Text -- James 2:19-26 (NET)

2:19 You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that– and tremble with fear. 2:20 But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless? 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 2:22 You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 2:25 And similarly, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another way? 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Jam 2:19

Thou believest that God is one ( su pisteueis hoti heis theos estin ).

James goes on with his reply and takes up mere creed apart from works, belief that God exists (there is one God), a fundamental doctrine, but that is not belief or trust in God. It may be mere creed.

Robertson: Jam 2:19

Thou doest well ( kalōs poieis ).

That is good as far as it goes, which is not far.

Robertson: Jam 2:19

The demons also believe ( kai ta daimonia pisteuousin ).

They go that far (the same verb pisteuō ). They never doubt the fact of God’ s existence.

Robertson: Jam 2:19

And shudder ( kai phrissousin ).

Present active indicative of phrissō , old onomatopoetic verb to bristle up, to shudder, only here in N.T. Like Latin horreo (horror, standing of the hair on end with terror). The demons do more than believe a fact. They shudder at it.

Robertson: Jam 2:20

But wilt thou know? ( theleis de gnōnai̇ ).

"But dost thou wish to know?"Ingressive aorist active infinitive of ginoskō (come to know). James here introduces a new argument like Rom 13:3.

Robertson: Jam 2:20

O vain man ( ō anthrōpe kene ).

Goes on with the singular objector and demolishes him. For "empty"(deficient) Paul uses aphrōn (fool) in 1Co 15:36 and just anthrōpe in Rom 2:1; Rom 9:20.

Robertson: Jam 2:20

Barren ( arge ).

See 2Pe 1:8 (not idle nor unfruitful) and Mat 12:36, but Hort urges "inactive"as the idea here, like money with no interest and land with no crops.

Robertson: Jam 2:21

Justified by works ( ex ergōn edikaiōthē ).

First aorist passive indicative of dikaioō (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with ouk expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul’ s statement in Rom 4:1-5, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Rom 4:9) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (Rom 4:10) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also.

Robertson: Jam 2:21

In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar ( anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastērion ).

They use the same words, but they are talking of different acts. James points to the offering (anenegkas second aorist - with first aorist ending - active participle of anapherō ) of Isaac on the altar (Gen 22:16.) as proof of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham’ s faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15; Gal 2).

Robertson: Jam 2:22

Thou seest ( blepeis ).

Obvious enough with any eyes to see. This may be a question, seest thou?

Robertson: Jam 2:22

Wrought with ( sunērgei ).

Imperfect active of sunergeō , old verb for which see Rom 8:28. Followed by associative-instrumental case ergois . Faith cooperated with the deed of offering up Isaac.

Robertson: Jam 2:22

Was made perfect ( eteleiōthē ).

First aorist passive indicative of teleioō , to carry to the end, to complete like love in 1Jo 4:18. See Jam 1:4 for teleion ergon .

Robertson: Jam 2:23

Was fulfilled ( eplērōthē ).

First aorist passive indicative of plēroō , the usual verb for fulfilling Scripture. So James quotes Gen 15:6 as proving his point in Jam 2:21 that Abraham had works with his faith, the very same passage that Paul quotes in Rom 4:3 to show that Abraham’ s faith preceded his circumcision and was the basis of his justification. And both James and Paul are right, each to illustrate a different point.

Robertson: Jam 2:23

And he was called the friend of God ( kai philos theou eklēthē ).

First aorist passive indicative of kalēo . Not a part of the Scripture quoted. Philo calls Abraham the friend of God and see Jubilees 19:9; 30:20. The Arabs today speak of Abraham as God’ s friend. It was evidently a common description before James used it, as in Isa 41:8; 2Ch 20:7.

Robertson: Jam 2:24

Ye see ( horāte ).

Present indicative active of horaō . Now he uses the plural again as in Jam 2:14.

Robertson: Jam 2:24

Is justified ( dikaioutai ).

Present passive indicative of dikaioō , here not "is made righteous,"but "is shown to be righteous."James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God (Paul’ s idea in Rom 4:1-10).

Robertson: Jam 2:24

And not only by faith ( kai ouk ek pisteōs monon ).

This phrase clears up the meaning of James. Faith (live faith) is what we must all have (Jam 2:18), only it must shew itself also in deeds as Abraham’ s did.

Robertson: Jam 2:25

Rahab the harlot ( Raab hē pornē ).

Her vicious life she left behind, but the name clung to her always. For our purposes the argument of James may seem stronger without the example of Rahab (Josh 2:1-21; Jos 6:17; Jos 6:22-25; Mat 1:5; Heb 11:31). It is even said in Jewish Midrash that Rahab married Joshua and became an ancestor of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Robertson: Jam 2:25

In that she received ( hupodexamenē ).

First aorist middle participle of hupodechomai , to welcome.

Robertson: Jam 2:25

The messengers ( tous aggelous ).

Original meaning of aggelos (Mat 11:10). In Heb 11:31 we have kataskopous (spies, scouts).

Robertson: Jam 2:25

Sent out ( ekbalousa ).

Second aorist active participle of ekballō , to hurl out.

Robertson: Jam 2:25

Another way ( heterāi hodōi ).

"By another way"(instrumental case), by a window instead of a door (Jos 2:15.).

Robertson: Jam 2:26

Apart from the spirit ( chōris pneumatos ).

"Apart from breath"(the breath of life). It is not easy to tell when one is dead, but the absence of a sign of breath on a glass before the mouth and nose is proof of death. Startling picture of dead faith in our churches and church members with only a name to live (Rev 3:2).

Vincent: Jam 2:19

Tremble ( φρίσσουσιν )

Only here in New Testament. It means, originally, to be rough on the surface; to bristle. Hence, used of the fields with ears of corn; of a line of battle bristling with shields and spears; of a silver or golden vessel rough with embossed gold. Aeschylus, describing a crowd holding up their hands to vote, says, the air bristled with right hands. Hence, of a horror which makes the hair stand on end and contracts the surface of the skin, making " gooseflesh." Rev., much better, shudder.

Vincent: Jam 2:20

Vain ( κενέ )

Lit., empty, without spiritual life.

Vincent: Jam 2:20

Dead ( νεκρά )

But the best texts read ἀργή , idle ; as of money which yields no interest, or of land lying fallow.

Vincent: Jam 2:21

When he had offered ( ἀνενέγκας )

Incorrect. For the participle states the ground of his justification. By works gives the general ground; offered, etc., the specific work. Compare Gen 22:16, Gen 22:17. Rev., correctly, in that he offered. The word ἀνενέγκας is, lit., brought up to; and means, not actually to offer up in sacrifice (though Isaac was morally sacrificed in Abraham's will), but to bring to the altar as an offering See on 1Pe 2:5.

Vincent: Jam 2:22

Wrought with his works ( συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις )

There is a play on the words in the Greek: worked with his works.

Vincent: Jam 2:23

Was fulfilled ( ἐπληρώθη )

Not was confirmed, which the word does not mean either in New-Testament or in classical usage, but was actually and fully realized. James here uses the formula which in the Old Testament is employed of the realizing of a former utterance. See 1Ki 2:27; 2 Chronicles 36:22 (Sept.).

Vincent: Jam 2:23

Imputed ( ἐλογίσθη )

Lit., as Rev., reckoned.

Vincent: Jam 2:23

He was called the friend of God

The term, however, does not occur either in the Hebrew or Septuagint, though it is found in the A. V. and retained in Rev. Old Testament. In 2 Chronicles 20:7 (Sept.), thy friend is τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ , thy beloved. In Isaiah 41:8 (Sept.), my friend is ὃν ἠγάπησα , whom I loved. " The friend of God" is still the favorite title of Abraham among the Jews and Mohammedans.

Vincent: Jam 2:25

Rahab

Also referred to in Heb 11:31, among the examples of faith. Dante places her in the third heaven:

" Thou fain wouldst know who is within this light

That here beside me thus is scintillating,

Even as a sunbeam in the limpid water.

Then know thou, that within there is at rest

Rahab, and being to our order joined,

With her in its supremest grade 'tis sealed.

· · · · · ·

First of Christ's Triumph was she taken up.

Full meet it was to leave her in some heaven,

Even as a palm of the high victory

Which he acquired with one palm and the other,

Because she favored the first glorious deed

Of Joshua upon the Holy Land."

Paradise , ix., 112-125.

Rahab became the wife of Salmon, and the ancestress of Boaz, Jesse's grandfather. Some have supposed that Salmon was one of the spies whose life she saved. At any rate, she became the mother of the line of David and of Christ, and is so recorded in Matthew's genealogy of our Lord, in which only four women are named. There is a peculiar significance in this selection of Rahab with Abraham as an example of faith, by James the Lord's brother.

Vincent: Jam 2:25

Sent them out ( ἐκβαλοῦσα )

Better, thrust them forth, implying haste and fear. Compare Mar 1:12; Luk 4:29; Act 16:37.

Vincent: Jam 2:25

Another way

Than that by which they entered. Through the window. See Jos 2:15.

Vincent: Jam 2:26

Works ( τῶν ἔργων )

Note the article: the works belonging or corresponding to faith; its works.

Wesley: Jam 2:19

I allow this: but this proves only that thou hast the same faith with the devils. Nay, they not only believe, but tremble - At the dreadful expectation of eternal torments. So far is that faith from either justifying or saving them that have it.

Wesley: Jam 2:20

Indeed thou art not: thou wouldest fain be ignorant of it.

Wesley: Jam 2:20

Empty of all goodness.

Wesley: Jam 2:20

And so is not properly faith, as a dead carcase is not a man.

Wesley: Jam 2:21

St. Paul says he was justified by faith, Rom 4:2, &c.: yet St. James does not contradict him; for he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Gen 15:6. St. James, of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Paul's sense, (that is, accounted righteous,) by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. James's sense, (that is, made righteous,) by works, consequent to his faith. So that St. James's justification by works is the fruit of St Paul's justification by faith.

Wesley: Jam 2:22

For by faith Abraham offered him, Heb 11:17.

Wesley: Jam 2:22

Therefore faith has one energy and operation; works, another: and the energy and operation of faith are before works, and together with them. Works do not give life to faith, but faith begets works, and then is perfected by them.

Wesley: Jam 2:22

Here St. James fixes the sense wherein he uses the word justified; so that no shadow of contradiction remains between his assertion and St. Paul's. Abraham returned from that sacrifice perfected in faith, and far higher in the favour of God. Faith hath not its being from works, (for it is before them,) but its perfection. That vigour of faith which begets works is then excited and increased thereby, as the natural heat of the body begets motion, whereby itself is then excited and increased. See 1Jo 3:22.

Wesley: Jam 2:23

Which was afterwards written. Was hereby eminently fulfilled, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness - This was twice fulfilled, - when Abraham first believed, and when he offered up Isaac. St. Paul speaks of the former fulfilling; St. James, of the latter.

Wesley: Jam 2:23

Both by his posterity, 2Ch 20:7; and by God himself, Isa 41:8 so pleasing to God were the works be wrought in faith. Gen 15:6

Wesley: Jam 2:24

St. Paul, on the other band, declares, "A man is justified by faith," and not by works, Rom 3:28. And yet there is no contradiction between the apostles: because, They do not speak of the same faith: St. Paul speaking of living faith; St. James here, of dead faith. They do not speak of the same works: St. Paul speaking of works antecedent to faith; St. James, of works subsequent to it.

Wesley: Jam 2:25

After Abraham, the father of the Jews, the apostle cites Rahab, a woman, and a sinner of the gentiles; to show, that in every nation and sex true faith produces works, and is perfected by them; that is, by the grace of God working in the believer, while he is showing his faith by his works.

JFB: Jam 2:19

Emphatic. Thou self-deceiving claimant to faith without works.

JFB: Jam 2:19

Rather, "that God is one": God's existence, however, is also asserted. The fundamental article of the creed of Jews and Christians alike, and the point of faith on which especially the former boasted themselves, as distinguishing them from the Gentiles, and hence adduced by James here.

JFB: Jam 2:19

So far good. But unless thy faith goes farther than an assent to this truth, "the evil spirits (literally, 'demons': 'devil' is the term restricted to Satan, their head) believe" so far in common with thee, "and (so far from being saved by such a faith) shudder (so the Greek)," Mat 8:29; Luk 4:34; 2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:6; Rev 20:10. Their faith only adds to their torment at the thought of having to meet Him who is to consign them to their just doom: so thine (Heb 10:26-27, it is not the faith of love, but of fear, that hath torment, 1Jo 4:18).

JFB: Jam 2:20

"Vain" men are not willing to know, since they have no wish to "do" the will of God. James beseeches such a one to lay aside his perverse unwillingness to know what is palpable to all who are willing to do.

JFB: Jam 2:20

Who deceivest thyself with a delusive hope, resting on an unreal faith.

JFB: Jam 2:20

The Greek, implies separate from the works [ALFORD] which ought to flow from it if it were real.

JFB: Jam 2:20

Some of the best manuscripts read, "is idle," that is, unavailing to effect what you hope, namely, to save you.

JFB: Jam 2:21

Evidentially, and before men (see on Jam 2:18). In Jam 2:23, James, like Paul, recognizes the Scripture truth, that it was his faith that was counted to Abraham for righteousness in his justification before God.

JFB: Jam 2:21

Rather, "when he offered" [ALFORD], that is, brought as an offering at the altar; not implying that he actually offered him.

JFB: Jam 2:22

Or, "thou seest."

JFB: Jam 2:22

Rather, "that." In the two clauses which follow, emphasize "faith" in the former, and "works" in the latter, to see the sense [BENGEL].

JFB: Jam 2:22

For it was by faith he offered his son. Literally, "was working (at the time) with his works."

JFB: Jam 2:22

Not was vivified, but attained its fully consummated development, and is shown to be real. So "my strength is made perfect in weakness," that is, exerts itself most perfectly, shows how great it is [CAMERON]: so 1Jo 4:17; Heb 2:10; Heb 5:9. The germ really, from the first, contains in it the full-grown tree, but its perfection is not attained till it is matured fully. So Jam 1:4, "Let patience have her perfect work," that is, have its full effect by showing the most perfect degree of endurance, "that ye may be perfect," that is, fully developed in the exhibition of the Christian character. ALFORD explains, "Received its realization, was entirely exemplified and filled up." So Paul, Phi 2:12, "Work out your own salvation": the salvation was already in germ theirs in their free justification through faith. It needed to be worked out still to fully developed perfection in their life.

JFB: Jam 2:23

Gen 15:6, quoted by Paul, as realized in Abraham's justification by faith; but by James, as realized subsequently in Abraham's work of offering Isaac, which, he says, justified him. Plainly, then, James must mean by works the same thing as Paul means by faith, only that he speaks of faith at its manifested development, whereas Paul speaks of it in its germ. Abraham's offering of Isaac was not a mere act of obedience, but an act of faith. Isaac was the subject of the promises of God, that in him Abraham's seed should be called. The same God calls on Abraham to slay the subject of His own promise, when as yet there was no seed in whom those predictions could be realized. Hence James' saying that Abraham was justified by such a work, is equivalent to saying, as Paul does, that he was justified by faith itself; for it was in fact faith expressed in action, as in other cases saving faith is expressed in words. So Paul states as the mean of salvation faith expressed. The "Scripture" would not be "fulfilled," as James says it was, but contradicted by any interpretation which makes man's works justify him before God: for that Scripture makes no mention of works at all, but says that Abraham's belief was counted to him for righteousness. God, in the first instance, "justifies the ungodly" through faith; subsequently the believer is justified before the world as righteous through faith manifested in words and works (compare Mat 25:35-37, "the righteous," Mat 25:40). The best authorities read, "But Abraham believed," &c.

JFB: Jam 2:23

He was not so called in his lifetime, though he was so even then from the time of his justification; but he was called so, being recognized as such by all on the ground of his works of faith. "He was the friend (in an active sense), the lover of God, in reference to his works; and (in a passive sense) loved by God in reference to his justification by works. Both senses are united in Joh 15:14-15" [BENGEL].

JFB: Jam 2:24

That is, by "faith without (separated from: severed from) works," its proper fruits (see on Jam 2:20). Faith to justify must, from the first, include obedience in germ (to be developed subsequently), though the former alone is the ground of justification. The scion must be grafted on the stock that it may live; it must bring forth fruit to prove that it does live.

JFB: Jam 2:25

It is clear from the nature of Rahab's act, that it is not quoted to prove justification by works as such. She believed assuredly what her other countrymen disbelieved, and this in the face of every improbability that an unwarlike few would conquer well-armed numbers. In this belief she hid the spies at the risk of her life. Hence Heb 11:31 names this as an example of faith, rather than of obedience. "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not." If an instance of obedience were wanting. Paul and James would hardly have quoted a woman of previously bad character, rather than the many moral and pious patriarchs. But as an example of free grace justifying men through an operative, as opposed to a mere verbal faith, none could be more suitable than a saved "harlot." As Abraham was an instance of an illustrious man and the father of the Jews, so Rahab is quoted as a woman, and one of abandoned character, and a Gentile, showing that justifying faith has been manifested in those of every class. The nature of the works alleged is such as to prove that James uses them only as evidences of faith, as contrasted with a mere verbal profession: not works of charity and piety, but works the value of which consisted solely in their being proofs of faith: they were faith expressed in act, synonymous with faith itself.

JFB: Jam 2:25

Spies.

JFB: Jam 2:25

Rather, "received . . . thrust them forth" (in haste and fear) [ALFORD].

JFB: Jam 2:25

From that whereby they entered her house, namely, through the window of her house on the wall, and thence to the mountain.

JFB: Jam 2:26

Faith is a spiritual thing: works are material. Hence we might expect faith to answer to the spirit, works to the body. But James reverses this. He therefore does not mean that faith in all cases answers to the body; but the FORM of faith without the working reality answers to the body without the animating spirit. It does not follow that living faith derives its life from works, as the body derives its life from the animating spirit.

Clarke: Jam 2:19

Thou believest that there is one God - This is the faith in which these persons put their hope of pleasing God, and of obtaining eternal life. Believing in the being and unity of God distinguished them from all the nations of the world; and having been circumcised, and thus brought into the covenant, they thought themselves secure of salvation. The insufficiency of this St. James immediately shows

Clarke: Jam 2:19

The devils also believe, and tremble - It is well to believe there is one only true God; this truth universal nature proclaims. Even the devils believe it; but far from justifying or saving them, it leaves them in their damned state, and every act of it only increases their torment; φρισσουσι, they shudder with horror, they believe and tremble, are increasingly tormented; but they can neither love nor obey.

Clarke: Jam 2:20

But wilt thou know - Art thou willing to be instructed in the nature of true saving faith? Then attend to the following examples.

Clarke: Jam 2:21

Was not Abraham our father - Did not the conduct of Abraham, in offering up his son Isaac on the altar, sufficiently prove that he believed in God, and that it was his faith in him that led him to this extraordinary act of obedience?

Clarke: Jam 2:22

Seest thou how faith wrought - Here is a proof that faith cannot exist without being active in works of righteousness. His faith in God would have been of no avail to him, had it not been manifested by works; for by works - by his obedience to the commands of God, his faith was made perfect - it dictated obedience, he obeyed; and thus faith ετελειωθη, had its consummation. Even true faith will soon die, if its possessor do not live in the spirit of obedience.

Clarke: Jam 2:23

The scripture was fulfilled - He believed God; this faith was never inactive, it was accounted to him for righteousness: and being justified by thus believing, his life of obedience showed that he had not received the grace of God in vain. See the notes on Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3 (note); Gal 3:6 (note); where this subject is largely explained

Clarke: Jam 2:23

The friend of God - The highest character ever given to man. As among friends every thing is in common; so God took Abraham into intimate communion with himself, and poured out upon him the choicest of his blessings: for as God can never be in want, because he possesses all things; so Abraham his friend could never be destitute, because God was his friend.

Clarke: Jam 2:24

Ye see then how - It is evident from this example that Abraham’ s faith was not merely believing that there is a God; but a principle that led him to credit God’ s promises relative to the future Redeemer, and to implore God’ s mercy: this he received, and was justified by faith. His faith now began to work by love, and therefore he was found ever obedient to the will of his Maker. He brought forth the fruits of righteousness; and his works justified - proved the genuineness of his faith; and he continued to enjoy the Divine approbation, which he could not have done had he not been thus obedient; for the Spirit of God would have been grieved, and his principle of faith would have perished. Obedience to God is essentially requisite to maintain faith. Faith lives, under God, by works; and works have their being and excellence from faith. Neither can subsist without the other, and this is the point which St. James labors to prove, in order to convince the Antinomians of his time that their faith was a delusion, and that the hopes built on it must needs perish.

Clarke: Jam 2:25

Rahab the harlot - See the notes on Jos 2:1, etc., and Heb 11:31 (note), etc. Rahab had the approbation due to genuine faith, which she actually possessed, and gave the fullest proof that she did so by her conduct. As justification signifies, not only the pardon of sin, but receiving the Divine approbation, James seems to use the word in this latter sense. God approved of them, because of their obedience to his will; and he approves of no man who is not obedient.

Clarke: Jam 2:26

For as the body without the spirit is dead - There can be no more a genuine faith without good works, than there can be a living human body without a soul

We shall never find a series of disinterested godly living without true faith. And we shall never find true faith without such a life. We may see works of apparent benevolence without faith; their principle is ostentation; and, as long as they can have the reward (human applause) which they seek, they may be continued. And yet the experience of all mankind shows how short-lived such works are; they want both principle and spring; they endure for a time, but soon wither away. Where true faith is, there is God; his Spirit gives life, and his love affords motives to righteous actions. The use of any Divine principle leads to its increase. The more a man exercises faith in Christ, the more he is enabled to believe; the more he believes, the more he receives; and the more he receives, the more able he is to work for God. Obedience is his delight, because love to God and man is the element in which his soul lives. Reader, thou professest to believe; show thy faith, both to God and man, by a life conformed to the royal law, which ever gives liberty and confers dignity

"Some persons, known to St. James, must have taught that men are justified by merely believing in the one true God; or he would not have taken such pains to confute it. Crediting the unity of the Godhead, and the doctrine of a future state, was that faith through which both the Jews in St. James’ time and the Mohammedans of the present day expect justification. St. James, in denying this faith to be of avail, if unaccompanied with good works, has said nothing more than what St. Paul has said, in other words, Romans 2, where he combats the same Jewish error, and asserts that not the hearers but the doers of the law will be justified, and that a knowledge of God’ s will, without the performance of it, serves only to increase our condemnation."- Michaelis.

Calvin: Jam 2:19

19.Thou believest that there is one God. From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were any one to say, that the devils have faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites. The devil trembles, he says, at the mention of God’s name, because when he acknowledges his own judge he is filled with the fear of him. He then who despises an acknowledged God is much worse.

Thou doest well, is put down for the purpose of extenuating, as though he had said, “It is, forsooth! a great thing to sink down below the devils.” ¹¹⁷

Calvin: Jam 2:20

20.But wilt thou know. We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor judge wisely of words, except he who keeps in view the design of the writer.

Calvin: Jam 2:21

21.Was not Abraham. The Sophists lay hold on the word justified, and then they cry out as being victorious, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. We have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

When, therefore, the Sophists set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon. ¹¹⁸

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, “Shew to me thy faith,” etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.

Calvin: Jam 2:22

22.By works was faith made perfect ¹¹⁹ By this he again shews, that the question here is not respecting the cause of our salvation, but whether works necessarily accompany faith; for in this sense it is said to have been perfected by works, because it was not idle. It is said to have been perfected by works, not because it received thence its own perfection, but because it was thus proved to be true. For the futile distinction which the Sophists draw from these words, between formed and unformed faith, needs no labored refutation; for the faith of Abram was formed and therefore perfected before he sacrificed his son. And this work was not as it were the finishing, or last work. Formerly things afterwards followed by which Abraham proved the increase of his faith. Hence this was not the perfection of his faith, nor did it then for the first time put on its form. James then understood no other thing, than that the integrity of his faith then appeared, because it brought forth that remarkable fruit of obedience.

Calvin: Jam 2:23

23.And the Scripture was fulfilled. They who seek to prove from this passage of James that the works of Abraham were imputed for righteousness, must necessarily confess that Scripture is perverted by him; for however they may turn and twist, they can never make the effect to be its own cause. The passage is quoted from Moses. (Gen 15:6.) The imputation of righteousness which Moses mentions, preceded more than thirty years the work by which they would have Abraham to have been justified. Since faith was imputed to Abraham fifteen years before the birth of Isaac, this could not surely have been done through the work of sacrificing him. I consider that all those are bound fast by an indissoluble knot, who imagine that righteousness was imputed to Abraham before God, because he sacrificed his son Isaac, who was not yet born when the Holy Spirit declared that Abraham was justified. It hence necessarily follows that something posterior is pointed out here.

Why then does James say that it was fulfilled? Even because he intended to shew what sort of faith that was which justified Abraham; that is, that it was not idle or evanescent, but rendered him obedient to God, as also we find in Heb 11:8. The conclusion, which is immediately added, as it depends on this, has no other meaning. Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits.

Calvin: Jam 2:25

25.Likewise also was not Rahab. It seems strange that he connected together those who were so unlike. Why did he not rather choose some one from so large a number of illustrious fathers, and join him to Abraham? Why did he prefer a harlot to all others? he designedly put together two persons so different in their character, in order more clearly to shew, that no one, whatever may have been his or her condition, nation, or class in society, has ever been counted righteous without good works. He had named the patriarch, by far the most eminent of all; he now includes under the person of a harlot, all those who, being aliens, were joined to the Church. Whosoever, then, seeks to be counted righteous, though he may even be among the lowest, must yet shew that he is such by good works.

James, according to his manner of speaking, declares that Rahab was justified by works; and the Sophists hence conclude that we obtain righteousness by the merits of works. But we deny that the dispute here is concerning the mode of obtaining righteousness. We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God. ¹²⁰

Defender: Jam 2:19

James is primarily writing to Jews, whose main religious distinctive was monotheism, as opposed to the pantheistic polytheism that characterized all the pagan religions of the day. Even now, there are only three monotheistic religions (orthodox Judaism, orthodox Islam and orthodox Christianity); all others are, to one degree or another, structured around evolutionary pantheism, and nowhere in Scripture is such pagan belief commended, or even condoned. In this verse, monotheism is commended by James, but even that is not sufficient to save. Only true Christianity acknowledges that the Creator must also be the Redeemer."

Defender: Jam 2:20

Many people have alleged that James was arguing here against Paul's doctrine of salvation strictly by grace through faith. This idea is clearly wrong, however, because James wrote his epistle before any of Paul's were written. Actually, there is no conflict between the two. James certainly taught that the works of the law could not save (Jam 2:10; Jam 4:17), and Paul clearly taught that genuine faith would produce good works (Eph 2:8-10). It is simply a semantic matter of emphasis. Salvation must be of grace, accepted by faith, since no one can earn it, but only God can know the heart and the reality of a profession of faith. But, the reality of that faith can only be demonstrated to others by good works."

Defender: Jam 2:21

At first glance, this statement does seem to be contradicted by Paul in Rom 4:2 when he denied that Abraham was justified by works. The point is that Abraham was justified by faith in the sight of God, as testified in Gen 15:6, but he was justified in the sight of men (even in his own estimation) when he demonstrated the reality of his faith (Gen 22:18) in his obedience to God's command to offer up Isaac."

Defender: Jam 2:23

This testimony in Gen 15:6 was a prophecy until its fulfillment in Abraham's obedience.

Defender: Jam 2:23

Probably both were referring to God's testimony in Gen 18:17-19 (2Ch 20:7 and Isa 41:8)."

Defender: Jam 2:25

It is interesting that such a woman as "Rahab the harlot" is cited in Heb 11:31 as an illustration of true faith and by James as evidence of justifying works. Her inclusion in the human genealogy of the Lord Jesus (Mat 1:5) is evidence of God's grace."

TSK: Jam 2:19

Deu 6:4; Isa 43:10, Isa 44:6, Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6, Isa 45:21, Isa 45:22, Isa 46:9; Zec 14:9; Mar 12:29; Joh 17:3; Rom 3:30; 1Co 8:4, 1Co 8:6; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:5, Eph 4:6; 1Ti 2:5; Jud 1:4

thou doest : Jam 2:8; Jon 4:4, Jon 4:9; Mar 7:9

the : Mat 8:29; Mar 1:24, Mar 5:7; Luk 4:34; Act 16:17, Act 19:15, Act 24:25; Jud 1:6; Rev 20:2, Rev 20:3, Rev 20:10

TSK: Jam 2:20

O vain : Jam 1:26; Job 11:11, Job 11:12; Psa 94:8-11; Pro 12:11; Jer 2:5; Rom 1:21; 1Co 15:35, 1Co 15:36; Gal 6:3; Col 2:8; 1Ti 1:6; Tit 1:10

that : Jam 2:14

TSK: Jam 2:21

Abraham : Jos 24:3; Isa 51:2; Mat 3:9; Luk 1:73, Luk 16:24, Luk 16:30; Joh 8:39, Joh 8:53; Act 7:2; Rom 4:1, Rom 4:12, Rom 4:16

justified : Jam 2:18, Jam 2:24; Psa 143:2; Mat 12:37, Mat 25:31-40; Rom 3:20

when : Gen 22:9-12, Gen 22:16-18

TSK: Jam 2:22

Seest thou : or, Thou seest

faith : Jam 2:18; Gal 5:6; Heb 11:17-19

faith made : 1Jo 2:5, 1Jo 4:17, 1Jo 4:18

TSK: Jam 2:23

the scripture : Mar 12:10, Mar 15:28; Luk 4:21; Act 1:16; Rom 9:17, Rom 11:2; Gal 3:8-10,Gal 3:22; 2Ti 3:16; 1Pe 2:6

Abraham : Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3-6, Rom 4:10,Rom 4:11, Rom 4:22-24; Gal 3:6

the Friend : Exo 33:11; 2Ch 20:7; Job 16:21 *marg. Isa 41:8; Joh 15:13-15

TSK: Jam 2:24

Jam 2:15-18, Jam 2:21, Jam 2:22; Psa 60:12

TSK: Jam 2:25

was : Jos 2:1; Mat 1:5

the harlot : Mat 21:31

justified : Jam 2:18, Jam 2:22

when : Jos 2:19-21, Jos 6:17, Jos 6:22-25; Heb 11:31

TSK: Jam 2:26

as : Job 34:14, Job 34:15; Psa 104:29, Psa 146:4; Ecc 12:7; Isa 2:22; Luk 23:46; Act 7:59, Act 7:60

spirit : or, breath

so : Jam 2:14, Jam 2:17, Jam 2:20

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Jam 2:19

Thou believest that there is one God - One of the great and cardinal doctrines of religion is here selected as an illustration of all. The design of the apostle seems to have been to select one of the doctrines of religion, the belief of which would - if mere belief in any doctrine could - save the soul; and to show that even this might be held as an article of faith by those who could be supposed by no one to have any claim to the name of Christian. He selects, therefore, the great fundamental doctrine of all religion, - the doctrine of the existence of one Supreme Being, - and shows that if even this were held in such a way as it might be, and as it was held by devils, it could not save men. The apostle here is not to be supposed to be addressing such an one as Paul, who held to the doctrine that we are justified by faith; nor is he to be supposed to be combating the doctrine of Paul, as some have maintained, (see the Introduction); but he is to be regarded as addressing one who held, in the broadest and most unqualified sense, that provided there was faith, a man would be saved. To this he replies, that even the devils might have faith of a certain sort, and faith that would produce sensible effects on them of a certain kind, and still it could not be supposed that they had true religion, or that they would be saved. Why might not the same thing occur in regard to man?

Thou doest well - So far as this is concerned, or so far as it goes. It is a doctrine which ought to be held, for it is one of the great fundamental truths of religion.

The devils - The "demons,"- ( τα δαιμόνια ta daimonia ). There is, properly, but one being spoken of in the New Testament as "the devil"- ὁ διάβολος ho diabolos , and ὁ Σατᾶν ho Satan - though "demons"are frequently spoken of in the plural number. They are represented as evil spirits, subject to Satan, or under his control, and engaged with him in carrying out his plans of wickedness. These spirits or demons were supposed to wander in desert and desolate places, Mat 12:43, or to dwell in the atmosphere, (Notes, Eph 2:2); they were thought to have the power of working miracles, but not for good, (Rev 16:14; compare Joh 10:21); to be hostile to mankind, Joh 8:44; to utter the pagan oracles, Act 16:17; to lurk in the idols of the heathen, 1Co 10:20; and to take up their abodes in the bodies of men, afflicting them with various kinds of diseases, Mat 7:22; Mat 9:34; Mat 10:8; Mat 17:18; Mar 7:29-30; Luk 4:33; Luk 8:27, Luk 8:30, et soepe. It is of these evil spirits that the apostle speaks when he says that they believe.

Also believe - That is, particularly, they believe in the existence of the one God. How far their knowledge may extend respecting God, we cannot know; but they are never represented in the Scriptures as denying his existence, or as doubting the great truths of religion. They are never described as atheists. That is a sin of this world only. They are not represented as sceptics. That, too, is a peculiar sin of the earth; and probably, in all the universe besides, there are no beings but those who dwell on this globe, who doubt or deny the existence of God, or the other great truths of religion.

And tremble - The word here used ( φρίσσουσιν phrissousin ) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, to be rough, uneven, jaggy, sc., with bristling hair; to bristle, to stand on end, as the hair does in a fright; and then to shudder or quake with fear, etc. Here the meaning is, that there was much more in the case referred to than mere speculative faith. There was a faith that produced some effect, and an effect of a very decided character. It did not, indeed, produce good works, or a holy life, but it made it manifest that there was faith; and, consequently, it followed that the existence of mere faith was not all that was necessary to save men, or to make it certain that they would be secure, unless it were held that the devils would be justified and saved by it. If they might hold such faith, and still remain in perdition, men might hold it, and go to perdition. A man should not infer, therefore, because he has faith, even that faith in God which will fill him with alarm, that therefore he is safe. He must have a faith which will produce another effect altogether - that which will lead to a holy life.

Barnes: Jam 2:20

But wilt thou know - Will you have a full demonstration of it; will you have the clearest proof in the case. The apostle evidently felt that the instances to which he was about to refer, those of Abraham and Rahab, were decisive.

O vain man - The reference by this language is to a man who held an opinion that could not be defended. The word "vain"here used ( κενε kene ) means properly "empty,"as opposed to "full"- as empty hands, having nothing in them; then fruitless, or without utility or success; then false, fallacious. The meaning here, properly, would be "empty,"in the sense of being void of understanding; and this would be a mild and gentle way of saying of one that he was foolish, or that he maintained an argument that was without sense. James means, doubtless, to represent it as a perfectly plain matter, a matter about which no man of sense could have any reasonable doubt. If we must call a man foolish, as is sometimes necessary, let us use as mild and inoffensive a term as possible - a term which, while it will convey our meaning, will not unnecessarily wound and irritate.

That faith without works is dead - That the faith which does not produce good works is useless in the matter of salvation. He does not mean to say that it would produce no effect, for in the case of the demons it did produce trembling and alarm; but that it would be valueless in the matter of salvation. The faith of Abraham and of Rahab was entirely different from this.

Barnes: Jam 2:21

Was not Abraham our father - Our progenitor, our ancestor; using the word "father,"as frequently occurs in the Bible, to denote a remote ancestor. Compare the notes at Mat 1:1. A reference to his case would have great weight with those who were Jews by birth, and probably most of those to whom this Epistle was addressed were of this character. See the Introduction.

Justified by works - That is, in the sense in which James is maintaining that a man professing religion is to be justified by his works. He does not affirm that the ground of acceptance with God is that we keep the law, or are perfect; or that our good works make an atonement for our sins, and that it is on their account that we are pardoned; nor does he deny that it is necessary that a man should believe in order to be saved. In this sense he does not deny that men are justified by faith; and thus he does not contradict the doctrine of the apostle Paul. But he does teach that where there are no good works, or where there is not a holy life, there is no true religion; that that faith which is not productive of good works is of no value; that if a man has that faith only, it would be impossible that he could be regarded as justified, or could be saved and that consequently, in that large sense, a man is justified by his works that is, they are the evidence that he is a justified man, or is regarded and treated as righteous by his Maker. The point on which the apostle has his eye is the nature of saving faith; and his design is to show that a mere faith which would produce no more effect than that of the demons did, could not save.

In this he states no doctrine which contradicts that of Paul. The evidence to which he appeals in regard to faith, is good works and a holy life; and where that exists it shows that the faith is genuine. The case of Abraham is one directly in point. He showed that he had that kind of faith which was not dead. He gave the most affecting evidence that his faith was of such a kind as to lead him to implicit obedience, and to painful sacrifices. Such an act as that referred to - the act of offering up his son - demonstrated, if anything could, that his faith was genuine, and that his religion was deep and pure. In the sight of heaven and earth it would justify him as a righteous man, or would prove that he was a righteous man. In regard to the strength of his faith, and the nature of his obedience in this sacrifice, see the notes at Heb 11:19. That the apostle here cannot refer to the act of justification as the term is commonly understood, referring by that to the moment when he was accepted of God as a righteous man, is clear from the fact that in a passage of the Scriptures which he himself quotes, that is declared to be consequent on his believing: "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

The act here referred to occurred long subsequent to that, and was thus a fulfillment or confirmation of the declaration of Scripture, which says that "he believed God."It showed that his faith was not merely speculative, but was an active principle, leading to holy living. See the notes at Jam 2:23. This demonstrates that what the apostle refers to here is the evidence by which it is shown that a man’ s faith is genuine, and that he does not refer to the question whether the act of justification, where a sinner is converted, is solely in consequence of believing. Thus the case proves what James purposes to prove, that the faith which justifies is only that which leads to good works.

When he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar - This was long after he believed, and was an act which, if any could, would show that his faith was genuine and sincere. On the meaning of this passage, see the notes at Heb 11:17.

Barnes: Jam 2:22

Seest thou - Margin, "Thou seest."Either rendering is correct, and the sense is the same. The apostle means to say that this was so plain that they could not but see it.

How faith wrought with his works - συνήργει sunērgei . Cooperated with. The meaning of the word is, "to work together with anyone; to co operate,"1Co 16:16; 2Co 6:1; then to aid, or help, Mar 16:20; to contribute to the production of any result, where two or more persons or agents are united. Compare Rom 8:28. The idea here is, that the result in the case of Abraham, that is, his salvation, or his religion, was secured, not by one of these things alone, but that both contributed to it. The result which was reached, to wit, his acceptance with God, could not have been obtained by either one of them separately, but both, in some sense, entered into it. The apostle does not say that, in regard to the merit which justifies, they came in for an equal share, for he makes no affirmation on that point; he does not deny that in the sight of God, who foresees and knows all things, he was regarded as a justified man the moment he believed, but he looks at the result as it was, at Abraham as he appeared under the trial of his faith, and says that in that result there was to be seen the co-operation of faith and good works. Both contributed to the end, as they do now in all cases where there is true religion.

(By the somewhat unhappy term "merit,"the author clearly means nothing more than "principle,"as is obvious from his acute and evangelical comment on the verse; as well as from the admirable reconciliation of Paul and James below.)

And by works was faith made perfect - Made complete, finished, or entire. It was so carried out as to show its legitimate and fair results. This does not mean that the faith in itself was defective before this, and that the defect was remedied by good works; or that there is any deficiency in what the right kind of faith can do in the matter of justification, which is to be helped out by good works; but that there was that kind of completion which a thing has when it is fully developed, or is fairly carried out.

Barnes: Jam 2:23

And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith - That is, the fair and full meaning of the language of Scripture was expressed by this act, showing in the highest sense that his faith was genuine; or the declaration that he truly believed, was confirmed or established by this act. His faith was shown to be genuine; and the fair meaning of the declaration that he believed God was carried out in the subsequent act. The passage here referred to occurs in Gen 15:6. That which it is said Abraham believed, or in which he believed God, was this: "This shall not be thine heir (namely, Eliezer of Damascus), but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels, shall be thine heir."And again, "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them. And he said unto him, So shall thy seed be,"Jam 2:3-5. The act of confiding in these promises, was that act of which it is said that "he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

The act of offering his son on the altar by which James says this Scripture was fulfilled, occurred some 20 years afterward. That act confirmed or fulfilled the declaration. It showed that his faith was genuine, and that the declaration that he believed in God was true; for what could do more to confirm that, than a readiness to offer his own son at the command of God? It cannot be supposed that James meant to say that Abraham was justified by works without respect to faith, or to deny that the primary round of his justification in the sight of God was faith, for the very passage which he quotes shows that faith was the primary consideration: "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed,"etc. The meaning, therefore, can only be, that this declaration received its fair and full expression when Abraham, by an act of obedience of the most striking character, long after he first exercised that faith by which he was accepted of God, showed that his faith was genuine. It he had not thus obeyed, his faith would have been inoperative and of no value. As it was, his act showed that the declaration of the Scripture that, he "believed"was well founded.

Abraham believed God, and it was imputed ... - See this passage fully explained in the notes at Rom 4:3.

And he was called the friend of God - In virtue of his strong faith and obedience. See 2Ch 20:7; "Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend forever?"Isa 41:8. "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend."This was a most honorable appellation; but it is one which, in all cases, will result from true faith and obedience.

Barnes: Jam 2:24

Ye see then - From the course of reasoning pursued, and the example referred to.

How that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only - Not by a cold, abstract, inoperative faith. It must be by a faith that shall produce good works, and whose existence will be shown to men by good works. As justification takes place in the sight of God, it is by faith, for he sees that the faith is genuine, and that it will produce good works if the individual who exercises faith shall live; and he justifies men in view of that faith, and of no other. If he sees that the faith is merely speculative; that it is cold and dead, and would not produce good works, the man is not justified in his sight. As a matter of fact, therefore, it is only the faith that produces good works that justifies; and good works, therefore, as the proper expression of the nature of faith, foreseen by God as the certain result of faith, and actually performed as seen by men, are necessary in order to justification. In other words, no man will be justified who has not a faith which will produce good works, and which is of an operative and practical character. The ground of justification in the case is faith, and that only; the evidence of it, the carrying it out, the proof of the existence of the faith, is good works; and thus men are justified and saved not by mere abstract and cold faith, but by a faith necessarily connected with good works, and where good works perform an important part. James, therefore, does not contradict Paul, but he contradicts a false explanation of Paul’ s doctrine. He does not deny that a man is justified in the sight of God by faith, for the very passage which he quotes shows that he believes that; but he does deny that a man is justified by a faith which would not produce good works, and which is not expressed by good works; and thus he maintains, as Paul always did, that nothing else than a holy life can show that a man is a true Christian, and is accepted of God.

Barnes: Jam 2:25

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works? - In the same sense in which Abraham was, as explained above - showing by her act that her faith was genuine, and that it was not a mere cold and speculative assent to the truths of religion. Her act showed that she truly believed God. If that act had not been performed, the fact would have shown that her faith was not genuine, and she could not have been justified. God saw her faith as it was; he saw that it would produce acts of obedience, and he accepted her as righteous. The act which she performed was the public manifestation of her faith, the evidence that she was justified. See the case of Rahab fully explained in the notes at Heb 11:31. It may be observed here, that we are not to suppose that everything in the life and character of this woman is commended. She is commended for her faith, and for the fair expression of it; a faith which, as it induced her to receive the messengers of the true God, and to send them forth in peace, and as it led her to identify herself with the people of God, was also influential, we have every reason to suppose, in inducing her to abandon her former course of life. When we commend the faith of a man who has been a profane swearer, or an adulterer, or a robber, or a drunkard, we do not commend his former life, or give a sanction to it. We commend that which has induced him to abandon his evil course, and to turn to the ways of righteousness. The more evil his former course has been, the more wonderful, and the more worthy of commendation, is that faith by which he is reformed and saved.

Barnes: Jam 2:26

For as the body without the spirit is dead - Margin, "breath."The Greek word πνεύμα pneuma is commonly used to denote spirit or soul, as referring to the intelligent nature. The meaning here is the obvious one, that the body is animated or kept alive by the presence of the soul, and that when that is withdrawn, hope departs. The body has no life independent of the presence of the soul.

So faith without works is dead also - There is as much necessity that faith and works should be united to constitute true religion, as there is that the body and soul should be united to constitute a living man. If good works do not follow, it is clear that there is no true and proper faith; none that justifies and saves. If faith produces no fruit of good living, that fact proves that it is dead, that it has no power, and that it is of no value. This shows that James was not arguing against real and genuine faith, nor against its importance in justification, but against the supposition that mere faith was all that was necessary to save a man, whether it was accompanied by good works or not. He maintains that if there is genuine faith it will always be accompanied by good works, and that it is only that faith which can justify and save. If it leads to no practical holiness of life, it is like the body without the soul, and is of no value whatever. James and Paul both agree in the necessity of true faith in order to salvation; they both agree that the tendency of true faith is to produce a holy life; they both agree that where there is not a holy life there is no true religion, and that a man cannot be saved. We may learn, then, from the whole doctrine of the New Testament on the subject, that unless we believe in the Lord Jesus we cannot be justified before God; and that unless our faith is of that kind which will produce holy living, it has no more of the characteristics of true religion than a dead body has of a living man.

Reconciliation of Paul and James.

At the close of the exposition of this chapter, it may be proper to make a few additional remarks on the question in what way the statements of James can be reconciled with those of Paul, on the subject of justification. A difficulty has always been felt to exist on the subject; and there are, perhaps, no readers of the New Testament who are not perplexed with it. Infidels, and particularly Voltaire, have seized the occasion which they supposed they found here to sneer against the Scriptures, and to pronounce them to be contradictory. Luther felt the difficulty to be so great that, in the early part of his career, he regarded it as insuperable, and denied the inspiration of James, though be afterwards changed his opinion, and believed that his Epistle was a part of the inspired canon; and one of Luther’ s followers was so displeased with the statements of James, as to charge him with willful falsehood. - Dr. Dwight’ s Theology, Serm. lxviii. The question is, whether their statements can be so reconciled, or can be shown to be so consistent with each other, that it is proper to regard them both as inspired men? Or, are their statements so opposite and contradictory, that it cannot be believed that both were under the influences of an infallible Spirit? In order to answer these questions, there are two points to be considered:

I.    What the real difficulty is; and,

II.    How the statements of the two writers can be reconciled, or whether there is any way of explanation which will remove the difficulty.

I. What the difficulty is. This relates to two points - that James seems to contradict Paul in express terms, and that both writers make use of the same case to illustrate their opposite sentiments.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hat James seems to contradict Paul in express terms. The doctrine of Paul on the subject of justification is stated in such language as the following: "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight,"Rom 3:20. "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,"Rom 3:28. "Being justified by faith,"Rom 5:1. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,"Gal 2:16. Compare Rom 3:24-26; Gal 3:11; Tit 3:5-6. On the other hand, the statement of James seems to be equally explicit that a man is not justified by faith only, but that good works come in for an important share in the matter. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works?"Jam 2:21. "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works?"Jam 2:22. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,"Jam 2:24.

\caps1 (2) b\caps0 oth writers refer to the same case to illustrate their views - the case of Abraham. Thus Paul Rom 4:1-3 refers to it to prove that justification is wholly by faith. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."And thus James Jam 2:21-22 refers to it to prove that justification is by works: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

The difficulty of reconciling these statements would be more clearly seen if they occurred in the writings of the same author; by supposing, for example, that the statements of James were appended to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and were to be read in connection with that chapter. Who, the infidel would ask, would not be struck with the contradiction? Who would undertake to harmonize statements so contradictory? Yet the statements are equally contradictory, though they occur in different writers, and especially when it is claimed for both that they wrote under the influence of inspiration.

II. The inquiry then is, how these apparently contradictory statements may be reconciled, or whether there is any way of explanation that will remove the difficulty. This inquiry resolves itself into two - whether there is any theory that can be proposed that would relieve the difficulty, and whether that theory can be shown to be well founded.

\caps1 (1) i\caps0 s there any theory which would remove the diffficulty - any explanation which can be given on this point which, if true, would show that the two statements may be in accordance with each other and with truth?

Before suggesting such an explanation, it may be further observed, that, as all history has shown, the statements of Paul on the subject of justification are liable to great abuse. All the forms of Antinomianism have grown out of such abuse, and are only perverted statements of his doctrine. It has been said, that if Christ has freed us from the necessity of obeying the law in order to justification; if he has fulfilled it in our stead, and borne its penalty, then the law is no longer binding on those who are justified, and they are at liberty to live as they please. It has been further said, that if we are saved by faith alone, a man is safe the moment he believes, and good works are therefore not necessary. It is possible that such views as these began to prevail as early as the time of James, and, if so, it was proper that there should be an authoritative apostolic statement to correct them, and to check these growing abuses. If, therefore, James had, as it has been supposed he had, any reference to the sentiments of Paul, it was not to correct his sentiments, or to controvert them but it was to correct the abuses which began already to flow from his doctrines, and to show that the alleged inferences did not properly follow from the opinions which he held; or, in other words, to show that the Christian religion required men to lead holy lives, and that the faith by which it was acknowledged that the sinner must be justified, was a faith which was productive of good works.

Now, all that is necessary to reconcile the statements of Paul and James, is to suppose that they contemplate the subject of justification from different points of view, and with reference to different inquiries. Paul looks at it before a man is converted, with reference to the question how a sinner may be justified before God; James after a man is converted, with reference to the question how he may show that he has the genuine faith which justifies. Paul affirms that the sinner is justified before God only by faith in the Lord Jesus, and not by his own works; James affirms that it is not a mere speculative or dead faith which justifies, but only a faith that is productive of good works, and that its genuineness is seen only by good works. Paul affirms that whatever else a man has, if he have not faith in the Lord Jesus, he cannot be justified; James affirms that no matter what pretended faith a man has, if it is not a faith which is adapted to produce good works, it is of no value in the matter of justification. Supposing this to be the true explanation, and that these are the "stand-points"from which they view the subject, the reconciliation of these two writers is easy: for it was and is still true, that if the question is asked how a sinner is to be justified before God, the answer is to be that of Paul, that it is by faith alone, "without the works of the law;"if the question be asked, how it can be shown what is the kind of faith that justifies, the answer is that of James, that it is only that which is productive of holy living and practical obedience.

(2) Is this a true theory? Can it be shown to be in accordance with the statements of the two writers? Would it be a proper explanation if the same statements had been made by the same writer? That it is a correct theory, or that it is an explanation founded in truth, will be apparent if:

(a)\caps1     t\caps0 he language used by the two writers will warrant it;

(b)\caps1     i\caps0 f it accords with a fair interpretation of the declarations of both writers; and,

©\caps1     i\caps0 f, in fact, each of the two writers held respectively the same doctrine on the subject.

(a) Will the language bear this explanation? That is, will the word justify, as used by the two writers, admit of this explanation? That it will, there need be no reasonable doubt; for both are speaking of the way in which man, who is a sinner, may be regarded and treated by God as if he were righteous - the true notion of justification. It is not of justification in the sight of men that they speak, but of justification in the sight of God. Both use the word "justify"in this sense - Paul as affirming that it is only by faith that it can be done; James as affirming, in addition not in contradiction, that it is by a faith that produces holiness, and no other.

(b) Does this view accord with the fair interpretation of the declarations of both writers?

In regard to Paul, there can be no doubt that this is the point from which he contemplates the subject, to wit, with reference to the question how a sinner may be justified. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans, where his principal statements on the subject occur, he shows, first, that the Gentiles cannot be justified by the works of the law, Rom. 1, and then that the same thing is true in regard to the Jews, Rom. 2\endash 3, by demonstrating that both had violated the law given them, and were transgressors, and then Rom 3:20 draws his conclusion, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight"- the whole argument showing conclusively that he is contemplating the subject before a man is justified, and with reference to the question how he may be.

In regard to James, there can be as little doubt that the point of view from which he contemplates the subject, is after a man professes to have been justified by faith, with reference to the question what kind of faith justifies, or how it may be shown that faith is genuine. This is clear,

(aa) because the whole question is introduced by him with almost express reference to that inquiry: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?"Jam 2:14. That is, can such faith - can this faith ( ἡ πίστις hē pistis ) save him? In other words, He must have a different kind of faith in order to save him. The point of James"denial is not that faith, if genuine, would save; but it is, that such a faith, or a faith without works, would save.

(bb) That this is the very point which he discusses, is further shown by his illustrations, Jam 2:15-16, Jam 2:19. He shows Jam 2:15-16 that mere faith in religion would be of no more value in regard to salvation, than if one were naked and destitute of food, it would meet his wants to say, "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;"and then Jam 2:19, that even the demons had a certain kind of faith in one of the cardinal doctrines of religion, but that it was a faith which was valueless - thus showing that his mind was on the question what is true and genuine faith.

(cc) Then he shows by the case to which he refers Jam 2:21-23 - the case of Abraham - that this was the question before his mind. He refers not to the act when Abraham first believed - the act by which as a sinner he was justified before God; but to an act that occurred twenty years after - the offering up of his son Isaac. See the notes at those verses. He affirms that the faith of Abraham was of such a kind that it led him to obey the will of God; that is, to good works. Though, as is implied in the objection referred to above, he does refer to the same case to which Paul referred - the case of Abraham - yet it is not to the same act in Abraham. Paul Rom 4:1-3 refers to him when he first believed, affirming that he was then justified by faith; James refers indeed to an act of the same man, but occurring twenty years after, showing that the faith by which he had been justified was genuine. Abraham was, in fact, according to Paul, justified when he believed, and, had he died then, he would have been saved; but according to James, the faith which justified him was not a dead faith, but was living and operative, as was shown by his readiness to offer his son on the altar.

© Did each of these two writers in reality hold the same doctrine on the subject? This will be seen, if it can be shown that James held to the doctrine of justification by faith, as really as Paul did; and that Paul held that good works were necessary to show the genuineness of faith, as really as James did.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hey both agreed in holding the doctrine of justification by faith. Of Paul’ s belief there can be no doubt. That James held the doctrine is apparent from the fact that he quotes the very passage in Genesis, Gen 15:6, and the one on which Paul relies, Rom 4:1-3, as expressing his own views - "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."The truth of this, James does not deny, but affirms that the Scripture which made this declaration was fulfilled or confirmed by the act to which he refers.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hey both agreed in holding that good works are necessary to show the genuineness of faith. Of James"views on that point there can be no doubt. That Paul held the same opinion is clear.

(a) from his own life, no man ever having been more solicitous to keep the whole law of God than he was.

(b) From his constant exhortations and declarations, such as these: "Created in Christ Jesus unto good works,"Eph 2:10; "Charge them that are rich, that they be rich in good works,"1Ti 6:17-18; "In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works,"Tit 2:7; "Who gave himself for us, that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,"Tit 2:14; "These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works,"Tit 3:8.

© It appears from the fact that Paul believed that the rewards of heaven are to be apportioned according to our good works, or according to our character and our attainments in the divine life. The title indeed to eternal life is, according to him, in consequence of faith; the measure of the reward is to be our holiness, or what we do. Thus he says, 2Co 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body."Thus also he says, 2Co 9:6, "He which soweth sparingly. shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully."And thus also he says, Rom 2:6, that God "will render to every man according to his deeds."See also the influence which faith had on Paul personally, as described in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Philippians. If these things are so, then these two writers have not contradicted each other, but, viewing the subject from different points, they have together stated important truths which might have been made by any one writer without contradiction; first, that it is only by faith that a sinner can be justified - and second, that the faith which justifies is that only which leads to a holy life, and that no other is of value in saving the soul. Thus, on the one hand, men would be guarded from depending on their own righteousness for eternal life; and, on the other, from all the evils of Antinomianism. The great object of religion would be secured - the sinner would be justified, and would become personally holy.

Poole: Jam 2:19

Thou believest that there is one God thou givest thy assent to this truth, that there is one God. This may likewise imply other articles of the creed, to which the like assent may be given.

Thou doest well either this kind of faith hath its goodness, though it be not saving; or ironically, q.d. A great matter thou dost, when thou goest almost as high as the devils.

The devils also believe yield the like assent to the same truth.

And tremble: the word signifies extreme fear and horror, viz. such as the thoughts of their Judge strike into them. This shows the faith the apostle speaks of in this place, not to be the faith of God’ s elect, which begets in believers a holy confidence in God, and frees them from slavish fears; whereas the faith here spoken of, if it have any effect upon men, it is but to fill them with horror.

Poole: Jam 2:20

But wilt thou know? Either this question is in order to teaching, as Joh 13:12 Rom 13:3 ; and then the sense is: If thou hast a mind to know, I shall instruct thee: or, it is a teaching by way of question, as more emphatical and pressing; and then it is as if he had said, Know, O vain man.

O vain man an allusion to an empty vessel, which sounds more than one that is full. The carnal professor to whom he speaks is vain, because empty of true faith and good works, though full of noise and boasting.

Objection. Doth not the apostle sin against Christ’ s command, Mat 5:22 ?

Answer.

1. He speaks not of any particular man, but to all in general, of such a sort, viz. who boasted of their faith, and yet did not evidence it by their works.

2. It is not spoken in rash anger, or by way of contempt, but by way of correction and just reproof; see the like spoken by Christ himself, Mat 23:17,19 Lu 24:25 and by Paul, Gal 3:1 1Co 15:36 .

That faith without works is dead a defective speech, faith without works, for that that which is without works, or, faith, if it be without works. He doth not say, faith is dead without works, lest it should be thought that works were the cause of the life of faith; but faith without works is dead, as Jam 2:17,26 ; implying, that works are the effects and signs of the life of faith.

Poole: Jam 2:21

Was not Abraham our father not only the father of us as Jews, (for to them he wrote), and according to the flesh, but as believers, and according to the promise; so all believers are called Abraham’ s children, Rom 4:11 Gal 3:7 .

Justified by works found or declared to be justified, not only before God, but in the face of the world; and his faith (by which he had been justified above thirty years before in the sight of God) now approved as a true, lively, justifying faith, by this proof he gave of it, upon God’ s trying him in the offering up his son, Gen 22:9,12 ,

Now I know that thou fearest God & c. Abraham did fear God, and believe him before, and was justified before in the sight of God; but by the working of his faith in so eminent an act of obedience, the sincerity of all his graces, and so of his faith, was manifested and made known, and so his faith itself justified, as his person was before, and he obtained this ample testimony from the mouth of God himself. So that Abraham’ s justification here was not the absolution of a sinner; but the solemn approbation of a believer; not a justifying him as ungodly, but commending him for his godliness. He was by his works justified as a righteous person, but not made righteous, or constituted in a justified state, by his works. The design of the apostle is not to show how sinners are justified in God’ s court, but only what kind of faith it is whereby they are justified, viz. such a one as purifies the heart, Act 15:9 , and looks to Christ, not only as made righteousness, but sanctification to them, 1Co 1:30 ; and consequently not only rests on him for justification, but stirs them up to yield obedience to him.

When he had offered Isaac his son viz. in his firm purpose and resolution, and was about to do it actually, had not God hindered him. It was no fault in Abraham that it was not actually done, and therefore it was counted to him as if it had been really done, Gen 22:12 Heb 11:17 .

Upon the altar this shows the settled purpose of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, when he proceeded so far as to bind him, and lay him upon the altar; for that argues, that he expected and intended nothing but his death, which generally was wont to follow in sacrifices when once laid upon the altar.

Poole: Jam 2:22

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works? He doth not say, works wrought with his faith, as he should have said, if he had intended their concurrence in justification; but

faith wrought with his works i.e. his faith was not idle, but effectual in producing good works, it being the office and business of faith to respect Christ for sanctification, as well as righteousness, Act 26:18 .

And by works was faith made perfect either:

1. Faith by producing good works is itself encouraged, heightened, improved; and so not made perfect by any communication of the perfection of works to it, but by being stirred up and exercised as to the internal strength and power of it. Or rather:

2. Faith is made perfect by works declaratively, inasmuch as works evidence and manifest the perfection and strength of faith.

Faith is the cause, and works are the effects; but the cause is not perfected by the effect, only its perfection is demonstrated by it, as good fruit doth not make a tree good, but show that it is so. See 2Co 12:9 .

Poole: Jam 2:23

And the Scripture was fulfilled this illustrious instance of Abraham’ s obedience did so clearly evidence the sincerity of his faith, that it did most plainly appear, that what the Scripture said of him, it spoke most truly, viz. that he did indeed believe God,

and it was counted to him for righteousness Things are said to be fulfilled when they are most clearly manifested. As those words, Psa 2:7 : This day have I begotten thee, are said to be fulfilled at Christ’ s resurrection, Act 13:32,33 ; not that he was then first begotten of the Father, but that he was then in a glorious manner declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, Rom 1:4 . So here Abraham’ s offering up his son being the evident discovery of his faith, it did by that appear, that the Scripture report of him was true, that he

believed God & c.: he did believe before, and his faith was imputed to him before, but it was never so fully made known, as by this so high an act of obedience.

It was imputed unto him for righteousness viz. as apprehending Christ in the promise. Faith is said to be imputed for righteousness, Rom 4:3-6 , as being the instrument or means of applying Christ’ s righteousness, by which elsewhere we are said to be justified, Rom 3:24,25 5:19 2Co 5:21 Phi 3:9 .

And he was called the Friend of God either he was the friend of God; to be called, sometimes times implies as much as to be, Isa 48:8 ; or properly, he was called, 2Ch 20:7 Isa 41:8 ; and that not only on the account of God’ s frequent appearances to him, conversing with him, revealing secrets to him, Gen 18:17,18 Joh 15:15 , and entering into covenant with him; but especially his renewing the covenant with him upon the sacrificing of his son, and confirming it by oath, and thereby, as it were, admitting him into a nearer degree of friendship, Gen 22:16 , &c.

Poole: Jam 2:24

Ye see then an inference either from the instance of Abraham, or from the whole preceding discourse.

How that by works works of new obedience.

A man is justified declared to be righteous, or approved as such, and acquitted from the guilt of hypocrisy.

And not by faith only not by a mere profession of faith, or a bare assent to the truth, without the fruit of good works.

Question. How doth this general conclusion follow from the particular case of Abraham?

Answer. Abraham’ s faith and justification, both before God and the world, are set forth as the exempars of ours, to which the faith and justification of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, is to be conformed, Rom 4:11,12,23,24 .

Question. Doth not James here contradict Paul’ s doctrine in the matter of justification, Rom 4:1-25 ?

Answer. The contradiction is but seeming, not real, as will appear, if four things be considered:

1. The occasion of these apostles’ writing, and their scope in it. Having to do with different sorts of persons, they had likewise different designs. As Christ speaks one way when he dealt with proud Pharisees, whom he would humble; another way, when with humble hearers, whom he would encourage. and Paul carried it one way when among weak brethren, in condescension to whose infirmities he circumcised Timothy, Act 16:2,3 ; and another, when he was among false brethren, and men of contention, who opposed Christian liberty, seeking to bring believers into bondage, and then would not suffer Titus to be circumcised, Gal 2:3-5 . So in the present affair. Paul’ s business lay with false apostles and Judaizing Christians, such as did, in the matter of justification, either substitute a self-righteousness instead of God’ s grace, or set it up in conjunction with it; and therefore his scope is (especially in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians) to show the true cause and manner of justification, and vindicate the freeness of grace in it, by the exclusion of man’ s works, of what kind soever; to which purpose he propounds the examples of Abraham and David, in their justification, Rom 4:1-1-25 . Whereas James having to do with carnal professors, and such as abused the doctrine of grace to encourage themselves in sin, and thought it sufficient that they had faith, (such as it was), though they did not live like believers, resting in an empty profession, with the neglect of holiness; his design plainly is, to show the effects and fruits of justification, viz. holiness and good works; thereby to check the vanity and folly of them who did thus divorce faith from a holy life, (which God hath joined to it), and fancied themselves safe in the profession of the one, without any respect to, or care of, the other, as appears in this chapter, Jam 2:14,17,26 . And because they might bear themselves high in this false confidence by the example of Abraham, their father according to the flesh, and whom Paul had set forth, Rom 4:1-25 , as justified by faith, without the concurrence of works to his justification; James makes use of the same example of Abraham, as one eminent for holiness as well as faith, and who made his faith famous by the highest act of obedience that ever a saint did, to show, that faith and holiness ought not to be separated; Abraham’ s faith being so highly commended, especially as productive of it. To the same purpose he makes use of the instance of Rahab, who, though a young saint, and newly come to the knowledge of God, yet showed the truth of her faith by so considerable an exercise of her love and mercy to God’ s people, as her receiving the spies in peace was. This therefore helps not a little to reconcile the difference between these two apostles. Paul deals with those that magnified works too much, as if they were justified by them, and slighted faith and grace; and therefore, though he frequently shows the usefulness of faith and good works unto salvation, and presseth men every where to the practice of them, yet he proves that they have no interest in the justification of a sinner before God’ s tribunal, which he asserts to be wholly and solely of grace, and by faith. But James, in dealing with loose Christians, who magnified faith, and slighted good works, not only as having no influence on justification, but as not necessary at all to salvation; he takes upon him to maintain good works, not as necessary to justification, but as the effects, signs, and evidences of it, and such as without which their faith was vain, and themselves in an unjustified state.

2. Paul and James take faith in different senses: Paul speaks of a true, lively faith, which purifies the heart, and worketh by love, Gal 5:6 . Whereas James speaks of a profession, or presumption of faith, barren, and destitute of good fruits, such a faith as is dead, Jam 2:17 , such as the devils may have, Jam 2:19 , which is but historical, and consists only in a belief of God’ s being, not a consent to his offer, or relying on his promises. What contradiction then is there here between these two apostles, if Paul assert justification to be by faith, viz. a lively, working faith; and James deny it to be by faith, viz. an idle, inactive, barren faith, and which hath only the name, but not the nature of that grace, and is rather the image of faith than faith itself?

3. But because James not only denies justification to the faith he speaks of, but ascribes it to works in this verse; therefore it is to be considered, that justification is taken one way by him, and another by Paul. Paul takes it for the absolution and acceptation of a sinner at God’ s bar, by the imputation of Christ’ s righteousness, which is the primary and proper notion of justification. But James takes it for the manifestation and declaration of that justification; and the word is taken in the like sense in other scriptures: Luk 7:29 , the people justified God, i.e. owned and declared his righteousness by confession of their sins, and submission to John’ s baptism; and Luk 7:35 , Wisdom is justified, i.e. declared to be just and right. Rom 3:4 , justified in thy sayings, i.e. acknowledged and declared to be true in thy word. And what is Christ’ s being justified in the Spirit, 1Ti 3:16 , but his being declared to be the Son of God? Rom 1:4 . And that James takes justification in this sense, appears:

(1.) By the history of Abraham here mentioned: he was (as hath been said) justified by faith long before his offering up his son, Gen 15:1-21 , but here is said to be justified, i.e. declared and proved to be so, by this testimony which he gave to the truth of his faith, and consequently to his justification by it; and the Lord therefore tells him, Gen 22:12 , Now I know that thou fearest God, & c.; q.d. By this obedience thou hast abundantly showed the sincerity of thy graces.

(2.) Because if James doth not here speak of Abraham’ s being justified declaratively, how can it be true which he speaks, Jam 2:23 , that the Scripture was fulfilled (in his sacrificing his son) which saith, He believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness? For if James intends justification in the proper sense, how was Abraham’ s being justified by works a fulfilling of the Scripture, which asserts him to be justified by faith? Here therefore again there is no contradiction between these apostles. For it is true, that Abraham was justified, i.e. accepted of God, and absolved from guilt, by faith only; and it is as true, that he was justified, i.e. manifested and declared to be a believer, and a justified person, by his works.

4. Lastly, we may distinguish of the person that is said to be justified; either he is a sinner, in the state of nature; or a believer, in a state of grace; whence ariseth the two-fold justification here mentioned. The justification of a sinner, in the remission of his sins through the imputation of Christ’ s righteousness, and acquitting him from the condemnation of the law, is the justification properly so called, and which Paul speaks so much of; and this is by faith only. The justification of a believer, is his absolution from condemnation by the gospel, and the charge of infidelity, or hypocrisy, and is no other than that declarative justification James speaks of, or an asserting and clearing up the truth and reality of the former justification, which is done by good works, as the signs and fruits of the faith, by which that former is obtained: and this is but improperly called justification. The former is an absolution from the general charge of sin, this from the special charge of hypocrisy, or infidelity. A sinner’ s great fear (when first awakened to a sense of his sin and misery) is of a holy law, and a righteous Judge ready to condemn him for the violation of that law; and so his first business is to look to Christ by faith for righteousness, and remission of sin. But when he is justified by that righteousness, men may charge him with hypocrisy or unbelief, and so may the devil and conscience too, when faith is weak, or a temptation strong; and therefore his next work is to clear himself of this imputation, and to evidence the truth and reality of his faith and justification in God’ s sight, which must be done by producing his obedience and good works, as the indications of his faith; and hereby he proves that he hath indeed closed with the promise of the gospel, and so is clear of the charge of not believing it, which was false; as well as (by consequence) is justified from the charge of sin against the law, which was true. To conclude, therefore, here is no opposition between Paul and James. Paul speaks of Abraham’ s being justified as a sinner, and properly, and so by faith only; James speaks of his being justified as a believer, improperly, and so by works; by which not his person was justified, but rather his faith declared to be justifying: nor he constituted righteous, but approved as righteous. In a word, what God hath joined must not be divided, and what he hath divided must not be joined. He hath separated faith and works in the business of justification, and therefore we must not join them in it, as Paul disputes; and he hath joined them in the lives of justified persons, and there we must not separate them, as James teaches. Paul assures us they have not a co-efficiency in justification itself; and James assures us they may, and ought to have, a co-existence in them that are justified. If the reader desire further satisfaction yet, let him consult Turretine de Concordia Pauli et Jacobi, where he may find much more to the same purpose as hath been here said.

Poole: Jam 2:25

This instance of Rahab is joined to that of Abraham, either to show, that none of any condition, degree, or nation, was ever numbered among true believers, without good works; or else to prove, that faith, wherever it is sincere and genuine, is likewise operative and fruitful, not only in older disciples and stronger, such as Abraham was, but even proportionably in those that are weaker, and but newly converted to the faith, which was Rahab’ s case.

The harlot really and properly so, Jos 2:1 Heb 11:31 ; though possibly she might keep an inn, and that might occasion the spies’ going to her house, not knowing her to be one of so scandalous a life; which yet the Holy Ghost takes special notice of, that by the infamousness of her former conversation, the grace of God in her conversion might be more conspicuous.

Justified by works in the same sense as Abraham was, i.e. declared to be righteous, and her sincerity approved in the face of the congregation of Israel, when, upon her hiding the spies, God gave a commandment to save her alive, though the rest of her people were to be destroyed.

When she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way: her receiving them implies likewise her hiding them; both which, together with her sending them forth another way, were acts of love to the people of God, of mercy to the spies, and of great self-denial in respect of her own safety, which she hazarded by thus exposing herself to the fury of the king of Jericho and her countrymen; but all proceeded from her faith in the God of Israel, of whose great works she had heard, and whom she had now taken to be her God, and under whose wings she was now come to trust.

Poole: Jam 2:26

The spirit: this may be understood either, according to the marginal reading, of the breath; and then the sense is, that life and breath being inseparable companions, as the the of breath argues want of life in the body, so, lively faith and works being as inseparable, want of works argues want of life in faith: or, according to the reading in the text, spirit, taking it for that substance which animates the body, and is the cause of vital functions in it, which is sometimes called spirit, Psa 31:5 Ecc 12:7 1Co 2:11 ; and then the sense is, that as a body is without a soul, so faith is without works, i.e. both are dead. As a body without the soul hath the shape and lineaments of a man, but nothing that may discover life in it; so faith without works may be like true faith, have some resemblance of it, but hath nothing to discover the truth and life of it.

So faith not true faith, for that cannot be dead, but an empty profession of faith, which is rather called faith by way of concession, or because of some likeness it hath to it, than really is so; as a dead body, though called a body, is really but a carcass.

PBC: Jam 2:20

See PB: 1Jo 5:4

PBC: Jam 2:21

This event is recorded in Ge 22:1-24, when Isaac was a young man, possibly twenty years old, making Abraham around 120 years old. Jas 2:22 clearly indicates that faith and works are companions in acceptable service to God. Faith sets the tone and direction for the proper, God-pleasing works.

Now James takes us to a point which I have never read in a commentary, but it is so simple and beautiful we dare not miss it. It is, in fact, the key point to harmonize the works/faith issue altogether. " And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the Friend of God." This quotation comes from Ge 15:6, when Abraham was somewhere between 70 and 85, 35 to 50 years before his offering of Isaac and his justification by works in Ge 22:1-24. The simple statement is that Abraham’s belief in God was counted by God as a righteous act, just as if he had performed some godly work.

If the subject of this lesson is eternal justification by faith or by works, we have a big problem! If eternal justification is by works, Abraham was unsaved until his offering of Isaac on the mount at age 120. If eternal justification is by faith, he was saved in Ge 15:1-21 when he believed the promise and it was counted to him for righteousness. The controversy becomes more difficult by the time gap of 35 to 50 years between the two deeds. What if Abraham had died between these two events? Would he have been saved or lost? If we conclude that he would have been lost, we are confronted with the life of a man who left his native land by faith, {See Heb 11:8} walking and working by faith for the remainder of his life in obedience to God. Indeed, this one man in the Old Testament was singled out to be called the Friend of God, yet he would have died and gone to hell? What confusion! On the other hand, if we conclude that he was saved when he was justified by faith in Ge 15:1-21, we are no more consistent, for we have not considered the clear Bible evidence that he walked by faith from the time he left Ur at age 70.  Does this mean that salvation requires 10 to 15 years of living by faith, instead of a single act of faith? Neither position is consistent with the Bible example of Abraham’s faith and works.

Abraham was saved by the grace of God in Ur, the Lord appeared to him and began directing the course of his life to build a great nation from his supernatural offspring, a godly course which included both faith and works from the time he left Ur.

This champion of faith holds out much encouragement to our discipleship today. Neither Abraham’s faith nor his works secured his eternal justification, but both his faith and his works secured the title, " Friend of God." This sounds incredibly similar to " Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you," Joh 15:14, a statement directed to seasoned disciples who were saved and had followed Jesus for most of his public ministry of over three years.

431

PBC: Jam 2:25

She’s the only person in her whole culture who hears the noise of the approaching Hebrews and she believes while her entire village freezes in panic. Who are the witnesses that brought conviction of truth to her? She didn’t have the Levites, she didn’t have the prophets and the seers, she didn’t have the judges to tell her all about God and all about His dealings with His people. She heard the same report her friends heard. She believed- they froze in fear. What’s the difference? Where’s the great cloud {Heb 12:1} with them? It’s the same cloud that you have.

So, first of all we have these people {Heb 12:1} and every one of them stands up and says " I was an ordinary human being. I struggled with how to pay the bills at the end of the month. I struggled with how to represent God accurately in my life and how to do what was right and honorable to Him- sometimes I failed and sometimes by the grace of God I succeeded. But God who is greater than I and greater than the problems I faced in my life grew me through those trials into a person stronger in faith at the end than I was at the beginning. Join the race, you can do it too because it’s not your power, but His."

41

Haydock: Jam 2:19

The devils also believe, and tremble. St. James compares indeed faith without other virtues and good works, to the faith of devils: but comparisons must never be stretched farther than they are intended. The meaning is, that such a faith in sinners is unprofitable to salvation, like that of devils, which is no more than a conviction from their knowledge of God; but faith which remains in sinners, is from a supernatural knowledge, together with a pious motion in their free will. (Witham)

Haydock: Jam 2:21

Was not Abraham....justified by works? We may observe, that St. James here brings the very same examples of Abraham and Rahab, which it is likely he knew some had miscontrued in St. Paul, as if the great apostle of the Gentiles had taught that faith alone was sufficient to salvation. But St. Paul neither excludes good works done by faith, when he commends faith, excluding only the works of the law of Moses, as insufficient to a true justification. See Romans iii. 27. And St. James by requiring good works does not exclude faith, but only teacheth that faith alone is not enough. This is what he clearly expresseth here in the 22nd and in the 24th verse. Man, says he, is justified, and not by faith only. And (ver. 22.) seest thou that faith did co-operate with Abraham's works, and by works faith was made perfect. In fine, we must take notice, that when St. James here brings example of Abraham offering his son Isaac, to shew that he was justified by works, his meaning is not that Abraham then began first to be justified, but that he then received an increase of his justice. He was justified at least from his first being called, and began then to believe and to do good works. It is true his faith was made perfect, and his justice increased, when he was willing to sacrifice his son. (Witham)

Gill: Jam 2:19

Thou believest that there is one God,.... These words are a continuation of the address of the man that has works, to him that boasts of his faith without them, observing to him, that one, and a main article of his faith, is, that there is one God; which is to be understood in the Christian sense, since both the person speaking, and the person spoken to, were such as professed themselves Christians; so that to believe there is one God, is not merely to give into this article, in opposition to the polytheism of the Gentiles, or barely to confess the God of Israel, as believed on by the Jews, but to believe that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, and that these three are the one God; wherefore this article of faith includes everything relating to God; as to God the Father, his being and perfections, so to Christ, as God, and the Son of God, and the Messiah, &c. and to the Holy Spirit; and to believe all this is right:

thou doest well; for that there is but one God, is to be proved by the light of nature, and from the works of creation and providence, and has been owned by the wisest of the Heathens themselves; and is established, by divine revelation, in the books both of the Old and of the New Testament; what has been received by the Jews, and is well known by Christians, to whom it is set in the clearest light, and who are assured of the truth of it: but then

the devils also believe; the Arabic version reads, "the devils likewise so believe"; they believe the same truth; they know and believe there is but one God, and not many; and they know that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one God; they know and believe him to be the most high God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and they know and believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the Messiah, Act 16:17.

And tremble; at the wrath of God, which they now feel, and at the thought of future torments, which they expect, Mar 5:7 and which is more than some men do; and yet these shall not be saved, their damnation is certain and inevitable, 2Pe 2:4 wherefore it follows, that a bare historical faith will not profit, and cannot save any; a man may have all faith of this kind, and be damned; and therefore it is not to be boasted of, nor trusted to.

Gill: Jam 2:20

But wilt thou know, O vain man,.... These are the words of the apostle reassuming the argument, that faith without works is dead, useless, and unprofitable; and the man that boasts of his faith, and has no works to show it, he calls a "vain man", an empty one, sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal; empty vessels make the greatest sound; such are proud boasters, vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind; but are empty of the true knowledge of God, and of the faith of Christ, and of the grace of the Spirit: the Syriac version renders it, "O weak", or "feeble man", as he must needs be, whose faith is dead, and boasts of such a lifeless thing; and the Ethiopic version renders it, "O foolish man", for such an one betrays his ignorance in spiritual things, whatever conceit he has of his knowledge and understanding: the character seems levelled against the Gnostics, who were swelled with a vain opinion of their knowledge, to whom the apostle addresses himself thus. The phrase, "vain man", is a proper interpretation of the word ריקא, "Raca", or Reka, used in Mat 5:22; see Gill on Mat 5:22, which though not to be said to a man in an angry way, yet may be applied to men of such a character as here described; who were empty of solid good, and yet boasted of their knowledge. "Wilt thou know?" dost thou require proofs,

that faith, without works, is dead? as in Jam 2:17 and that true faith has always works accompanying it, and is shown and known by it? then take the following instances.

Gill: Jam 2:21

Was not Abraham our father justified by works,.... Not as the causes of his justification, that is denied, Rom 4:2 but as effects of it, showing the truth of his faith, and the reality of his justification: he had both faith and works, and the former were known by the latter; and even the faith which he had expressed years ago was manifested, demonstrated, and confirmed to be true and genuine, by the instance of his obedience to God, here produced; by which it appeared he was a true believer, a justified person, approved of God, and loved by him. Now if this was the case of Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, yea, the father of the faithful, of all that believe, he is, and must be a vain man, that talks of faith without works; and his faith must be a dead one, and he be very unlike the father of them that believe: the good work instanced in is the offering up of Isaac;

when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar: for when he was bid to take his son, his only and beloved son, Isaac, and offer him up on one of the mountains, that should be shown him, he made haste to do it; he provided everything for it; he split the wood, and carried it with him, and fire in his hand; he built an altar, laid the wood on it, bound his son, laid the wood on the altar, and his son on the wood, and stretched out his hand, with his knife in it, to slay him; so that it was all one, with respect to his intention and will, as if he had actually offered him, and was a full trial and proof of his obedience to God. This was not the only act of obedience, or good work, which he performed; but this being a very eminent one, the apostle instances in it, as a very considerable evidence of his faith in God, and love to him; and which showed him to be a justified person, as he was long before he performed this action, even before Isaac was born; see Gen 15:6 and therefore it can never be the apostle's meaning, that he was justified before God by this, or any other good work or works, as cause or causes of it; but only that he was declared to be so; or, in other words, that his faith was attended with good works, and evidenced by them.

Gill: Jam 2:22

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,.... Not to justify him before God; for neither faith nor works are ever said in Scripture to justify any man; but his faith being of the right kind, a faith which works by love, it put him upon doing this work, and many others; for this was done in faith, Heb 11:17 as all good works are, which are properly such; and where there is true faith, it will influence and engage a man to do good works, as it did Abraham.

And by works was faith made perfect? not with an absolute perfection; for though Abraham's faith was very great, yet there were things lacking in it, and he had his fits and times of unbelief; and had he lived till now, his faith, in this sense, would not have been perfect; and he would have had reason to have used the apostle's petition, Luk 17:5 much less would it have been made thus perfect by works; but the sense is, that hereby his faith was declared to be sincere, unfeigned, true, and genuine; just as love is said to be perfected, 1Jo 4:17.

Gill: Jam 2:23

And the Scripture was fulfilled,.... Gen 15:6 which speaks of Abraham's faith, and the imputation of to him for righteousness; for the above action of Abraham, in offering up his son, was a clear proof of the truth of his faith, there commended: by this it was made known what a strong faith he had in God, and what reason there was to believe that he was a justified person.

Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; See Gill on Rom 4:3 which shows both that Abraham was justified before he wrought this work, and therefore that could not be the cause or matter of his justification, but only an effect and evidence of it; and that his justification was by faith, or that object which his faith regarded, and had to do with, was his justifying righteousness:

and he was called the friend of God, 2Ch 20:7 he was loved by God with an everlasting love, who showed acts of friendship to him; called him by his grace, and blessed him with spiritual blessings, and increased him with the increase of God; favoured him with near communion with him, honoured him with high characters, and distinguished him by peculiar marks of his favour, and reckoned his enemies and friends as his own; Gen 12:8 and Abraham, on the other hand, loved God, and showed himself friendly to him; trusted in him, and believed every word of his; readily complied with his will, and not only yielded a cheerful obedience to his commands, but enjoined his children after him to observe them: this was a name which Abraham was well known by among the eastern nations; hence he is called by the Mahometans, חליל אללה, "Khalil Allah", the friend of God; and Mahomet says himself ^c,

"God took Abraham for his friend.''

Gill: Jam 2:24

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,.... Not as causes procuring his justification, but as effects declaring it; for the best works are imperfect, and cannot be a righteousness justifying in the sight of God, and are unprofitable in this respect; for when they are performed in the best manner, they are no other than what it is a man's duty to perform, and therefore cannot justify from sin he has committed: and besides, justification in this sense would frustrate the grace of God, make void the death of Christ, and encourage boasting in men. Good works do not go before justification as causes or conditions, but follow it as fruits and effects:

and not by faith only: or as without works, or a mere historical faith, which being without works is dead, of which the apostle is speaking; and therefore can bear no testimony to a man's justification; hence it appears, that the Apostle James does not contradict the Apostle Paul in Rom 3:28 since they speak not of the same sort of faith; the one speaks of a mere profession of faith, a dead and lifeless one; the other of a true faith, which has Christ, and his righteousness, for its object, and works by love, and produces peace, joy, and comfort in the soul. Moreover, the Apostle Paul speaks of justification before God; and James speaks of it as it is known by its fruits unto men; the one speaks of a justification of their persons, in the sight of God; the other of the justification and approbation of their cause, their conduct, and their faith before men, and the vindication of them from all charges and calumnies of hypocrisy, and the like; the one speaks of good works as causes, which he denies to have any place as such in justification; and the other speaks of them as effects flowing from faith, and showing the truth of it, and so of justification by it; the one had to do with legalists and self-justiciaries, who sought righteousness not by faith, but by the works of the law, whom he opposed; and the other had to do with libertines, who cried up faith and knowledge, but had no regard to a religious life and conversation; and these things considered will tend to reconcile the two apostles about this business, but as effects declaring it; for the best works are imperfect, and cannot be a righteousness justifying in the sight of God, and are unprofitable in this respect; for when they are performed in the best manner, they are no other than what it is a man's duty to perform, and therefore cannot justify from sin he has committed: and besides, justification in this sense would frustrate the grace of God, make void the death of Christ, and encourage boasting in men. Good works do not go before justification as causes or conditions, but follow it as fruits and effects:

and not by faith only: or as without works, or a mere historical faith, which being without works is dead, of which the apostle is speaking; and therefore can bear no testimony to a man's justification; hence it appears, that the Apostle James does not contradict the Apostle Paul in Rom 3:28 since they speak not of the same sort of faith; the one speaks of a mere profession of faith, a dead and lifeless one; the other of a true faith, which has Christ, and his righteousness, for its object, and works by love, and produces peace, joy, and comfort in the soul. Moreover, the Apostle Paul speaks of justification before God; and James speaks of it as it is known by its fruits unto men; the one speaks of a justification of their persons, in the sight of God; the other of the justification and approbation of their cause, their conduct, and their faith before men, and the vindication of them from all charges and calumnies of hypocrisy, and the like; the one speaks of good works as causes, which he denies to have any place as such in justification; and the other speaks of them as effects flowing from faith, and showing the truth of it, and so of justification by it; the one had to do with legalists and self-justiciaries, who sought righteousness not by faith, but by the works of the law, whom he opposed; and the other had to do with libertines, who cried up faith and knowledge, but had no regard to a religious life and conversation; and these things considered will tend to reconcile the two apostles about this business.

Gill: Jam 2:25

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot,.... See Gill on Heb 11:31 justified by works; this woman was an instance of the grace of God in calling the chief of sinners, and was a true believer; and what she did, she did in faith, Heb 11:31 and her faith was shown by her works to be true and genuine; and it was manifest that she was a justified person. This instance is produced with the other, to show, that wherever there is true faith, whether in Jew or Gentile, in man or woman, in greater or lesser believers, or in such who have been greater or lesser sinners, there will be good works; and therefore that person is a vain man that talks and boasts of his faith, and depends upon it, and slights and rejects good works as unnecessary to be done.

When she had received the messengers: the spies that Joshua sent, into her house, with peace and safety:

and had sent them out another way; than they came in, even through the window upon the town wall, Jos 2:1.

Gill: Jam 2:26

For as the body without the spirit is dead,.... This simile is made use of to illustrate what the apostle had asserted in Jam 2:17 that as a body, when the spirit or soul is departed from it, or the breath is gone out of it, is dead, and without motion, and useless; which the Jews ^d express in like manner, פגר גוף בלא רוח, "the body without the spirit", or "breath, is a carcass".

So faith without works is dead also: a vain thing, useless and unprofitable, can neither justify, nor save, nor prove that a man is justified, or will be saved.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Jam 2:19

¹ tn Grk “you do well.”

² tn Grk “believe and tremble.” The words “with fear” are implied.

NET Notes: Jam 2:20

¹ tn Grk “do you want to know.”

² tn Grk “O empty man.” Here the singular vocative ἄνθρωπε (anqrwpe, “man”) means “person” or even “fellow.” Cf. BDAG 82 s.v. ἄνθρωπος 8 which views this as an instance of rhetorical address in a letter; the pejorative sense is also discussed under the previous heading (7).

³ tc Most witnesses, including several important ones (א A C² P Ψ 33 Ï sy bo), have νεκρά (nekra, “dead”) here, while Ì⁷⁴ reads κενή (kenh, “empty”). Both variants are most likely secondary, derived from ἀργή (argh, “useless”). The reading of the majority is probably an assimilation to the statements in vv. 17 and 26, while Ì⁷⁴’s reading picks up on κενέ (kene) earlier in the verse. The external evidence (B C* 323 945 1739 sa) for ἀργή is sufficient for authenticity; coupled with the strong internal evidence for the reading (if νεκρά were original, how would ἀργή have arisen here and not in vv. 17 or 26?), it is strongly preferred.

NET Notes: Jam 2:23

¹ sn A quotation from Gen 15:6.

² sn An allusion to 2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8; 51:2; Dan 3:35 (LXX), in which Abraham is called God’s “beloved.”

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:19

^{( 10 )} Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

^{( 10 )} Another reason taken from an absurdity: if such a faith were the true faith by means of which we are justified, the demons would be justified, for they have that, but nonetheless they tremble and are not justified, therefore neither is that faith a true faith.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:20

^{( 11 )} But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

^{( 11 )} The third reason from the example of Abraham, who no doubt had a true faith: but he in offering his son, showed himself to have that faith which was not without works, and therefore he received a true testimony when it was laid, that faith was imputed to him for righteousness.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:21

Was not Abraham our father ^{( k )} justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

^{( k )} Was he not by his works known and found to be justified? For he speaks not here of the causes of justification, but by what effects we may know that a man is justified.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:22

Seest thou how faith ^{( l )} wrought with his works, and by works was faith made ^{( m )} perfect?

^{( l )} Was effectual and fruitful with good works.

^{( m )} That the faith was declared to be a true faith, through works.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:23

And the scripture was ^{( n )} fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

^{( n )} Then the Scripture was fulfilled, when it appeared plainly how truly it was written about Abraham.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:24

^{( 12 )} Ye see then how that by works a man is ^{( o )} justified, and not by ^{( p )} faith only.

^{( 12 )} The conclusion: Only he who has faith that has works following it is justified.

^{( o )} Is proved to be just.

^{( p )} Of that dead and fruitless faith which you boast of.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:25

^{( 13 )} Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

^{( 13 )} A forth reason taken from a similar example of Rahab the harlot, who was proved by her works that she was justified by a true faith.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:26

^{( 14 )} For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

^{( 14 )} The conclusion repeated again: faith does not bring forth fruits and works is not faith, but a dead carcass.

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 2:14-23

Faith Without Works

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16. And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; not withstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect! 23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.'--James 2:14-23.

{Jam 2:17}JAMES thrice reiterates his point in this passage, and each repetition closes a branch of his argument. In James 2:17 he draws the inference from his illustration of a worthy sympathy which does nothing; in James 2:20 he deduces the same conclusion from the speech put into the mouth of an imaginary speaker; in James 2:24 he draws it from the life of Abraham. We shall best et hold of the scope of these verses by taking these three parts separately.

I. Now, Most Misconceptions Of A Writer's Meaning Are Due To Imperfect Definition Of Terms.

James was no metaphysician, and he does not stop to put precisely what he means by' faith.' Clearly he meant by it the full evangelical meaning of trust when he used it in the earlier part of the letter (Jas. 1:3, 6; 2:1-5). As clearly he here means a mere intellectual belief of religious truth, a barren orthodoxy. If that undeniable explanation of his terminology is kept steadily in view, much of the difficulty which has been found in bringing his teaching into harmony with Paul's melts away at once. There is a distinct difference of tone and point of view between the two, but they entirely agree in the worthlessness of such a faith,' if faith it can be called. Probably Paul would not have called it so, but James accepts the saying' of the man whom he is confuting, and consents to call his purely intellectual belief faith. And then he crushes it to atoms as hollow and worthless, in which process Paul would gladly have lent a hand.

We may observe that James 2:14 begins with supposing the case of a mere lip faith,' while James 2:17 widens its conclusion to include not only that, but any faith,' however real, which does not lead to works. The logic of the passage would, perhaps, hang better together if James 2:14 had run if a man have faith'; but there is keen irony as well as truth in the suggestion that a faith which has no deeds often has abundant talk. The people who least live their creeds are not seldom the people who shout loudest about them. The paralysis which affects the arms does not, in these cases, interfere with the tongue. James had seen plenty of that kind of faith, both among Pharisees and Jewish Christians, and he had a holy horror of loose tongues (Jas. 3:2-12). That kind of faith is not extinct yet, and we need to urge James's question quite as much as he did: Can that faith save?' Observe the emphasis on that' which the Revised Version rightly gives.

The homely illustration of the very tender sympathy which gushes inwards, and does nothing to clothe naked backs or fill empty stomachs, perhaps has a sting in it. Possibly the very orthodox Jewish Christians with whom James is contending were less willing to help poor brethren than were the Gentile Christians.

But, in any case, there is no denying the force of the parallel. Sympathy, like every other emotion, is meant to influence action. If it does not, what is the use of it? What is the good of getting up fire in the furnace, and making a mighty roaring of steam, if it all escapes at the waste-pipe, and drives no wheels? And what is the good of a faith' which only rushes out at the escape-pipe of talk? It is dead in itself.' Romans 2:17-29 shows Paul's way of putting the same truth. Emotion and beliefs which do not shape conduct are worthless. Faith, if it have not works, is dead.

II. The Same Conclusion Is Arrived At By Another Road In James 2:18-20.

James introduces an imaginary speaker, who replies to the man who says that he has faith. This new interlocutor says' his say too. But he is not objecting, as has been sometimes thought, to James, but to the first speaker, and he is expressing James's own thought, which the Apostle does not utter in his own person, perhaps because he would avoid the appearance of boasting of his own deeds. To take this speaker as opposing James brings hopeless confusion. What does the new speaker say? He takes up the first one's assertion of having faith'; he will not say that he himself has it, but he challenges the other man to show his, if he can, by any other way than by exhibiting the fruits of faith, while he himself is prepared and content to be tested by the same test. That is to say, talk does not prove the possession of faith; the only possible demonstration that one has it is deeds, which are its fruits. If a man has (true) faith, it will mould his conduct. If he has nothing to produce but his bare assertion, then he cannot show it at all; and if no evidence of its existence is forthcoming, it does not exist.

Motion is the test of life. A faith' which does nothing, which moves no limb, is a corpse. On the other hand, if grapes grow ruddy and sweet in their clusters, there must be a vine on which they grow, though its stem and root may be unseen. What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.' True faith will be fruitful. Is not this Paul's doctrine too? Does not he speak of faith that worketh by love ?' Is it not his principle, too, that faith is the source of conduct, the active principle of the Christian life, and that if there are no results of it in the life, there is none of it in the heart ?

But the second speaker has a sharp dart of irony in his quiver (James 2:13). You plume yourself on your monotheistic creed, do you, and you think that that is enough to make you a child of God's? Well, that is good, as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. You have companions in it, for the demons believe it still more thoroughly than you do; and, what is more, it produces more effect on them than on you. You do nothing in consequence of your belief; they "shudder," at any rate--a grim result, but one showing that their belief goes deeper than yours.' The arrow gains in point and keenness if we observe that James quotes the very words which are contained in the great profession of monotheism which was recited morning and evening by every Jew (Deut. 6:4, etc.). James seems, in James 2:20, to speak again in his own name, and to reassert his main thought as enforced by this second argument.

III. He Has Been Arguing From The Very Nature Of Faith, And The Relation Between It And Conduct.

Now he turns to history and appeals to Abraham's case. In these verses he goes over the same ground as Paul does in Romans v., and there is a distinct verbal contradiction between James 2:24 here and Romans 3:28; but it is only verbal. Are the two apostles writing in ignorance of each other's words, or does the one refer to the other, and, if so, which is the earlier? These are interesting questions, to deal with which satisfactorily would more than exhaust our space.

No doubt the case of Abraham was a commonplace in rabbinical teaching, and both Paul and James had been accustomed to hear his history commented upon and tortured in all sorts of connections. The mere reference to the patriarch is no proof of either writer having known of the other; but the manner of it raises a presumption in that direction, and if either is referring to the other, it is easier to understand Paul if he is alluding to James, than James as alluding to Paul.

Their apparent disagreement is only apparent. For what are the' works' to which James ascribes justifying power? James 2:22 distinctly answers the question. They are acts which spring from faith, and which in turn, as being its fruits, perfect' it, as a tree is perfect when it has manifested its maturity by bearing. Surely Paul's doctrine is absolutely identical with this. He too held that, on the one hand, faith creates work, and on the other, works perfect faith. The works which Paul declares are valueless, and which he calls the works of the law,' are not those which James asserts justify.' The faith which James brands as worthless is not that which Paul proclaims as the condition of justifying; the one is a mere assent to a creed, the other is a living trust in a living Person.

James points to the sacrifice of Isaac as justifying' Abraham, and has in mind the divine eulogium, Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me,' Out he distinctly traces that transcendent act of an unquestioning devotion to the' faith' which wrought with it, and was perfected by it. He quotes the earlier divine declaration (Gen. 15:6) as fulfilled' at that later time, by which very expression is implied, not only that the root of the sacrifice was faith, but that the words were true in a yet higher sense and completer degree, when that sacrifice had perfected' the patriarch's faith.

The ultimate conclusion in James 2:24 has to be read in the light of these considerations, and then it appears plainly that there is no contradiction in fact between the two apostles. The argument, has no bearing on St. Paul's doctrine, its purport being, in the words of John Bunyan, to insist that "at the day of doom men shall be judged according to their fruit." It will not be said then, Did you believe? but, Were you doers or talkers only ?' (Mayor, Epistle of St. James 88).

No doubt, the two men look at the truth from a somewhat different standpoint. The one is intensely practical, the other goes deeper. The one fixes his eye on the fruits, the other digs down to the root. To the one the flow of the river is the more prominent; to the other, the fountain from which it rises. But they supplement, and do not contradict, each other. A shrewd old Scotsman once criticised an elaborate Harmony' of the Gospels, by the remark that the author had spent a heap of pains in making four men agree that had never cast [fallen] out.' We may say the same of many laborious reconciliations of James, the urgent preacher of Christian righteousness, and Paul, the earnest proclaimer that' a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.'

Maclaren: Jam 2:23

God's Friends

He, was called the Friend of God,'--James 2:23.

WHEN and by whom was he so called? There are two passages in the Old Testament in which an analogous designation is applied to the patriarch, but probably the name was one in current use amongst the people, and expressed in a summary fashion the impression that had been made by the history of Abraham's life. A sweet fate to have that as the brief record of a character, and to be known throughout the ages by such an epitaph! As many of us are aware, this name, the Friend,' has displaced the proper name, Abraham, on the lips of all Mohammedan people to this day; and the city of Hebron, where his corpse lies, is commonly known simply as' the Friend.'

My object in this sermon is a very simple one. I merely wish to bring out two or three of the salient elements and characteristics of friendship as exercised on the human level, and to use these as a standard and test of our religion and relation to God.

But I may just notice, for a moment, how beautiful and blessed a thought it is which underlies this and similar representations of Scripture--viz., that the bond which unites us to God is the very same as that which most sweetly and strongly ties men to one another, and that, after all, religion is nothing more or less than the transference to Him of the emotions which make all the sweetness of human life and society.

Now, I shall try to bring out two or three points which are included in that name, the Friend of God,' and to ask ourselves if they apply to our relations to Him.

I. First, Friends Trust And Love One Another.

Mutual confidence is the mortar which binds the stones in society together, into a building. It makes the difference between the herding together of beasts and the association of men. No community could keep together for an hour without mutual confidence, even in regard of the least intimate relationships of life. But it is the very life-blood of friendship. You cannot say, A. B. is my friend, but I do not trust him.' If suspicion creeps in, like the foul malaria of tropical swamps, it kills all friendship. Therefore he was called the Friend of God' is by James deduced from the fact that he believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.' You cannot make a friend of a man that you do not know where to have. There may be some vague reverence of, or abject reluctant submission to, the unknown God,' the something outside of ourselves that perhaps makes for righteousness; but for any vivid, warm throb of friendship there must be, first, a clear knowledge, and then a living grappling of that knowledge to my very heart, by my faith. Unless I trust God I cannot be a friend of God's. If you and I are His friends we trust Him, and He will trust us. For this friendship is not one-sided, and the name, though it may be ambiguous as to whether it means one whom I love or one who loves me, really includes both persons to the compact; and there are analogous, if not identical, emotions in each. So that, if I trust God, I may be sure that God trusts me, and, in His confidence, leaves a great deal to me; and so ennobles and glorifies me by His reliance upon me.

But whilst we know that this belief in God was the very nerve and centre of Abraham's whole character, and was the reason why he was called the friend of God, we must also remember that, as James insists upon here, it was no mere idle assent, no mere intellectual conviction that God could not tell lies, which was dignified by the name of belief, but that it was, as James insists upon in the context, a trust which proved itself to be valid, because it was continually operative in the life. Faith without works is dead.' And Abraham, our father, was he not justified by works ?'

And so the Epistle to the Hebrews, if you will remember, traces up to his faith all the chief points in his life. By faith he went out from the land where he dwelt; by faith he dwelt in tabernacles,' in the promised land, believing that it should be his and his seed's; by faith' he offered up his son on the altar.

Thus we come to this, that the heavenly and the earthly friend, like friends on the low levels of humanity, love each other because they trust each other. I have said that the words My friend' may either mean one whom I love or one who loves me, but that the two things are in the present connection inseparable. Only let us remember where the sweet reciprocation and interchange of love begins. We love Him because He first loved us.' When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' And so we have to turn to that heavenly Friend, and feel that as life itself, so the love which is the life of life, has its beginning in Him, and that never would our hearts have turned themselves from their alienation, unless there had poured down upon them the attractive outflow of His great love. It was an old fancy that, wherever a tree was struck by lightning, all its tremulous foliage turned in the direction from which the bolt had come. When the merciful flash of God's great love strikes a heart, then all its tendrils turn to the source of the life-giving light, and we love back again, in sweet reverberation to the primal and original love. Dear brethren, I lay upon your heart and mine this thought, that friends trust and love each other. Do we trust anti, love our God ?

II. Friends Have Frank, Familiar Intercourse With One Another.

Let us turn to the illuminative example in our text, and remember God's frankness with Abraham. Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I will do ?' Let us cap that--as we can, marvellous and great as the utterance is--by another one, I call you not servants, but friends; for all things that I have heard of My Father I declare unto you,' So much for God's frankness. What about Abraham's frankness with God? Remember how he remonstrated with Him; how he complained to Him of His dealings; how he persisted with importunity, which would have been presumptuous but for the friendship which underlay it, and warranted the bold words. And let us take the simple lesson that if we are friends and lovers of God, we shall delight in intercourse with Him. It is a strange kind of religion that does not care to be with God, that would rather think about anything else than about Him, that is all unused to quiet, solitary conversation and communion with Him, but it is the religion of, I wonder, how many of us to-day. He would be a strange friend that never crossed your threshold if you could help it; that was evidently uncomfortable in your presence, and ill at ease till he got away from you, and that when he came was struck dumb, and had not a word to say for himself, and did not know or feel that he and you had any interests or subjects in common. Is that not a good deal like the religion of hosts of professing Christians?' He was called the friend of God,' and he never, all his days, if he could help it, thought about Him or went near Him!

If we are friends of God, we shall have no secrets from Him. There are very few of those who are dearest to us to whom we could venture to lay bare all the depths of our hearts. There are black things down in the cellars that we do not like to show to any of our friends. We receive them upstairs, in the rooms for company. But you should take God all through the house. And if there is the trust and the love that I have been speaking about, we shall not be afraid to spread out all our foulness, and our meanness, and our unworthy thoughts of, and acts towards, Him, before His pure eyes and perfect judgment,' and say, Nobody but my best friend could look at such a dungheap, but I spread it before Thee. Look at it, and Thou wilt cleanse it; look at it, and it will melt away. Look at it, and in the knowledge that Thou knowest, my knowledge of it will be less of a torment, and my bosom will be cleansed of its perilous stuff.'

Tell God all, if you mean to be a friend of His. And do not be afraid to tell Him your harsh thoughts of Him, and your complaints of Him. He never resents anything that a man who loves Him says about Him, if he says it to Him. What He resents--if I might use the word--is our huddling up grudges and murmurings and questionings in our own hearts, and saying never a word to the friend against whom they offend. Out with it all, brethren! Complaints, regrets, questionings, petitions, hot wishes, take them all to Him; and be sure that instead of their breaking, they will, if spoken, cement the friendship which is disturbed by secrecy on our parts.

If we are God's lovers, He will have no secrets from us. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will show them His covenant.' There is a strange wisdom and insight, sometimes amounting even to prophetic anticipation, which creeps into a simple heart that is knit closely to God. But whether the result of our friendship with Him be such communication of such kinds of insight or no, we may be sure of this, that, if we trust Him, and love Him, and are frank with Him, He will in so far be frank with us, that He will impart unto us Himself, and in the knowledge of His love we shall find all the knowledge that we need.

III. Friends Delight To Meet Each Other's Wishes.

Let us go back to our story again. The humble, earthly friend of God did as God bade him, substantially all his life, from the day when he made the Great Refusal,' and left behind him home and kindred and all, until the day when he went up the sides of Moriah to offer there his son. Abraham met God's wishes because Abraham trusted and loved God.

And what about the Divine Friend? Did He not meet Abraham's wishes? You remember that wonderful scene, which presents, in such vivid and dramatic form, the everlasting truth that the man who bows his will to God, bows God's will to his, when he pleaded for Sodom, and won his case by persistence and importunity of lowly prayer. And these historical notices on both sides are for us the vehicles of the permanent truth that, if we are God's lovers and friends, we shall find nothing sweeter than bowing to His will and executing His commandments. As I dare say I have often said to you, the very mark and signature of love is that it delights to divine and fulfil the desires of the beloved, and that it moulds the will of each of the parties into conformity with the will of the other.

Ah, dear brethren! what a commentary our religion is upon such thoughts! To how many of us is the very notion of religion that of a prohibition of things that we would much like to do, and of commands to do things that we had much rather not do? All the slavery of abject submission, of reluctant service, is clean swept away, when we understand that friendship and love find their supreme delight in discovering and in executing the will of the beloved. And surely if you and I are the friends of God, the cold words, duty,' must,' should,' will be struck out of our vocabulary and will be replaced by delight,' cannot but,' will.' For friends find the very life--I was going to say the voice--of their friendship in mutual obedience.

And God, the heavenly Friend, will do what we wish. In that very connection did Jesus Christ put the two thoughts of friendship with Him and His executing His disciple's behests; saying in one breath, Ye are My friends if ye do whatsoever I command you,' and in the next, Ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.' This conformity of will, so that there is but one will in the two hearts, which is the very consummation and superlative degree of human friendship and love, applies as truly to the friendship between man and God.

IV. Friends Give Gifts To Each Other.

Let us go back to our story. What did Abraham give God? Forasmuch as he hath not withheld his only son from Me, I know that he fears Me.' And what does God give to His friends?' He that spared not His own Son, but freely delivered Him up to the death for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things ?' Abraham's gift of his son to God was but a feeble shadow of God's gift of His Son to men. And if the surrender on the part of the human friend was the infallible token of his love, surely the surrender on the part of the heavenly Friend is no less the infallible sign of His love to all the world. Generalise these thoughts and they come to this. If we are God's lovers God will give us Himself, in so far as we can receive Him; and all other gifts in so far as they are good and needful. If we are God's friends and lovers we shall give Him, in glad surrender, our whole selves. And, remember, if you feel that you have separate interests from Him, if you keep things and do not let Him say,' These are mine'; if you grudge sacrifice, and will not hear of self-surrender, and are living lives centred in, ruled by, devoted to, self, you have little reason to call yourself a Christian. Ye are My friends if ye'--not only' do whatsoever I command you,' but if you give yourself to Me.' Yield yourselves to God, and in the giving of yourselves to Him, you will get back yourselves glorified and blessed by the gift. There is no friendship if self shuts out the friend from participation in what is the other's. As long as' mine' lies on this side of a high wall, and' thine' on the other, there is but little friendship. Down with the wall, and say about everything Ours'; and then you have a right to say' I am the friend of God.'

V. Lastly, And But A Word. Friends Stand Up For Each Other.

I am thy shield; fear not, Abraham,' said God, when His friend was in danger from the vengeance of the Eastern kings whom he had defeated; and all through life the same strong arm was cast around him. Abraham, on his part, had to stand up for God amidst his heathen neighbours.

If we are God's friends and lovers He will take up our cause. Be sure that if God be for us, it matters not who is against us. If we are God's friends and lovers we have to take up His cause. What would you think of a man who, in going away to a far-off country, said to some friend, I wish you would look after so and so for me as long as I am gone'; and the friend would say Yes!' and never give a thought nor lift a finger to discharge the obligation? God trusts His reputation to you Christian people; He has interests in this world that you have to look after. You have to defend Him as really as He has to defend you. And it is the dreadful contradiction of religious people's profession of religion that they often care so little, and do so little to promote the cause, to defend the name, to adorn the reputation, and to further what I may venture to call the interests, of their heavenly Friend in the world.

Dear brother, looking at these things, can you venture to say that you are a friend of God? If you cannot, what are you? Our relations to men admit of our dividing them into three--friends, enemies, nothings. We may love, we may hate, we may be absolutely indifferent and ignorant. I am afraid the three states cannot be transferred exactly to our relations to God. If not His friend, what are you? Have you only a far-off, bowing acquaintance with Him? Well, then, that is because you have neglected, if you have not spurned, His offered friendship. And, oh! how much you have lost! No human heart is a millionth part so sweet, and so capable of satisfying you as God's. All friendship here has its limits, its changes, its end. God's is boundless, immutable, eternal. All things are the friends of God's friend; and all things are arrayed against him who rejects God's friendship.

I beseech you, let Him woo you to love Him; and yield your hearts to Him. If when we were "enemies," we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son,' much more, being friends, all the fulness of His love and the sweetness of His heart will be poured upon us through the living Christ.

MHCC: Jam 2:14-26

Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls? Can this faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us, as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith. There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, Jam 2:24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle. By faith any thing we do is really good; as done in obedience to God, and aiming at his acceptance: the root is as though it were dead, when there is no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits; and we must see to it that we have both. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it. There is no middle state. Every one must either live God's friend, or God's enemy. Living to God, as it is the consequence of faith, which justifies and will save, obliges us to do nothing against him, but every thing for him and to him.

Matthew Henry: Jam 2:14-26

In this latter part of the chapter, the apostle shows the error of those who rested in a bare profession of the Christian faith, as if that would save them, while the temper of their minds and the tenour of their lives were altogether disagreeable to that holy religion which they professed. To let them see, therefore, what a wretched foundation they built their hopes upon, it is here proved at large that a man is justified, not by faith only, but by works. Now,

I. Upon this arises a very great question, namely, how to reconcile Paul and James. Paul, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, seems to assert the directly contrary thing to what James here lays down, saying if often, and with a great deal of emphasis, that we are justified by faith only and not by the works of the law. Amicae scripturarum lites, utinam et nostrae - There is a very happy agreement between one part of scripture and another, notwithstanding seeming differences: it were well if the differences among Christians were as easily reconciled. "Nothing,"says Mr. Baxter, "but men's misunderstanding the plain drift and sense of Paul's epistles, could make so many take it for a matter of great difficulty to reconcile Paul and James."A general view of those things which are insisted on by the Antinomians may be seen in Mr. Baxter's Paraphrase: and many ways might be mentioned which have been invented among learned men to make the apostles agree; but it may be sufficient only to observe these few things following: - 1. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it. 2. Paul not only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged and intended. Paul had to do with those who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might well make them of no manner of account. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used even as evidence; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast importance of good works. As we must not break one table of the law, by dashing it against the other, so neither must we break in pieces the law and the gospel, by making them clash with one another: those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong; for we must take our work before us; there must be both faith in Jesus Christ and good works the fruit of faith. 3. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men: " Show me thy faith by thy works, "says James, "let thy faith be justified in the eyes of those that behold thee by thy works;"but Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, who justifies those only that believe in Jesus, and purely on account of the redemption that is in him. Thus we see that our persons are justified before God by faith, but our faith is justified before men by works. This is so plainly the scope and design of the apostle James that he is but confirming what Paul, in other places, says of his faith, that it is a laborious faith, and a faith working by love, Gal 5:6; 1Th 1:3; Tit 3:8; and many other places. 4. Paul may be understood as speaking of that justification which is inchoate, James of that which is complete; it is by faith only that we are put into a justified state, but then good works come in for the completing of our justification at the last great day; then, Come you children of my Father - for I was hungry, and you gave me meat, etc.

II. Having thus cleared this part of scripture from every thing of a contradiction to other parts of it, let us see what is more particularly to be learnt from this excellent passage of James; we are taught,

1. That faith without works will not profit, and cannot save us. What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? Observe here, (1.) That faith which does not save will not really profit us; a bare profession may sometimes seem to be profitable, to gain the good opinion of those who are truly good, and it may procure in some cases worldly good things; but what profit will this be, for any to gain the world and to lose their souls? What doth it profit? - Can faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. And, above all other things, we should take care thus to make account of faith, as that which does not profit, if it do not save, but will aggravate our condemnation and destruction at last. (2.) For a man to have faith, and to say he has faith, are two different things; the apostle does not say, If a man have faith without works, for that is not a supposable case; the drift of this place of scripture is plainly to show that an opinion, or speculation, or assent, without works, is not faith; but the case is put thus, If a man say he hath faith, etc. Men may boast of that to others, and be conceited of that in themselves, of which they are really destitute.

2. We are taught that, as love or charity is an operative principle, so is faith, and that neither of them would otherwise be good for any thing; and, by trying how it looks for a person to pretend he is very charitable who yet never does any works of charity, you may judge what sense there is in pretending to have faith without the proper and necessary fruits of it: " If a brother or a sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be you warmed and filled, notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Jam 2:15-17. What will such a charity as this, that consists in bare words, avail either you or the poor? Will you come before God with such empty shows of charity as these? You might as well pretend that your love and charity will stand the test without acts of mercy as think that a profession of faith will bear you out before God without works of piety and obedience. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being along, "Jam 2:17. We are too apt to rest in a bare profession of faith, and to think that this will save us; it is a cheap and easy religion to say, "We believe the articles of the Christian faith;"but it is a great delusion to imagine that this is enough to bring us to heaven. Those who argue thus wrong God, and put a cheat upon their own souls; a mock-faith is as hateful as mock-charity, and both show a heart dead to all real godliness. You may as soon take pleasure in a dead body, void of soul, or sense, or action, as God take pleasure in a dead faith, where there are no works.

3. We are taught to compare a faith boasting of itself without works and a faith evidenced by works, by looking on both together, to try how this comparison will work upon our minds. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works, Jam 2:18. Suppose a true believer thus pleading with a boasting hypocrite, "Thou makest a profession, and sayest thou hast faith; I make no such boasts, but leave my works to speak for me. Now give any evidence of having the faith thou professest without works if thou canst, and I will soon let thee see how my works flow from faith and are the undoubted evidences of its existence."This is the evidence by which the scriptures all along teach men to judge both of themselves and others. And this is the evidence according to which Christ will proceed at the day of judgment. The dead were judged according to their works, Rev 20:12. How will those be exposed then who boast of that which they cannot evidence, or who go about to evidence their faith by any thing but works of piety and mercy!

4. We are taught to look upon a faith of bare speculation and knowledge as the faith of devils: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble, Jam 2:19. That instance of faith which the apostle here chooses to mention is the first principle of all religion. " Thou believest that there is a God, against the atheists; and that there is but one God, against the idolaters; thou doest well: so far all is right. But to rest here, and take up a good opinion of thyself, or of thy state towards God, merely on account of thy believing in him, this will render thee miserable: The devils also believe, and tremble. If thou contentest thyself with a bare assent to articles of faith, and some speculations upon them, thus far the devils go. And as their faith and knowledge only serve to excite horror, so in a little time will thine."The word tremble is commonly looked upon as denoting a good effect of faith; but here it may rather be taken as a bad effect, when applied to the faith of devils. They tremble, not out of reverence, but hatred and opposition to that one God on whom they believe. To rehearse that article of our creed, therefore, I believe in God the Father Almighty, will not distinguish us from devils at last, unless we now give up ourselves to God as the gospel directs, and love him, and delight ourselves in him, and serve him, which the devils do not, cannot do.

5. We are taught that he who boasts of faith without works is to be looked upon at present as a foolish condemned person. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Jam 2:20. The words translated vain man - anthrōpe kene , are observed to have the same signification with the word Raca, which must never be used to private persons, or as an effect of anger (Mat 5:22), but may be used as here, to denote a just detestation of such a sort of men as are empty of good works, and yet boasters of their faith. And it plainly declares them fools and abjects in the sight of God. Faith without works is said to be dead, not only as void of all those operations which are the proofs of spiritual life, but as unavailable to eternal life: such believers as rest in a bare profession of faith are dead while they live.

6. We are taught that a justifying faith cannot be without works, from two examples, Abraham and Rahab.

(1.) The first instance is that of Abraham, the father of the faithful, and the prime example of justification, to whom the Jews had a special regard (Jam 2:21): Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Paul, on the other hand, says (in ch. 4 of the epistle to the Romans) that Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But these are well reconciled, by observing what is said in Heb. 11, which shows that the faith both of Abraham and Rahab was such as to produce those good works of which James speaks, and which are not to be separated from faith as justifying and saving. By what Abraham did, it appeared that he truly believed. Upon this footing, the words of God himself plainly put this matter. Gen 22:16, Gen 22:17, Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; therefore in blessing I will bless thee. Thus the faith of Abraham was a working faith (Jam 2:22), it wrought with his works, and by works was made perfect. And by this means you come to the true sense of that scripture which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, Jam 2:23. And thus he became the friend of God. Faith, producing such works, endeared him to the divine Being, and advanced him to very peculiar favours and intimacies with God. It is a great honour done to Abraham that he is called and counted the friend of God. You see then (Jam 2:24) how that by works a man is justified (comes into such a state of favour and friendship with God), and not by faith only; not by a bare opinion, or profession, or believing without obeying, but by having such a faith as is productive of good works. Now besides the explication of this passage and example, as thus illustrating and supporting the argument James is upon, many other useful lessons may be learned by us from what is here said concerning Abraham. [1.] Those who would have Abraham's blessings must be careful to copy after his faith: to boast of being Abraham's seed will not avail any, if they do not believe as he did. [2.] Those works which evidence true faith must to works of self-denial, and such as God himself commands (as Abraham's offering up his son, his only son, was), and not such works as are pleasing to flesh and blood and may serve our interest, or are the mere fruits of our own imagination and devising. [3.] What we piously purpose and sincerely resolve to do for God is accepted as if actually performed. Thus Abraham is regarded as offering up his son, though he did not actually proceed to make a sacrifice of him. It was a done thing in the mind, and spirit, and resolution of Abraham, and God accepts it as if fully performed and accomplished. [4.] The actings of faith make it grow perfect, as the truth of faith makes it act. [5.] Such an acting faith will make others, as well as Abraham, friends of God. Thus Christ says to his disciples, I have called you friends, Joh 15:15. All transactions between God and the truly believing soul are easy, pleasant, and delightful. There is one will and one heart, and there is a mutual complacency. God rejoiceth over those who truly believe, to do them good; and they delight themselves in him.

(2.) The second example of faith's justifying itself and us with and by works is Rahab: Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? Jam 2:25. The former instance was of one renowned for his faith all his life long, This is of one noted for sin, whose faith was meaner and of a much lower degree; so that the strongest faith will not do, nor the meanest be allowed to go without works. Some say that the word here rendered harlot was the proper name of Rahab. Others tell us that it signifies no more than a hostess, or one who keeps a public house, with whom therefore the spies lodged. But it is very probable that her character was infamous; and such an instance is mentioned to show that faith will save the worst, when evidenced by proper works; and it will not save the best without such works as God requires. This Rahab believed the report she had heard of God's powerful presence with Israel; but that which proved her faith sincere was, that, to the hazard of her life, she received the messengers, and sent them out another way. Observe here, [1.] The wonderful power of faith in transforming and changing sinners. [2.] The regard which an operative faith meets with from God, to obtain his mercy and favour. [3.] Where great sins are pardoned, there must prefer the honour of God and the good of his people before the preservation of her own country. Her former acquaintance must be discarded, her former course of life entirely abandoned, and she must give signal proof and evidence of this before she can be in a justified state; and even after she is justified, yet her former character must be remembered; not so much to her dishonour as to glorify the rich grace and mercy of God. Though justified, she is called Rahab the harlot.

7. And now, upon the whole matter, the apostle draws this conclusion, As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also, Jam 2:26. These words are read differently; some reading them, As the body without the breath is dead, so is faith without works: and then they show that works are the companions of faith, as breathing is of life. Others read them, As the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works is dead also: and then they show that as the body has no action, nor beauty, but becomes a loathsome carcass, when the soul is gone, so a bare profession without works is useless, yea, loathsome and offensive. Let us then take head of running into extremes in this case. For, (1.) The best works, without faith, are dead; they want their root and principle. It is by faith that any thing we do is really good, as done with an eye to God, in obedience to him, and so as to aim principally at his acceptance. (2.) The most plausible profession of faith, without works, is dead: as the root is dead when it produces nothing green, nothing of fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we must see to it that we have both. We must not think that either, without the other, will justify and save us. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it.

Barclay: Jam 2:18-19

James is thinking of a possible objector who says, "Faith is a fine thing; and works are fine things. They are both perfectly genuine manifestations of real religion. But the one man does not necessarily possess both. One man will have faith and another will have works. Well, then, you carry on with your works and I will carry on with my faith; and we are both being truly religious in our own way." The objector's view is that faith and works are alternative expressions of the Christian religion. James will have none of it. It is not a case of either faith or works; it is necessarily a case of both faith and works.

In many ways Christianity is falsely represented as an "either or" when it must properly be a "both and".

(i) In the well-proportioned life there must be thought and action. It is tempting and it is common to think that one may be either a man of thought or a man of action. The man of thought will sit in his study thinking great thoughts; the man of action will be out in the world doing great deeds. But that is wrong. The thinker is only half a man unless he turns his thoughts into deeds. He will scarcely even inspire men to action unless he comes down into the battle and shares the arena with them. As Kipling had it:

O England is a garden and such gardens are not made

By saying, "O how beautiful," and sitting in the shade;

While better men than we began their working lives

By digging weeds from garden paths with broken dinner knives.

Nor can anyone be a real man of action unless he has thought out the great principles on which his deeds are founded.

(ii) In the well-proportioned life there must be prayer and effort. Again it is tempting to divide men into two classes--the saints who spend life secluded on their knees in constant devotion and the toilers who labour in the dust and the heat of the day. But it will not do. It is said that Martin Luther was close friends with another monk. The other was as fully persuaded of the necessity of the Reformation as Luther was. So they made an arrangement. Luther would go down into the world and fight the battle there; the other would remain in his cell praying for the success of Luther's labours. But one night the monk had a dream. In it he saw a single reaper engaged on the impossible task of reaping an immense field by himself The lonely reaper turned his head and the monk saw his face was the face of Martin Luther; and he knew that he must leave his cell and his prayers and go to help. It is, of course, true that there are some who, because of age or bodily weakness, can do nothing other than pray; and their prayers are indeed a strength and a support. But if any normal person thinks that prayer can be a substitute for effort, his prayers are merely a way of escape. Prayer and effort must go hand in hand.

(iii) In any well-proportioned life there must be faith and deeds. It is only through deeds that faith can prove and demonstrate itself; and it is only through faith that deeds will be attempted and done. Faith is bound to overflow into action; and action begins only when a man has faith in some great cause or principle which God has presented to him.

Barclay: Jam 2:20-26

James offers two illustrations of the point of view on which he is insisting. Abraham is the great example of faith; but Abraham's faith was proved by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac at the apparent demand of God. Rahab was a famous figure in Jewish legend. She had sheltered the spies sent to spy out the Promised Land (Jos 2:1-21). Later legend said that she became a proselyte to the Jewish faith, that she married Joshua and that she was a direct ancestress of many priests and prophets, including Ezekiel and Jeremiah. It was her treatment of the spies which proved that she had faith.

Paul and James are both right here. Unless Abraham had had faith he would never have answered the summons of God. Unless Rahab had had faith, she would never have taken the risk of identifying her future with the fortunes of Israel. And yet, unless Abraham had been prepared to obey God to the uttermost, his faith would have been unreal; and unless Rahab had been prepared to risk all to help the spies, her faith would have been useless.

These two examples show that faith and deeds are not opposites; they are, in fact, inseparables. No man will ever be moved to action without faith; and no man's faith is genuine unless it moves him to action. Faith and deeds are opposite sides of a man's experience of God.

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 2:14-26

B. The Importance of Vital Faith 2:14-26

Some have seen this section as dealing with a new subject, the relationship of faith and works, whereas the previous one dealt with partiality (vv. 1-13). It seems to me, however, that this section relates to the preceding one in the same way 1:19-27 relates to 1:2-18. It deals with a larger, more basic issue that connects with and underlies the practical problem just discussed.

"In this section St. James proceeds to enlarge on the meaning and nature of that faith in Jesus Christ which was spoken of in ver. 1 as inconsistent with prosopolempsia [respect of persons]."⁹⁸

In his discussion of favoritism James argued for genuineness and warned of superficial self-deception. The larger issue is the whole matter of faith in God. James wrote this section to challenge his readers to examine the vitality of their faith in God. Were they really putting their faith into practice, applying their beliefs to their behavior? Their preferential treatment of some people raised this question in James' mind.

"Not only is the mature Christian patient in testing (James 1), but he also practices the truth. This is the theme of James 2. Immature people talk about their beliefs, but the mature person lives his faith. Hearing God's Word (James 1:22-25) and talking about God's Word can never substitute for doing God's Word."⁹⁹

There have been three primary interpretations of this passage of Scripture. The first view is that it refers to a person who was a believer but has lost his salvation. He used to have saving faith but does not have it any longer.¹⁰⁰ The second view is that it refers to an unbeliever who professes to be a Christian but has really never exercised saving faith in Christ. His faith is only intellectual assent, not saving faith.¹⁰¹ The third view is that it refers to a believer who is not living by faith. He is not behaving consistently with what he believes.¹⁰² The first two views say this passage describes unbelievers whereas the third view says it describes believers. By examining the passage we should be able to decide which view is correct.

Constable: Jam 2:19-23

5. James' rebuttal 2:19-23

2:19 James refuted the argument of the objector stated in verse 18. Genuine faith does not always result in good works. The demons believe that what God has revealed about Himself is true. The Shema (Deut. 6:4) was and is the pious Jew's daily confession of his faith. Nevertheless the demons continue practicing evil works. They understand what their behavior will bring upon them, but rather than turning from their evil ways they only shudder as they anticipate their inevitable judgment. I think James selected the demons as an illustration because they are the most extreme and clear example of beings whose belief is correct but whose behavior is not. He did not select them because they are lost. Throughout this book James was speaking about genuine Christians (cf. vv. 14, 15, 21, 23, 25, et al.). Just so Christians can persist in rebelling against God's will even though they know they will stand before the judgment seat of Christ someday (2 Cor. 5:10).

Some people have concluded that James' reason for using the demons as an illustration was to show that intellectual ascent to the truth is not enough. To experience regeneration a person must not only accept the gospel message as true but also rely on the Savior to save him. Whereas it is true that intellectual ascent to the facts of the gospel is not adequate for regeneration, that does not appear to be the point James was making in this illustration. His point seems to be that good works do not always result from correct belief. They did in Abraham's case (vv. 21-22), but not in the case of the demons. Further evidence that this is the correct conclusion is that what James said the demons believe is not the gospel message. James was not talking about what is necessary to become converted.

". . . this verse which is often quoted to show that some creatures can believe but not be saved is irrelevant to the issue of salvation, for it says only that demons are monotheists."¹¹²

Some scholars believe that the objector is speaking in verse 19 as well as in verse 18.¹¹³ Some of them base this conclusion on the fact that the Greek word choris (translated "without") is ek (translated "by") in some ancient Greek manuscripts. Most Greek scholars believe choris is the proper word and that James is speaking in verse 19.¹¹⁴ I agree with them on this point.

2:20 James thought his objector's argument was foolish. He still asserted that without good works a person's faith in God is useless, not non-existent but useless (Gr. argos, ineffectual, lit. without work; cf. Matt. 20:3, 6).

A Christian who has stopped living by faith day by day is similar to a person who has a non-functioning organ in his body. As the organ is dead, so the faith is dead, useless. Furthermore, his dead faith will contribute to his physical death, as a dead organ will shorten physical life.

James then proceeded to explain what he meant by "useless" in verses 21-23. Note how often James said that he was writing about the uselessness of faith unaccompanied by works, not the absence of faith unaccompanied by works (1:26; 2:14, 16, 20).

2:21 This verse at first seems to contradict other verses that say God declared Abraham righteous when Abraham believed God's promise (Gen. 15:1-6; Rom. 4:1-5). The solution to the problem lies in the meaning of "justified." This word always means to declare someone righteous, not to make someone righteous (cf. Exod. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32).¹¹⁵ The NIV translation "considered righteous" is a bit misleading (cf. v. 25). Abraham was declared righteous more than once. Most interpreters understand the first scriptural statement of his justification as describing his "new birth," to use a New Testament term (Gen. 15:6). This is when God declared Abraham righteous. About 20 years later James says Abraham was justified again. Scripture consistently teaches that believers whom God declares righteous never lose their righteous standing before God (Rom. 5:1; 8:1; et al.). They do not need to be saved again. Abraham's subsequent justification evidently refers to a second declaration of his righteousness. James said this time Abraham's works declared him righteous. They gave testimony to his faith.¹¹⁶ Works do not always evidence faith (v. 19), but sometimes they do. They do whenever a person who has become a believer by faith continues to live by faith. Abraham is a good example of a believer whose good works (obedience to God) bore witness to his righteousness.

2:22 Abraham's faith was "perfected" by his works in the sense that his works made his faith stronger. This is another way of expressing the same idea that James stated in 1:2-4. Maturity comes as we persevere in the will of God when we encounter trials.

"The faith which justifies . . . can have an active and vital role in the life of the obedient believer. As with Abraham, it can be the dynamic for superb acts of obedience. In the process, faith itself can be perfected.' The Greek word suggests development and motivation. Faith is thus nourished and strengthened by works."¹¹⁷

The singular "you" in this verse in the Greek text indicates that James was still addressing his objector.

2:23 Genesis 15:6 was "fulfilled" when Abraham offered Isaac in the sense that Abraham's faith became abundantly clear on that occasion.

"In the sacrifice of Isaac was shown the full meaning of the word (Gen. 15:6) spoken . . . years before in commendation of Abraham's belief in the promise of a child."¹¹⁸

James seems to have included the fact that God called Abraham His friend for this reason. He wanted to show that continued obedient faith, not just initial saving faith, is what makes a person God's intimate friend (cf. 4:4; 2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8).

"When a man is justified by faith he finds an unqualified acceptance before God . . . (Rom. 4:6). But only God can see this spiritual transaction. When, however, a man is justified by works he achieves an intimacy with God that is manifest to men. He can then be called the friend of God,' even as Jesus said, You are my friends if you do whatever I command you' (John 15:14)."¹¹⁹

Constable: Jam 2:24-26

6. James' final argument 2:24-26

2:24 The use of the plural "you" in this verse in the Greek text shows that James had completed his response to the objector. He was now addressing his readers directly again (cf. vv. 14-17).

Works declare us righteous in the sense that our works testify to onlookers that we have exercised saving faith. They are the external fruit that bears witness to the eternal life within. "You see . . . by [his] works." However, James previously said that not every believer will bear visible fruit (v. 17; cf. John 15:2). Such a believer's faith is not productive but "dead." Nevertheless he has faith. Some unbelievers appear to bear the fruit of saving faith, but God will one day expose their "wheat" as "tares" (Matt. 13:30).

". . . Paul and James are best understood as addressing quite dissimilar situations . . . Whereas Paul's audience is in danger of relying on works' for salvation, James' readers are excusing themselves from good works, thereby showing only a faith that is dead . . ."¹²⁰

2:25 James could have ended his argument about the "revered patriarch" Abraham. He chose to add the illustration of Rahab, the "redeemed prostitute," to borrow the terms of another writer.¹²¹

"Rahab . . . is superbly suited to tie the strands of his thoughts together. This passage had begun, as we have seen, with an allusion to his theme of saving the life' (2:14; 1:21). Not surprisingly, therefore, Rahab is selected as a striking example of a person whose physical life was saved' precisely because she had works."¹²²

Apparently Rahab trusted in God before the spies ever arrived at her door (cf. Josh. 2:9-13). Rather than being originally part of the Israelite nation she was a proselyte to Judaism. Thus with these two examples James showed the necessity of works for believers regardless of one's background and origins. Abraham and Rahab were poles apart.

"The contrast is neat: Abraham, a major Bible figure; Rahab, a minor participant. Abraham the father of the faithful; Rahab a foreigner. Abraham the respected; Rahab the disreputable. Abraham a man; Rahab a woman. As so often, the contrast is intended to alert us to the fact that a fully comprehensive statement is being made--as it were, covering the situation all the way from Abraham to Rahab and back again. The primary works of faith, then, are the works of Abraham and Rahab and they apply to all without exception.

"What was the work of Abraham? He held nothing back from God. God said, I want your son' and Abraham rose early in the morning' (Gn. 22:3) in prompt obedience. What was the work of Rahab? She reached out and took into her own care those who were needy and helpless, regardless of the cost to herself."¹²³

2:26 Faith without works is as dead as a body without a human spirit. It is of no practical value. This is James' final illustration and affirmation on the subject. Our faith becomes only dead orthodoxy when we stop obeying God. Vital faith then becomes dead faith. Both a dead body and dead faith were alive at one time.

"Does James then contradict Paul's doctrine of full grace, or John's insistence on faith as the single condition for eternal life? Far from it. But neither does he offer support to the widespread notion that a dead faith' cannot exist in the life of a Christian. Ironically, that is exactly what he is warning against. Thus the misconstruction of his words has not only bred unnecessary confusion about the terms for eternal life, but it has also deprived the church of a much needed and salutary warning.

"The dangers of a dying faith are real. But they do not include hell, and nothing James writes suggests this. Nevertheless, sin remains a deadly nemesis to Christian experience which can end our physical lives themselves. To that, the wisdom of the Old Testament adds its witness to the warnings of James. And if a man is to be saved from such a consequence, he must have works."¹²⁴

"Never once does James question whether the rich--or poor--have been saved. Neither does he admonish them in such a way that should cause them to question whether they have been saved. He never says, for example, The trouble with you people is that you are not saved.' He does not come forward with a plan of salvation; he does not warn them of a false assurance; he does not go over the basis of saving faith."¹²⁵

The key to understanding this passage is a correct understanding of what dead faith is. James used "dead" (vv. 17, 26) as a synonym for "useless" (vv. 14, 16, 20). He was not saying the person with dead faith has no faith, that he is unsaved. He meant that the person with dead faith has saving faith, but he is not living by faith now. His faith has no vital effect on the way he presently lives. He is not trusting and obeying God day by day.

"The faith which is mentioned in this section [2:14-26] can be presupposed in every Christian . . . [James'] intention is not dogmatically oriented, but practically oriented: he wishes to admonish the Christians to practice their faith, i.e. their Christianity, by works."¹²⁶

To summarize, I believe what James wrote in verses 14-26 means this. Good works are not necessary to keep us from going to hell. However they are necessary to keep us from falling under God's disciplinary punishment that may even result in premature physical death. It is possible for a Christian not to use his or her faith, to stop "walking by faith." In such a case his or her faith is of no practical use here and now. Therefore we who are Christians should be careful to continue to keep trusting and obeying God day by day. It is possible for a Christian to exercise "saving faith" and then to stop "walking by faith." That is what James is warning us to avoid. He is dealing with sanctification primarily, not justification, here and throughout this epistle. This is Christian life teaching, not teaching on how to become a Christian.

"James' emphasis on faith alone shows that he affirms the necessity of faith; what he is opposing is a faith that denies the obligation to obey Christ as Lord."¹²⁷

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

Critics Ask: Jam 2:19

JAMES 2:19 —If the demons believe in God, then why are they not saved?

PROBLEM: According to the Bible, all that is necessary to be saved is to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” ( Acts 16:31 ), for “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” ( John 3:16 ). Paul said salvation comes “to him who does not work but believes on Him” ( Rom. 4:5 ). If this is so, then why are not the demons saved, since the Bible admits that “even the demons believe” (v. 19 ).

SOLUTION: The demons are not saved because they do not exercise a saving kind of faith. This is James’ very point, namely, not any kind of faith can save a person. Only the kind of faith that produces good works can save ( James 2:17 ). While we are saved by faith alone, nevertheless, the faith that saves is not alone. It is always accompanied by good works. We are not saved by works ( Eph. 2:8-9 ), but we are savedfor works ( Eph. 2:10 ).

The difference between saving faith and non-saving faith is that the former is only belief that God exists. The latter is faith in God. No one can be saved by believing that God exists and that Christ died for their sins and rose again. They must believe in Him (i.e., trust Him). In like manner, no one can get to the top floor by an elevator if she simply believes that elevators can get her there. She must believe in the elevator (i.e., trust it) enough to step in it and allow it to get her there. The demons do not believe in (trust God) for their salvation—they simply believe that God exists, but they continue in their rebellion against Him ( Jude 6 ; Rev. 12:4 ).   

Critics Ask: Jam 2:21

JAMES 2:21 —If Abraham was saved by works, why does the Bible say he was justified by faith?

PROBLEM: Paul clearly teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works ( Rom. 1:17 ). He declared, “But to him who doesnot work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” ( Rom. 4:5 ). It is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” ( Titus 3:5 ). For “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” ( Eph. 2:8-9 ).

But James seems to flatly contradict this by declaring, “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” ( 2:24 ), for “faith without works is dead” ( 2:26 ). Indeed, while Paul said Abraham was justified by faith ( Rom. 4:1-4 ), James declares, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works” ( 2:21 ). Are these not flatly contradictory?

SOLUTION: James and Paul would be contradictory if they were speaking about the same thing, but there are many indications in the text that they are not. Paul is speaking about justification before God, while James is talking about justification before humans. This is indicated by the fact that James stressed that we should “show” ( 2:18 ) our faith. It must be something that can be seen by others in “works” ( 2:18-20 ). Further, James acknowledged that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not works, when he said, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” ( 2:23 ). When he adds that Abraham was “justified by works” (v. 21 ), he is speaking of what Abraham did that could be seen by people , namely, offer his son Isaac on the altar ( 2:21-22 ).

Further, while Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith), James is stressing thefruit of justification (works). But each man acknowledges both. Immediately after affirming that we are “saved by grace through faith” ( Eph. 2:8-9 ), Paul quickly adds, “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” ( Eph. 2:10 ). Likewise, right after declaring that it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” ( Titus 3:5-7 ), Paul urges that “those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works” ( Eph. 2:8 ). The relation between Paul and James can be summarized this way:

PAUL JAMES  

Justification before God Justification before humans   

The root of justification Thefruit of justification   

Justification by faith Justificationfor works   

Faith asproducer of works Works as the proof of faith   

Evidence: Jam 2:20

" What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." Arthur N. Field

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