. 3:2-18 with Mat 5:22; also any swearing, Jam 5:12; compare Mat 5:33-37).

The absence of the apostolic benediction in this Epistle is probably due to its being addressed, not merely to the believing, but also indirectly to unbelieving, Israelites. To the former he commends humility, patience, and prayer; to the latter he addresses awful warnings (Jam 5:7-11; Jam 4:9; Jam 5:1-6).

James was martyred at the Passover. This Epistle was probably written just before it. The destruction of Jerusalem foretold in it (Jam 5:1, &c.), ensued a year after his martyrdom, A.D. 69. HEGESIPPUS (quoted in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 2.23]) narrates that he was set on a pinnacle of the temple by the scribes and Pharisees, who begged him to restrain the people who were in large numbers embracing Christianity. "Tell us," said they in the presence of the people gathered at the feast, "which is the door of Jesus?" James replied with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He sitteth at the right hand of power, and will come again on the clouds of heaven." Many thereupon cried, Hosanna to the Son of David. But James was cast down headlong by the Pharisees; and praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," he was stoned and beaten to death with a fuller's club. The Jews, we know from Acts, were exasperated at Paul's rescue from their hands, and therefore determined to wreak their vengeance on James. The publication of his Epistle to the dispersed Israelites, to whom it was probably carried by those who came up to the periodical feasts, made him obnoxious to them, especially to the higher classes, because it foretold the woes soon about to fall on them and their country. Their taunting question, "Which is the door of Jesus?" (that is, by what door will He come when He returns?), alludes to his prophecy, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh . . . behold the Judge standeth before the door" (Jam 5:8-9). Heb 13:7 probably refers to the martyrdom of James, who had been so long bishop over the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, "Remember them which have (rather, 'had') the rule (spiritually) over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

His inspiration as an apostle is expressly referred to in Act 15:19, Act 15:28, "My sentence is," &c.: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," &c. His episcopal authority is implied in the deference paid to him by Peter and Paul (Act 12:17; Act 21:18; Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9). The Lord had appeared specially to him after the resurrection (1Co 15:7). Peter in his First Epistle (universally from the first received as canonical) tacitly confirms the inspiration of James's Epistle, by incorporating with his own inspired writings no less than ten passages from James. The "apostle of the circumcision," Peter, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have much in common. Compare Jam 1:1 with 1Pe 1:1; Jam 1:2 with 1Pe 1:6; 1Pe 4:12-13; Jam 1:11 with 1Pe 1:24; Jam 1:18 with 1Pe 1:3; Jam 2:7 with 1Pe 4:14; Jam 3:13 with 1Pe 2:12; Jam 4:1 with 1Pe 2:11; Jam 4:6 with 1Pe 5:5-6; Jam 4:7 with 1Pe 5:6, 1Pe 5:9; Jam 4:10 with 1Pe 5:6; Jam 5:20 with 1Pe 4:6. Its being written in the purest Greek shows it was intended not only for the Jews at Jerusalem, but also for the Hellenistic, that is, Greek-speaking, Jews.

The style is close, curt, and sententious, gnome following after gnome. A Hebraic character pervades the Epistle, as appears in the occasional poetic parallelisms (Jam 3:1-12). Compare "assembly": Greek, "synagogue," Jam 2:2, Margin. The images are analogical arguments, combining at once logic and poetry. Eloquence and persuasiveness are prominent characteristics.

The similarity to Matthew, the most Hebrew of the Gospels, is just what we might expect from the bishop of Jerusalem writing to Israelites. In it the higher spirit of Christianity is seen putting the Jewish law in its proper place. The law is enforced in its everlasting spirit, not in the letter for which the Jews were so zealous. The doctrines of grace, the distinguishing features of Paul's teaching to the Hellenists and Gentiles, are less prominent as being already taught by that apostle. James complements Paul's teaching, and shows to the Jewish Christians who still kept the legal ordinances down to the fall of Jerusalem, the spiritual principle of the law, namely, love manifested in obedience. To sketch "the perfect man" continuing in the Gospel law of liberty, is his theme.

JFB: James (Outline)

• INSCRIPTION: EXHORTATION ON HEARING, SPEAKING, AND WRATH. (Jam. 1:1-27)
• THE SIN OF RESPECT OF PERSONS: DEAD, UNWORKING FAITH SAVES NO MAN. (Jam. 2:1-26)
• DANGER OF EAGERNESS TO TEACH, AND OF AN UNBRIDLED TONGUE: TRUE WISDOM SHOWN BY UNCONTENTIOUS MEEKNESS. (Jam. 3:1-18)
• AGAINST FIGHTINGS AND THEIR SOURCE; WORLDLY LUSTS; UNCHARITABLE JUDGMENTS, AND PRESUMPTUOUS RECKONING ON THE FUTURE. (Jam. 4:1-17)
• WOES COMING ON THE WICKED RICH: BELIEVERS SHOULD BE PATIENT UNTO THE LORD'S COMING: VARIOUS EXHORTATIONS. (Jam. 5:1-20)

TSK: James (Book Introduction)

James, the son of Alphaeus, the brother of Jacob, and the near relation of our Lord, called also James the Less, probably because he was of lower stature, or younger, than the other James, the son of Zebedee, is generally allowed to be the writer of this Epistle; and the few that have doubted this have assigned very slight reasons for their dissent, and advanced very weak arguments on the other side. It is recorded in ecclesiastical history, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles confirms the fact, that he generally resided at Jerusalem, superintending the churches in that city, and in the neighbouring places, to the end of his life, which was terminated by martyrdom about ad 62. This epistle appears to have been written but a short time before his death; and it is probable that the sharp rebukes and awful warnings given in it to his countrymen excited that persecuting rage which terminated his life. It is styled Catholic, or General, because it was not addressed to any particular church, but to the Jewish nation throughout their dispersions. Though its genuineness was doubted for a considerable time, yet its insertion in the ancient Syriac version, which was executed at the close of the first, or the beginning of the second century, and the citation of, or allusion to it, by Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Ignatious, and its being quoted by Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, and most of the subsequent ecclesiastical writers, as well as its internal evidence, are amply sufficient to prove the point.

TSK: James 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Jam 2:1, It is not agreeable to Christian profession to regard the rich, and to despise the poor brethren; Jam 2:13, rather we are to be loving and merciful; Jam 2:14, and not to boast of faith where no deeds are; Jam 2:17, which is but a dead faith; Jam 2:19, the faith of the devils; Jam 2:21, not of Abraham; Jam 2:25, nor Rahab.

Poole: James 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

MHCC: James (Book Introduction)

This epistle of James is one of the most instructive writings in the New Testament. Being chiefly directed against particular errors at that time brought in among the Jewish Christians, it does not contain the same full doctrinal statements as the other epistles, but it presents an admirable summary of the practical duties of all believers. The leading truths of Christianity are set forth throughout; and on attentive consideration, it will be found entirely to agree with St. Paul's statements concerning grace and justification, while it abounds with earnest exhortations to the patience of hope and obedience of faith and love, interspersed with warnings, reproofs, and encouragements, according to the characters addressed. The truths laid down are very serious, and necessary to be maintained; and the rules for practice ought to be observed in all times. In Christ there are no dead and sapless branches, faith is not an idle grace; wherever it is, it brings forth fruit in works.

MHCC: James 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(Jam 2:1-13) All professions of faith are vain, if not producing love and justice to others.

(Jam 2:14-26) The necessity of good works to prove the sincerity of faith, which otherwise will be of no more advantage than the faith of devils.

Matthew Henry: James (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The General Epistle of James

The writer of this epistle was not James the son of Zebedee; for he was put to death by Herod (Acts 12) before Christianity had gained so much ground among the Jews of the dispersion as is here implied. But it was the other James, the son of Alpheus, who was cousin-german to Christ, and one of the twelve apostles, Mat 10:3. He is called a pillar (Gal 2:9), and this epistle of his cannot be disputed, without loosening a foundation-stone. It is called a general epistle, because (as some think) not directed to any particular person or church, but such a one as we call a circular letter. Others think it is called general, or catholic, to distinguish it from the epistles of Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp, and others who were noted in the primitive times, but not generally received in the church, and on that account not canonical, as this is. Eusebius tells us that this epistle was " generally read in the churches with the other catholic epistles." His. Eccles. page 53. Ed. Val. Anno 1678. James, our author, was called the just, for his great piety. He was an eminent example of those graces which he presses upon others. He was so exceedingly revered for his justice, temperance, and devotion, that Josephus the Jewish historian records it as one of the causes of the destruction of Jerusalem, " That St. James was martyred in it." This is mentioned in hopes of procuring the greater regard to what is penned by so holy and excellent a man. The time when this epistle was written is uncertain. The design of it is to reprove Christians for their great degeneracy both in faith and manners, and to prevent the spreading of those libertine doctrines which threatened the destruction of all practical godliness. It was also a special intention of the author of this epistle to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of the greatness and nearness of those judgments which were coming upon them; and to support all true Christians in the way of their duty, under the calamities and persecutions they might meet with. The truths laid down are very momentous, and necessary to be maintained; and the rules for practice, as here stated, are such as ought to be observed in our times as well as in preceding ages.

Matthew Henry: James 2 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle condemns a sinful regarding of the rich, and despising the poor, which he imputes to partiality and injustice, and shows it to be an acting contrary to God, who has chosen the poor, and whose interest is often persecuted, and his name blasphemed, by the rich (Jam 2:1-7). He shows that the whole law is to be fulfilled, and that mercy should be followed, as well as justice (Jam 2:8-13). He exposes the error and folly of those who boast of faith without works, telling us that this is but a dead faith, and such a faith as devils have, not the faith of Abraham, or of Rahab (Jam 2:11 to the end).

Barclay: James (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER OF JAMES

James is one of the books which bad a very hard fight to get into the New Testament. Even when it did come to be regarded as Scripture, it was spoken of with a certain reserve and suspicion, and even as late as the sixteenth century Luther would gladly have banished it from the New Testament altogether.

The Doubts Of The Fathers

In the Latin-speaking part of the Church it is not until the middle of the fourth century that James emerges in the writings of the fathers. The first list of New Testament books ever to be compiled is the Muratorian Canon, which dates to about A.D. 170, and James is absent from it. Tertullian, writing in the middle of the third century, is an immense quoter of Scripture; he has 7,258 quotations from the New Testament, but never one from James. The first appearance of James in Latin is in a Latin manuscript called the Codex Corbeiensis, which dates to about A.D. 350. This manuscript attributes the authorship of the book to James the son of Zebedee; and includes it, not with the universally acknowledged New Testament books, but with a collection of religious tracts written by the early fathers. James has now emerged, but it is accepted with a certain reservation. The first Latin writer to quote James verbatim is Hilary of Poitiers in a work On the Trinity, written about A.D. 357.

If, then, James was so late in emerging in the Latin Church and if, when it did emerge, it was still regarded with some uncertainty, how did it become integrated into the New Testament? The moving influence was that of Jerome, for he unhesitatingly included James in his Vulgate version of the New Testament. But even then there is an accent of doubt. In his book On Famous Men, Jerome writes, "James, who is called the brother of the Lord...wrote only one epistle, which is one of the seven catholic epistles, and which, some people say, was issued by someone else under Jamesame." Jerome fully accepted the letter as Scripture, but he felt that there was some doubt as to who the writer was. The doubt was finally set at rest by the fact that Augustine fully accepted James, and was not in doubt that the James in question was the brother of our Lord.

James was late in emerging in the Latin Church; for long there was a kind of question mark against it; but Jeromeinclusion of it in the Vulgate and Augustinefull acceptance of it, brought it in the end, albeit after a struggle, full recognition.

The Syrian Church

One would have thought that the Syrian Church would have been the first to accept James, if it was really written in Palestine and was really the work of the brother of our Lord; but in the Syrian Church there was the same oscillation. The official New Testament of the Syrian Church is called the Peshitto. This was to the Syrian Church what the Vulgate was to the Latin Church. It was made by Rabbula, the Bishop of Edessa, about A.D. 412 and in it for the first time James was translated into Syriac. Up to that time there was no Syriac version of the book, and up to A.D. 451 there is no trace of James in Syriac religious literature. After that James was widely enough accepted, but as late as A.D. 545 Paul of Nisibis was still questioning its right to be in the New Testament. It was not, in fact, until midway through the eighth century that the great authority of John of Damascus did for James in the Syrian Church what Augustine had done for it in the Latin.

The Greek Church

Although James emerged sooner in the Greek-speaking Church than it did in the Latin and Syrian, it was none the less late in making a definite appearance. The first writer to quote it by name is Origen, head of the school of Alexandria. Writing almost midway through the third century, he says, "If faith is called faith, but exists apart from works, such a faith is dead, as we read in the letter which is currently reported to be by James." It is true that in other works he quotes it as being without doubt by James and shows that he believes James to be the brother of our Lord; but once again there is the accent of doubt. Eusebius, the great scholar of Caesarea, investigated the position of the various books in the New Testament or on its fringe midway through the fourth century. He classes James amongst the books which are "disputed"; and he writes of it: "The first of the epistles called Catholic is said to be his (James but it must be noted that some regard it as spurious; and it is certainly true that very few of the ancient writers mention it." Here again is the accent of doubt. Eusebius himself accepted James but he was well aware that there were those who did not. The turning-point in the Greek-speaking Church came in A.D. 367. In that year Athanasius issued his famous Easter Letter in Egypt. Its purpose was to inform his people what books were Scripture and what were not, because apparently their reading had become too wide, or at least, too many books were being regarded as Holy Writ. In that Letter James was included without qualification; and its position was thenceforth safe.

So, then, in the early church no one really questioned the value of James; but in every branch of it it was late in emerging and had to go through a period when its right to be considered a New Testament book was under dispute.

In fact the history of James is still to be seen in its position in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1546 the Council of Trent once and for all laid down the Roman Catholic Bible. A list of books was given to which none could be added and from which none could be subtracted, and which had to be read in the Vulgate Version and in no other. The books were divided into two classes; those which were proto-canonical, that is to say, those which had been unquestioningly accepted from the beginning; and those which were deutero-canonical, that is to say, those which only gradually won their way into the New Testament. Although the Roman Catholic Church never had any doubts about James, it is none the less in the second class that it is included.

Luther And James

In our own day it is true to say that James, at least for most people, does not occupy a position in the forefront of the New Testament. Few would mention it in the same breath as John or Romans, or Luke or Galatians. There is still for many a kind of reservation about it. Why should that be? It cannot have to do with the doubt about James in the early church, for the history of the New Testament books in these distant days is not known to many people in the modern Church. The reason lies in this. In the Roman Catholic Church the position of James was finally settled by the Edict of the Council of Trent; but in the Protestant Church its history continued to be troubled, and indeed, became even more troubled, because Luther attacked it and would have ejected it from the New Testament altogether. In his printing of the German New Testament Luther had a contents page with the books set out and numbered. At the end of the list there was a little group, separate from the others and with no numbers assigned to them. That group comprised James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. These were books which he held to be secondary.

Luther was specially severe on James, and the adverse judgment of a great man on any book can be a millstone round its neck for ever. It is in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the New Testament that there stands Lutherfamous verdict on James:

In sum: the gospel and the first epistle of St. John, St. Paul/p>

epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians;

and St. Peterfirst epistle, are the books which show Christ to

you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation,

even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any

other teaching. In comparison with these the epistle of James is

an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.

But more about this in other prefaces.

As he promised, Luther developed this verdict in the Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. He begins: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on Godlaw. Yet to give my own opinion, without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship." He then goes on to give his reasons for this rejection.

First, in direct opposition to Paul and the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works, quoting Abraham wrongly as one who was justified by his works. This in itself proves that the epistle cannot be of apostolic origin.

Second, not once does it give to Christians any instruction or reminder of the Passion, Resurrection, or Spirit of Christ. It mentions Christ only twice. Then Luther goes on to state his own principle for testing any book: "The true touchstone for testing any book is to discover whether it emphasises the prominence of Christ or not.... What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, not even if taught by Peter or Paul. On the other hand what does preach Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod does it." On that test James fails. So Luther goes on: "The epistle of James however only drives you to the law and its works. He mixes one thing to another to such an extent that I suspect some good and pious man assembled a few things said by disciples of the apostles, and put them down in black and white; or perhaps the epistle was written by someone else who made notes of a sermon of his. He calls the law a law of freedom (Jam_1:25 ; Jam_2:12 ), although St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, wrath, death, and sin" (Gal_3:23 .; Rom_4:15 ; Rom_7:10 .).

So Luther comes to his conclusion: "In sum: he wishes to guard against those who depended on faith without going on to works, but he had neither the spirit, nor the thought, nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by emphasising law what the apostles bring about by attracting man to love. I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone else placing him or raising him where he likes, for the epistle contains many excellent passages. One man does not count as a man even in the eyes of the world; how then shall this single and isolated writer count against Paul and all the rest of the Bible?"

Luther does not spare James; and it may be that once we have studied the book we may think that for once he allowed personal prejudice to injure sound judgment.

Such, then, is the troubled history of James. Now we must try to answer the questions it poses regarding authorship and date.

The Identity Of James

The author of this letter gives us practically no information about himself He calls himself simply: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jam_1:1 ). Who then is he? In the New Testament there are apparently at least five people who bear that name.

(i) There is the James who was the father of the member of the Twelve called Judas, not Iscariot (Luk_6:16 ). He is no more than a name and cannot have had any connection with this letter.

(ii) There is James, the son of Alphaeus, who was a member of the Twelve (Mat_10:3 ; Mar_3:18 ; Luk_6:15 ; Act_1:13 ). A comparison of Mat_9:9 with Mar_2:14 makes it certain that Matthew and Levi were one and the same person. Levi was also a son of Alphaeus, and therefore Matthew and this James must have been brothers. But of James, the son of Alphaeus, nothing else is known; and he also can have had no connection with this letter.

(iii) There is the James who is called James the Younger and is mentioned in Mar_15:40 (compare Mat_27:56 ; Joh_19:25 ). Again nothing is known of him, and he cannot have had any connection with this letter.

(iv) There is James, the brother of John, and the son of Zebedee, a member of the twelve (Mat_10:2 ; Mar_3:17 ; Luk_6:14 ; Act_1:13 ). In the gospel story James never appears independently of his brother John (Mat_4:21 ; Mat_17:1 ; Mar_1:19 ; Mar_1:29 ; Mar_5:37 ; Mar_9:2 ; Mar_10:35 , Mar_10:41 ; Mar_13:3 ; Mar_14:33 ; Luk_5:10 ; Luk_8:51 ; Luk_9:28 ; Luk_9:54 ). He was the first of the apostolic band to be martyred, for he was beheaded on the orders of Herod Agrippa the First in the year A.D. 44. He has been connected with the letter. The fourth century Latin Codex Corbeiensis at the end of the epistle, has a note quite definitely ascribing it to James the son of Zebedee. The only place where this ascription of authorship was taken seriously was in the Spanish Church, in which, down to the end of the seventeenth century, he was often hold to be the author. This was due to the fact that St. James of Compostella, the patron saint of Spain, is identified with James the son of Zebedee; and it was natural that the Spanish Church should be predisposed to wish that their countrypatron saint should be the author of a New Testament letter. But the martyrdom of James came too early for him to have written the letter, and in any event there is nothing beyond the Codex Corbeiensis to connect him with it.

(v) Finally, there is James, who is called the brother of Jesus. Although the first definite connection of him with this letter does not emerge until Origen in the first half of the third century, it is to him that it has always been traditionally ascribed. The Roman Catholic Church agrees with this ascription, for in 1546 the Council of Trent laid it down that James is canonical and is written by an apostle.

Let us then collect the evidence about this James. From the New Testament we learn that he was one of the brothers of Jesus (Mar_6:3 ; Mat_13:55 ). We shall later discuss in what sense the word brother is to be taken. During Jesusinistry it is clear that his family did not understand or sympathize with him and would have wished to restrain him (Mat_12:46-50 ; Mar_3:21 ; Mar_3:31-35 ; Joh_7:3-9 ). John says bluntly, "For even his brothers did not believe in him" (Joh_7:5 ). So, then, during Jesusarthly ministry James was numbered amongst his opponents.

With Acts there comes a sudden and unexplained change. When Acts opens, Jesusother and his brothers are there with the little group of Christians (Act_1:14 ). From there onwards it becomes clear that James has become the leader of the Jerusalem Church although how that came about is never explained. It is to James that Peter sends the news of his escape from prison (Act_12:17 ). James presides over the Council of Jerusalem which agreed to the entry of the Gentiles into the Christian Church (Ac 15 ). It is James and Peter whom Paul meets when he first goes to Jerusalem; and it is with Peter, James and John, the pillars of the Church, that he discusses and settles his sphere of work (Gal_1:19 ; Gal_2:9 ). It is to James that Paul comes with his collection from the Gentile Churches on the visit to Jerusalem which is destined to be his last and which leads to his imprisonment (Act_21:18-25 ). This last episode is important, for it shows James very sympathetic to the Jews who still observe the Jewish law, and so eager that their scruples should not be offended, that he actually persuades Paul to demonstrate his loyalty to the law by assuming responsibility for the expenses of certain Jews who are fulfilling a Nazirite vow.

Plainly, then, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church. As might be expected, this was something which tradition greatly developed. Hegesippus, the early historian, says that James was the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria goes further and says that he was chosen for that office by Peter and John. Jerome in his book, On Famous Men, says, "After the Passion of the Lord, James was immediately ordained bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.... He ruled the Church of Jerusalem for thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of the reign of Nero." The Clementine Recognitions take the final step in the development of the legend, for they say that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by none other than Jesus himself. Clement of Alexandria relates a strange tradition: "To James the Just, and John and Peter, after the Resurrection, the Lord committed knowledge; they committed it to the other apostles; and the other apostles to the seventy." The later developments arc not to be accepted but the basic fact remains that James was the undisputed head of the Church at Jerusalem.

James And Jesus

Such a change must have some explanation. It may well be that we have it in a brief sentence in the New Testament itself. In 1Cor 15 Paul gives us a list of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus and includes the words: "Then he appeared to James" (1Co_15:7 ). It so happens that there is a strange reference to James in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was one of the early gospels which did not gain admittance to the New Testament but which, to judge from its surviving fragments, had much of value in it. The following passage from it is handed down by Jerome:

Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant

of the High Priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James

had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour, wherein he

had drunk the Lordcup, until he should see him risen again from

among them that sleep). And again after a little, "Bring ye," saith

the Lord, "a table and bread," and immediately it is added: "He

took bread and blessed and brake it and gave it unto James the Just

and said unto him, brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man

is risen from among them that sleep./p>

That passage is not without its difficulties. The beginning seems to mean that Jesus, when he rose from the dead and emerged from the tomb, handed the linen shroud, which he had been wearing in death, to the servant of the High Priest and went to meet his brother James. It also seems to imply that James was present at the Last Supper. But although the passage has its obscurities, one thing is clear. Something about Jesus in the last days and hours had fastened on Jameseart and he had vowed that he would not eat until Jesus had risen again; and so Jesus came to him and gave him the assurance for which he waited. That there was a meeting of James and the Risen Christ is certain. What passed at that moment we shall never know. But we do know this, that after it the James who had been hostile and unsympathetic to Jesus became his servant for life and his martyr in death.

James The Martyr Of Christ

That James died a martyrdeath is the consistent statement of early tradition. The accounts of the circumstances vary, but the fact that he was martyred remains constant. Josephus ccount is very brief (Antiquities 20: 9.1):

So Ananus, being that kind of man, and thinking that he had got

a good opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus not yet

arrived, holds a judicial council; and he brought before it the

brother of Jesus, who was called Christ--James was his name--and

some others, and on the charge of violating the Law he gave them

over to be stoned.

Ananus was a Jewish High Priest; Festus and Albinus were procurators of Palestine, holding the same position as Pilate had held. The point of the story is that Ananus took advantage of the interregnum between the death of one procurator and the arrival of his successor to eliminate James and other leaders of the Christian Church. This, in fact, well fits the character of Ananus as it is known to us and would mean that James was martyred in A.D. 62.

A much longer account is given in the history of Hegesippus. Hegesippusistory is itself lost, but his account of the death of James has been preserved in full by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2: 23). It is lengthy, but it is of such interest that it must be quoted in its entirety.

To the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles

succeeded the Lordbrother, James, he whom all from the time

of the Lord to our own day call the Just, as there were many

named James. And he was holy from his motherwomb; wine and

strong drink he drank not, nor did he eat flesh; no razor touched

his head, he anointed himself not with oil, and used not the bath.

To him alone was it permitted to enter the Holy Place, for neither

did he wear wool, but linen clothes. And alone he would enter the

Temple, and be found prostrate on his knees beseeching pardon

for the people, so that his knees were callous like a camelin

consequence of his continual kneeling in prayer to God and

beseeching pardon for the people. Because of his exceeding

righteousness he was called the Just, and Oblias, which is in

Greek Bulwark of the People, and Righteousness, as the prophets

declare concerning him.

Therefore, certain of the seven sects among the people, already mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him: "What is the door of Jesus?" and he said that He was the Saviour--of whom some accepted the faith that Jesus is the Christ. Now the aforesaid sects were not believers either in a Resurrection or in One who should come to render to every man according to his deeds; but as many as believed did so because of James. So, since many of the rulers, too, were believers, there was a tumult of the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, for they said there was danger that all the people would expect Jesus the Christ. Accordingly they said, when they had met together with James: "We entreat thee restrain the people since it has gone astray unto Jesus, holding him to be the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade concerning Jesus all those who come to the day of the Passover, for we all listen to thee. For we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou respectest not persons. So thou, therefore, persuade the people concerning Jesus, not to go astray, for all the people and all of us listen to thee. Take thy stand, therefore, on the pinnacle of the Temple, that up there thou mayest be well seen, and thy words audible to all the people. For because of the Passover all the tribes have come together and the gentiles also."

So the aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees set James on the pinnacle of the Temple and called to him: "O thou, the Just, to whom we all ought to listen, since the people is going astray after Jesus the crucified, tell us what is the door of Jesus?" And with a loud voice he answered: "Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He sitteth himself in heaven on the right hand of the great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven." And when many were convinced and gave glory for the witness of James, and said, "Hosanna to the Son of David," then again the same Scribes and Pharisees said to one another, "We were wrong to permit such a testimony to Jesus; but let us go up and cast him (James) down, that through fear they may not believe him." And they cried out saying, "Ho, Ho! even the Just has gone astray," and they fulfilled the Scriptures written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the Just, because he is troublesome to us; therefore they shall eat the fruits of their doings."

Accordingly they went up and cast the Just down. And they said to one another, "Let us stone James the Just," and they began to stone him, since he was not killed by the fall, but he turned and knelt down saying, "I beseech thee, Lord God Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And so, as they were stoning him, one of the Priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim. mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying, "Stop! what are ye doing? The Just prays for you." And a certain one of them, one of the fullers, taking the club with which he pounds clothes, brought it down on the head of the Just; and so he suffered martyrdom.

And they buried him there on the spot, near the Temple. A true witness has he become both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieges them.

The last sentence shows that Hegesippus had a different date for the death of James. Josephus makes it A.D. 62; but, if this happened just before the siege of Vespasian, the date is perhaps about A.D. 66.

Much in the story of Hegesippus may well be legendary but from it two things emerge. First, it is again evidence that James died a martyrdeath. Second, it is evidence that, even after James became a Christian, he remained in complete loyalty to the orthodox Jewish Law. So loyal that the Jews regarded him as one of themselves. This would fit well with what we have already noted of James ttitude to Paul when he came to Jerusalem with the collection for the Jerusalem Church (Act_21:18-25 ).

The Brother Of Our Lord

There is one other question about the person of James which we must try to solve. In Gal_1:19 Paul speaks of him as the Lordbrother. In Mat_13:55 and in Mar_6:3 he is named among the brothers of Jesus; and in Act_1:14 , although no names are given, the brothers of Jesus are said to be amongst his followers in the earliest Church. The question of the meaning of brother is one which must be faced, for the Roman Catholic Church attaches a great deal of importance to the answer, as does the Anglo-Catholic section of the Anglican Church. Ever since the time of Jerome there has been continuous argument in the Church on this question. There are three theories of the relationship of these "brothers" to Jesus; and we shall consider them one by one.

The Hieronymian Theory

The Hieronymian Theory takes its name from Jerome, who in Greek is Hieronymos (G0). It was he who worked out the theory which declares that the "brothers" of Jesus were in fact his cousins; and this is the settled belief of the Roman Catholic Church, for which it is an article of faith. It was put forward by Jerome in A.D. 383 and we shall best grasp his complicated argument by setting it out in a series of steps.

(i) James the brother of our Lord is included among the apostles. Paul writes: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lordbrother" (Gal_1:19 ).

(ii) Jerome insists that the word apostle can be used only of the Twelve. If that be so, we must look for James among them. He cannot be identified with James, brother of John and son of Zebedee, who apart from anything else was martyred by the time of Gal_1:19 , as Act_12:2 plainly tells us. Therefore he must be identified with the only other James among the Twelve, James the son of Alphaeus.

(iii) Jerome proceeds to make another identification. In Mar_6:3 we read: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, brother of James and Joses?"; and in Mar_15:40 we find beside the Cross Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses. Since James the Younger is the brother of Joses and the son of Mary, he must therefore be the same person as the James of Mar_6:3 , who is the brother of our Lord. Therefore, according to Jerome, James the brother of the Lord, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Younger are the same person under different descriptions.

(iv) Jerome bases the next and final step of his argument on a deduction made from the lists of the women who were there when Jesus was crucified. Let us set down that list as given by the three gospel writers.

In Mar_15:40 it is:

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome.

In Mat_27:56 it is:

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

In Joh_19:25 it is:

Jesusother, his mothersister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Now let us analyse these lists. In each of them Mary Magdalene appears by name. It is safe to identify Salome and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. But the real problem is how many women are there in Johnlist? Is the list to be read like this:

(i) Jesusother;

(ii) Jesusothersister;

(iii) Mary the wife of Cleopas;

(iv) Mary Magdalene.

Or is the list to be read like this:

(i) Jesusother;

(ii) Jesusothersister, Mary the wife of Cleopas;

(iii) Mary Magdalene.

Jerome insists that the second way is correct and that Jesusp>

Jerome insists that the second way is correct and that Jesusp>

mothersister and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, are one and the

mothersister and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, are one and the

same person. If that be so, she must also be the Mary who in the

same person. If that be so, she must also be the Mary who in the

other lists is the mother of James and Joses. This James who is

other lists is the mother of James and Joses. This James who is

her son is the man who is variously known as James the Younger

her son is the man who is variously known as James the Younger

and as James the son of Alphaeus and as James the apostle who is

and as James the son of Alphaeus and as James the apostle who is

known as the brother of our Lord. This means that James is the

known as the brother of our Lord. This means that James is the

son of Marysister and therefore is Jesusousin.

son of Marysister and therefore is Jesusousin.

There, then, is Jeromeargument. Against it at least four criticisms can be levelled.

(i) Again and again James is called the brother of Jesus or is numbered amongst the brothers of Jesus. The word used in each case is adelphos (G0), the normal word for brother. True, it can describe people who belong to a common fellowship, just as the Christians called each other brother. True, it can be used as a term of endearment and we may call someone with whom we enjoy personal intimacy a brother. But when it is used of those who are kin, it is, to say the least of it, very doubtful that it can mean cousin. If James was the cousin of Jesus, it is extremely unlikely--perhaps impossible--that he would be called the adelphos (G0) of Jesus.

(ii) Jerome was quite wrong in assuming that the term apostle could be used only of the Twelve. Paul was an apostle (Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ). Barnabas was an apostle (Act_14:14 ; 1Co_9:6 ). Silas was an apostle (Act_15:22 ). Andronicus and Junia were apostles (Rom_16:7 ). It is impossible to limit the word apostle to the Twelve; since, therefore, it is not necessary to look for James the Lordbrother among the Twelve, the whole argument of Jerome collapses.

(iii) It is on the face of it much more likely that Joh_19:25 is a list of four women, not three, for, if Mary the wife of Cleopas were the sister of Mary, Jesusother, it would mean that there were two sisters in the same family both called Mary, which is extremely unlikely.

(iv) It must be remembered that the Church knew nothing of this theory until A.D. 383 when Jerome produced it; and it is quite certain that it was produced for no other reason than to conserve the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The theory that those called Jesusrothers were, in fact, his cousins must be dismissed as rendered quite untenable by the facts of the case.

The Epiphanian Theory

The second of the great theories concerning the relationship of Jesus and his "brothers" holds that these "brothers" were, in fact, his half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. This is called the Epiphanian Theory after Epiphanius who strongly affirmed it about A.D. 370. He did not construct it. It existed long before this and may indeed be said to be the most usual opinion in the early church.

The substance of it already appears in an apocryphal book called the Book of James or the Protevangelium which dates back to the middle of the second century. That book tells how there was a devout husband and wife called Joachim and Anna. Their great grief was that they had no child. To their great joy in their old age a child was born to them, and this too, apparently, was regarded as a virgin birth. The child, a girl, was called Mary and was to be the mother of Jesus. Joachim and Anna vowed their child to the Lord; and when she reached the age of three they took her to the Temple and left her there in the charge of the priests. She grew up in the Temple; and when she reached the age of twelve the priests took thought for her marriage. They called together the widowers of the people, telling each man to bring his rod with him. Among them came Joseph the carpenter. The High Priest took the rods, and Josephwas last. To the other rods nothing happened; but from the rod of Joseph there flew a dove which came and settled on Josephhead. In this way it was revealed that Joseph was to take Mary to wife. Joseph at first was very unwilling. "I have sons," he said, "and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I become a laughing-stock to the children of Israel" (Prolevangelium 9: 1). But in the end he took her in obedience to the will of God, and in due time Jesus was born. The material of the Protevangelium is, of course, legendary; but it shows that by the middle of the second century the theory which was one day to bear the name of Epiphanius was widely held.

There is no direct evidence for this theory whatsoever and all the support adduced in its favour is of an indirect character.

(i) It is asked: would Jesus have committed his mother to the care of John, if she had other sons besides himself? (Joh_19:26-27 ). The answer is that, so far as we know, Jesusamily were quite out of sympathy with him and it would hardly have been possible to commit his mother to their care.

(ii) It is argued that the behaviour of Jesusbrothers" to him is that of elder brothers to a younger brother. They questioned his sanity and wished to take him home (Mar_3:21 ; Mar_3:31-35 ); they were actively hostile to him (Joh_7:1-5 ). But it could just as well be argued that their conduct was due to the simple fact that they found him an embarrassment to the family in a way that had nothing to do with age.

(iii) It is argued that Joseph must have been older than Mary because he vanishes completely from the gospel story and, therefore, probably had died before Jesusublic ministry began. The mother of Jesus was at the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee, but there is no mention of Joseph (Joh_2:1 ). Jesus is called, at least sometimes, the son of Mary, and the implication is that Joseph was dead and Mary was a widow (Mar_6:3 ; but compare Mat_13:55 ). Further, Jesusong stay in Nazareth until he was thirty years of age (Luk_3:23 ), is most easily explained by the assumption that Joseph had died and that Jesus had become responsible for the support of the household. But the fact that Joseph was older than Mary does not by any means prove that he had no other children by her; and the fact that Jesus stayed in Nazareth as the village carpenter in order to support the family would much more naturally indicate that he was the eldest, and not the youngest, son.

To these arguments Lightfoot would add two more of a general nature.

First, he says that this is the theory of Christian tradition; and, second, he claims that anything else is "abhorrent to Christian sentiment."

But basically this theory springs from the same origin as the Hieronymian theory. Its aim is to conserve the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is no direct evidence whatsoever for it; and no one would ever have thought of it had it not been for the desire to think that Mary never ceased to be a virgin.

The Helvidian Theory

The third theory is called the Helvidian Theory. It states quite simply that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were in the full sense of the term his brothers and sisters, that, to use the technical term, they were his uterine brothers and sisters. Nothing whatever is known of the Helvidius with whose name this theory is connected except that he wrote a treatise to support it which Jerome strongly opposed. What then may be said in favour of it?

(i) No one reading the New Testament story without theological presuppositions would ever think of anything else. On the face of it that story does not think of Jesusrothers and sisters as anything else but his brothers and sisters in the full sense of the term.

(ii) The birth narratives both in Matthew and Luke presuppose that Mary had other children. Matthew writes: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not till she had borne a son" (Mat_1:24-25 ). The clear implication is that Joseph entered into normal married relationships with Mary after the birth of Jesus. Tertullian, in fact, uses this passage to prove that both virginity and the married state are consecrated in Christ by the fact that Mary was first a virgin and then a wife in the full sense of the term. Luke in writing of the birth of Jesus says: "She gave birth to her first-born son" (Luk_2:7 ). To call Jesus a first-born son is plainly to indicate that other children followed.

(iii) As we have already said, the fact that Jesus remained in Nazareth as the village carpenter until the age of thirty is at least an indication that he was the eldest son and had to take upon himself the responsibility of the support of the family after the death of Joseph.

We believe that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were in truth his brothers and sisters. Any other theory ultimately springs from the glorification of asceticism and from a wish to regard Mary as for ever a virgin. It is surely a far more lovely thing to believe in the sanctity of the home than to insist that celibacy is a higher thing than married love.

So, then, we believe that James, called the Lordbrother, was in every sense the brother of Jesus.

James As The Author

Can we then say that this James was also the author of this letter? Let us collect the evidence in favour of that view.

(i) If James wrote a letter at all, it would most naturally be a general epistle, as this is. James was not, like Paul, a traveller and a man of many congregations. He was the leader of the Jewish section of the Church; and the kind of letter we would expect him to write would be a general epistle directed to all Jewish Christians.

(ii) There is scarcely anything in the letter that a good Jew could not accept. So much so that there are those who think that it is actually a Jewish ethical tract which has found its way into the New Testament. A. H. McNeile has pointed out that in instance after instance there are phrases in James which can be read equally well in a Christian or a Jewish sense. The Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion (Jam_1:1 ) could be taken either of the exiled Jews scattered all over the world or of the Christian Church, the new Israel of God. "The Lord" can again and again in this letter be understood equally well of Jesus or of God (Jam_1:7 ; Jam_4:10 , Jam_4:15 ; Jam_5:7-8 ; Jam_5:10-11 ; Jam_5:14-15 ). Our bringing forth by God by the word of his truth to be the first fruits of his creation (Jam_1:18 ) can equally well be understood of Godfirst act of creation or of his re-creation of men in Jesus Christ. The perfect law and the royal law (Jam_1:25 ; Jam_2:8 ), can equally well be understood of the ethical law of the Ten Commandments or of the new law of Christ. The elders of the Church, the ekklesia (G0) (Jam_5:14 ), can equally well be understood as meaning the elders of the Christian Church or the Jewish elders, for in the Septuagint ekklesia (G0) is the title of the chosen nation of God. In Jam_2:2 "your assembly" is spoken of. The word there used for assembly is sunagoge (G0), which can mean the synagogue even more readily than it can mean the Christian congregation. The habit of addressing its readers as brothers is thoroughly Christian, but it is equally thoroughly Jewish. The coming of the Lord and the picture of the Judge standing at the door (Jam_5:7 , Jam_5:9 ) are just as common in Jewish thought as in Christian thought. The accusation that they have murdered the righteous man (Jam_5:6 ) is a phrase which occurs again and again in the prophets, but a Christian could read it as a statement of the Crucifixion of Christ. There is nothing in this letter which an orthodox Jew could not heartily accept, if he read it in his own terms.

It could be argued that all this perfectly suits James. He was the leader of what might be called Jewish Christianity; he was the head of that part of the Church which remained centred in Jerusalem. There must have been a time when the Church was very close to Judaism and it was more a reformed Judaism than anything else. There was a kind of Christianity which had not the width or the universality which the mind of Paul put into it. Paul himself said that the sphere of the Gentiles had been allocated to him and the sphere of the Jews to Peter, James and John (Gal_2:9 ). The letter of James may well represent a kind of Christianity which had remained in its earliest form. This would explain two things.

First, it would explain the frequency with which James repeats the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. We may, out of many instances, compare Jam_2:12-13 and Mat_6:14-15 ; Jam_3:11-13 and Mat_7:16-20 ; Jam_5:12 and Mat_5:34-37 . Any Jewish Christian would be supremely interested in the ethical teaching of the Christian faith.

Second, it would help to explain the relationship of this letter to the teaching of Paul. At a first reading Jam_2:14-26 reads like a direct attack on Paulinism. "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jam_2:24 ) seems a flat contradiction of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. But what James is attacking is a so-called faith which has no ethical results and one thing is quite clear--anyone who charges Paul with preaching such a faith cannot possibly have read his letters. They are full of ethical demands, as, for instance, a chapter like Rom 12 illustrates. Now James died in A.D. 62 and, therefore, could not have read Paulletters which did not become the common property of the Church until at least A.D. 90. Therefore what James is attacking is either a misunderstanding of what Paul said or a perversion of it; and nowhere was such a misunderstanding or perversion more likely to arise than in Jerusalem, where Paulstress on faith and grace and his attack on the law were likely to be regarded with more suspicion than anywhere else.

(iii) It has been pointed out that James and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem to the Gentile Churches have at least two rather curious resemblances. Both begin with the word Greeting (Jam_1:1 ; Act_15:23 ). The Greek is chairein (G0). This was the normal Greek beginning to a letter, but nowhere else in all the New Testament is it found other than in the letter of Claudius Lysias, the military officer, to the governor of the province quoted in Act_23:26-30 . Second, Act_15:17 has a phrase in the letter of the Council of Jerusalem in which it speaks of the Gentiles who are called by my name. This phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament other than in Jam_2:7 where it is translated the name by which you are called. Although the Revised Standard Version translations differ slightly, the Greek is exactly the same. It is curious that the letter of the Council of Jerusalem presents us with two unusual phrases which recur only in James, when we remember that the letter of the Council of Jerusalem must have been drafted by James.

There is then evidence which lends colour to the belief that James was the work of James, the Lordbrother and head of the Jerusalem Church.

On the other hand there are facts which make us a little doubtful if he was, after all, the author.

(i) If the writer was the brother of our Lord, we would have expected him to make some reference to that fact. All he calls himself is "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jam_1:1 ). Such a reference would not have been in any sense for his own personal glory, but simply to lend authority to his letter. And such authority would have been specially useful outside Palestine, in countries where James could hardly have been known. If the author was indeed the Lordbrother, it is surprising that he makes no reference, direct or indirect, to that fact.

(ii) Failing a reference to his relationship to Jesus, we would have expected a reference to the fact that he was an apostle. It was Paulregular custom to begin his letters with a reference to his apostleship. Again it is not a question of personal prestige but simply a guarantee of the authority by which he writes. If this James was indeed the Lordbrother and the head of the Jerusalem Church, we should have expected some reference at the beginning of the letter to his apostolic status.

(iii) The most surprising fact of all is that which made Luther question the right of this letter to a place in the New Testament--the almost complete absence of any references to Jesus Christ. Only twice in the whole letter is his name mentioned and these mentions are almost incidental (Jam_1:1 ; Jam_2:1 ).

There is no reference at all to his Resurrection. We know well that the early church was built on faith in the Risen Christ. If this letter is the work of James, it is contemporary, with the events of Acts in which the Resurrection is mentioned no fewer than twenty-five times. What makes it still more surprising is that James had a personal reason for writing about the appearance of Jesus which may well have been what changed the direction of his life. It is surprising that anyone writing at such a time in the Churchhistory should write without reference to the Resurrection of Jesus; and it is doubly surprising if the writer should be James the brother of our Lord.

Further, there is no reference to Jesus as Messiah. If James, the leader of the Jewish Church, was writing to Jewish Christians in these very early days, one would have thought his main aim would have been to present Jesus as Messiah or that at least he would have made his belief in that fact plain; but the letter does not mention it.

(iv) It is plain that the writer of this letter is steeped in the Old Testament; it is also plain that he is intimately acquainted with the Wisdom Literature; and that in James is only to be expected. There are in his letter twenty-three apparent quotations from the Sermon on the Mount; that too is easy to understand, because from the very beginning, long before the gospels were written, compendiums of Jesuseaching must have circulated. It is argued by some that he must have known Paulletters to the Romans and to the Galatians in order to write as he does about faith and works, and it is argued rightly that a Jew who had never been outside Palestine and who died in A.D. 62 could not have known these letters. As we have seen, this argument will not stand, because the criticism of Pauldoctrine in James is criticism which could have been offered only by someone who had not read the letters of Paul at first hand and who is dealing with a misunderstanding or a perversion of Pauline doctrine. But the phrase in Jam_1:17 : "Every good endowment and every perfect gift," is an hexametre line and clearly a quotation from some Greek poet; and the phrase in Jam_3:6 : "the cycle of nature" may be an Orphic phrase from the mystery religions. How could James of Palestine pick up quotations like these?

There are things which are difficult to account for on the assumption that James, the brother of our Lord, was the author of this letter.

The evidence for and against James uthorship of this letter is extraordinarily evenly balanced. For the moment we must leave the matter in suspense and turn to certain other questions.

The Date Of The Letter

When we turn to the evidence for the date of the letter we find this same even balance. It is possible to argue that it is very early, and equally possible to argue that it is rather late.

(i) When James was writing, it is clear that the hope of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was still very real (Jam_5:7-9 ). Now the expectation of the Second Coming never left the Christian Church, but it did to some extent fade from the foreground of its thought as it was unexpectedly long delayed. This would suggest an early date.

(ii) In the early chapters of Acts and in the letters of Paul, there is a continuous background of Jewish controversy against the accepting of the Gentiles into the Church on the basis of faith alone. Wherever Paul went the Judaizers followed him, and the acceptance of the Gentiles was not a battle which was readily won. In James there is not even a hint of this Jewish-Gentile controversy, a fact which is doubly surprising when we remember that James, the Lordbrother, took a leading part in settling it at the Council of Jerusalem. That being so, this letter could be either very early and written before that controversy emerged; or, it could be late and written after the last echo of the controversy had died away. The fact that there is no mention of the Jewish-Gentile controversy can be used as an argument either way.

(iii) The evidence from the Church order reflected in the letter is equally conflicting. The meeting place of the Church is still called the sunagoge (G0) (Jam_2:2 ). That points to an early date; later an assembly of Christians would definitely be called the ekklesia (G0), for the Jewish term was soon dropped. The elders of the Church are mentioned (Jam_5:14 ), but there is no mention of either deacons or bishops. This again indicates an early date, and possibly a Jewish connection, for the eldership was a Jewish institution before it was a Christian one. James is worried about the existence of many teachers (Jam_3:1 ). This could well indicate a very early situation, before the Church had systematized its ministry and introduced some kind of order; or, it could indicate a late date, when many false teachers had arisen to plague the Church.

There are two general facts which seem on the whole to indicate that James is late. First, as we have seen there is hardly any mention of Jesus at all. The subject of the letter is, in fact, the inadequacies and the imperfections, the sins and the mistakes of the members of the Church. This seems to point to a fairly late date. The early preaching was ablaze with the grace and the glory of the Risen Christ; later preaching became, as it so often is today, a tirade against the imperfections of the members of the Church. The second general fact is the condemnation of the rich (Jam_2:1-3 ; Jam_5:1-6 ). The flattery of the rich and the arrogance of the rich seem to have been real problems when this letter was written. Now in the very early church there were few, if any, rich men (1Co_1:26-27 ). James seems to indicate a later time when the once poor Church was being threatened with a spirit of worldliness in its members.

The Preachers Of The Ancient World

It will help us to date this so-called letter of James and may also help us to identify its author, if we place it in its context in the ancient world.

The sermon is identified with the Christian Church, but it was by no means its invention. It had roots in both the Hellenistic and the Jewish world; and when we set James beside the Hellenistic and the Jewish sermons we cannot fail to be struck by the resemblances.

1. Let us look first at the Greek preachers and their sermons. The wandering philosopher was a common figure in the ancient world. Sometimes he was a Stoic; far more often he was a Cynic. Wherever men were gathered together you would find him there calling them to virtue. You would find him at the street comer and in the city squares; you would find him at the vast concourses which gathered for the games: you would even find him at the gladiatorial games, sometimes, even directly addressing the emperor, rebuking him for luxury and tyranny, and calling him to virtue and justice. The ancient preacher, the philosopher-missionary, was a regular figure in the ancient world. There was a time when philosophy had been the business of the schools, but now its voice and its ethical demands were to be heard daily in the public places.

These ancient sermons had certain characteristics. The method was always the same; and that method had deeply influenced Paulpresentation of the gospel, and James was in the same line of descent. We list some of the tricks of the trade of these ancient preachers, noting bow they occur in James and bearing in mind the way in which Paul writes to his Churches. The main aim of these ancient preachers, it must be remembered, was not to investigate new truth; it was to awaken sinners to the error of their ways and compel them to look at truths, which they knew but were deliberately neglecting or had forgotten. Their aim was to confront men with the good life in the midst of the looseness of their living and their forgetfulness of the gods.

(i) They frequently carried on imaginary conversations with imaginary opponents, speaking in what has been called a kind of "truncated dialogue." James also uses that method in Jam_2:18 . and Jam_5:13 .

(ii) They habitually effected their transition from one part of the sermon to another, by way of a question which introduced the new subject. Again James does that in Jam_2:14 and Jam_4:1 .

(iii) They were very fond of imperatives in which they commanded their hearers to right action and to the abandoning of their errors. In James
08 verses there are almost 60 imperatives.

(iv) They were very fond of the rhetorical question flung out at their audience. James frequently employs such questions (compare Jam_2:4-5 ; Jam_2:14-16 ; Jam_3:11-12 ; Jam_4:4 ).

(v) They frequently dealt in apostrophes, vivid direct addresses to particular sections of the audience. So James apostrophizes the merchants out for gain and the arrogant rich (Jam_4:13 ; Jam_5:6 ).

(vi) They were fond of personifying virtues and vices, sins and graces. So James personifies sin (Jam_1:15 ); mercy (Jam_2:13 ); rust (Jam_5:3 ).

(vii) They sought to awaken the interest of their audience by pictures and figures from everyday life. The figure of the bridle, the rudder and the forest fire are standard figures in the ancient sermons (compare Jam_3:3-6 ). Amongst many others James vividly uses the picture of the farmer and his patience (Jam_5:7 ).

(viii) They frequently used the example of famous men and women to point their moral. So James uses the examples of Abraham (Jam_2:21-23 ); Rahab (Jam_2:25 ); Job (Jam_5:11 ); Elijah (Jam_5:17 ).

(ix) It was the custom of the ancient preachers to begin their sermon with a paradox which would arrest the attention of their hearers. James does that by telling a man to think it all joy when he is involved in trials (Jam_1:2 ). In the same way the ancient preachers often pointed out how true goodness meant the reversal of all popular verdicts on life. So James insists that the happiness of the rich lies in their being brought low (Jam_1:10 ). They used the weapon of irony as James does (Jam_2:14-19 ; Jam_5:1-6 ).

(x) The ancient preachers could speak with harshness and with sternness. So James addresses his reader as: "Foolish fellow!" and calls those who listen to him unfaithful creatures (Jam_2:20 ; Jam_4:4 ). The ancient preachers used the lash and so does James.

(xi) The ancient preachers had certain standard ways of constructing their sermons.

(a) They often concluded a section with a vivid antithesis, setting the right beside the wrong way. James follows the same custom (compare Jam_2:13 ; Jam_2:26 ).

(b) They often made their point by means of a searching question fired at the hearer; and so does James (Jam_4:12 ).

(c) They often used quotations in their preaching. This also James does (Jam_5:20 ; Jam_1:11 , Jam_1:17 ; Jam_4:6 ; Jam_5:11 ).

It is true that we do not find in James the bitterness, the scolding, the frivolous and often broad humour that the Greek preachers used; but it is plain to see that he uses all the other methods which the wandering Hellenistic preachers used to win their way into the minds and hearts of men.

2. The Jewish world also had its tradition of preaching. That preaching was done mainly by the Rabbis at the services of the synagogue. It had many of the characteristics of the preaching of the Greek wandering philosophers. It had its rhetorical questions and its imperatives and its pictures taken from life, and its quotations and its citations of the heroes of the faith. But Jewish preaching had one curious characteristic. It was deliberately disconnected. The Jewish masters instructed their pupils never to linger for any length of time on any one subject, but to move quickly from one subject to another in order to maintain the interest of the listener. Hence one of the names for preaching was charaz (G0), which literally means stringing beads. The Jewish sermon was frequently a string of moral truths and exhortations coming one after another. This is exactly what James is. It is difficult, if not impossible, to extract from it a continuous and coherent plan. Its sections follow each other with a certain disconnectedness. Goodspeed writes: "The work has been compared to a chain, each link related to the one before and the one after it. Others have compared its contents to beads on a string.... And, perhaps, James is not so much a chain of thoughts or beads as it is a handful of pearls dropped one by one into the hearermind."

James, whether looked at from the Hellenistic or from the Jewish point of view, is a good example of an ancient sermon. And here is, perhaps, the clue we need to its authorship. With all this in mind, let us now turn to ask who the author is.

The Author Of James

There are five possibilities.

(i) We begin with a theory worked out in detail by Meyer more than half a century ago and revived by Easton in the new InterpreterBible. One of the commonest things in the ancient world was for books to be published in the name of some great figure of the past. Jewish literature between the Testaments is full of writings like that, ascribed to Moses, the Twelve Patriarchs, Baruch, Enoch, Isaiah, and people of like standing in order that the added authority might give greater encouragement to their readers. This was an accepted practice. One of the best-known books in the Apocrypha is the Wisdom of Solomon, in which the later Sage attributes new wisdom to the wisest of the kings.

Let us remember three things about James. (a) There is nothing in it which an orthodox Jew could not accept, if the two references to Jesus in Jam_1:1 and Jam_2:1 are removed, as they easily may be. (b) The Greek for James is in fact Iakobos (G0) which of course is the Old Testament Jacob. (c) The book is addressed to "the twelve tribes who are scattered abroad." This theory holds that James is nothing other than a Jewish writing, written under the name of Jacob and meant for the Jews who were scattered throughout the world to encourage them in faith and belief amidst the trials through which they might be passing in Gentile lands.

This theory is further elaborated in this way. In Gen 49 we have Jacoblast address to his sons. The address consists of a series of short descriptions in which each son is in turn characterized. Meyer professed to be able to find in James allusions to the descriptions of each of the patriarchs and, therefore, of each of the twelve tribes, in Jacobaddress. Here are some of his identifications.

Asher is the worldly rich man; Jam_1:9-11 ; Gen_49:20 .

Issachar is the doer of good deeds; Jam_1:12 ; Gen_49:14-15 .

Reuben is the first fruits; Jam_1:18 ; Gen_49:3 .

Simeon stands for anger; Jam_1:19-20 ; Gen_49:5-7 .

Levi is the tribe which is specially connected with religion and is alluded to in Jam_1:26-27 .

Naphtali is characterized by peace; Jam_3:18 ; Gen_49:21 .

Gad stands for wars and fightings; Jam_4:1-2 ; Gen_49:19 .

Dan represents waiting for salvation; Jam_5:7 ; Gen_49:18 .

Jo

Barclay: James 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Respect Of Persons (Jam_2:1)

The Peril Of Snobbery Within The Church (Jam_2:2-4)

The Riches Of Poverty And The Poverty Of Riches (Jam_2:5-7)

The Royal Law (Jam_2:8-11)

The Law Of Liberty And The Life Of Mercy (Jam_2:12-13)

Faith And Works (Jam_2:14-26)

2:14-26 My brothers, what use is it if a man claims to have faith and has no deeds to show? Are you going to claim that his faith is able to save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear, and if they have not enough for their daily food, and if one of you says to them, "Go in peace! Be warmed and fed!" and yet does not give them the essentials of bodily existence, what use is that? So, if faith too has no deeds to show, by itself it is dead. But someone may well say, "Have you faith?" My answer is, "I have deeds. Show me your faith apart from your deeds, and I will show you my faith by means of my deeds." You say that you believe that there is one God. Excellent! The demons also believe the same thing--and shudder in terror. Do you wish for proof, you empty creature, that faith without deeds is ineffective? Was not our father Abraham proved righteous in virtue of deeds when he was ready to offer Isaac his own son upon the altar? You see how his faith co-operated with his deeds and how his faith was completed by his deeds, and so there was fulfilled the passage of Scripture which says, "Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, for he was the friend of God." You see that it is by deeds that a man is proved righteous, and not only by faith. In the same way was Rahab the harlot not also proved righteous by deeds, when she received the messengers and sent them away by another way? For just as the body without breath is dead, so faith without works is dead.

This is a passage which we must take as a whole before we look at it in parts, for it is so often used in an attempt to show that James and Paul were completely at variance. It is apparently Paul's emphasis that a man is saved by faith alone and that deeds do not come into the process at all. "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Rom_3:28). "A man is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ...because by works of the law shall no one be justified" (Gal_2:16). It is often argued that James is not simply differing from Paul but is flatly contradicting him. This is a matter we must investigate. (i) We begin by noting that James' emphasis is in fact a universal New Testament emphasis. It was the preaching of John the Baptist that men should prove the reality of their repentance by the excellence of their deeds (Mat_3:8; Luk_3:8). It was Jesus' preaching that men should so live that the world might see their good works and give the glory to God (Mat_5:16). He insisted that it was by their fruits that men must be known and that a faith which expressed itself in words only could never take the place of one which expressed itself in the doing of the will of God (Mat_7:15-21). Nor is this emphasis missing from Paul himself. Apart from anything else, there can be few teachers who have ever stressed the ethical effect of Christianity as Paul does. However doctrinal and theological his letters may be, they never fail to end with a section in which the expression of Christianity in deeds is insisted upon. Apart from that general custom Paul repeatedly makes clear the importance he attaches to deeds as part of the Christian life. He speaks of God who will render to every man according to his works (Rom_2:6). He insists that every one of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom_14:12). He urges men to put off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light (Rom_13:12). Every man shall receive his own reward according to his labour (1Co_3:8). We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that every one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body (2Co_5:10). The Christian has to put off the old nature and all its deeds (Col_3:9). The fact that Christianity must be ethically demonstrated is an essential part of the Christian faith throughout the New Testament. (ii) The fact remains that James reads as if he were at variance with Paul; for in spite of all that we have said Paul's main emphasis is upon grace and faith and James' upon action and works. But this must be said--what James is condemning is not Paulinism but a perversion of it. The essential Pauline position in one sentence was: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Act_16:31). But clearly the significance we attach to this demand will entirely depend on the meaning we attach to believe. There are two kinds of belief. There is belief which is purely intellectual. For instance, I believe that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides; and if I had to, I could prove it--but it makes no difference to my life and living. I accept it, but it has no effect upon me. There is another kind of belief. I believe that five and five make ten, and, therefore, I will resolutely refuse to pay more than ten pence for two fivepenny bars of chocolate. I take that fact, not only into my mind, but into my life and action. What James is arguing against is the first kind of belief, the acceptance of a fact without allowing it to have any influence upon life. The devils are intellectually convinced of the existence of God; they, in fact, tremble before him; but their belief does not alter them in the slightest. What Paul held was the second kind of belief For him to believe in Jesus meant to take that belief into every section of life and to live by it. It is easy to pervert Paulinism and to emasculate believe of all effective meaning; and it is not really Paulinism but a misunderstood form of it that James condemns. He is condemning profession without practice and with that condemnation Paul would have entirely agreed. (iii) Even allowing for that, there is still a difference between James and Paul--they begin at different times in the Christian life. Paul begins at the very beginning. He insists that no man can ever earn the forgiveness of God. The initial step must come from the free grace of God; a man can only accept the forgiveness which God offers him in Jesus Christ. James begins much later with the professing Christian, the man who claims to be already forgiven and in a new relationship with God. Such a man, James rightly says, must live a new life for he is a new creature. He has been justified; he must now show that he is sanctified With that Paul would have entirely agreed. The fact is that no man can be saved by works; but equally no man can be saved without producing works. By far the best analogy is that of a great human love. He who is loved is certain that he does not deserve to be loved; but he is also certain that he must spend his life trying to be worthy of that love. The difference between James and Paul is a difference of starting-point. Paul starts with the great basic fact of the forgiveness of God which no man can earn or deserve; James starts with the professing Christian and insists that a man must prove his Christianity by his deeds. We are not saved by deeds; we are saved for deeds; these are the twin truths of the Christian life. Paul's emphasis is on the first and James' is on the second. In fact they do not contradict but complement each other; and the message of both is essential to the Christian faith in its fullest form. As the paraphrase has it:

Let all who hold this faith and hope In holy deeds abound; Thus faith approves itself sincere, By active virtue crown'd.

Profession And Practice (Jam_2:14-17)

Not "Either Or", But "Both And" (Jam_2:18-19)

The Proof Of Faith (Jam_2:20-26)

Constable: James (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

The writer of this epistle was evidently the half-brother of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:19) and the brother of Jude, the writer of the epistle that bears his name (cf. Matt. 13:55). This was the opinion of many of the early church fathers and writers.¹ This James was not the brother of the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, who suffered martyrdom early in the history of the church (Mark 1:19; Acts 12:2). Neither was he the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18) or the father of Judas (Luke 6:16). He was the leading man in the Jerusalem church who spoke at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-21; cf. 12:17; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7). Some commentators believed that the similarities in the Greek of this epistle and James' speech in Acts 15 support his identification as the writer.² The fact that the writer wrote this epistle in very good Greek should not rule this James out. He would have been fluent in both Aramaic and Greek as a gifted Galilean.

The recipients of this letter were the Jewish Christians of the Diaspora, Jews who had scattered from Palestine and had come to faith in Christ (1:1). Several Jewish references in the book support the claim that a Jew wrote it to other Jews (e.g., 1:18; 2:2, 21; 3:6; 5:4, 7).

Josephus said that James died in A.D. 62³ so he wrote the letter before that date. Many commentators believed that James' lack of reference to the Jerusalem Council (A.D. 49) suggests he wrote before that meeting. This is a very tenuous argument, however, since the issues James dealt with in this epistle are different from those the Jerusalem Council discussed. Reference to the Jerusalem Council in this letter would have been unnecessary. Traditionally James wrote early, however. It seems that his epistle was probably the first divinely inspired one and that James composed it in the middle or late 40s, perhaps A.D. 45-48. Many scholars have taken James' lack of references or allusions to other inspired New Testament epistles as additional support for this position. I believe there is no substantial reason to doubt the traditional early date.⁴

Since James lived in Jerusalem most if not all of his Christian life, that city seems to be the most likely place of writing.

Special Features

There are several unique features of this epistle. It contains no references to specific individuals who were the original recipients. There is no concluding benediction. There is a large number of imperatives in the letter, about one for every two verses. There are many figures of speech and analogies. James also alluded to over 20 Old Testament books. He referred to many Old Testament characters including Abraham, Rahab, Job, and Elijah as well as the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. One commentator observed that this book "has a more Jewish cast than any other writing of the New Testament."⁵ There are many references to nature. This was characteristic of the Jewish rabbis' teaching in James' day and the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are also many allusions to Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.⁶ Leading themes in James include perfection, wisdom, and the piety of the poor.⁷

"As soon as we read through the letter of James we say to ourselves, This man was a preacher before he was a writer.'"⁸

"In style it reminds one now of the Proverbs, now of the stern denunciations of the prophets, now of the parables in the Gospels."⁹

"The Epistle of James is without doubt the least theological of all NT books, with the exception of Philemon. . . .

"Three doctrines come to the surface more often than any others, and of these the most prominent is the doctrine of God. In keeping with the ethical nature of the epistle is the repeated stress on the doctrine of sin. And, surprisingly, the third most prominent theological theme is eschatology."¹⁰

"The epistle of James is no more anti-Pauline than is the Sermon on the Mount."¹¹

"The design of the Epistle is on the one hand to encourage those to whom it is addressed to bear their trials patiently, and on the other hand to warn them against certain errors of doctrine and practice."¹²

Message¹³

The Book of James teaches us that faith in God should result in behavior that is in harmony with God's will. The theme of the book is "living by faith" or "spiritual maturity."

James' concern was Christian behavior (ethics) as expressive of Christian belief (doctrine). James hardly mentioned most of the fundamental Christian doctrines in this book. His preeminent concern was the practice of Christianity, the manifestation of salvation in shoe leather.

The teaching of this epistle has its roots in Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. That was, of course, His great ethical discourse. James made no fewer than 15 references or allusions to Matthew 5-7 in his epistle. James is an exposition of the main ideas in this passage.

Jesus presented three great revelations in the Sermon on the Mount that James expounded in this book.

First, Jesus spoke of the behavior of believers. Matt. 5:20: "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus was speaking of how righteous behavior manifests itself. James commented on five behaviors in which his readers needed to demonstrate their righteousness. (I'll explain what these were in a minute.)

Second, Jesus clarified the believer's goal. Matt. 5:48: "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." This maturity into the image of Christ is God's goal for every Christian (cf. Eph. 4:13: "Until we all come . . ."). In dealing with each of the five behaviors he selected, James clarified the goal the believer should bear in mind and to which he or she should press. (I'll identify these too.)

Third, Jesus illuminated the method by which the believer can realize maturity (perfection) as he or she behaves. Matt. 6:1: "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them." Jesus taught that believers should live to obtain God's approval, not the approval of their fellowmen. James explained what that means in the case of the five behaviors he dealt with in this epistle. He showed how to live for God's approval rather than for man's.

These three great revelations in the Sermon on the Mount contribute the hidden framework on which James hung his challenges to his readers. All of these challenges deal with spiritual immaturity. (See the chart on the next page.)

In chapter one the behavior dealt with is trials, the difficult experiences that every believer encounters in life.

James revealed that God's goal for believers in allowing us to experience trials is personal maturity. He also explained that the method by which we attain this goal is by patiently accepting our trials from God.

In chapter two the behavior in view is prejudice.

God's goal for believers that prejudice tends to thwart is love for all people. The method by which we can reach this goal in God's plan is by exercising genuine faith in God. James explained the relationship of prejudice and faith in this chapter.

In chapter three the behavior is our speech.

God's goal is our blessing of others: God and all other people. The method is to receive and use wisdom from God.

In chapter four the behavior is interpersonal and inner personal relationships.

God's goal is peace. His method is submission to God.

In chapter five the behavior is using money.

The goal is that we use money to serve others rather than ourselves. The method of attaining this goal is two-fold: patience with God and prayer to God.

James' Emphases
	Ch. 1	Ch. 2	Ch. 3	Ch. 4	Ch. 5
Area of Behavior	Trials	Prejudice	Speech	Conflicts	Money
God's Goal	Personal Maturity	Love for Others	Blessing of Others	Peace with Others	Service of Others
God'sMethod	Acceptancefrom God	Faith in God	Wisdomfrom God	Submissionto God	Patience with & Prayer to God

I could state the application of this epistle in the following two affirmations.

First, the life of faith is a life of peril. If we would achieve God's goal of righteous behavior we must overcome the obstacles that stand in our way. Our opposition comes from three sources each of which James dealt with in his exposition of each behavior. (See the chart on the next page.)

We must challenge the spirit (popular philosophy) of our world.

The world system says avoid trials (ch. 1). Give preference to those who can help you (ch. 2). Promote yourself by what you say (ch. 3). Demand your rights (ch. 4). Grab all the money you can (ch. 5).

James said we must also deny the lusts of our flesh. The flesh is the second source of peril we face.

The flesh says indulge yourself and give in to the temptations that often accompany trials (ch. 1). Love yourself rather than others (ch. 2). Glorify yourself rather than promoting others and God (ch. 3). Assert yourself rather than submitting to God (ch. 4). Serve yourself rather than serving others (ch. 5).

James also cautioned us to resist the devil, the third source of opposition to God's work of producing righteousness in our conduct.

Satan says God hates you and your trials are an evidence of that (ch. 1). He says God is withholding what is good from you that you could get if you show favoritism to those who are able to favor you (ch. 2). He says God has abandoned you so you need to speak up for yourself (ch. 3). He says God will not defend you so you must be more self-assertive (ch. 4). He also says God will not provide for you so you must hoard your money rather than distributing it as a good steward (ch. 5).

Perils to the Life of Faith
Concerning...	The World says...	The Flesh says...	The Devil says...
Trials (ch. 1)	Avoid them.	Indulge yourself.	God hates you.
Prejudice (ch. 2)	Favor those who can help you.	Love yourself.	God is withholding something from you.
Speech (ch. 3)	Promote yourself.	Glorify yourself.	God has abandoned you.
Conflicts (ch. 4)	Demand your rights.	Assert yourself.	God will not defend you.
Money (ch. 5)	Grab all you can get.	Serve yourself.	God will not provide for you.

The second affirmation that summarizes the application of the teaching of this epistle is this. The life of faith is a life of power as well as a life of peril. In each of the five major problems James dealt with we can see that the life of faith is more powerful than the life of unbelief.

It is superior to the spirit (philosophy) of our world. It is stronger than the lusts of our flesh. It is stubborn against the attacks of the devil. Therefore we should continue to live by faith. Keep trusting and obeying God.

Constable: James (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1

II. Trials and true religion 1:2-27

A. The value of trials 1:2-11

1. The proper attitude toward trials 1:2

2. The end product of trials 1:3-4

3. Help in adopting this attitude 1:5-8

4. The larger view of circumstances 1:9-11

B. The options in trials 1:12-18

1. The ultimate end of trials 1:12

2. The source of temptation 1:13-14

3. The progress of temptation 1:15

4. The goodness of God 1:16-18

C. The proper response to trials 1:19-27

1. The improper response 1:19-20

2. The essential response 1:21

3. The complete response 1:22-25

4. The external behavior 1:26-27

III. Partiality and vital faith 2:1-26

A. The problem of favoritism 2:1-13

1. The negative command 2:1

2. The present improper practice 2:2-4

3. The inconsistency of favoritism 2:5-7

4. The Christian's duty 2:8-9

5. The importance of partiality 2:10-11

6. The implication of our own judgment 2:12-13

B. The importance of vital faith 2:14-26

1. James' assertion 2:14

2. James' illustration 2:15-16

3. James' restatement of his point 2:17

4. An objection 2:18

5. James' rebuttal 2:19-23

6. James' final argument 2:24-26

IV. Speech and divine wisdom 3:1-18

A. Controlling the tongue 3:1-12

1. The negative warning 3:1

2. The reason for the warning 3:2

3. Examples of the danger 3:3-8

4. The uncontrollable nature of the tongue 3:7-8

5. The inconsistency of the tongue 3:9-12

B. Controlling the mind 3:13-18

1. The importance of humility 3:13

2. The importance of graciousness 3:14-16

3. The importance of loving peace 3:17-18

V. Conflicts and humble submission 4:1-17

A. Interpersonal and inner personal tensions 4:1-10

1. The source of conflict 4:1

2. The explanation of the conflict 4:2-3

3. The nature of the choice 4:4-5

4. The resources to choose right 4:6-10

B. Self-exaltation 4:11-12

C. Self-reliance 4:13-17

1. The self-centered person 4:13-16

2. The concluding exhortation 4:17

VI. Money and patient endurance 5:1-20

A. Warnings for the rich 5:1-6

1. The introduction of the problem 5:1

2. The corrosive effect of wealth 5:2-3

3. The misuse of wealth 5:4-6

B. The proper attitude 5:7-12

1. The exhortation to be patient 5:7-9

2. Examples of endurance 5:10-11

3. The evidence of patience 5:12

C. The proper action 5:13-18

1. The way of release 5:13

2. The prescription for help 5:14-16

3. The power of prayer 5:17-18

VII. The way back to living by faith 5:19-20

Constable: James

James

Bibliography

Adamson, James B. The Epistle of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letters of James and Peter. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1964.

_____. New Testament Words. London: SCM, 1964.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bell, M. Charles. Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance. Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1985.

Bjork, William G. "A Critique of Zane Hodges' The Gospel Under Siege: A Review Article." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:4 (December 1987):457-67.

Blackman, E. C. The Epistle of James. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1957.

Blue, J. Ronald. "James." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together. Translated by J. W. Doberstein. New York: Harper, 1954.

Bratcher, Robert G. A Translator's Guide to the Letters from James, Peter, and Jude. New York: United Bible Societies, 1984.

Brooks, Keith L. James--Belief in Action. Teach Yourself the Bible series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

Bryson, Harold T. How Faith Works. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1985.

Burdick, Donald W. "James." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

_____. Salvation of the Soul. Norman, Okla: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1983.

Coder, J. Maxwell. Faith That Works. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1966.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Doctrine of Prayer." Th.D. Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Eassys in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

_____. James. New International Bible Commentary series. Peabody, Mass.: Hendriksen, 1989.

Dibelius, Martin. James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Edited by Helmut Koester. English ed., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "James, Epistle of," by W. Montgomery.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "James, The General Epistle of," by J. B. Mayor.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Doerksen, Vernon D. James. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Family Life Conference. Little Rock, Ark.: Family Ministry, 1990.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of James." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 417-35. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Gaebelein, Frank E. Faith That Lives. Doniger and Raughley, 1955; reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. The Practical Epistle of James. Great Neck, N.Y.: Doniger & Raughley, Inc., 1955.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. By Walter Bauer. Translated by William F. Arndt and Wilbur Gingrich, 4th rev. ed.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

Hayden, Daniel R. "Calling the Elders to Pray." Bibliotheca Sacra

138:551 (July-September 1981):258-66.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. The Epistle of James: Tests of a Living Faith. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

_____. James. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "The Unifying Theme of the Epistle of James." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):221-31.

_____. Working With God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hodges, Zane C. Dead Faith: What Is It? Dallas, Redencion Viva, 1987.

_____. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing. Grace New Testament Commentary series. Irving, Tex.: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994.

______. "Light on James Two from Textual Criticism." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):341-50.

Ice, Thomas D. "Dispensational Hermeneutics." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 29-49. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "James, Epistle of," by Doremus Almy Hayes.

Jenkins, C. Ryan. "Faith and Works in Paul and James." Bibliotheca Sacra 159:633 (January-March 2002):62-78.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, Wendell G. "Does James Give Believers a Pattern for Dealing with Sickness and Healing?" In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 168-74. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kendall, R. T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

_____. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. Faith that Works. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Kidner, Derek. Psalms 1-72. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Leicester, England, and Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

King, Guy H. A Belief That Behaves: An Expositional Study of the Epistle of James. 1941. Reprint ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1945.

Kirk, J. A. "The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis." New Testament Studies 16 (1969):24-38.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

_____. "The Theological Message of James." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):55-61.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 12: James-Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Oosterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Laws, Sophie S. "Does Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration of James IV. 5." New Testament Studies 20 (1973-74):210-15.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of The Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1892.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Martin, Ralph P. James. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1988.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. Limited Classical Reprint Library series. 1892; reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers, 1977.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Mercer, Larry A. "A Biblical and Cultural Study of the Problem of Racism." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):87-103.

Mitchell, John G. "Does God Heal Today?" Bibliotheca Sacra 122:485 (January-March 1965):41-53.

Mitton, C. Leslie. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Motyer, J. Alec. The Message of James. The Bible Speaks Today series. Leicester, England, and Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.

_____. The Tests of Faith. London: InterVarsity Press, 1970.

Nicol, W. "Faith and Works in the Letter of James." Neotestamentica 9 (1975):7-24.

Patterson, Richard D. "The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:519 (July-September 1973):223-34.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary English. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

Plummer, Alfred. The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1905.

Rendall, G. H. The Epistle of James and Judaic Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Studies in the Epistle of James. 3rd ed. Revised and edited by Heber F. Peacock. Nashville: Broadman Press, n.d.

_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Ropes, James H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916.

Ross, Alexander. The Epistles of James and John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Sadler, M. F. The General Epistles of SS. James, Peter, John and Jude. London: George Bell and Sons, 1895.

Scaer, David P. James the Apostle of Faith. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1983.

Shogren, Gary S. "Will God Heal Us--A Re-examination of James 5:14-16a." Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989):99-108.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sidebottom, E. M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1967; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982.

Songer, Harold S. "Anointing with Oil: What Does It Mean?" Biblical Illustrator 12:4 (Summer 1986):32-34.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. Confess your Sins. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1964.

Stulac, George M. James. Downers Grove, Ill. and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Tamez, Elsa. The Scandalous Message of James: Faith Without Works is Dead. New York: Crossroad, 1990.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. London: James Clarke & Co., 1961.

Tasker, R. V. G. The General Epistle of James. Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. Reprint ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1967.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Turner, Nigel. Christian Words. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980.

Unger, Merrill F. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "The Book of Proverbs and Ancient Wisdom Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):221-38.

Warden, Duane. "The Rich and Poor in James: Implications for Institutionalized Partiality." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):247-57.

Wells, C. Richard. "The Theology of Prayer in James." Criswell Theological Review 1:1 (Fall 1986):85-112.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Mature. BE Books series. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1978.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Can Faith Without Works Save? James 2:14." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:5 (September-October 1994):2-3.

_____. "Repentance and Salvation, Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance in the Old Testament." Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 2 (Spring 1989):13-26.

_____. "Soul Salvation,' Part 2; Saving the Soul of a Fellow Christian; James 5:19-20, " Grace Evangelical Society News 7:1 (January 1992):2.

_____. "Soul Talk, Soul Food, and Soul Salvation.'" Grace Evangelical Society News 6:12 (December 1991)2.

Wilkinson, John. "Healing in the Epistle of James." Scottish Journal of Theology 24 (1971):338-40.

Winkler, Edwin T. "Commentary on the Epistle of James." In An American Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Alvah Hovey. 1888. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: American Baptist Press, n.d.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Patience of Hope. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: James (Book Introduction)

THE

CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES,

THE APOSTLE.

__________

ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

INTRODUCTION.

The seven following Epistles have been called Catholic or general, not being addressed to any particular Church or person, if we except the Second and Third of St. John. They are called also Canonical, having been received by the Church as part of the canon of the New Testament, and as writings of divine authority. It is a matter of fact allowed by every one, that five of these epistles, to wit, this of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, that of St. Jude, as also the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John, were doubted of , and not received always and every where in the three first ages [centuries], till the canon and catalogue of Scripture books was examined by tradition, and determined by the authority of the Catholic Church, the supreme judge of all controversies in matters of faith and religion, according to the appointment of our Saviour, Christ, expressed in many places in the holy Scriptures. But I could never learn upon what grounds they who deny the Catholic Church and General Councils to be of an infallible authority, and who deny Christ's promises to guide his Church in all truth to the end of the world, can be certain which Scriptures or writings are canonical, and which are not. I could never understand what construction to put on the sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England. We there meet with this declaration: In, or by the name of the holy Scripture we understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. These I have mentioned were certainly for some time doubted of; they are still doubted of by some of the late reformers: Luther, the great doctor of the reformation, is not ashamed to say that this epistle of St. James is no better than straw, and unworthy of an apostle. These writings therefore, according to the said declaration, ought not to be accounted and received as canonical; and yet before the end of the said sixth article, it is again declared, that all the books of the Old and New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical. And in all New Testaments of the Church of England, all these are received for canonical in the same manner as the four gospels, without any remark or advertisement to the contrary. --- The first of the seven epistles was written by St. James, surnamed the lesser, and James of Alpheus, (Matthew x. 3.) one of the twelve apostles, called the brother of our Lord, (Galatians i. 19.) who was made bishop of Jerusalem. His mother is thought to have been Mary, sister to the blessed Virgin Mary, and to have been married first to Alpheus, and afterwards to Cleophas; to have had four sons, James, Joseph, Simon, (or Simeon) and Jude, the author of the last of these epistles. All these four being cousins-german, are called brothers of our Lord, Matthew xiii. 55. How great a veneration the Jews themselves had for this apostle and bishop of Jerusalem, see not only Hegisippus apud Eusebius, lib. ii. hist. chap. 23. and St. Jerome de viris illustribus, also the same St. Jerome in Galatians i. 19. (tom. iv, p. 237, lib. 1. cont. Jovin. tom. iv, part 2, p. 182.) but even Josephus, (lib. xxviii. Jewish Antiquities, chap. 8.) where he calls him the brother of Jesus, surnamed the Christ. This epistle was written about the year 62. The chief contents are: 1. To shew that faith without good works will not save a man, as St. Augustine observed, lib. de fid. et oper. chap. iv.; 2. He exhorts them to patience, to beg true wisdom, and the divine grace; 3. He condemns the vices of the tongue; 4. He gives admonitions against pride, vanity, ambition, &c.; 5. To resist their disorderly lusts and desires, which are the occasions and causes of sin, and not Almighty God; 6. He publisheth the sacrament of anointing the sick with oil; 7. He recommends prayer, &c. St. Jerome, in a letter to Paulinus, (t. iv. part 2, p. 574.) recommends all these seven epistles in these words: James, Peter, John, and Jude, published seven epistles....both short and long, short in words, long as to the content; Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas, septem epistolas ediderunt....breves pariter et longas, breves in verbis, longas in sententiis. (Witham) --- St. Gregory of Nazianzus remarks, that the faithful were not agreed as to the number of these epistles; some admitted seven and some only three, viz. this of St. James, the first of St. John, and the first of St. Peter:

Greek: Katholikon Epistolon

Tines men epta phasin, oi de treis monas

Chrenai dechesthai ten Iakobou mian,

Mian de Petrou, tente Ioannou mian. --- Naz. Carm. de Script. Canon.

We shall state at the beginning of each epistle, the reason why they have been adopted into the canon of Scripture. (Calmet) --- The object of these epistles was, according to the remark of St. Augustine, to refute the rising errors of Simon Magus, the Nicolaites, and other such heretics, who abusing the liberty of the gospel, and perverting the meaning of St. Paul's words in his epistle to the Romans, pretended that faith alone, without good works, was sufficient for salvation; although St. Paul expressly requires Christians, a faith working by charity, Galatians v. 6. and 1 Corinthians xiii. where he uses these emphatic words: "If I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (St. Augustine, lib. de fide et operibus, chap. xiv. (Calmet) --- As to what regards the authenticity of St. James' epistle, although Luther with his usual boldness asserts that many with good reason denied this epistle to be canonical, and affirmed that it was unworthy the pen of an apostle, yet, admitting that some individuals in the first ages [centuries] of the Church doubted of its authority, we are nevertheless assured from certain monuments that it was always considered as sacred and inspired both by the Latin and Greek Churches. This is evident from the sixtieth canon of the council of Laodicea; from the forty-seventh of the council of Carthage, in 397; from Origen, hom. vii. in Josue; from St. Athanasius in synopsi, Epiphanius hæresi 76; from St. Jerome, ad Paulinum Epis.; from St. Augustine, lib. ii. de Doc. Chris. chap. viii; from St. Gregory of Nazianzus, tom. iii, p. 98; from Amphilochus, apud St. Gregory of Nazainzus, tom. ii. p. 194; from Innocent I. Epis. ad Decentium; from Rufinus, Exposit. Symboli; and from Gelasius I. who in the fifth age [century], in a council of seventy bishops, at Rome, settled the canon of the genuine books of the holy Scripture, and distinguished them from what are spurious. (Cal. et Habert de Sacr. Ext. Un.) --- St. Jerome and St. Augustine quote frequently this epistle as the undoubted work of this apostle; and since their time, its authenticity has never been called in question by Catholics. It is believed St. James wrote this epistle in Greek, as he quotes the Scripture according to the version of the Septuagint, as Chap. iv. 6; and as this language was commonly spoken in the East by the dispersed Jews, to whom he wrote. his style is concise and sententious, like that of Solomon in his proverbs, and like the maxims of the Orientals even to the present day. (Calmet)

====================

Gill: James (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JAMES

This epistle is called "general", because not written to any particular person, as the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are; nor to any particular churches, as the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, &c. but to the believing Jews in general, wherever they were. The author of it is James; and whereas there were two of this name, who were the apostles of Christ; some have thought it was written by one, and some by another: some think it was written by James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, which is favoured by the Syriac version, which to this epistle, and the following, premises these words;

"the three epistles of the three apostles, before whose eyes our Lord transfigured himself, that is, James, and Peter, and John.''

Now, that James, who was present at the transfiguration of Christ, was James the son of Zebedee: but neither the time, nor occasion, nor matter of this epistle, seem to agree with him, for he was put to death by Herod, about the year 44, Act 12:1, whereas this epistle was written, as some think, about the year 60, or as others, 63; and it seems pretty manifest that it must be written after the Gospel had been spread in the Gentile world, and was received by the Jews, who were scattered abroad in it; and after many hypocrites had crept into the churches, and many false teachers, and vain boasters, and wicked men, had arisen among them: it seems therefore more agreeable to ascribe this epistle to James, the son of Alphaeus, sometimes called the brother of our Lord, and who was present at the assembly at Jerusalem, when the necessity of the Gentiles' circumcision was debated, Act 15:1 and is the same whom Eusebius ^a calls James the just, and Oblias; and who seems to have resided at Jerusalem, and to have been the bishop, or overseer of the church there; and therefore in character writes this epistle to the Jews, in the several parts of the world: nor need there be any doubt of the authenticity of it. Eusebius indeed says ^b, that it had been accounted spurious by some, and that not many of the ancient writers had made mention of it: but he himself says, that it was publicly read in most churches; and certain it is, that some very early writers have respect unto it. Irenaeus ^c manifestly refers to it, and so does Tertullian ^d; and it is expressly mentioned by Origen ^e among the canonical books of Scripture. The objections against it are of no weight, which are taken from the seeming disagreement between the Apostle Paul, and the writer of this epistle, concerning the doctrine of justification; and from his calling the law the perfect law of liberty, and insisting so much on the doctrine of works; all which will be seen to be agreeable to the other parts of Scripture, and easily reconciled with them; nor is there anything in it unworthy of an apostle and an inspired writer. The occasion of it seems to be partly the troubles and persecutions which attended the saints for the sake of Christ and the Gospel; and the design of it is to encourage them to patience under them, and to wait and hope for the speedy coming of Christ; and partly the evil practices of some that boasted of their faith and knowledge, though they lived very dissolute lives: and the view of the apostle is to show, that faith, without the fruits of righteousness, is not genuine; and he very largely in it exhorts to several duties very becoming Christians, and inveighs against several vices, which were scandalous to them.

Gill: James 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JAMES 2

In this chapter the apostle dissuades from a respect of persons, on account of outward circumstances; shows that the law is to be fulfilled, and that mercy is to be exercised, as well as justice done; and exposes the folly of such who boast of faith without works: he dissuades the saints from all partiality to the rich and poor, from their relation to one another, as brethren, and from their common faith, of which Christ, the Lord of glory, is the object, Jam 2:1 supposes an instance of it, either in a court of judicature, or a religious assembly, Jam 2:2 and then makes an appeal unto them, and expostulates with them about it, Jam 2:4 and makes use of an argument against it, taken from the divine conduct, and an instance of his grace in the choice of persons to eternal life, Jam 2:5 a conduct very different from some persons here blamed, Jam 2:6, and other arguments follow, dissuading from a respect of persons, taken from the characters of rich men, as oppressors of the poor, litigious and quarrelsome with their neighbours, and blasphemers of the name of God, Jam 2:7 and from the law of God, which requires the love of the neighbour, and which to fulfil is to do well, Jam 2:8 and from the breach of it, by having respect to persons, whereby its penalty is incurred, Jam 2:9 for which a reason is given; because whoever offends in one point of the law, is guilty of the whole, Jam 2:10 as is a clear case, since the same lawgiver that forbids one sin, forbids another; so that he that is guilty of either of them is a transgressor of the law, Jam 2:11 wherefore it is right both to speak and act according to it, since men will be judged by it, Jam 2:12 and he will have no mercy shown him that has shown none to the poor, but merciful ones will escape damnation, Jam 2:13 and then the apostle argues from the unprofitableness of faith itself without works, Jam 2:14 and which he exemplifies in the case of a poor brother or sister who are wished well, but nothing given them; which good words, without deeds, are of no profit, Jam 2:15 so in like manner, faith without works is a dead faith, Jam 2:17 nor indeed can it be made out that a man has faith, if he has not works, Jam 2:18 at least such a faith as has justification and salvation connected with it; his faith, at most, is no better than that of the devils, who are damned, Jam 2:19 and that such a faith is a dead faith, Jam 2:2 and that true faith is attended with, and evidenced by works, the apostle proves by two instances; the one is that of Abraham, whose faith appeared to be genuine, and he to be a justified person, by the works he did; particularly by offering up his son Isaac; in which way his faith operated, and showed itself to be sincere and hearty; and the Scripture was fulfilled that Abraham was a believer; and had righteousness imputed to him, and was a friend of God, and a justified person, Jam 2:21 and the other instance is that of Rahab, whose faith was also shown by her works, and so a justified person, by receiving the spies with peace, and dismissing them with safety, Jam 2:25, and then the apostle explains what he means, by saying more than once, that faith without works is dead; which he illustrates by the simile of a man's body being dead, without the spirit or soul in it, Jam 2:26.

College: James (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

I owe a debt of gratitude to many for assistance with this volume. John York and John Hunter are responsible for making me a part of the College Press NIV Commentary project. The Institute for Christian Studies, Austin, Texas, allowed me a sabbatical to complete this project. St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, Wales, afforded me a generous scholarship to use their considerable resources during my sabbatical. I particularly appreciate the advice and encouragement of my colleague, Jeff Peterson. Most of all, I thank my wife, Deb, for her helpful comments on the manuscript and her constant good humor.

My prayer is that this volume will guide you to a fuller understanding of James and Jude and through them to a closer walk with Jesus, their brother and ours.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

My first introduction to the book of James was in a Bible class at a Christian school my sophomore year of high school. For much of the school year we studied James. The next year, the Bible curriculum was changed, new teachers were hired, and somehow we ended up studying James again. It is a compliment to the power of the book of James that I was not discouraged by that double introduction. Instead, I found the book interesting and challenging both years. Since then James has profoundly shaped my preaching, teaching, and my Christian walk. The book of James is maligned by some and neglected by many. My prayer is that this commentary will help others discover the call to radical discipleship, to rejection of the values of the world, and to friendship with God made by this faithful leader in the apostolic age.

AUTHORSHIP

The writer identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). The name "James" (Greek Iakobos ) comes from the Hebrew name "Jacob." It was a popular name for Hebrew men, recalling the rich heritage of Jacob, the founder of Israel. There are five persons named James in the New Testament who could have written this letter.

1. James the brother of Jesus. Some think this is the same James as the son of Alphaeus or "the less" (see below), but that is unlikely.

2. James the apostle, the son of Zebedee. Not only was he an apostle but (along with Peter and John) was part of the inner circle of Jesus who witnessed the Transfiguration and the agony in Gethsemane. However, this James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I around A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), making it unlikely he wrote the letter (unless it is by far the earliest New Testament book). Also, if this James wrote the letter, it is strange he did not call himself "an apostle" but only "a servant."

3. James the apostle, the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3; Acts 1:13). The same objection, the author does not call himself an apostle, applies here. Although this James was an apostle, little is known about him.

4. James "the less" (or "the younger," Mark 15:40). Little is known of this James also, making it unlikely that he would write a letter accepted as authoritative. This may be the same James as #3.

5. James, the father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). He too is obscure.

There are two other possibilities for authorship.

6. It is written by another unknown James.

7. It is written by someone who uses the name James to increase the authority of his letter. This practice of pseudonymous authorship, that is, of writing in the name of a famous teacher, was known in the ancient world. The central argument for this position is that the Greek of the letter of James is too elegant to have been written by a Palestinian peasant such as the brother of Jesus. It must, therefore, have been written by a more literate writer who used his name. However, recent scholarship has shown that Palestine was quite cosmopolitan in the first century. So, it is impossible to say how fluent a Palestinian Jew might be in Greek.

Others claim that James 2:14-26 is reacting to the teaching of Paul's epistles on faith and works. Thus, it must be written after Paul's letters and so after the lifetime of James the Lord's brother. If this is the case, some argue, then the letter is pseudonymous. However, it is not clear that James reacts to Paul (see the commentary on James 2:14-26 below). Even if he is, he could be responding to Paul before Romans and Galatians are penned.

It is likely then that the letter was written by a well-known James. The son of Zebedee and the brother of Jesus were the two most famous persons with this name in the early church. James the son of Zebedee was martyred too early to have written this letter. Therefore, James, the brother of Jesus and Jude, is most likely the author. This has been the traditional consensus of the church through the ages.

The content of the letter is consistent with the view that James the brother of the Lord is its author. The writer is well-known and speaks authoritatively. He knows the teachings of Jesus. He knows the climate, vegetation, and social setting of Palestine. Specifically he mentions the scorching wind (1:11), good and bad water (3:11), figs, olives and grapes (3:12) and the need for early and late rain (5:7). Such knowledge does not prove that the book was written by someone from Palestine but does make it plausible.

THE BROTHERS OF JESUS

The brothers of Jesus, including James and Jude, were prominent leaders in the early church. There is some disagreement over the meaning of "brothers." Some scholars, particularly Roman Catholics who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, think the word refers to cousins or other relatives of Jesus. However, the Greek word rarely permits this meaning but is used just as our English word "brother." It is possible that these are Joseph's sons by a previous marriage but more likely that these are the younger children of Joseph and Mary.

These brothers are named in Matthew 13:55 (also Mark 6:3): "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?" Since Matthew and Mark were written several years later than the events they portray, it is likely they mention the brothers of Jesus by name because they were well-known in the early church. James is the first name on this list in both Matthew and Mark, so we assume he is the oldest brother next to Jesus. Judas (or Jude) is last in Matthew but next to last in Mark; thus, he is one of the youngest brothers.

John plainly says the brothers of Jesus did not believe in him during his ministry (John 7:5). On one occasion they actively opposed him: "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind'" (Mark 3:21). Thinking Jesus was crazy, they sought to have him committed. No wonder Jesus later disclaims his mother and brothers when they come to see him. "'Who are my mother and my brothers?' he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother" (Mark 3:32b-35). His brothers' lack of faith may explain why Jesus on the cross committed his mother to John's care, not to theirs (John 19:26-27). The memory of their unbelief may also be behind the refusal of James and Jude to call themselves brothers of Jesus in their letters, preferring the title "slave of Jesus Christ" (James 1:1; Jude 1).

However after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, his brothers were with the apostles and others at prayer in the upper room (Acts 1:14). What changed them into believers? They had seen the risen Lord. Paul tells us Jesus appeared to James after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7), and although we are not specifically told, it seems likely he appeared to his other brothers, perhaps as part of the five hundred who saw him at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6).

James was the best known of the brothers and a leader of the Jerusalem church. When Peter is miraculously released from prison, he wants it reported to "James and the brothers" (Acts 12:17). The judgment given by James wins the day at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. As leader of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, James persuades Paul to perform a purification rite in the temple to prove his loyalty to the law (Acts 21:17-26).

The unity between Paul and James in Acts is less evident in Galatians, where Paul calls James one of those in Jerusalem "who seemed to be important" and "reputed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:6,9), perhaps implying that James was not as important as he thought himself to be. Later, men come from James and lead Peter and Barnabas into hypocrisy over refusing to eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:12). However, the differences between James and Paul should not be overstated. James is concerned that Jewish believers continue to obey the Law as they should. Paul does not want the Law to be forced on Gentiles. In both Acts and Galatians, James and Paul agree that God has called one to minister to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles (Acts 15; Galatians 2:9).

Although James was the best known, the other brothers of Jesus were also Christian leaders. Paul claims the right to take a believing wife along on his journeys as do "the Lord's brothers" (1 Corinthians 9:5). Thus, the brothers of Jesus, including James and Jude, were traveling missionaries in the early church, and so were known and respected by many. Because of their childhood memories of growing up with Jesus and their later experiences of serving the risen Lord, James and Jude are uniquely qualified to speak to Christians in the letters that bear their names.

DATE AND OCCASION

The question of the date of James is connected with the discussion of its authorship. Some who think it is pseudonymous would date it quite late in the first century. However, if it is by James the brother of the Lord, then it must date somewhere between the time he became a leader of the Jerusalem church (about A.D. 40) and his death (about A.D. 62). If it is before the Jerusalem meeting of A.D. 50 (Acts 15), then the dispersion he refers to in v.1 might be the scattering of the church during the persecution by Saul (Acts 8:1). If it is dated that early, it is chronologically the first book of the New Testament. However, James refers often to quotations from the Sermon on the Mount in his letter. He most likely is quoting from an oral tradition of the Sermon but possibly is familiar with Matthew's account. If he indeed knew Matthew's Gospel, then James wrote his letter toward the end of his life.

There are few hints in James of its setting or destination. James the Lord's brother was a leader of the church in Jerusalem. Many scholars thus find a Palestinian setting for the letter. As shown above, the content of the letter is consistent with a Palestinian setting. It is addressed to "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" ( v. 1). This broad address makes it impossible to define the situation of the recipients of the letter. James is truly a general or catholic (that is, universal) epistle. Since we do not know the specific circumstances of the original readers, this commentary will not speculate on that subject but will focus on the universal application of James' teaching for the church throughout the ages.

STRUCTURE, THEMES, AND STYLE

James is a letter in form; it has a greeting, refers to its readers often as "brothers," and identifies its author by name. However, it is a letter in form only; there are no greetings to persons by name and no mention of the circumstances of author or readers.

James is thus a letter in form, but in essence it is another type of literature, paraenesis or ethical instruction. The Greek philosophers gave such moral instruction in the ancient world. Proverbs is an Old Testament book of morals. Even earlier, Leviticus gives moral instruction to Israel, especially in the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus 19. James often refers to that chapter in his book:

James Quotation from Leviticus James 2:1 Lev 19:15 James 2:8 Lev 19:18 James 2:9 Lev 19:15 James 4:11 Lev 19:16 James 5:4 Lev 19:13 James 5:9 Lev 19:18 James 5:12 Lev 19:12 James 5:20 Lev 19:17 James was also influenced by certain Apocryphal books that taught similar moral maxims. The Apocrypha refers to those books found in certain Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament that are not accepted as Scripture by Jews or by Protestants. As is seen in the following chart, two of those books, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach, written c. 180 B.C.) and the Wisdom of Solomon (written c. 30 B.C.), have passages that are strikingly similar to certain verses in James:

Topic James Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Patience James 1:2-4 Sirach 1:23 Wisdom James 1:5 Sirach 1:26 Doubt James 1:6-8 Sirach 1:28 Trials James 1:12 Sirach 2:1-5 Temptation James 1:13 Sirach 15:11-12 Hearing James 1:19 Sirach 5:11 Rich and Poor James 2:6 Sirach 13:19 Wis 2:10 Mercy James 2:13 Wis 6:6 Brevity of life James 4:13-16 Wis 5:8-14 Money Rusts James 5:3 Sirach 29:10 Righteous Killed James 5:6 Wis 2:12, 20 Pray for Sick James 5:14 Sirach 38:9 Comparing these passages, it is obvious that James knew and used these books. However, he does not quote them as inspired Scripture. He is following in the same tradition of passing on moral wisdom. Thus, like these and other books of moral teaching, James is loosely organized, tying together related ethical teachings by use of repeated terms. It is difficult to find an overarching theme to the book or divide it into major sections. Instead, James continues to come back to a few important subjects. Although this commentary will proceed verse-by-verse through James, another profitable way of studying the book is to look at it topically. James addresses six major themes in the book:

1. Waiting for the Lord (James 1:2-4, 12-18; 5:7-12).

2. Wisdom (James 1:5-8; 3:13-18).

3. Rich and Poor (James 1:9-11; 2:1-13; 4:13-16; 5:1-6).

4. The Tongue (James 1:19-21,26; 3:1-12; 4:11-12).

5. Prayer (James 1:6-8; 4:1-10; 5:13-20).

6. Faith and Action (James 1:22-27; 2:14-26).

James has a vigorous and fresh writing style. He generally uses short and vivid sentences. He is fond of making comparisons to nature-waves, sun, flowers, planets, animals-to give his teaching concrete expression. He asks his readers short, penetrating questions to cause them to reflect. Sometimes he uses the form of the diatribe, a scathing denunciation of immoral behavior. All these literary uses are common in moral literature.

JAMES AND THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

There are so many parallels between James and the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6 and 11 that James can best be thought of as a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There are more parallels between James and Matthew, but the language of the allusions is more similar to Luke. This could mean that James knew the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, it is more likely that James knew the sermon through oral tradition, since the early church would be sure to preserve the ethical teaching of Jesus. The following chart shows that every section of James has an echo of the Sermon:

Topic in James Sermon on the Mount Trials (1:2-4) Matthew 5:10-12, 48; Luke 6:23 Asking (1:5-8) Matthew 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-10 Riches (1:9-11) Matthew 6:19-21 God's Gifts (1:12-18) Matthew 7:11; Luke 11:13 Listening (1:19-27) Matthew 5:22; 7:21-27; Luke 6:46-49 Judging (2:1-13) Matthew 5:3,5,7,19-22; 7:1-5; Luke 6:20 Faith and Works (2:14-26) Matthew 7:21-23 The Tongue (3:1-12) Matthew 7:16; Luke 6:44-45 Wisdom (3:13-18) Matthew 5:5-9 The World or God (4:1-10) Matthew 5:4, 8; 6:7-8, 24; 7:7-8; Luke 6:25 Slander (4:11-12) Matthew 5:21-22; 7:1; Luke 6:37 Tomorrow (4:13-17) Matthew 6:25-34 The Rich (5:1-6) Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 6:24-25; 12:33 Patience (5:7-11) Matthew 5:11-12; 7:1; Luke 6:22-23 Swearing (5:12) Matthew 5:33-37 Prayer (5:13-18) Matthew 6:12-15; 7:7-11 These parallels are discussed in the commentary. Some are near verbatim quotations from the Sermon on the Mount; some are clear references; some are only vague allusions. However, the recognition that James is intentionally relating the teachings of Jesus to the situation of his readers increases one's appreciation for the book. As we will see below, James is no legalist but one who serves the church by calling it back to what Jesus intended it to be, a community that practices a higher righteousness (Matthew 5:20).

THE VALUE OF JAMES

There are two widespread misunderstandings of James that must be avoided to appreciate its value. One is that James is a legalistic book. Martin Luther (1483-1546) called it "an epistle of straw," meaning it had little value because he could not find the gospel there. Luther and many after him misunderstood the teaching of James on faith and works. As we will show below in the commentary, James did not believe in works righteousness but, like Paul, taught that Christians are saved by an active faith.

A more recent version of "James the legalist" is held by scholars who say James only repeats Jewish moral instruction, so there is nothing specifically Christian in his teaching. It is true that much of James is Jewish moral teaching. So is most of the moral teaching of Jesus. Since Jesus came to fulfill the Law and Prophets (Matthew 5:17), how can it be otherwise? James repeats the moral teaching from the Sermon on the Mount. However, James (like Jesus) takes conventional moral wisdom (both Jewish and Greek) and redefines it in light of the incarnation and the sure return of Christ. James's ethic is thus eschatological (from the Greek word e[scato", eschatos, "last," that is the last days). He tells Christians how to live as they wait for Christ's return. Thus, James is a thoroughly Christian book.

The second misunderstanding is that James is a practical book; it deals with people where they are and gives concrete steps on how they can improve. Of course, James is practical if one means he is concerned with Christian living. His words are certainly relevant to contemporary Christians. To show that relevance, every section of the commentary will end with a summary and application of James's teaching to Christian living today.

However, by calling James "practical" some mean it simply enforces our own cultural values. Such could not be farther from the truth. James is a thoroughly impractical book in that he challenges our assumptions at every turn. He condemns human wisdom and is pessimistic of the ability of humans to reform themselves. He is hopeful, however, of God's transcendent power in the believer. By calling on his readers to receive "wisdom from above" (James 3:17), he fights worldliness in the church by calling Christians to wait patiently for the Lord's return. If we feel comfortable with the teaching of James (or rather, with the teaching of Jesus, since he is the original source of James's teaching), then we have probably misunderstood it. It is a radical, counter-cultural message that the church today needs to hear and do.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

APPENDIX

PREACHING AND TEACHING FROM JAMES

This material is adapted from presentations given at the Minister's Sermon Seminar at the Institute for Christian Studies, Austin, Texas, and at the Biblical Preaching Seminar at Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee. Although intended primarily as guides for preaching from James, these suggestions have also been used as source material for topical classes in Bible school settings.

The following repeats in outline form much of what is found in the Introduction to James in the Commentary. The exegetical considerations also reflect the Commentary, but the sermon suggestions are designed to aid application in preaching and teaching.

CONSIDERATIONS ON PREACHING JAMES.

I. What kind of literature is James?

1. A Letter?

In form only: Begins as a letter, but no specific audience, setting, or greetings.

2. Paraenesis.

Ethical exhortation.

Similar to Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Peter, Hermas, and traditional Hellenistic moral instruction.

3. Challenge of preaching paraenetic material.

Dangers of moralism and of baptizing conventional wisdom.

4. Lack of central organization. Repeated topics. Lends itself to topical preaching from different passages.

II. Misunderstandings of James.

1. Too Jewish. Emphasizes a works righteousness. Legalistic. No distinctive Christian teaching. "Epistle of Straw" (Luther). Answer: James' ethic is eschatological. He takes conventional moral wisdom (both Jewish and Greek) and redefines it in light of the incarnation and return of Christ, the end (limit and goal) of time. 2. A Practical Book. Deals with people where they are and answers their questions. Gives concrete steps on how people can improve. Answer: James is a thoroughly impractical book. He condemns human wisdom. He is pessimistic of human ability, but hopeful of God's transcendent power in the believer. He challenges worldliness in the church with his eschatological perspective. Exegetical Considerations: James 1:2-4, 12-18; 5:7-12.

Theme: Waiting.

James 1:2-4.

1. "Brothers" (v. 2) used 14 times in James. Pastoral tone. Family implies closeness and responsibility.

2. All joy. "All" implies sincerity, not putting best face on trouble. Joy here is not pleasure, but "eschatological anticipated joy" [Davids].

3. "Trials" (v. 2) is an ambiguous word that may refer to trouble, persecution, or temptation (1:12-13). Many kinds ("multicolored") may refer to all three.

4. Trials are also tests (v. 3, see 1 Peter 1:7). Reminds one of Abraham, Job, and others. The effects of trials, not the trials themselves, are described.

5. Tests produce "heroic endurance" (v. 4), steadfastness, fortitude, constancy, strong consistency, staying power.

6. Heroic endurance is not an end in itself, but should be allowed to grow into perfection (a word James uses more often than any N.T. writer). The concern here is for maturity and completeness, not just a static lack of error. Perfection in James is eschatological, that is, brought by God and the end of steadfast obedience (Matthew 5:48).

James 1:12-16.

1. "Blessed" (v. 12) like the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) with their theme of reversal.

2. "Trial" (v. 12) is the same word as in vv. 3 and 4, and here implies persecution, since temptation should be resisted, not just endured.

3. The crown of life (see Revelation 2:10) refers to eschatological blessedness.

4. "Tempted" (v. 13) is the same word as in v. 12, but the context here implies temptation, not testing. God may test, but he does not tempt. We are to blame for our temptations and sins.

5. Desire births sin that grows into death. Contrast with trials that produce endurance that grows into perfection (v. 4). Death vs. the crown of life.

James 5:7-12.

1. Patience (vv. 7,8,10) in this passage is synonymous with endurance (v. 11).

2. "Until the coming" = as you wait for the coming or in light of the coming.

3. Early and late rain (v. 7) perhaps implies waiting for the Lord's current and future coming.

4. Do not grumble (v. 9). Patience is not just waiting for the Lord, but also bearing with others.

5. "Blessed" (v. 11) ties this passage with James 1:12-18.

6. Job may seem a strange example of patience, since he was bold enough to blame God for his troubles. However, he did show heroic endurance (better than "patience") by maintaining his relation to God and calling on God to appear.

Preaching Challenge: Preaching to an age of activity.

Homiletic Suggestion: "Those Who Stand and Wait": Preaching Text: James 1:12-18.

Introduction: We live in an age where activity is prized. We feel ashamed if we are not overworked. In the church, activity is usually given as the solution to our problems: "We need to be excited, on fire, out doing for the Lord." To stand by and wait for something to happen is thought to show a lack of devotion. But at times of illness when we cannot work, or times of reflection when we are thinking straight, we realize that God does not need our efforts.

In reflecting on his own inability to serve, John Milton in his sonnet "On His Blindness" reminds us:

"God doth not need

Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best

Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state

Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,

And post o'er land and ocean without rest;

They also serve who only stand and wait."

I. Stand the Test of Pain and Persecution. (James 1:2-4; 5:10-11).

We may not be persecuted, but we still face "multicolored trials": pain, sickness, grief, and doubt. What should we do in the face of trials? Not look for easy solutions, but grit our teeth and stand the pain. Like Job, we face trials not with a false, accepting "patience," but with heroic endurance, refusing to break relation with God.

II. Wait For Endurance to Produce Character. (James 1:2-4). Heroic endurance is not an end in itself; by standing the pain of trials, we are being transformed, even perfected by God. Standing the test produces a character of maturity.

III. Stand Against Temptation. (James 1:12-16). Temptation comes not from God, but from our own desires. We cannot get off the hook for temptation and sin. Instead of rationalizing our behavior by blaming others (God, Satan, family, society), we should fight temptation with the help of God. Here standing is not heroic endurance, but an active war against sin.

IV. Wait for the Coming of the Lord. (James 5:7-8). This is more than "pie in the sky," or "farther along we'll know more about it." The Lord comes in the present as well as the future. As the farmer stands and waits for rain, so we wait for Christ to act. But Christ's timetable may not be ours. We need patience. Waiting for Christ to act is a long process; it may take our whole life. But our whole existence as Christians is based on our confidence that he will come, that he will act on our behalf. Our task is to stand and wait.

Exegetical Considerations: James 1:5-8; 3:13-18.

Theme: Wisdom.

James 1:5-8.

1. Setting: after section on trial and endurance.

2. To lack nothing (v. 4) is the goal of endurance, but if one lacks wisdom, one should ask God for it.

3. Wisdom reminds one of O.T. parallels, particularly the Wisdom books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job.

4. God gives "generously" (the word is found only here in the N.T.), which is better translated "straightforwardly" (with no strings attached) or without hesitation (contrast with "double-minded").

5. He also gives ungrudgingly or "without insult." Thus God is no reluctant, critical Giver.

6. So wisdom here is a gift of grace, unlike O.T. wisdom which can to some extent be "searched out."

7. James 1:6-8 will be discussed in a later sermon on prayer.

James 3:13-18.

1. Wisdom is displayed by good deeds and meekness.

2. True wisdom is contrasted with jealousy or rivalry and with a party spirit or selfish ambition or greedy politics or self-promotion. This second wisdom is not heavenly, but progresses from earthly to sensual (unspiritual) to demonic. It leads to all kinds of wickedness. James' readers ". . . have not traded in worldly views of power for God's viewpoint" (Perkins).

3. Verse 17 is a list of virtues, called "the fruit of righteousness," similar to other N.T. passages. Particularly "fruit" reminds one of Galatians 5:22-23. J.A. Kirk ( NT Studies 16 [1969], 24-38), suggests that in James wisdom functions as the Holy Spirit does in the rest of the N.T.

Preaching challenge: Preaching against "what everyone knows" to be true.

Homiletic Suggestion: Uncommon Sense.

Preaching Text: James 1:5-8; 3:13-18.

Introduction:

What does it take to be a winner, achieve excellence, or find happiness in the world? What passes for common sense today (as shaped by entertainment, self-help books, and success seminars) tells us that positive thinking, self-promotion, and tapping into hidden internal resources ("the inner child") will bring us happiness. Is this true or is there a better way?

I. James talks of an earthly wisdom or "common sense" that is based in ambition and self-promotion (3:14). Such wisdom is not only earthly, but unspiritual and even demonic. It promises much, but leads to all sorts of evil (3:16).

II. In contrast, there is a wisdom from above that produces good behavior and true happiness and success. This wisdom expresses itself in purity, peace, gentleness, mercy, and a willingness to yield to others (a sharp contrast to self-promotion, 3:17).

III. Great courage is called for to reject the first type of common sense. To even question the value of ambition and self-promotion marks one as strange and perhaps even irrational in the eyes of most. Some may call us lazy, critical, or even unAmerican. Still we must stand firm against such a view.

IV. But how in the world can one achieve the second kind of wisdom, if it is so foreign to natural common sense? How can we, on our own, catch the vision of happiness and success this vision promises? We cannot. Not on our own. This wisdom is from above (3:15, 17). It is a gift of God that comes only through faithful prayer (1:5-8).

V. Do you lack wisdom? Are you caught in the "common sense" of this age? Then ask God and he will generously and gladly give.

Exegetical Considerations: James 1:9-11; 2:1-13; 5:1-6.

Theme: Rich and poor.

James 1:9-11.

1. The great reversal of rich and poor is a theme found in the O.T. and the N.T. (particularly Luke). There are also echoes here of the Beatitudes. The "humiliation" of the rich is not an inner feeling, but a transformation (reversal) in status.

2. "Grass" is a popular Jewish image of the transitoriness of life (See Isaiah 40:6-8).

3. "In the midst of pursuits" may be translated "in the middle of his travels." James may have traveling merchants in mind.

James 2:1-13.

1. 2:1-4 is a diatribe against partiality, literally "judging by the face."

2. Verses 2-4 provide a hypothetical example (diatribes have theoretical sparring partners) with a sharp, stylized contrast between rich and poor.

3. Two asides: Does the use of the term "synagogue" for a Christian assembly imply a Jewish context for James? Is the setting here worship or a legal assembly?

4. Verse 4 is difficult to translate, but probably means "Have you not made distinctions among yourselves?"

5. Verses 5-13 is a homily against partiality. The move is from the specific to the general: generally the rich have oppressed the poor and opposed Christ. By contrast, the poor have a special place in God's heart: they are chosen to inherit his riches (a prominent O.T. theme, particularly in the Psalms).

6. Partiality or prejudice may seem a minor sin, a mere human foible, but it is a sin against love of neighbor (the royal law) and as such is as bad as adultery or murder (compare Matthew 5:21-26).

7. This entire section is parallel to Matthew 7:1-14.

James 5:1-6.

1. Again the rich are generally unrighteous. Their riches will not last ("rust" in Matthew 6:19-21) and will even testify against them (cf. "treasure" in Matthew 6:19).

2. The poor cry to the Lord of Hosts (a term of power and vengeance) for vindication (compare Abel's blood and Deuteronomy 24:14ff.) "Fattened for slaughter," see Jeremiah 12:13.

SUMMARY: In James the poor are always righteous and the rich are always evil. This is a generalization and is not always true. However, we should resist the temptation to spiritualize these passages by making "poor" merely a term for the community of the faithful. James's warning is clear: riches are to be viewed not as a sign of grace or a benign blessing, but as at best a snare and a temptation and at worst a sign of judgment.

Preaching challenge: Preaching to people who see themselves as neither rich, nor poor.

Homiletic Suggestion: Face Value.

Preaching Text: James 2:1-13.

Introduction:

What kind of people does it take to build a stable church? At face value, it would seem a church of affluent professional people would provide the kind of social and financial stability a church needs. Given a choice, would we not prefer to have well-off church members, instead of those on the brink of poverty?

Wouldn't such a church be more successful?

I. James calls this preference for the rich "favoritism" or "partiality" and he condemns it in no uncertain terms. To prefer the rich makes us ungodly judges who violate the royal law, a sin as bad as adultery or murder (James 2:1-13).

II. Is not James himself partial to the poor? In a sense, yes. He does not say "never judge between rich and poor," but rather gives new standards for judgment. The gospel turns our values upside down.

The rich will lose their riches (1:9-11). Their wealth will count against them in judgment, because they have lived in luxury, cheated the workers, blasphemed Christ (2:7), and even murdered the righteous (5:1-6).

The poor by contrast have been chosen to be rich in faith and inherit the kingdom.

III. As we saw in the last sermon, "common sense" will not always work as a biblical standard for church building. James calls for conversion, for reversing our standards. If the church should target anyone, it should reach out with good news to the poor. Perhaps one reason our churches have failed to grow is that we try to build churches on those who are self-sufficient, instead of on those in need.

Exegetical Considerations: James 1:19,26; 3:1-12.

Theme: The Tongue.

James 1:19-20.

This passage may be against hasty utterances generally, or against setting oneself up as a teacher (thus "slow to speak" the word of God, vv. 18,22).

James 1:26-27.

"Claims to be religious" may again refer to religious teachers. If the teacher does not bridle the tongue (a phrase used only in James in the N.T.), he deceives himself. Religious talk is no good without action to back it up.

James 3:1-12.

1. Teachers were important leaders in the early church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Acts 13:1; Romans 12:7; Ephesians 4:11). One desiring the authority and prestige of a teacher should also beware of the strict judgment (or harsher penalties) they face, stricter because of their influence and understanding. Those who teach are accountable for those who are taught (1 Corinthians 3:10-15).

2. Verses 2-12 is a traditional diatribe against the tongue. James draws from Jewish sources (Proverbs) and from Hellenistic moral thought and literature. Examples: "bridle" - Sophocles; "rudder" - Aristotle, Plutarch, Philo; "fire" - Proverbs 16:27, Sirach 28:22, Greek moralists; "fig" - Epictetus.

3. Verse 6, "stains the whole body," contrast with pure "unstained" religion (1:27).

4. Verses 9-12, the tongue's "doubleness" is one of James' pet peeves. Compare the double-minded man (1:7-8), and the one who says, but does not do (2:14-17).

Preaching challenge: Avoiding a legalistic morality on one hand and "cheap grace" on the other by calling for a change of heart.

Homiletic Suggestion: We Need Fewer Teachers.

Preaching Text: James 3:1-12.

Introduction.

We need fewer teachers! Such an announcement has probably never been made in our churches. Usually we must beat the bushes for teachers. If you've ever been in charge of recruiting teachers for Bible school, you know how difficult it can be.

I. Yet James says clearly, "Not many of you should become teachers." Why would one not want to be a teacher? There is authority, prestige, and honor in the role. We all like to be experts. But a great responsibility is on the shoulder of a teacher. He can influence for good or evil. Thus he faces stricter judgment and harsher penalties. Why is the teacher in such a dangerous position? Because he uses the uncontrollable tongue.

II. But what if you're not a teacher and don't plan to be? Can you relax and let this sermon pass you by? No. Because even if you do not teach, you have a tongue. Your small tongue rules your body as a bridle rules a horse or a rudder rules a ship. It is an out-of-control fire that cannot be tamed.

III. What sins are committed by the tongue? Anger (1:19), slander (4:11), swearing (5:12), and inconsistency (3:9-12). To James, the last is the worst. One must not praise God and then curse his brother or sister.

IV. So what do we do with our tongues? At one level, the answer is clear: "be slow to speak," watch what you say, think before you speak, work on controlling your tongue. But if the tongue is untamable, why try? Because God can tame it and us. What is at stake here is not just watching your words, but being controlled by God. It's not so much about self-improvement, but about character.

V. So, whether we teach or not, the real question is "Who controls our speech?" or rather "Who controls our life?" The answer to this question is seen not in our intention, but in our speech and actions.

Exegetical Considerations: James 5:13-19.

Theme: Prayer.

1. Verses 13-16 is a saying dealing with various life situations; these are introduced not by conditional clauses (If . . . Then), but as independent sentences (One is . . . Let him), perhaps implying the universality of suffering, cheerfulness, and sickness. Sickness is particularly singled out.

2. Oil here has been understood as medicinal, ceremonial (as in an exorcism), or symbolic of prayer. The reference here is to healing through the miraculous power of Jesus ("in the name of the Lord"), however, v. 15 ascribes this power not to the elders themselves, but to the prayer of faith.

3. The prayer of faith will "save" the sick and the Lord will "raise them up." These terms refer to both cure and resurrection.

4. Verse 15b introduces forgiveness of sins. Here sin is associated with illness. Verse 16 continues the themes of sin, confession, and intercession, and introduces Elijah as an example of one who prays righteously and effectively.

5. Verses 19-20 are a commentary on the admonition in v. 16 to "pray for one another."

Sermon challenge: Preaching to people who believe in "providence," not the power of God through prayer.

Homiletic Suggestion: Pain, Pleasure, Sickness, Sin.

Preaching Text: James 5:13-19.

I. Some of us are hurting. It may be the pain of grief, the agony of defeat and failure, the ache of depression, the strain of worry, or the frustration of life in general. Our pain is real and must not be denied. What do we do when we are in pain? We pray.

II. Some of us are happy. Ecstatic. All goes well with us. We had a week of triumph and accomplishment. We feel good. How do we express our joy? We sing. We sing praise to the God who gives us blessings.

III. Some of us are sick. Some have minor, but nagging illnesses. Some face life-threatening disease. What do we do? We ask for prayer. We ask spiritual leaders to pray for us. Yet it is not the elders or the oil that heals; it is God who hears the prayer of faith and who saves and raises us.

We are not here promised healing from all disease, but we should be bold enough to ask. God is a good and generous God. He can and he will heal. Yet his will is greater than ours. If he does not save us now and raise us from the sick bed, he will save and raise us from the grave.

IV. Some of us are sinful. Some? Don't you mean all? Well, yes and no. All sin. No one has perfect spiritual health, just as no one has perfect physical health. Yet just as some are sick enough to need special help, so too some of us are spiritually sick, caught in a sin and unable to get out. What should we do? Confess our sins to one another. Pray for one another. God will forgive, and heal, and save our soul from death.

Conclusion:

Prayer is for all situations of life: joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, health and sickness, righteousness and sin. Prayer is effective when nothing else is. It can stop or bring the rain. It can heal, and save, and raise up. Faithful prayer is effective, not because of the way it makes us feel, but because of the God to whom we pray.

Exegetical Considerations: James 1:6-8; 4:1-10.

Theme: Prayer.

James 1:6-8.

1. Faith is connected with the granting of prayer requests in many N.T. passages (Mark 2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 9:23f.; 11:23f.; Matthew 8:10; 9:28; Romans 4:20-21). In v. 6, faith is not a general term, but refers to the certainty that the request will be fulfilled.

2. The sea metaphor (v. 6) is common in ancient literature.

3. Double-minded is a term for indecision, doubt, and unbelief. Specifically here it is doubt that God will grant wisdom. Such a person is unsettled and unstable in faith. Double-minded may be contrasted with loving God with all your heart.

James 4:1-10.

1. "Wars and conflicts" refers to church fights. These spring not from defense of truth, but from desires or cravings ( hedonai, a different word than in 1:14-15) that fight in our members (probably referring to our individual bodies, not church members).

2. Murder (v. 2) does not seem to fit the context. Some (beginning with Erasmus) have suggested the text was originally "you are jealous," but there is no textual evidence for this reading. Desire leading to murder is not an unbelievable concept (Cain and Abel, Matthew 5:21ff., 1 John 3:15).

3. Unmade prayers will not be answered, but selfish prayer will also not be answered.

4. Verses 4-6 condemn such prayers as examples of double-mindedness, pride and hypocrisy (the attempt to befriend God and the world). Such selfishness is apostasy ("Adulterers!").

5. Verses 7-10 call for repentance. Note the descriptions of repentance: submit, draw near, cleanse, purify, lament, mourn, weep, humble. Only such repentance can allow God to restore relationship ("he will exalt you"), including prayer.

Challenge: Preaching to those who separate prayer and life.

Homiletic Suggestion: How Not to Pray.

Preaching Text: James 4:1-10.

Introduction.

How often do we pray? Most will answer "not often enough." When do you pray? Regularly, only when we think of it, only when you're in trouble? Many of us neglect our prayer life and feel guilty for doing so. But if we fail to pray, we are not only guilty, but foolish. God wants to give and we will not ask! But God is not just concerned with how often we pray; he also cares how we pray. This is why James warns us how not to pray.

I. Don't forget to pray! (4:2). "You do not have because you do not ask." How often do we rely on our own power instead of God's? We do not pray because we think we can handle things ourselves, or conversely, because we think our request is too great even for God. We don't pray for headaches (we take aspirin), but we don't pray for the terminally ill (there's no hope for him).

II. Don't pray with selfish desires! (4:1-3). First, don't pray against a brother (4:1-2). Church fights are usually based on personalities, not principles. We insist on our own way, but we dare not ask God to give us our will, but his. Secondly, don't ask for gifts that are purely selfish, that will not benefit others.

III. Don't pray with worldly motives! (4:4-10). "Worldly" conjures up pictures of "don't dance, drink, smoke" sermons. What James condemns is "trying to have it all." We cannot have it all. We cannot be a friend of the world, enjoy its wealth, status and power, and also be a friend of God. We cannot pray for success and faithfulness. Repentance and humility are needed to restore relation to God.

IV. Don't doubt God's goodness in prayer! (1:6-8). Do we sometimes pray thinking, "I hope God does this for me," but deep down we think he won't? James calls this being "double-minded." We believe, but we don't. Like a storm-tossed ship, we go back and forth in our faith. True, at times we do not know God's will for us. But we know he wants to give us wisdom and other spiritual gifts. For those we can (and must) pray with no doubts, believing in the goodness and power of our God.

Conclusion:

How to pray: Continually, with concern for others, humbly, in a relationship with God, with full assurance of faith.

Exegetical Considerations: James 1:22-27; 2:14-26.

Theme: Faith as active obedience.

James 1:22-27.

1. The heart of this passage is the mirror analogy: one who looks in a mirror, sees the need for improvement, but doesn't change is like the one who hears, but doesn't act. One who looks into the law of liberty (a significant term for James's understanding of morality) is called to a new character, one requiring perseverance in action. "Mirror" may also refer to an ideal image of moral exempla [Plutarch].

2. "Doing" is given concrete meaning in self-control and compassion for those in need. Widows and orphans, see Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalm 68:5; Isaiah 1:10-17; Jeremiah 5:8.

3. Mere hearers practice self-deception. They are convinced they have true religion because they have heard the words of salvation.

James 2:14-26.

1. Note that James says "you say you have faith" (v. 14). Such "faith" can only be claimed, not shown.

2. Good intentions and warm feelings do no practical good, and so are not true faith (2:15-16).

3. Examples:

"Faith" without works: demons (who can recite the Shema , Deuteronomy 6:4) v. 19; a dead body, v. 26.

Faith shown by works: Abraham, vv. 21-24; Rahab, v. 25. Both show faith by works of hospitality.

4. James would agree with Paul that Abraham was justified by faith, but not by merely a spoken or claimed faith, but by a tested faith. Paul also uses the language of "working faith" (see 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11).

5. James may be fighting the idea that salvation by faith is purely personal and does not require obligation to others. He too, like us, may have known uninvolved church members.

Preaching Challenge: Preaching to people who have left legalism for an easy "faith" that does not demand obedience.

Homiletic Suggestion: Preaching What You Practice.

Preaching Text: James 2:14-26.

Introduction: What makes one a Christian? What gives true religion?

I. Going to church? (James 1:22-25). If you're 50 years old, have gone to church all your life, four services per week, then you've heard over 10,000 sermons and Bible lessons in your life. 10,000!

So, are you truly religious? Most would say, "You bet." Most would call you a religious nut (10,000 lessons!). But Christianity is not a spectator sport. Hearing and knowing are no good unless acted upon.

If you look in a mirror and see a smudge on your face, it does you no good if you walk away and forget. So too, if you go to church and see yourself in the perfect law of freedom and do nothing to change, it does you no good.

II. Do good intentions make one religious? (James 1:27; 2:14-17). We are all nice people here who wouldn't hurt a fly and who feel strongly for those in need. But if I'm hungry, it does me no good to know you have warm feelings for me. I need food. Intending to do right and even feeling compassion do no good unless they result in action.

III. Faith makes one a Christian. Surely that is true; we have many Scriptures that prove that's true. But what is faith? Believing in the one God? Demons do that. Is it talking the right talk? Confessing Christ? Claiming faith? No, faith is an active verb, it's something you do.

But wasn't Abraham made right by faith (Romans 4:3)? Surely all we have to do to be like him is to confess, "Yes, I believe." But Abraham did his faith; he put it into action by offering Isaac. His faith was not faith until tested.

Faith includes caring for those in need. It implies obligation.

Conclusion:

We often talk of practicing what we preach, as if Christianity was a verbal message that must be acted upon. But Christian faith is first of all something that is done. The gospel is the message of what God has done. Faith is our response to his action in Christ. Christianity is a life, not a recitation of doctrine. Teaching follows the life of faith. We preach what we practice.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JAMES

Adamson, James. The Epistle of James. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

. James: The Man and His Message . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James. New International Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dibelius, Martin. James. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.

Hort, F.J.A. The Epistle of St. James. London: Macmillan, 1909.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Kistemaker, Simon J. James and I-III John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

Knowling, R.J. The Epistle of St. James. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen and Co., 1904.

Kugelman, Richard. James & Jude . New Testament Message. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980.

Laws, Sophie. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Harper New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper, 1980.

Martin, R.A. James . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982.

Martin, Ralph P. James. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1988.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James . London: Macmillan, 1897.

McDonnell, Rea. The Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986.

Mitton, C. Leslie. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.

Moo, Douglas J. James. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Motyer, Alec. The Message of James. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: IVP, 1988.

Perkins, Pheme. 1,2 Peter, James, Jude. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1995.

Plummer, Alfred. The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891.

Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Roberts, J.W. The Letter of James. Living Word Commentary. Abilene: ACU Press, 1963.

Ropes, James Hardy. James. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916.

Ross, Alexander. The Epistles of James and Jude. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

Sidebottom, E.M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

Stulac, George M. James. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: IVP, 1993.

Tasker, R.V.G. The General Epistle of James. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

DSB Daily Study Bible

ICC International Critical Commentary

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

KJV King James Version

LWC Living Word Commentary

LXX Septuagint

MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary

NAC New American Commentary

NCB New Clarendon Bible

NCBC New Century Bible Commentary

NEB New English Bible

NIBC New International Bible Commentary

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NTC New Testament Commentary

NTS New Testament Studies

PNTC Pelican New Testament Commentary

REB Revised English Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

TBC Torch Bible Commentaries

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

TEV Today's English Version

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: James (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. GREETING - 1:1

II. ENDURING TRIALS - 1:2-4

III. ASK FOR WISDOM - 1:5-8

IV. RICHES TEMPORARY - 1:9-11

V. TEMPTATION NOT FROM GOD - 1:12-18

VI. SPEAKING, LISTENING, DOING - 1:19-27

VII. JUDGING BY APPEARANCE - 2:1-13

A. Favoritism - 2:1-7

B. The Royal Law - 2:8-13

VIII. FAITH THAT WORKS - 2:14-26

A. Faith Without Works - 2:14-17

B. Faith With Works - 2:18-26

IX. TAMING THE TONGUE - 3:1-12

X. WISDOM, EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY - 3:13-18

XI. FRIENDS OF THE WORLD OR OF GOD - 4:1-10

XII. DON'T SPEAK AGAINST A BROTHER - 4:11-12

XIII. DON'T COUNT ON TOMORROW - 4:13-17

XIV. WARNING TO THE RICH - 5:1-6

XV. WAITING FOR THE LORD - 5:7-11

XVI. DON'T SWEAR - 5:12

XVII. PRAYER, CONFESSION, AND SAVING THE SINNER - 5:13-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV