Text -- James 2:3-26 (NET)

2:3 do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and to the poor person, “You stand over there,” or “Sit on the floor”? 2:4 If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives? 2:5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Did not God choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor! Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging you into the courts? 2:7 Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to? 2:8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 2:9 But if you show prejudice, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as violators. 2:10 For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 2:11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a violator of the law. 2:12 Speak and act as those who will be judged by a law that gives freedom. 2:13 For judgment is merciless for the one who has shown no mercy. But mercy triumphs over judgment.

Faith and Works Together

2:14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? 2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. 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 2:3

And ye have regard to ( epiblepsēte de epi ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:3

Weareth ( phorounta ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:3

And say ( kai eipēte ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:3

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:3

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:3

Stand thou there ( su stēthi ekei ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:3

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:4

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:4

Judges with evil thoughts ( kritai dialogismōn ponērōn ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:5

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:5

As to the world ( tōi kosmōi ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:5

Rich in faith ( plousious en pistei ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:5

Which he promised ( hēs epeggeilato ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:6

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:6

Oppress you ( katadunasteuousin humōn ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:6

Drag you ( helkousin humas ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:6

Before the judgment-seats ( eis kritēria ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:7

Blaspheme ( blasphēmousin ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:7

The honourable name ( to kalon onoma ).

"The beautiful name."

Robertson: Jam 2:7

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:8

Howbeit ( mentoi ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:8

If ye fulfil ( ei teleite ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:8

The royal law ( nomon basilikon ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:9

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:9

Ye commit sin ( hamartian ergazesthe ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:9

Being convicted ( elegchomenoi ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:9

As transgressors ( hōs parabatai ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:10

Whosoever shall keep ( hostis tērēsēi ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:10

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:10

He is become ( gegonen ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:10

Guilty of all ( pantōn enochos ).

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

Robertson: Jam 2:11

He that said ( ho eipōn )

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

Robertson: Jam 2:11

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

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

Robertson: Jam 2:11

A transgressor of the law ( parabatēs nomou )

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

Robertson: Jam 2:12

So speak ye, and so do ( houtōs laleite kai houtōs poieite ).

Present active imperatives as a habit. For the combination see Jam 1:19-21 contrasted with Jam 1:22-25, and Jam 1:26 with Jam 1:27.

Robertson: Jam 2:12

By a law of liberty ( dia nomou eleutherias ).

The law pictured in Jam 1:25, but law, after all, not individual caprice of "personal liberty."See Rom 2:12 for this same use of dia with krinō in the sense of accompaniment as in Rom 2:27; Rom 4:11; Rom 14:20. "Under the law of liberty."

Robertson: Jam 2:13

Without mercy ( aneleos ).

Found here only save a doubtful papyrus example (aneleōs ) for the vernacular anileōs and the Attic anēleēs . For this principle of requital see Mat 5:7; Mat 6:14; Mat 7:1.; Mat 18:33.

Robertson: Jam 2:13

Glorieth against ( katakauchātai ).

Present middle indicative of the old compound verb katakauchaomai , to exult over (down), in N.T. only here, Jam 3:14; Rom 11:18. Only mercy can triumph over justice with God and men. "Mercy is clothed with the divine glory and stands by the throne of God"(Chrysostom). See Rom 8:31-39; Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7.

Robertson: Jam 2:14

What doth it profit? ( ti ophelos̱ ).

Rhetorical question, almost of impatience. Old word from ophellō , to increase, in N.T. only here, Jam 2:16; 1Co 15:32. "Ti ophelos was a common expression in the vivacious style of a moral diatribe"(Ropes).

Robertson: Jam 2:14

If a man say ( ean legēi tis ).

Condition of third class with ean and the present active subjunctive of legō , "if one keep on saying."

Robertson: Jam 2:14

He hath faith ( pistin echein ).

Infinitive in indirect assertion after legēi .

Robertson: Jam 2:14

But have not works ( erga de mē echēi ).

Third-class condition continued, "but keeps on not having (mē and present active subjunctive echēi ) works."It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns.

Robertson: Jam 2:14

Can that faith save him? ( mē dunatai hē pistis sōsai autoṉ ).

Negative answer expected (mē ). Effective aorist active infinitive sōsai (from sōzō ). The article hē here is almost demonstrative in force as it is in origin, referring to the claim of faith without works just made.

Robertson: Jam 2:15

If a brother or sister be naked ( ean adelphos ē adelphē gumnoi huparchōsin ).

Condition again of third class (supposable case) with ean and present active subjunctive of huparchō , to exist, in the plural though ē (or) is used and not kai (and). Hence gumnoi is masculine plural in the predicate nominative. It does not here mean absolutely naked, but without sufficient clothing as in Mat 25:36.; Joh 21:7; Act 19:16.

Robertson: Jam 2:15

In lack of daily food ( leipomenoi tēs ephēmerou trophēs ).

Present passive participle of leipō and ablative case trophēs like leipetai sophias (Jam 1:5). The old adjective ephēmeros (ho epi hēmeran ōn , that which is for a day) occurs here only in the N.T., though ephēmeria (daily routine) is found in Luk 1:5, Luk 1:8. This phrase occurs in Diodorus, but not in lxx.

Robertson: Jam 2:16

And one of you say unto them ( eipēi de tis autois ex humōn ).

Third-class condition again continued from Jam 2:15 with second aorist active subjunctive eipēi .

Robertson: Jam 2:16

Go in peace ( hupagete en eirēnēi ).

Present active imperative of hupagō . Common Jewish farewell (Jdg 18:6; 1Sa 1:17; 1Sa 20:42; 2Sa 15:9). Used by Jesus (Mar 5:34; Luk 7:50).

Robertson: Jam 2:16

Be ye warmed and filled ( thermainesthe kai chortazesthe ).

Present imperative either middle (direct) or passive. We have thermainomai as a direct middle in Joh 18:18 (were warming themselves) and that makes good sense here: "Warm yourselves."Chortazō was originally used for pasturing cattle, but came to be used of men also as here. "Feed yourselves"(if middle, as is likely). Instead of warm clothes and satisfying food they get only empty words to look out for themselves.

Robertson: Jam 2:16

And yet ye give not ( mē dōte de ).

Third-class condition with de (and yet) and mē and the second aorist active subjunctive of didōmi , to give, cold deeds with warm words.

Robertson: Jam 2:16

The things needful to the body ( ta epitēdeia tou sōmatos ).

"The necessities of the body"(the necessaries of life). Old adjective from adverb epitēdes (enough), only here in N.T.

Robertson: Jam 2:16

What doth it profit? ( ti ophelos̱ ).

As in Jam 2:14 and here the conclusion (apodosis) of the long condition begun in Jam 2:15.

Robertson: Jam 2:17

If it have not works ( ean mē echēi erga ).

Another condition of the third class with ean and mē and the present active subjunctive of echō , "if it keep on not having works."

Robertson: Jam 2:17

In itself ( kath' heautēn ).

In and of itself (according to itself), inwardly and outwardly dead (nekra ). Same idiom in Act 28:16; Rom 14:22. It is a dead faith.

Robertson: Jam 2:18

Yea, a man will say ( all' erei tis ).

Future active of eipon . But all' here is almost certainly adversative (But some one will say), not confirmatory. James introduces an imaginary objector who speaks one sentence: "Thou hast faith and I have works"(Su pistin echeis kagō erga echō ). Then James answers this objector. The objector can be regarded as asking a short question: "Hast thou faith?"In that case James replies: "I have works also."

Robertson: Jam 2:18

Show me thy faith apart from thy works ( deixon moi tēn pistin sou chōris tōn ergōn ).

This is the reply of James to the objector. First aorist active imperative of deiknumi , tense of urgency. The point lies in chōris , which means not "without,"but "apart from,"as in Heb 11:6 (with the ablative case), "the works that properly belong to it and should characterise it"(Hort). James challenges the objector to do this.

Robertson: Jam 2:18

And I by my works will shew thee my faith ( kagō soi deixō ek tōn ergōn mou tēn pistin ).

It is not faith or works, but proof of real faith (live faith vs. dead faith). The mere profession of faith with no works or profession of faith shown to be alive by works. This is the alternative clearly stated. Note pistin (faith) in both cases. James is not here discussing "works"(ceremonial works) as a means of salvation as Paul in Gal 3; Rom 4, but works as proof of faith.

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 2:3

Ye have respect ( ἐπιβλέψητε )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:3

In a good place ( καλῶς )

Lit., honorably; in a seat of honor.

Vincent: Jam 2:3

Under

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

Vincent: Jam 2:4

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

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

Vincent: Jam 2:4

Judges of evil thoughts ( κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:5

Hearken, my beloved brethren

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

Vincent: Jam 2:5

The poor of this world ( τοὺς πτωχοὺς τοῦ κόσμου )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:5

Rich in faith

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

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Despised ( ἠτιμάσατε )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Oppress ( καταδυναστεύουσιν )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Draw ( ἕλκουσιν )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:6

Judgment-seats ( κριτήρια )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:7

They ( αὐτοὶ )

Emphatic. " Is it not they who blaspheme?"

Vincent: Jam 2:7

Worthy ( καλὸν )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:7

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

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

Vincent: Jam 2:8

Fulfil the royal law ( νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν )

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

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

Vincent: Jam 2:9

Ye have respect to persons ( προσωπολημπτεῖτε )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:9

Ye commit sin ( ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:9

And are convinced ( ἐλεγχόμενοι )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:10

Keep ( τηρήσῃ )

See on Jam 2:8.

Vincent: Jam 2:10

Offend ( πταίσῃ )

Lit., as Rev., stumble.

Vincent: Jam 2:10

He is guilty ( γέγονεν ἔνοχος )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:11

A transgressor ( παραβάτης )

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

Vincent: Jam 2:12

So

With reference to what follows, speak and do.

Vincent: Jam 2:13

He shall have judgment without mercy that hath shewed no mercy ( ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνίλεως τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος )

Lit., as Rev., judgment is without mercy to him that hath shewed no mercy. Both A. gr. and Rev. omit the article " the judgment," that, namely, which is coming. Hath shewed, or, lit., shewed (aorist tense). The writer puts himself at the stand-point of the judgment, and looks backward.

Vincent: Jam 2:13

Rejoiceth ( κατακαυχᾶται )

The simple verb καυχάομαι means to speak loud, to be loud-tongued; hence, to boast. Better, therefore, as Rev., glorieth. Judgment and mercy are personified. While judgment threatens condemnation, mercy interposes and prevails over judgment. " Mercy is clothed with the divine glory, and stands by the throne of God. When we are in danger of being condemned, she rises up and pleads for us, and covers us with her defence, and enfolds us with her wings" (Chrysostom, cited by Gloag).

Vincent: Jam 2:14

What doth it profit? ( τί τὸ ὄφελος )

Lit., what is the profit? Ὄφελος , profit, only here, Jam 2:16, and 1Co 15:32.

Vincent: Jam 2:15

Be ( ὑπάρχωσιν )

The distinction between this word and the simple εἶναι , to be, is very subtle. The verb ὑπάρχω originally means to make a beginning; hence, to begin or to come into being; and, though used substantially as a synonym of εἶναι , of a thing actually existing and at hand, it has a backward look to an antecedent condition which has been protracted into the present. Thus we might paraphrase here, " If a brother or sister, having been in a destitute condition, be found by you in that condition." Εἶναι , on the other hand, would simply state the present fact of destitution. See on 2Pe 1:8.

Vincent: Jam 2:15

Destitute ( λειπόμενοι )

Lit., left behind; and hence lacking, as Rev. Compare Jam 1:4, Jam 1:5. This usage of the word occurs in James only.

Vincent: Jam 2:15

Daily ( ἐφημέρου )

Only here in New Testament.

Vincent: Jam 2:16

Depart in peace ( ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ )

Compare ὕπαγε or πορεύου εἰς εἰρηνήν , go into peace, Mar 5:34; Luk 7:50.

Vincent: Jam 2:16

Be filled ( χορτάζεσθε )

See on Mat 5:6.

Vincent: Jam 2:16

Those things which are needful ( τὰ ἐπιτήδεια )

Only here in New Testament.

Vincent: Jam 2:17

Being alone ( καθ ' ἑαυτήν )

Wrong. Rev., correctly, in itself . The phrase belongs to dead. It is dead, not merely in reference to something else, but absolutely.

Vincent: Jam 2:18

Without ( χωρὶς )

Rev., more literally, apart from.

Vincent: Jam 2:18

And I will shew thee, etc

The Rev. brings out the antithesis more sharply by keeping more closely to the Greek order: I by my works will shew, etc.

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 2:3

With respect.

Wesley: Jam 2:4

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

Wesley: Jam 2:4

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

Wesley: Jam 2:5

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

Wesley: Jam 2:5

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

Wesley: Jam 2:6

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

Wesley: Jam 2:7

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

Wesley: Jam 2:8

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

Wesley: Jam 2:9

By that very law. Exo 23:3.

Wesley: Jam 2:10

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

Wesley: Jam 2:11

For it is the same authority which establishes every commandment.

Wesley: Jam 2:12

In all things.

Wesley: Jam 2:12

Without respect of persons.

Wesley: Jam 2:12

The gospel; the law of universal love, which alone is perfect freedom. For their transgressions of this, both in word and deed, the wicked shall be condemned; and according to their works, done in obedience to this, the righteous will be rewarded.

Wesley: Jam 2:13

In that day.

Wesley: Jam 2:13

To his poor brethren. But the mercy of God to believers, answering to that which they have shown, will then glory over judgment.

Wesley: Jam 2:14

From Jam 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (Jam 2:21, Jam 2:23, Jam 2:25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, Rom 4:3, Heb 11:17, Heb 11:31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Act 15:13-21; and St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What profiteth it? is enlarged on, Jam 2:15-17; though a man say, Jam 2:18-19 can that faith save him? Jam 2:20.

It is not, though he have faith; but, though he say he have faith. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant: but in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead, imaginary faith. He does not, therefore, teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works: nor does he oppose faith to works; but that empty name of faith, to real faith working by love. Can that faith "which is without works" save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour.

Wesley: Jam 2:17

So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him.

Wesley: Jam 2:18

Who judges better.

Wesley: Jam 2:18

To such a vain talker. Show me, if thou canst, thy faith without thy 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 2:2-3

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

JFB: Jam 2:2-3

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

JFB: Jam 2:2-3

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

JFB: Jam 2:3

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

JFB: Jam 2:3

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

JFB: Jam 2:3

At a distance from where the good seats are.

JFB: Jam 2:3

Near the speaker.

JFB: Jam 2:3

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

JFB: Jam 2:4

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

JFB: Jam 2:4

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

JFB: Jam 2:4

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

JFB: Jam 2:5

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

JFB: Jam 2:5

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

JFB: Jam 2:5

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

JFB: Jam 2:5

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

JFB: Jam 2:6

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

JFB: Jam 2:6

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

JFB: Jam 2:6

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

JFB: Jam 2:6

As a class.

JFB: Jam 2:6

Literally, "abuse their power against" you.

JFB: Jam 2:6

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

JFB: Jam 2:6

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

JFB: Jam 2:7

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

JFB: Jam 2:7

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

JFB: Jam 2:8

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

JFB: Jam 2:8

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

JFB: Jam 2:8

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

JFB: Jam 2:9

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

JFB: Jam 2:9

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

JFB: Jam 2:9

Old English for "convicted."

JFB: Jam 2:9

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

JFB: Jam 2:10

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

JFB: Jam 2:11

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

JFB: Jam 2:11

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

JFB: Jam 2:12

Summing up of the previous reasonings.

JFB: Jam 2:12

Referring back to Jam 1:19, Jam 1:26; the fuller discussion of the topic is given Jam 3:5-12.

JFB: Jam 2:12

(Jam 1:25); that is, the Gospel law of love, which is not a law of external constraint, but of internal, free, instinctive inclination. The law of liberty, through God's mercy, frees us from the curse of the law, that henceforth we should be free to love and obey willingly. If we will not in turn practice the law of love to our neighbor, that law of grace condemns us still more heavily than the old law, which spake nothing but wrath to him who offended in the least particular (Jam 2:13). Compare Mat 18:32-35; Joh 12:48; Rev 6:16, "Wrath of the (merciful) Lamb."

JFB: Jam 2:13

The converse of, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" (Mat 5:7). Translate, "The judgment (which is coming on all of us) shall be without mercy to him who hath showed no mercy." It shall be such toward every one as every one shall have been [BENGEL]. "Mercy" here corresponds to "love," Jam 2:8.

JFB: Jam 2:13

Mercy, so far from fearing judgment in the case of its followers, actually glorifieth against it, knowing that it cannot condemn them. Not that their mercy is the ground of their acquittal, but the mercy of God in Christ towards them, producing mercy on their part towards their fellow men, makes them to triumph over judgment, which all in themselves otherwise deserve.

JFB: Jam 2:14

James here, passing from the particular case of "mercy" or "love" violated by "respect of persons," notwithstanding profession of the "faith of our Lord Jesus" (Jam 2:1), combats the Jewish tendency (transplanted into their Christianity) to substitute a lifeless, inoperative acquaintance with the letter of the law, for change of heart to practical holiness, as if justification could be thereby attained (Rom 2:3, Rom 2:13, Rom 2:23). It seems hardly likely but that James had seen Paul's Epistles, considering that he uses the same phrases and examples (compare Jam 2:21, Jam 2:23, Jam 2:25, with Rom 4:3; Heb 11:17, Heb 11:31; and Jam 2:14, Jam 2:24, with Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16). Whether James individually designed it or not, the Holy Spirit by him combats not Paul, but those who abuse Paul's doctrine. The teaching of both alike is inspired, and is therefore to be received without wresting of words; but each has a different class to deal with; Paul, self-justiciaries; James, Antinomian advocates of a mere notional faith. Paul urged as strongly as James the need of works as evidences of faith, especially in the later Epistles, when many were abusing the doctrine of faith (Tit 2:14; Tit 3:8). "Believing and doing are blood relatives" [RUTHERFORD].

JFB: Jam 2:14

Literally, "What is the profit?"

JFB: Jam 2:14

James' expression is not, "If a man have faith," but "if a man say he hath faith"; referring to a mere profession of faith, such as was usually made at baptism. Simon Magus so "believed and was baptized," and yet had "neither part nor lot in this matter," for his "heart," as his words and works evinced, was not right in the sight of God. ALFORD wrongly denies that "say" is emphatic. The illustration, Jam 2:16, proves it is: "If one of you say" to a naked brother, "Be ye warmed, notwithstanding ye give not those things needful." The inoperative profession of sympathy answering to the inoperative profession of faith.

JFB: Jam 2:14

Rather, "can such a faith (literally, 'the faith') save him?"--the faith you pretend to: the empty name of boasted faith, contrasted with true fruit-producing faith. So that which self-deceivers claim is called "wisdom," though not true wisdom, Jam 3:15. The "him" also in the Greek is emphatic; the particular man who professes faith without having the works which evidence its vitality.

JFB: Jam 2:15

The Greek is, "But if," &c.: the "But" taking up the argument against such a one as "said he had faith, and yet had not works," which are its fruits.

JFB: Jam 2:15

A fellow Christian, to whom we are specially bound to give help, independent of our general obligation to help all our fellow creatures.

JFB: Jam 2:15

The Greek implies, "be found, on your access to them."

JFB: Jam 2:16

The habit of receiving passively sentimental impressions from sights of woe without carrying them out into active habits only hardens the heart.

JFB: Jam 2:16

James brings home the case to his hearers individually.

JFB: Jam 2:16

As if all their wants were satisfied by the mere words addressed to them. The same words in the mouth of Christ, whose faith they said they had, were accompanied by efficient deeds of love.

JFB: Jam 2:16

With clothing, instead of being as heretofore "naked" (Jam 2:15; Job 31:20).

JFB: Jam 2:16

Instead of being "destitute of food" (Mat 15:37).

JFB: Jam 2:16

Concluding with the same question as at the beginning, Jam 2:14. Just retribution: kind professions unaccompanied with corresponding acts, as they are of no "profit" to the needy object of them, so are of no profit to the professor himself. So faith consisting in mere profession is unacceptable to God, the object of faith, and profitless to the possessor.

JFB: Jam 2:17

ALFORD joins "is dead in itself." So BENGEL, "If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, 'in respect to itself') has no existence; that is, that what one boasts of as faith, is dead." "Faith" is said to be "dead in itself," because when it has works it is alive, and it is discerned to be so, not in respect to its works, but in respect to itself. English Version, if retained, must not be understood to mean that faith can exist "alone" (that is, severed from works), but thus: Even so presumed faith, if it have not works, is dead, being by itself "alone," that is, severed from works of charity; just as the body would be "dead" if alone, that is, severed from the spirit (Jam 2:26). So ESTIUS.

JFB: Jam 2:18

"But some one will say": so the Greek. This verse continues the argument from Jam 2:14, Jam 2:16. One may say he has faith though he have not works. Suppose one were to say to a naked brother, "Be warmed," without giving him needful clothing. "But someone (entertaining views of the need of faith having works joined to it) will say (in opposition to the 'say' of the professor)."

JFB: Jam 2:18

If thou canst; but thou canst not SHOW, that is, manifest or evidence thy alleged (Jam 2:14, "say") faith without works. "Show" does not mean here to prove to me, but exhibit to me. Faith is unseen save by God. To show faith to man, works in some form or other are needed: we are justified judicially by God (Rom 8:33); meritoriously, by Christ (Isa 53:11); mediately, by faith (Rom 5:1); evidentially, by works. The question here is not as to the ground on which believers are justified, but about the demonstration of their faith: so in the case of Abraham. In Gen 22:1 it is written, God did tempt Abraham, that is, put to the test of demonstration the reality of his faith, not for the satisfaction of God, who already knew it well, but to demonstrate it before men. The offering of Isaac at that time, quoted here, Jam 2:21, formed no part of the ground of his justification, for he was justified previously on his simply believing in the promise of spiritual heirs, that is, believers, numerous as the stars. He was then justified: that justification was showed or manifested by his offering Isaac forty years after. That work of faith demonstrated, but did not contribute to his justification. The tree shows its life by its fruits, but it was alive before either fruits or even leaves appeared.

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 2:3

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

Clarke: Jam 2:4

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

Clarke: Jam 2:4

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

Clarke: Jam 2:5

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

Clarke: Jam 2:6

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

Clarke: Jam 2:7

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

Clarke: Jam 2:8

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

Clarke: Jam 2:9

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

Clarke: Jam 2:10

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

Clarke: Jam 2:11

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

Clarke: Jam 2:12

So speak ye, and so do - Have respect to every commandment of God, for this the law of liberty - the Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly requires; and this is the law by which all mankind, who have had the opportunity of knowing it, shall be judged. But all along St. James particularly refers to the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Clarke: Jam 2:13

For he shall have judgment - He who shows no mercy to man, or, in other words, he who does not exercise himself in works of charity and mercy to his needy fellow creatures, shall receive no mercy at the hand of God; for he hath said, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. The unmerciful therefore are cursed, and they shall obtain no mercy

Clarke: Jam 2:13

Mercy rejoiceth against judgment - These words are variously understood

1.    Mercy, the merciful man, the abstract for the concrete, exults over judgment, that is, he is not afraid of it, having acted according to the law of liberty, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself

2.    Ye shall be exalted by mercy above judgment

3.    For he (God) exalts mercy above judgment

4.    A merciful man rejoices rather in opportunities of showing mercy, than in acting according to strict justice

5.    In the great day, though justice might condemn every man according to the rigour of the law, yet God will cause mercy to triumph over justice in bringing those into his glory who, for his sake, had fed the hungry, clothed the naked, ministered to the sick, and visited the prisoners. See what our Lord says, Matthew 25:31-46

In the MSS. and versions there is a considerable variety of readings on this verse, and some of the senses given above are derived from those readings. The spirit of the saying may be found in another scripture, I will have mercy and not sacrifice - I prefer works of charity and mercy to every thing else, and especially to all acts of worship. The Royal Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, should particularly prevail among men, because of the miserable state to which all are reduced by sin, so that each particularly needs the help of his brother.

Clarke: Jam 2:14

What doth it profit - though a man say he hath faith - We now come to a part of this epistle which has appeared to some eminent men to contradict other portions of the Divine records. In short, it has been thought that James teaches the doctrine of justification by the merit of good works, while Paul asserts this to be insufficient, and that man is justified by faith. Luther, supposing that James did actually teach the doctrine of justification by works, which his good sense showed him to be absolutely insufficient for salvation, was led to condemn the epistle in toto, as a production unauthenticated by the Holy Spirit, and consequently worthy of no regard; he therefore termed it epistola straminea , a chaffy epistle, an epistle of straw, fit only to be burnt. Learned men have spent much time in striving to reconcile these two writers, and to show that St. Paul and St. James perfectly accord; one teaching the pure doctrine, the other guarding men against the abuse of it. Mr. Wesley sums the whole up in the following words, with his usual accuracy and precision: "From Jam 1:22 the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this under the pretense of faith. St. Paul had taught that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some already began to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating, Jam 1:21, Jam 1:23, Jam 1:25, the same phrases, testimonies, and examples which St. Paul had used, Rom 4:3; Heb 11:17, Heb 11:31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is therefore no contradiction between the apostles; they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. This verse is a summary of what follows: What profiteth it, is enlarged on, Jam 2:15-17; though a man say, Jam 2:18, Jam 2:19; can that faith save him? Jam 2:20. It is not though he have faith, but though he say, I have faith. Here therefore true living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but that empty name of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith which is without works save him? No more than it can profit his neighbor."- Explanatory notes

That St James quotes the same scriptures, and uses the same phrases, testimonies, and examples which St. Paul has done, is fully evident; but it does not follow that he wrote after St. Paul. It is possible that one had seen the epistle of the other; but if so, it is strange that neither of them should quote the other. That St. Paul might write to correct the abuses of St. James’ doctrine is as possible as that James wrote to prevent St. Paul’ s doctrine from being abused; for there were Antinomians in the Church in the time of St. James, as there were Pharisaic persons in it at the time of St. Paul. I am inclined to think that James is the elder writer, and rather suppose that neither of them had ever seen the other’ s epistle. Allowing them both to be inspired, God could teach each what was necessary for the benefit of the Church, without their having any knowledge of each other. See the preface to this epistle

As the Jews in general were very strenuous in maintaining the necessity of good works or righteousness in order to justification, wholly neglecting the doctrine of faith, it is not to be wondered at that those who were converted, and saw the absolute necessity of faith in order to their justification, should have gone into the contrary extreme

Clarke: Jam 2:14

Can faith save him? - That is, his profession of faith; for it is not said that he has faith, but that he says, I have faith. St. James probably refers to that faith which simply took in the being and unity of God. See on Jam 2:19, Jam 2:24, Jam 2:25.

Clarke: Jam 2:15

If a brother or sister be naked - That is, ill-clothed; for γυμνος, naked, has this meaning in several parts of the New Testament, signifying bad clothing, or the want of some particular article of dress. See Mat 25:36, Mat 25:38, Mat 25:43, Mat 25:44, and Joh 21:7. It has the same comparative signification in most languages.

Clarke: Jam 2:16

Be ye warmed and filled - Your saying so to them, while you give them nothing, will just profit them as much as your professed faith, without those works which are the genuine fruits of true faith, will profit you in the day when God comes to sit in judgment upon your soul.

Clarke: Jam 2:17

If it hath not works, is dead - The faith that does not produce works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. They had faith, such as a man has who credits a well-circumstanced relation because it has all the appearance of truth; but they had nothing of that faith that a sinner, convinced of his sinfulness, God’ s purity, and the strictness of the Divine laws, is obliged to exert in the Lord Jesus, in order to be saved from his sins.

Clarke: Jam 2:18

Show me thy faith without thy works - Your pretending to have faith, while you have no works of charity or mercy, is utterly vain: for as faith, which is a principle in the mind, cannot be discerned but by the effects, that is, good works; he who has no good works has, presumptively, no faith

Clarke: Jam 2:18

I will show thee my faith by my works - My works of charity and mercy will show that I have faith; and that it is the living tree, whose root is love to God and man, and whose fruit is the good works here contended for.

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 2:4

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

Calvin: Jam 2:5

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

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

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

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

Calvin: Jam 2:6

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

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

Calvin: Jam 2:7

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

Calvin: Jam 2:8

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

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

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

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

Calvin: Jam 2:9

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

Calvin: Jam 2:10

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

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

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

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

Calvin: Jam 2:11

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

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

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

Calvin: Jam 2:12

12.So speak ye. Some give this explanation, that as they flattered themselves too much, they are summoned to the right tribunal; for men absolve themselves according to their own notions, because they withdraw themselves from the judgment of the divine law. He then reminds them that all deeds and words are there to be accounted for, because God will judge the world according to his law. As, however, such a declaration might have smitten them with immoderate terror, to correct or mitigate what they might have thought severe, he adds, the law of liberty. For we know what Paul says,

“Whosoever are under the law are under a curse.”
(Gal 3:10.)

Hence the judgment of the law in itself is condemnation to eternal death; but he means by the word liberty, that we are freed from the rigor of the law.

This meaning is not altogether unsuitable, though if one examines more minutely what immediately follows, he will see that James meant another thing; the sense is as though he had said, “Except ye wish to undergo the rigor of the law, ye must be less rigid towards your neighbors; for the law of liberty is the same as the mercy of God, which delivers us from the curse of the law” And so this verse ought to be read with what follows, where he speaks of the duty of bearing with infirmities. And doubtless the whole passage thus reads well: “Since none of us can stand before God, except we be delivered and freed from the strict rigor of the law, we ought so to act, that we may not through too much severity exclude the indulgence or mercy of God, of which we all have need to the last.”

Calvin: Jam 2:13

13.For he shall have judgment This is an application of the last verse to the subject in hand, which confirms altogether the second explanation which I have mentioned: for he shews, that since we stand through God’s mercy alone, we ought to shew that to those whom the Lord himself commends to us. It is, indeed, a singular commendation of kindness and benevolence, that God promises that he will be merciful to us, if we be so to our brethren: not that our mercy, how ever great it may be, shewn towards men, merits the mercy of God; but that God would have those whom he has adopted, as he is to them a kind and an indulgent Father, to bear and exhibit his image on the earth, according to the saying of Christ,

“Be ye merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful.”
(Mat 5:7.)

We must notice, on the other hand, that he could denounce nothing on them more severe or more dreadful than the judgment of God. It hence follows, that all they are miserable and lost who flee not to the asylum of pardon.

And mercy rejoiceth. As though he had said, “God’s mercy alone is that which delivers us from the dread and terror of judgment.” he takes rejoicing or glorying in the sense of being victorious or triumphant; for the judgment of condemnation is suspended over the whole world, and nothing but mercy can bring relief.

Hard and forced is the explanation of those who regard mercy as put here for the person, for men cannot properly be said to rejoice or glory against the judgment of God; but mercy itself in a manner triumphs, and alone reigns when the severity of judgment gives way; though I do not deny but that hence arises confidence in rejoicing, that is, when the faithful know that the wrath of God in a manner yields to mercy, so that being relieved by the latter, they are not overwhelmed by the former.

Calvin: Jam 2:14

14.What doth it profit. He proceeds to commend mercy. And as he had threatened that God would be a severe Judge to us, and at the same time very dreadful, except we be kind and merciful towards our neighbors, and as on the other hand hypocrites objected and said, that faith is sufficient to us, in which the salvation of men consists, he now condemns this vain boasting. The sum, then, of what is said is, that faith without love avails nothing, and that it is therefore wholly dead.

But here a question arises, Can faith be separated from love? It is indeed true that the exposition of this passage has produced that common distinction of the Sophists, between unformed and formed faith; but of such a thing James knew nothing, for it appears from the first words, that he speaks of false profession of faith: for he does not begin thus, “If any one has faith;” but, “If any says that he has faith;” by which he certainly intimates that hypocrites boast of the empty name of faith, which really does not belong to them.

That he calls it then faith, is a concession, as the Rhetoricians say; for when we discuss a point, it does no harm, nay, it is sometimes expedient, to concede to an adversary what he demands, for as soon as the thing itself is known, what is conceded may be easily taken away from him. James then, as he was satisfied that it was a false pretext by which hypocrites covered themselves, was not disposed to raise a dispute about a word or an expression. Let us, however, remember that he does not speak according to the impression of his own mind when he mentions faith, but that on the contrary he disputes against those who made a false pretense as to faith, of which they were wholly destitute.

Can faith save him? This is the same as though he had said, that we do not attain salvation by a frigid and bare knowledge of God, which all confess to be most true; for salvation comes to us by faith for this reason, because it joins us to God. And this comes not in any other way than by being united to the body of Christ, so that, living through his Spirit, we are also governed by him. There is no such thing as this in the dead image of faith. There is then no wonder that James denies that salvation is connected with it. ¹¹³

Calvin: Jam 2:15

15.If a brother, or, For if a brother. He takes an example from what was connected with his subject; for he had been exhorting them to exercise the duties of love. If any one, on the contrary, boasted that he was satisfied with faith without works, he compares this shadowy faith to the saying of one who bids a famished man to be filled without supplying him with the food of which he is destitute. As, then, he who sends away a poor man with words, and offers him no help, treats him with mockery, so they who devise for themselves faith without works, and without any of the duties of religion, trifle with God. ¹¹⁴

Calvin: Jam 2:17

17.Is dead, being alone. He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. We hence conclude that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Sophists plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found by itself; but this frivolous caviling is easily refuted; for it is sufficiently evident that the Apostle reasons from what is impossible, as Paul calls an angel anathema, if he attempted to subvert the gospel. (Gal 1:8.)

Calvin: Jam 2:18

18.Yea, a man may say. Erasmus introduces here two persons as speakers; one of whom boasts of faith without works, and the other of works without faith; and he thinks that both are at length confuted by the Apostle. But this view seems to me too forced. He thinks it strange, that this should be said by James, Thou hast faith, who acknowledges no faith without works. But in this he is much mistaken, that he does not acknowledge an irony in these words. Then ἀλλὰ I take for “nay rather;” and τὶς for “any one;” for the design of James was to expose the foolish boasting of those who imagined that they had faith when by their life they shewed that they were unbelievers; for he intimates that it would be easy for all the godly who led a holy life to strip hypocrites of that boasting with which they were inflated. ¹¹⁵

Shew me. Though the more received reading is, “by works,” yet the old Latin is more suitable, and the reading is also found in some Greek copies. I therefore hesitated not to adopt it. Then he bids to shew faith without works, and thus reasons from what is impossible, to prove what does not exist. So he speaks ironically. But if any one prefers the other reading, it comes to the same thing, “Shew me by works thy faith;” for since it is not an idle thing, it must necessarily be proved by works. The meaning then is, “Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith.” ¹¹⁶

But it may be asked, whether the outward uprightness of life is a sure evidence of faith? For James says, “ I will shew thee my faith by my works. ” To this I reply, that the unbelieving sometimes excel in specious virtues, and lead an honorable life free from every crime; and hence works apparently excellent may exist apart from faith. Nor indeed does James maintain that every one who seems good possesses faith. This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree.

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 2:8

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

Defender: Jam 2:10

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

Defender: Jam 2:14

Everyone has faith of some kind - even atheists. However, the object of faith and the results of that faith measure its validity."

Defender: Jam 2:18

Genuine faith in Christ for salvation inevitably produces works that demonstrate its reality (Eph 2:8-10). James never says that works produce salvation, nor even that faith plus works can save, but that good works always accompany true saving faith."

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 2:3

ye : Jud 1:16

in a good place : or well, or, seemly

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

TSK: Jam 2:4

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:5

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

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

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

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:6

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

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:7

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

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:8

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

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:9

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

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:10

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:11

he said that, or, that law, which said

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

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

TSK: Jam 2:12

speak : Phi 4:8; Col 3:17; 2Pe 1:4-8

the : Jam 2:8, Jam 1:25

TSK: Jam 2:13

he : Jam 5:4; Gen 42:21; Jdg 1:7; Job 22:6-10; Pro 21:13; Isa 27:11; Mat 5:7; Mat 6:15, Mat 7:1, Mat 7:2, Mat 18:28-35, Mat 25:41-46; Luk 16:25

and : Psa 85:10; Jer 9:24; Eze 33:11; Mic 7:18; Eph 1:6, Eph 1:7, Eph 2:4-7; 1Jo 4:8-16, 1Jo 4:18, 1Jo 4:19

rejoiceth : or, glorieth

TSK: Jam 2:14

What : Jam 2:16; Jer 7:8; Rom 2:25; 1Co 13:3; 1Ti 4:8; Heb 13:9

though : Jam 2:18, Jam 2:26, Jam 1:22-25; Mat 5:20, Mat 7:21-23, Mat 7:26, Mat 7:27; Luk 6:49; Act 8:13, Act 8:21, Act 15:9; 1Co 13:2, 1Co 16:22; Gal 5:6, Gal 5:13; 1Th 1:3; 1Ti 1:5; Tit 1:16, Tit 3:8; Heb 11:7, Heb 11:8, Heb 11:17; 2Pe 1:5; 1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:5

can : 1Co 15:2; Eph 2:8-10

TSK: Jam 2:15

Jam 2:5; Job 31:16-21; Isa 58:7, Isa 58:10; Eze 18:7; Mat 25:35-40; Mar 14:7; Luk 3:11; Act 9:29; Heb 11:37

TSK: Jam 2:16

one : Job 22:7-9; Pro 3:27, Pro 3:28; Mat 14:15, Mat 14:16, Mat 15:32, Mat 25:42-45; Rom 12:9; 2Co 8:8; 1Jo 3:16-18

what : Jam 2:14

TSK: Jam 2:17

so : Jam 2:14, Jam 2:19, Jam 2:20,Jam 2:26; 1Co 13:3, 1Co 13:13; 1Th 1:3; 1Ti 1:5; 2Pe 1:5-9

alone : Gr. by itself

TSK: Jam 2:18

Thou : Jam 2:14, Jam 2:22; Rom 14:23; 1Co 13:2; Gal 5:6; Heb 11:6, Heb 11:31

without thy works : Some copies read, by thy works.

and I will : Jam 2:22-25, Jam 3:13; Mat 7:17; Rom 8:1; 2Co 5:17, 2Co 7:1; 1Th 1:3-10; 1Ti 1:5; Tit 2:7, Tit 2:11-14

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 2:3

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

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

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:4

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:6

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

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:7

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

Barnes: Jam 2:8

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

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:9

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:10

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

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

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

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

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

Barnes: Jam 2:11

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

Barnes: Jam 2:12

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty - On the phrase, "the law of liberty,"see the notes at Jam 1:25. Compare the notes at Jam 4:11. The meaning is, that in all our conduct we are to act under the constant impression of the truth that we are soon to be brought into judgment, and that the law by which we are to be judged is that by which it is contemplated that we shall be set free from the dominion of sin. In the rule which God has laid down in his word, called "the law of liberty,"or the rule by which true freedom is to be secured, a system of religion is revealed by which it is designed that man shall be emancipated not only from one sin, but from all. Now, it is with reference to such a law that we are to be judged; that is, we shall not be able to plead on our trial that we were under a necessity of sinning, but we shall be judged under that law by which the arrangement was made that we might be free from sin. If we might be free from sin; if an arrangement was made by which we could have led holy lives, then it will be proper that we shall be judged and condemned if we are not righteous. The sense is, "In all your conduct, whatever you do or say, remember that you are to be judged, or that you are to give an impartial account; and remember also that the rule by which you are to be judged is that by which provision is made for being delivered from the dominion of sin, and brought into the freedom of the gospel."The argument here seems to be, that he who habitually feels that he is soon to be judged by a law under which it was contemplated that he might be, and should be, free from the bondage of sin, has one of the strongest of all inducements to lead a holy life.

Barnes: Jam 2:13

For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy - This is obviously an equitable principle, and is one which is everywhere found in the Bible. Pro 21:13. "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself but will not be heard."2Sa 22:26-27, "with the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful, and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory."Compare Psa 18:25-26; Mat 6:15; Mat 7:1-2. The idea which the apostle seems to design to convey here is, that there will certainly be a judgment, and that we must expect that it will be conducted on equitable principles; that no mercy is to be shown when the character is not such that it will be proper that it should be; and that we should habitually feel in our conduct that God will be impartial, and should frame our lives accordingly.

And mercy rejoiceth against judgment - Margin, "glorieth."Greek Boasts, glories, or exults. The idea is that of glorying over, as where one is superior to another, or has gained a victory over another. The reference all along here is to the judgment, the trial of the great day; and the apostle is stating the principles on which the trial at that day will be conducted - on which one class shall be condemned, and the other acquitted and saved. In reference to one class, the wicked, he says that where there has been no mercy shown to others - referring to this as one evidence of piety - that is, where there is no true piety, there will be judgment without mercy; in the other case there will be, as it were, a triumph of mercy, or mercy will appear to have gained a victory over judgment. Strict justice would indeed plead for their condemnation, but the attribute of mercy will triumph, and they will be acquitted.

The attributes of mercy and justice would seem to come in conflict, but mercy would prevail. This is a true statement of the plan of salvation, and of what actually occurs in the redemption of a sinner. Justice demands, as what is her due, that the sinner should be condemned; mercy pleads that he may be saved - and mercy prevails. It is not uncommon that there seems to be a conflict between the two. In the dispensations of justice before human tribunals, this often occurs. Strict justice demands the punishment of the offender; and yet there are cases when mercy pleads, and when every man feels that it would be desirable that pardon should be extended to the guilty, and when we always rejoice if mercy triumphs. In such a case, for example, as that of Major Andre, this is strikingly seen. On the one hand, there was the undoubted proof that he was guilty; that he had been taken as a spy; that by the laws of war he ought to be put to death; that as what he had done had tended to the ruin of the American cause, and as such an act, if unpunished, would always expose an army to surprise and destruction, he ought, in accordance with the law of nations, to die.

On the other hand, there were his youth, his high attainments, his honorable connections, his brilliant hopes, all pleading that he might live, and that he might be pardoned. In the bosom of Washington, the promptings of justice and mercy thus came into collision. Both could not be gratified, and there seemed to be but one course to be pursued. His sense of justice was shown in the act by which he signed the death-warrant; his feelings of compassion in the fact that when he did it his eyes poured forth a flood of tears. How every generous feeling of our nature would have been gratified if mercy could have triumphed, and the youthful and accomplished officer could have been spared! In the plan of salvation, this does occur. Respect is done to justice, but mercy triumphs. Justice indeed pleaded for the condemnation of the sinner, but mercy interposed, and he is saved. Justice is not disregarded, for the great Redeemer of mankind has done all that is needful to uphold it; but there is the most free and full exercise of mercy, and, while the justice of God is maintained, every benevolent feeling in the breasts of all holy beings can be gratified in the salvation of countless thousands.

Barnes: Jam 2:14

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith? - The apostle here returns to the subject adverted to in Jam 1:22-27, the importance of a practical attention to the duties of religion, and the assurance that men cannot be saved by a mere speculative opinion, or merely by holding correct sentiments. He doubtless had in his eye those who abused the doctrine of justification by faith, by holding that good works are unnecessary to salvation, provided they maintain an orthodox belief. As this abuse probably existed in the time of the apostles, and as the Holy Ghost saw that there would be danger that in later times the great and glorious doctrine of justification by faith would be thus abused, it was important that the error should be rebuked, and that the doctrine should be distinctly laid down that good works are necessary to salvation. The apostle, therefore, in the question before us, implicitly asserts that faith would not "profit"at all unless accompanied with a holy life, and this doctrine he proceeds to illustrate in the following verses, See the analysis of this chapter; and Introduction, Section 5, (2). In order to a proper interpretation of this passage, it should be observed that the stand-point from which the apostle views this subject is not before a man is converted, inquiring in what way he may be justified before God, or on what ground his sins may be forgiven; but it is after a man is converted, showing that that faith can have no value which is not followed by good works; that is, that it is not real faith, and that good works are necessary if a man would have evidence that he is justified. Thus understood, all that James says is in entire accordance with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament.

Can faith save him? - It is implied in this question that faith cannot save him, for very often the most emphatic way of making an affirmation is by asking a question. The meaning here is, that that faith which does not produce good works, or which would not produce holy living if fairly acted out, will save no man, for it is not genuine faith.

Barnes: Jam 2:15-17

If a brother or sister be naked ... - The comparison in these verses is very obvious and striking. The sense is, that faith in itself, without the acts that correspond to it, and to which it would prompt, is as cold, and heartless, and unmeaning, and useless, as it would be to say to one who was destitute of the necessaries of life, depart in peace."In itself considered, it might seem to have something that was good; but it would answer none of the purposes of faith unless it should prompt to action. In the case of one who was hungry or naked, what he wanted was not good wishes or kind words merely, but the acts to which good wishes and kind words prompt. And so in religion, what is wanted is not merely the abstract state of mind which would be indicated by faith, but the life of goodness to which it ought to lead. Good wishes and kind words, in order to make them what they should be for the welfare of the world, should be accompanied with corresponding action. So it is with faith. It is not enough for salvation without the benevolent and holy acts to which it would prompt, any more than the good wishes and kind words of the benevolent are enough to satisfy the wants of the hungry, and to clothe the naked, without correspondent action. Faith is not and cannot be shown to be genuine, unless it is accompanied with corresponding acts; as our good wishes for the poor and needy can be shown to be genuine, when we have the means of aiding them, only by actually ministering to their necessities. In the one case, our wishes would be shown to be unmeaning and heartless; in the other, our faith would be equally so. In regard to this passage, therefore, it may be observed:

(1) That in fact faith is of no more value, and has no more evidence of genuineness when it is unaccompanied with good works, than such empty wishes for the welfare of the poor would be when unaccompanied with the means of relieving their wants. Faith is designed to lead to good works. It is intended to produce a holy life; a life of activity in the service of the Saviour. This is its very essence; it is what it always produces when it is genuine. Religion is not designed to be a cold abstraction; it is to be a living and vivifying principle.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 here is a great deal of that kindness and charity in the world which is expressed by mere good wishes. If we really have not the means of relieving the poor and the needy, then the expression of a kind wish may be in itself an alleviation to their sorrows, for even sympathy in such a case is of value, and it is much to us to know that others feel for us; but if we have the means, and the object is a worthy one, then such expressions are mere mockery, and aggravate rather than soothe the feelings of the sufferer. Such wishes will neither clothe nor feed them; and they will only make deeper the sorrows which we ought to heal. But how much of this is there in the world, when the sufferer cannot but feel that all these wishes, however kindly expressed, are hollow and false, and when he cannot but feel that relief would be easy!

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 n like manner there is much of this same kind of worthless faith in the world - faith that is dead; faith that produces no good works; faith that exerts no practical influence whatever on the life. The individual professes indeed to believe the truths of the gospel; he may be in the church of Christ; he would esteem it a gross calumny to be spoken of as an infidel; but as to any influence which his faith exerts over him, his life would be the same if he had never heard of the gospel. There is not one of the truths of religion which is bodied forth in his life; not a deed to which he is prompted by religion; not an act which could not be accounted for on the supposition that he has no true piety. In such a case, faith may with propriety be said to be dead.

Being alone - Margin, "by itself."The sense is, "being by itself:"that is, destitute of any accompanying fruits or results, it shows that it is dead. That which is alive bodies itself forth, produces effects, makes itself visible; that which is dead produces no effect, and is as if it were not.

Barnes: Jam 2:18

Yea, a man may say ... - The word which is rendered "yea"( ἀλλὰ alla ) would be better rendered by "but."The apostle designs to introduce an objection, not to make an affirmation. The sense is, "some one might say,"or, "to this it might be urged in reply."That is, it might perhaps be said that religion is not always manifested in the same way, or we should not suppose that, because it is not always exhibited in the same form, it does not exist. One man may manifest it in one way, and another in another, and still both have true piety. One may be distinguished for his faith, and another for his works, and both may have real religion. This objection would certainly have some plausibility, and it was important to meet it. It would seem that all religion was not to be manifested in the same way, as all virtue is not; and that it might occur that one man might be particularly eminent for one form of religion, and another for another; as one man may be distinguished for zeal, and another for meekness, and another for integrity, and another for truth, and another for his gifts in prayer, and another for his large-hearted benevolence. To this the apostle replies, that the two things referred to, faith and works, were not independent things, which could exist separately, without the one materially influencing another - as, for example, charity and chastity, zeal and meekness; but that the one was the germ or source of the other, and that the existence of the one was to be known only by its developing itself in the form of the other. A man could not show that he possessed the one unless it developed itself in the form of the other. In proof of this, he could boldly appeal to anyone to show a case where faith existed without works. He was himself willing to submit to this just trial in regard to this point, and to demonstrate the existence of his own faith by his works.

Thou hast faith, and I have works - You have one form or manifestation of religion in an eminent or prominent degree, and I have another. You are characterized particularly for one of the virtues of religion, and I am for another; as one man may be particularly eminent for meekness, and another for zeal, and another for benevolence, and each be a virtuous man. The expression here is equivalent to saying, "One may have faith, and another works."

Show me thy faith without thy works - That is, you who maintain that faith is enough to prove the existence of religion; that a man may be justified and saved by that alone, or where it does not develop itself in holy living; or that all that is necessary in order to be saved is merely to believe. Let the reality of any such faith as that be shown, if it can be; let any real faith be shown to exist without a life of good works, and the point will be settled. I, says the apostle, will undertake to exhibit the evidence of my faith in a different way - in a way about which there can be no doubt, and which is the appropriate method. It is clear, if the common reading here is correct, that the apostle meant to deny that true faith could be evinced without appropriate works. It should be said, however, that there is a difference of reading here of considerable importance. Many manuscripts and printed editions of the New Testament, instead of "without"(works - χωρίς chōris ), read "from"or "by"( ἐκ ek ), as in the other part of the verse, "show me thy faith by thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."

This reading is found in Walton, Wetstein, Mill, and in the received text generally; the other (without) is found in many manuscripts, and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, English, and Armenian versions; and is adopted by Beza, Castalio, Grotius, Bengel, Hammond, Whitby, Drusius, Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and is now commonly received as the correct reading. It may be added that this reading seems to be demanded by the similar reading in Jam 2:20, "But wilt thou know that faith "without works"( χωρὶς τὼν ἔργων chōris tōn ergōn ) is dead,"evidently implying that something had been said before about "faith without works."This reading also is so natural, and makes so good sense in the connection, that it would seem to be demanded. Doddridge felt the difficulty in the other reading, and has given a version of the passage which showed his great perplexity, and which is one of the most unhappy that he ever made.

And I will show thee my faith by my works - I will furnish in this way the best and most certain proof of the existence of faith. It is implied here that true faith is adapted to lead to a holy life, and that such a life would be the appropriate evidence of the existence of faith. By their fruits the principles held by men are known. See the notes at Mat 7:16.

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 2:3

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:4

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:5

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

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

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:6

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

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:7

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:8

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

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:9

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:11

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

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

Poole: Jam 2:12

So speak ye, and so do: the apostle concluding his discourse about respecting persons, which consisted both in their words and actions, be directs them how to govern themselves in both.

As they that shall be judged viz. for both your words and actions, and that, not only in your own consciences at present, but at God’ s tribunal hereafter.

By the law of liberty the gospel, of the liberty of which it is one branch, that these differences among men, of Jew and Gentile, bond and free, circumcised and uncircumcised, &c., are taken away, Act 10:28 Gal 3:28 Col 3:11 ; against this law of liberty you sin if you respect persons, and then may well fear to be judged by it; as it takes away differences of persons now, so it will make none at last, but will be as impartial in its judgment as it is in its commands.

Poole: Jam 2:13

For he shall have judgment without mercy shall be judged according to the rigour of the law, by pure justice without any mixture of mercy.

That hath showed no mercy that hath been cruel and unmerciful to his neighbour here.

And mercy rejoiceth against judgment either,

1. The mercy of God rejoiceth and glorieth over judgment, being as it were superior and victorious in relation to those that show mercy, to whom the promise of obtaining. mercy is made, Mat 5:7 . Or rather:

2. The mercy of men, i.e. of those that deal mercifully with others; their mercy having the mercy and promise of God on its side, need not fear, but rather may rejoice, and as it were glory against judgment, as not being like to go against them.

Objection. Is not this to make some ground of glorying to be in men themselves, contrary to Psa 143:2 Rom 4:2 ?

Answer. Mercy in believers is an evidence of their interest in God’ s mercy, which prevails on their belief against his justice; and so its rejoicing against judgment, is not against it as overcome by itself, but by God’ s mercy. Thus both senses are included.

Poole: Jam 2:14

What doth it profit viz. as to his eternal salvation? Wherein are the ends of religion promoted by it? The apostle had just before declared, that they who are unmerciful to men shall find God severe to themselves, and have judgment without mercy: but hypocritical professors boasted of their faith as sufficient to secure them against that judgment, though they neglected the practice of holiness and righteousness. Hence he seems to take occasion for the following discourse, to beat down their vain boasting of an empty, unfruitful faith, and possibly, lest they should abuse or misunderstand what he had said about the law of liberty, as if that inferred a licence of sinning, and living as they pleased.

Though a man say whether boastingly with his mouth to others, or flatteringly in his heart to himself. The apostle doth not say, that a man’ s having faith simply is unprofitable, but either that faith he pretends to without works, or his boasting he hath faith, when the contrary is evident by his not having works.

He hath faith such as he pretends to be good, and sound, and saving, but is really empty and dead, Jam 2:26 , and unfruitful.

And have not works i.e. good works, such as are not only acts of charity, to which the papists would restrain it, but all the fruits of righteousness and holiness proceeding from faith, and appearing both in heart and life.

Can faith save him? The interrogation is a vehement negation; q.d. It cannot save him, viz. such a faith as a man may have (as well as boast he hath) without works. This James calls faith only by way of concession for the present, though it be but equivocally called faith, and no more really so, than the carcass of a man is a man.

Poole: Jam 2:15

If a brother or sister a Christian man or woman, who are frequently thus called: see 1Co 7:12,15 .

Be naked badly clothed, or destitute of such clothing as is fit for them, Job 22:6 1Co 4:11 .

And destitute of daily food: see Mat 6:11 ; that which is necessary for the sustaining of life a day to an end. Under these two of nakedness and hunger, he comprehends all the calamities of human life, which may be relieved by the help of others; as food and raiment contain all the ordinary supports and comforts of life, Gen 28:20 Mat 6:25 1Ti 6:8 .

Poole: Jam 2:16

Depart in peace a usual form of salutation, wherein, under the name of peace, they wished all prosperity and happiness to them they greeted, Mar 5:34 Luk 7:50 8:48 .

Be ye warmed i.e. be ye clothed; the warmth here mentioned being such as is procured by clothes, Job 31:20 .

And be ye filled or, satisfied with food; a metaphor from the fatting of cattle with grass or hay. The same word is used, Mat 14:20 Mar 6:42 Phi 4:12 . These two good wishes answer the two former great wants.

Notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body understand, when yet ye are able to relieve them; for he speaks to the rich, or such as were in a capacity of being helpful to others.

What doth it profit? Either, what do your good words and charitable wishes profit them, without charitable deeds? Or, what do they profit yourselves? Or both may be included: as your fair speeches convey no real good to them, so they bring in no reward to you from God.

Poole: Jam 2:17

Even so faith that which they boasted of, and called faith.

Is dead void of that life, in which the very essence of faith consists, and which always discovers itself in vital actings and good fruits, where it is not hindered by some forcible impediment; in allusion to a corpse, which plainly appears to have no vital principle in it, all vital operations being ceased. It resembles a man’ s body, and is called so, but in reality is not so, but a dead carcass.

Being alone margin, by itself, or in itself; be it what it will, it is but dead: or, as we render it, being alone, i.e. not in conjunction with works, which always it should be.

Poole: Jam 2:18

A man any true believer.

May say to any such boasting hypocrite.

Thou hast faith thou pretendest to have faith, or admit thou hast faith; and an historical faith he might have, as Jam 2:19 .

And I have works: I do not boast of my faith; or, to say nothing of my faith, yet works I do profess to have.

Show me thy faith without thy works: there are two readings of these words, but in both the sense agrees with the rest of the apostle’ s discourse. If we take the marginal reading, show me thy faith by thy works, the sense is, evidence the faith thou pretendest to by thy works, as the fruits of it; let thy actions vouch for thy profession. But if we take the reading in the text, without thy works, it is a kind of ironical expression; q.d. Make it appear by convincing arguments that thou hast true faith, when yet thou wantest works, the only argument of the truth of it. Understand here, but this thou canst not.

And I will show thee my faith by my works I will easily prove my faith to be true and genuine, by those good works it brings forth in me. Demonstrate the cause to me without the effect, if thou canst; but I will easily demonstrate the cause by the effect, and prove the root of faith to be in me, by my bringing forth that fruit which is proper to it. It cannot hence be inferred, that wherever such works are, as men count and call good, there must needs be faith: the apostle’ s meaning only is, that wherever true faith is, there good works will certainly be.

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 2:4

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

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

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

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

Haydock: Jam 2:8

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

Haydock: Jam 2:10

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

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

Haydock: Jam 2:10-11

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

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

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

Haydock: Jam 2:12

By the law of liberty; i.e. by the new law and doctrine of Christ. (Witham)

Haydock: Jam 2:13

For judgment without mercy, &c. It is an admonition to them to fulfil, as he said before, the royal precept of the love of God and of our neighbour, which cannot be without being merciful to others. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew v. 7.) ---

And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. Some understand this as a confirmation of God's infinite mercies, out of Psalm cxliv. 9. where it is said that his "mercies are over all his works;" that is, though all his perfections be equally infinite, yet he is pleased to deal with sinners rather according to the multitude of his mercies than according to the rigour of his justice. Others expound these words of the mercy which men shew to one another, and that he exhorts them to mercy, as a most powerful means to find mercy; and the merciful works done to others will be beneficial to them, and make them escape when they come to judgment. (Witham) ---

Similar to this are the words of old Tobias to his son: "Alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it." (Tobias iv. 11, 12.) "Blessed are the merciful," says our divine Judge, "for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew v. 7.) (Calmet) ---

And the definitive sentence of Christians, at the day of judgment will be favourable or not, as they have complied in life with the calls of charity. [Matthew xxv. 31-46.]

Haydock: Jam 2:14

Shall faith be able to save him? He now comes to one of the chief points of this epistle, to shew against the disciple of Simon , the magician, that faith alone will not save any one. We may take notice in the first place, that St. James in this very verse, supposes that a man may have faith, a true faith without good works. This also follows from ver. 19. where he says: Thou believest that there is one God: thou dost well. And the same is evident by the words John xii. 42. where it is said, that many of the chief men also believed in him, (Christ).... but did not confess it, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue. Now that faith alone is not sufficient to save a man, St. James declares by this example: If any one say to the poor and naked, go in peace, be you warmed and filled, and give them nothing, what shall it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works is dead, &c. i.e. such a faith, though it be not lost and destroyed, yet it remains in a soul that is spiritually dead, when it is not accompanied with charity and grace, which is the life of the soul, and without which faith can never bring us to eternal life. In this sense is to be understood the 20th and 26th verses of this chapter, when faith is again said to be dead without good works. This is also the doctrine of St. Paul, when he tells us that a saving faith is a faith that worketh by charity, Galatians v. 6. When he says, that although faith were strong enough to remove mountains, a man is nothing without charity. (1 Corinthians xiii. 2.) When he teacheth us again, that not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [Romans ii. 13.] St. John teacheth the same (1 John iii. 14.) He that loveth not, remaineth in death. But of this elsewhere. (Witham) ---

Grotius in this place makes a very candid and remarkable profession of his faith, very different from that of his associates in the pretended reformation, called Solifideans [who pretend one is justified by faith alone]: "There are some who say, 'My works indeed are not as they ought to be,' but my faith is firm, my salvation is therefore out of danger. This opinion, which has sprung up in this our unhappy age, and recommends itself under the name of reformed doctrine, ought to be opposed by every lover of piety, and all who wish well to their neighbour's salvation....no faith has ever availed any man, unless it were accompanied by such works as he had time and opportunity to perform." His words are: "Opera quidem mea non recta sunt, sed fides recta est, ac propterea de salute non periclitor....Renata est hoc infelici sæculo ea sententia et quidem sub nomine repurgatæ doctrinæ, cui omnes qui pietatem et salutem proximi amant, se debent opponere....cœterum nulla cuiquam fides profuit, sine tali opere, quale tempus permittebat," &c. In vain do we glory in our faith, unless our lives and works bear testimony of the same. Faith without charity is dead, and charity cannot exist without good works. He who bears the fruits of Christian piety, shews that he has the root, which is faith what the soul is to the body. See the remainder of this chapter.

Haydock: Jam 2:18

Some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith, &c. He confutes the same error, by putting them in mind that one can shew that he has faith, which is an interior virtue, only by good works, and that good works in a man shew also his faith; which is not to be understood, as if good works were merely the marks, signs, and effects of faith, as some would pretend, but that good works must concur with faith to a man's salvation by an increase in grace. (Witham)

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 2:3

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

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

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

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:4

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:5

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

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

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:6

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:7

Of Christ, or Christians;

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

Gill: Jam 2:8

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

according to the Scripture, in Lev 19:18

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:9

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:10

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

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

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

Gill: Jam 2:11

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

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

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

yet if thou kill, break the sixth command,

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

Gill: Jam 2:12

So speak ye, and so do,.... Both words and actions should be taken care of; it becomes men to observe what they say, and what they do; for both sinful words and works are transgressions of the law, and will be brought to judgment; every idle word, as well as every evil work, both open and secret, men must give an account of in the day of judgment: wherefore it is incumbent on them so to behave,

as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty: See Gill on Jam 1:25 with which compare Rom 2:12. Heathens will be judged by the law of nature, Jews by the law of Moses, and those who live under the Gospel dispensation, according to the Gospel of Christ.

Gill: Jam 2:13

For he shall have judgment without mercy,.... Strict justice, and no mercy shown him:

that hath showed no mercy; to the poor brethren, and distressed members of Christ, but has shown respect of persons to the hurt of the poor, and has despised and oppressed them, instead of relieving and comforting them; so the rich man, that neglected Lazarus at his gates, is refused a drop of water to cool his tongue; and the servant that cruelly insisted on his fellow servant's paying him all he owed, justly incurred the displeasure of his Lord, and was by him delivered to the tormentors; and that servant that beats his fellow servants will be cut asunder, and, have his portion with hypocrites; and such who have seen any of the brethren of Christ hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and in prison, and have showed no regard for them, will hear, "Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire":

and mercy rejoiceth against judgment; that is merciful men, who have shown mercy to the poor saints, will not be afraid of the awful judgment, but rather rejoice or glory, as the word signifies, in the view of it, since they will obtain mercy at that day, and hear, Come, ye blessed of my Father, &c. Mat 25:34 so the Ethiopic version renders it, he only shall glory in the day of judgment, who hath showed mercy; the Alexandrian copy reads in the imperative, "let mercy glory", &c. and the Syriac version, "be ye exalted by mercy over judgment".

Gill: Jam 2:14

What doth it profit, my brethren,.... The apostle having finished his discourse on respect of persons, and the arguments he used to dissuade from it, by an easy transition passes to treat upon faith and works, showing that faith without works, particularly without works of mercy, is of no profit and advantage:

though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? it is clear that the apostle is not speaking of true faith, for that, in persons capable of performing them, is not without works; it is an operative grace; it works by love and kindness, both to Christ, and to his members; but of a profession of faith, a mere historical one, by which a man, at most, assents to the truth of things, as even devils do, Jam 2:19 and only says he has faith, but has it not; as Simon Magus, who said he believed, but did not.

Can faith save him? such a faith as this, a faith without works, an historical one, a mere profession of faith, which lies only in words, and has no deeds, to show the truth and genuineness of it. True faith indeed has no causal influence on salvation, or has any virtue and efficacy in itself to save; Christ, object of faith, is the only cause and author of salvation; faith is only that grace which receives a justifying righteousness, the pardon of sin, adoption, and a right to the heavenly inheritance; but it does not justify, nor pardon, nor adopt, nor give the right to the inheritance, but lays hold on, and claims these, by virtue of the gift of grace; and it has spiritual and eternal salvation inseparably connected with it; but as for the other faith, a man may have it, and be in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity; he may have all faith in that sense, and be nothing; it is no other than the devils themselves have; and so he may have it, and be damned.

Gill: Jam 2:15

If a brother or sister,.... A Christian man or woman, a fellow member of a church of Christ; for this relation is to be understood in a spiritual sense, though it does not exclude such who are in this relation in a natural sense:

be naked; or clothed in rags, or in very mean and sordid apparel, such as will neither keep them warm, nor clean and decent; for they must not be supposed to be entirely naked, but to be in a very uncomfortable and indecent garb:

and destitute of daily food; have not food sufficient for the day; or aught to support nature with, and yield them proper refreshment and nourishment.

Gill: Jam 2:16

And one of you say unto them,.... That is, one of the same faith, and in the same communion and church fellowship.

Depart in peace; wishing them all prosperity and happiness, inward and outward:

be ye warmed and filled; clothed and fed; signifying, that they wished them all the accommodations of life:

notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful for the body; neither clothes to wear, nor food to eat; nothing to warm their bodies, or fill their bellies:

what doth it profit? the Ethiopic version reads, "what doth it profit them?" either the poor brother, or sister, to whom these good words are given, and nothing else; for these will neither warm them, nor fill them; or the persons themselves, that say these tidings to them: and the apostle, by this instance, shows, that as that charity which lies only in words, and in tongue, and not in deed, and in truth, is unprofitable, and good for nothing, even to them that profess it; so that faith, which a man says he has, and yet is without works, is alike unprofitable unto him.

Gill: Jam 2:17

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam 2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons: and indeed, such who have no other faith than this are dead in trespasses and sins; not that works are the life of faith, or that the life of faith lies in, and flows from works; but, as Dr. Ames observes ^b, good works are second acts, necessarily flowing from the life of faith; to which may be added, and by these faith appears to be living, lively and active, or such who perform them appear to be true and living believers.

Gill: Jam 2:18

Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works,.... That is, a true believer in Christ may very justly call upon a vain boaster of his faith, who has no works, to give proof and evidence of it, and address him after this manner; you say you have faith, be it so that you have; I have works, you see I have, I say nothing about my faith at present; now,

shew me thy faith without thy works, if thou canst; see what ways, means, and methods thou canst make use of, to make it appear to me, or any other, that you have the faith you talk of: the words are a sort of sarcasm and jeer upon the man, and yet very just, calling upon him to do that which is impossible to be done, and thereby exposing his vain boast; for faith is an inward principle in the heart; an hidden thing, and cannot be seen and known but by external acts; and where it is right, it is operative, and shows itself by works, which is not practicable in those who have none:

and I will show thee my faith by my works; there may be indeed an appearance of good works, where there is no faith, as in the Heathens, in the Scribes and Pharisees, and in the Papists, and others; and on the other hand, there may be the principle of faith implanted, where there is not an opportunity of showing it by a series of good works, or a course of godly living, as in elect infants dying in infancy, and in those who are converted in their last moments, as the thief upon the cross; wherefore works are not infallible proofs and evidences of faith, yet they are the best we are capable of giving of it to men, or they of receiving. In short, works may deceive, and do not infallibly prove truth of faith, yet it is certain, that where they are not, but persons live in a continued course of sinning, there cannot be true faith.

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 2:3

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

² tn Or “sit here, please.”

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

NET Notes: Jam 2:4

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

² tn Grk “judges of evil reasonings.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:5

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

NET Notes: Jam 2:6

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

NET Notes: Jam 2:7

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

NET Notes: Jam 2:8

¹ tn Grk “according to the scripture.”

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

NET Notes: Jam 2:9

¹ tn Or “transgressors.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:10

¹ tn Or “stumbles.”

² tn Grk “guilty of all.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:11

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

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

NET Notes: Jam 2:12

¹ tn Grk “a law of freedom.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:13

¹ tn Grk “boasts against, exults over,” in victory.

NET Notes: Jam 2:14

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

² tn Grk “the faith,” referring to the kind of faith just described: faith without works. The article here is anaphoric, referring to the previous mention of the noun πίστις (pisti") in the verse. See ExSyn 219.

³ sn The form of the question in Greek expects a negative answer.

NET Notes: Jam 2:15

¹ tn It is important to note that the words ἀδελφός (adelfos) and ἀδελφή (adelfh) both occur in the Greek text at this point, confirming that the author intended to refer to both men and women. See the note on “someone” in 2:2.

NET Notes: Jam 2:16

¹ tn Grk “what is necessary for the body.”

NET Notes: Jam 2:18

¹ tn There is considerable doubt about where the words of the “someone” end and where James’ reply begins. Some see the quotation running to the end of v. 18; others to the end of v. 19. But most punctuate as shown above. The “someone” is then an objector, and the sense of his words is something like, “Some have faith; others have works; don’t expect everyone to have both.” James’ reply is that faith cannot exist or be seen without works.

² tn Or “from.”

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 2:3

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:4

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:5

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

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:6

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:7

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:8

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

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:10

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

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:11

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

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

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:12

^{( 7 )} So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

^{( 7 )} The conclusion of the whole treatise: we are upon this condition delivered from the curse of the law by the mercy of God, that in the same way we should maintain and cherish charity and good will towards one another, and whoever does not do so, shall not taste of the grace of God.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:13

For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no ^{( h )} mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

^{( h )} He that is harsh and short with his neighbour, or else does not help him, he shall find God a hard and rough judge to him.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:14

^{( 8 )} What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

^{( 8 )} The fifth place which follows very well with the former treatise, concerning a true and living faith. The proposition of the place is this: Faith which does not bring forth works is not that faith by means of which we are justified, but an false image of that faith, or else this: they who do not show the effects of faith are not justified by faith.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:15

^{( 9 )} If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

^{( 9 )} The first reason taken from a comparison: if a man says to one who is hungry "Fill your belly" and yet gives him nothing, this is not true charity. If a man says he believes and does not bring forth works of his faith, this is not true faith, but truly a dead thing called with the name of faith, of which no man has room to brag, unless he will openly incur reprehension, since the cause is understood by the effects.

Geneva Bible: Jam 2:18

Yea, ^{( i )} 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.

^{( i )} No, by this every man will be eaten up with pride.

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 2:1-13

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

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 2:1-7

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

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

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

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

Matthew Henry: Jam 2:8-13

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

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

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

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

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

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 2:2-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Jam 2:5-7

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Jam 2:8-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barclay: Jam 2:12-13

As he comes to the end of a section, James reminds his readers of two great facts of the Christian life.

(i) The Christian lives under the law of liberty, and it is by the law of liberty he will be judged. What he means is this. Unlike the Pharisee and the orthodox Jew, the Christian is not a man whose life is governed by the external pressure of a whole series of rules and regulations imposed on him from without. He is governed by the inner compulsion of love. He follows the right way, the way of love to God and love to men, not because any external law compels him to do so nor because any threat of punishment frightens him into doing so, but because the love of Christ within his heart makes him desire to do so.

(ii) The Christian must ever remember that only he who shows mercy will find mercy. This is a principle which runs through all Scripture. Ben Sirach wrote, "Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven. One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek pardon from the Lord? He showeth no mercy to a man who is like himself; and doth he ask forgiveness for his own sins?" (Sir 28:2-5). Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy" (Mat 5:7). "If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Mat 6:14-15). "Judge not that you be not judged, for with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged" (Mat 7:1-2). He tells of the condemnation which fell upon the unforgiving servant and ends the parable by saving, "So, also, my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart" (Mat 18:22-35).

Scripture teaching is agreed that he who would find mercy must himself be merciful. And James goes even further, for in the end he says that mercy triumphs over judgment; by which he means that in the day of judgment the man who has shown mercy will find that his mercy has even blotted out his own sin.

Barclay: Jam 2:14-17

The one thing that James cannot stand is profession without practice, words without deeds. He chooses a vivid illustration of what he means. Suppose a man to have neither clothes to protect him nor food to feed him; and suppose his so-called friend to express the sincerest sympathy for his sad plight; and suppose that sympathy stops with words and no effort is made to alleviate the plight of the unfortunate man, what use is that? What use is sympathy without some attempt to turn that sympathy into practical effect? Faith without deeds is dead. This is a passage which would appeal specially to a Jew.

(i) To a Jew almsgiving was of paramount importance. So much so that righteousness and almsgiving mean one and the same thing. Almsgiving was considered to be a man's one defence when he was judged by God. "Water will quench a flaming fire," writes Ben Sirach, "and alms maketh an atonement for sin" (Sir 3:30). In Tobit it is written, "Everyone who occupieth himself in alms shall behold the face of God, as it is written, I will behold thy face by almsgiving" (Tob 4:8-10). When the leaders of the Jerusalem Church agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles the one injunction laid upon him was not to forget the poor (Gal 2:10). This stress on practical help was one of the great and lovely marks of Jewish piety.

(ii) There was a strain of Greek religion to which this stress on sympathy and almsgiving was quite alien. The Stoics aimed at apatheia, the complete absence of feeling. The aim of life was serenity. Emotion disturbs serenity. The way to perfect calm was to annihilate all emotion. Pity was a mere disturbance of the detached philosophic calm in which a man should aim to live. So Epictetus lays it down that only he who disobeys the divine command will ever feel grief or pity (Discourses 3: 24, 43). When Virgil in the Georgics (2: 498) draws the picture of the perfectly happy man, he has no pity for the poor and no grief for the sorrowing, for such emotions would only upset his own serenity. This is the very opposite of the Jewish point of view. For the Stoic blessedness meant being wrapped up in his own philosophic detachment and calm; for the Jew it meant actively sharing in the misfortunes of others.

(iii) In his approach to this subject James is profoundly right. There is nothing more dangerous than the repeated experiencing of a fine emotion with no attempt to put it into action. It is a fact that every time a man feels a noble impulse without taking action, he becomes less likely ever to take action. In a sense it is true to say that a man has no right to feel sympathy unless he at least tries to put that sympathy into action. An emotion is not something in which to luxuriate; it is something which at the cost of effort and of toil and of discipline and of sacrifice must be turned into the stuff of life.

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 2:1-13

A. The Problem of Favoritism 2:1-13

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

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

Constable: Jam 2:2-4

2. The present improper practice 2:2-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Jam 2:5-7

3. The inconsistency of favoritism 2:5-7

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

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

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

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

Constable: Jam 2:8-9

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

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

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

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

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

Constable: Jam 2:10-11

5. The importance of partiality 2:10-11

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

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

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

Constable: Jam 2:12-13

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

2:12 The law of liberty (1:25) is the law of God that liberates us now. It is the same as the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2) in contrast to the Mosaic Law. As free as we are under the law of Christ, we need to remember that God will judge us (Rom. 14:10-13; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 2 Cor. 5:10). We need to speak and act accordingly, namely, without prejudice toward others.

"Since he is speaking to believers, the judgment to which he refers must be the judgment of believers at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10)."⁹⁵

2:13 God will not judge us with partiality. He will punish the unmerciful unmercifully. We need to understand this statement in the light of other revelations concerning how God will judge believers. We are in no danger of losing our salvation or even experiencing God's wrath. However, we will suffer a loss of reward if we sin by practicing unmerciful favoritism (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Matt. 5:7; 6:15; 7:1; 18:23-25).

On the other hand, if we are merciful in dealing with our fellowmen God will be merciful in dealing with us when we stand before Him (cf. Matt. 25:34-40). Mercy triumphs over judgment just as love triumphs over partiality.

In modern life, partiality sometimes arises because of differences in economic levels, race, religious preferences, political views, education backgrounds, and personal opinions, to name a few causes.⁹⁶ For Christians it is sometimes harder to be impartial toward sinners who flaunt their sin than it is those who acknowledge that they have sinned. However because Christ died for all we should reach out to all as He did rather than being unfriendly and cliquish. This is true whether the sinners are homosexuals, AIDS patients, the murderers of unborn children, liars, adulterers, thieves, or gossips. This reaching out will be an accurate indicator of the extent to which Christ's love controls us (cf. 1:27).

This section of verses may raise a question in some minds concerning how James viewed the Christian's relationship to the Mosaic Law. Was he implying that we are responsible to keep the whole Mosaic Code? His own words at the Jerusalem Council show that this was not his view (cf. Acts 15:13-21). God gave the Mosaic Law both to regulate the life of the Israelites and to reveal the character and purposes of God to the Israelites and to all other people. Its regulatory function ceased when Jesus died on the cross (Rom. 10:4; Heb. 7:12). Its revelatory value remains forever; it is part of Scripture that is still profitable (2 Tim. 3:16). The moral revelation James referred to here is as applicable now as it was before the Cross. God still expects people to live in its light. Whereas God has terminated the Mosaic Law as a codified body of law, some individual commands within this covenant continue in force under the "law of liberty." These are the laws affecting all human conduct in contrast with those affecting only the life of the Israelites. Christians live under a new set of rules, the law of liberty. Israelites lived under a different set of rules, the law of Moses. The fact that the "golden rule" was part of the Mosaic Law as well as the law of Christ does not mean that we are still under the Mosaic Law.⁹⁷

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 2:14

1. James' assertion 2:14

The Arminian interpretation of this verse (view one above) is as follows. If a person claims to be a Christian but gives no evidence of true faith by the way he lives, he may never have been saved or he may no longer be saved. One Reformed view (view two above) is that if a person claims to be a Christian but gives no evidence of true faith by the way he lives, he was never saved.¹⁰³ The third interpretation (view three above) is that if a person claims to be a Christian but gives no evidence of true faith by the way he lives there are two possibilities. He may not be saved, or he may be saved, but he is not living by faith.

James just dealt with the Christian who professed to love others but by practicing personal favoritism demonstrated that he did not. Now he raised the larger issue of the believer who gives no evidence of his faith in the way he lives. He began by questioning the vitality of that faith. The form of this question in the Greek expects a negative response. If we translate it, "Can that kind of faith save him," or, "Can such faith save him," we may mislead the reader. The same construction exists in 1:2-4; 2:17, 18, 20, 22, 26; and 1 Corinthians 13:4 where the addition of "kind of" or "such" gives a more obviously improper translation. The presence of the definite article "the" with the abstract noun "faith" emphasizes the noun. James was saying that faith without works cannot save a person. Works are a condition for some kind of salvation.

This statement seems to contradict Paul's affirmation that works are not a condition for salvation (e.g., Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 11:6; et al.). However, Paul and James were talking about different aspects of salvation. This is clear from James' earlier assertion that his Christian readers (1:18) would be able to save their "souls" (better "lives") if they obeyed God's Word (1:21). Jesus also gave similar warnings that if His disciples did not continue to follow Him they could lose their "souls" (i.e., lives; cf. Matt. 16:24-26; Mark 3:4; 8:34-37; Luke 9:23-25). He used the same Greek word as James did to describe the life (i.e., psyche). The translation "life" for "soul" may mislead us, however, into concluding that only the physical life is in view whenever we read this word (psyche). Rather it is the total person that psyche describes, not just our eternal life (cf. 1 Pet. 1:9). Any aspect of our life may be in view, and the context will help us determine what it is.

In verse 14 James returned to his thought in 1:21-22 about saving one's life from death. His point here was that faith is no substitute for obedience. Orthodox faith without good works cannot protect the Christian from sin's deadly consequences in this life (i.e., a deadening of fellowship with God at least, and at most ultimately physical death; cf. 5:20; 1 John 5:16). That faith cannot save him from God's discipline of him as a believer. Good works in addition to faith are necessary for that kind of deliverance (salvation).¹⁰⁴

"It would be difficult to find a concept which is richer and more varied in meaning than the biblical concept of salvation. The breadth of salvation is so sweeping and its intended aim so magnificent that in many contexts the words used defy precise definition. Yet these difficulties have not thwarted numerous interpreters from assuming, often without any contextual justification, that the words used invariably mean deliverance from hell' or go to heaven when you die.' It may come as a surprise to many that this usage of salvation' (Gk. soteria) would have been the least likely meaning to come to the mind of a reader of the Bible in the first century. Indeed, in 812 usages of the various Hebrew words translated to save' or salvation' in the Old Testament, only 58 (7.1 percent) refer to eternal salvation."¹⁰⁵

Constable: Jam 2:15-16

2. James' illustration 2:15-16

As he did before (vv. 2-4), James provided a hypothetical though not uncommon situation to illustrate his point (vv. 15-16).

James envisioned a situation that may very well have taken place in his church in Jerusalem where there were many poor saints (Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:3). All the people in the illustration are genuine Christians as seems clear from the terms James used to describe them (cf. "brethren" in 1:2; 2:1, 14; 3:1). The situation he described highlights the absurdity of claiming vital faith but at the same time not working (i.e., not obeying the Word of God; cf. 1 John 3:17-18). A benediction cannot save a starving man from death; only bread can do that.

One Greek scholar paraphrased verses 14-17 as follows.

"What good does it do, my Christian brothers, if someone among you says he has faith and yet does not act on that faith? Faith certainly cannot preserve his life, can it? It would be the same thing as if one of you spoke to some Christian brother or sister who was destitute of the necessities of life and you said, Go home peacefully and get warmed and filled.' But if you did not give them the very things they needed for bodily life, what good would it do? Would their lives be saved by your confident words? In the same way when faith stands all by itself, because you fail to act on it, your inactive faith is as dead as your useless words to your destitute Christian brother. It has no life-preserving power at all!"¹⁰⁶

Constable: Jam 2:17

3. James' restatement of his point 2:17

James was not saying that a person who responds to another Christian's need, as in verses 15-16, shows that he has failed to exercise saving faith and is devoid of eternal life. He was saying that faith, if work (i.e., obedience to the Word of God) does not accompany it, is dead.

"We can make statements in all sincerity of mind and emotion: I feel sorry for the poor; I don't condone racism.' But James will say, What good is that if you aren't doing something to help the poor or to heal the distrust and injustice between races?' Some Christians attempt a stance of personal belief without personal action, saying, for example, I personally disagree with abortion, but I won't try to change others' minds.' James persists in asking us: What are you doing to protect the victims--both the victimized baby and the victimized mother?"¹⁰⁷

"Dead" does not mean non-existent but inactive, dormant, useless (cf. v. 14). This is a very important point.

"It has not usually been considered too deeply why James chose the term dead' to describe a faith that is not working. But the moment we relate this to the controlling theme of saving the life,' everything becomes plain. The issue that concerns James is an issue of life or death. (He is not discussing salvation from hell!) The truth which he has in mind is that of Proverbs: Righteousness tendeth to life . . . he that pursueth evil pursueth it to his own death.' [Prov. 11:19; cf. Prov. 10:27; 12:28; 13:14; 19:16] Can a dead faith save the Christian from death? The question answers itself. The choice of the adjective dead' is perfectly suited to James' argument."¹⁰⁸

Constable: Jam 2:18

4. An objection 2:18

James next introduced an objection to his thesis that faith is dead without works. He put it in the mouth of a hypothetical objector. This literary device of objection and response was a common one that Paul also used (Rom. 9:19-20; 1 Cor. 15:35-36). It is the diatribe.¹⁰⁹ The form of the diatribe helps us identify that what follows is the statement of the objector and what follows that is James' response to the objector.

The NIV has the objector saying only the first part of this verse, "You have faith; I have deeds," and James responding in the last part of the verse. The NASB has the objector saying the whole verse. Which is correct? There were no punctuation marks in the Greek text so we have to determine on the basis of what James wrote. The objector seems to be making a point by way of argument rather than making a simple statement. This fact seems clear from the context in which James responds with a rebuttal (vv. 19-23). Consequently I prefer the NASB punctuation of this verse.

The objector claims that good works are the necessary sign of saving faith. He says, "You cannot prove you have faith unless you have works, but because I have works you can see that I have faith."¹¹⁰ This is the argument that many evangelicals have used: the necessary evidence that a person has been saved (justified) is his good works (sanctification). If he is not doing good works, he is unsaved. Works always evidence faith, they say. If this view is true, why did Jesus teach his disciples that some who are "in Me" bear no fruit (John 15:2, 6)?

The idea that evidence of sanctification must be present before the sinner can have full assurance of his justification is one that certain Reformed preachers after the time of John Calvin popularized. This idea is neither scriptural nor did John Calvin hold it. Theodore Beza in Geneva and William Perkins in England were leading figures in the Calvinists' departure from John Calvin's own teaching concerning faith and assurance.¹¹¹

The basis of our assurance that we are saved is primarily the promise of God in Scripture (John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 10:27-29; 20:31; et al.). It is not the presence of good works (fruit) in our lives. Jesus taught that some branches of the vine do not bear fruit (Matt. 13:22; Mark 4:7; Luke 8:14; John 15:2, 6). Nevertheless they still share in the life of the vine. It seems clear that every true believer experiences a radical transformation in his life when he trusts Jesus Christ as his Savior (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:13; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:13; et al.). However the Scriptures do not say that every true believer's lifestyle will inevitably experience external transformation. That depends on the believer's response to God's will. Carnal Christians (1 Cor. 3:1-4) are those who choose to indulge the flesh rather than submitting to the Spirit's control. Fruit is the outward evidence of inner life. Just as some fruit trees bear little or no fruit, it is possible for some genuine Christians to bear little or no external evidence of their eternal life. The Holy Spirit affects inner transformation in every believer. Normally He will produce outer transformation as well unless the believer quenches and grieves Him as He seeks to manifest the life of Christ through us to others.

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 2:12

JAMES 2:12 —Does the law bring liberty or bondage?

PROBLEM: By James’ account, the law of God brings liberty into the Christian’s life, since he describes it here as the “law of liberty.” This appears to be in direct conflict with the Apostle Paul’s contention that the Law of Moses “gives birth to bondage” ( Gal. 4:24 ).

SOLUTION: James and Paul are speaking of two different laws. Paul is speaking of the OT Law of Moses, “the one from Mount Sinai” ( Gal. 4:24 ). And James is speaking of the NT “law of liberty,” which Paul calls the “law of Christ” ( Gal. 6:2 ) that has set us free from the law of bondage. As Paul put it, “what the Law [of Moses] could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,” nevertheless “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death” ( Rom. 8:2-3 ). The Law of Moses was written in stone, but the law of Christ is inscribed by the Spirit in our hearts ( Jer. 31:31 ; 2 Cor. 3:3-7 ). The two laws can be summarized as follows:

THE LAW OF MOSES THE LAW OF CHRIST  

Brings bondage Brings liberty   

Weak through the flesh Powerful by the Spirit   

Written on stone Written on the heart   

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 2:7

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

Evidence: Jam 2:8

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

Evidence: Jam 2:10

THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW

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

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

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

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

Evidence: Jam 2:16

" Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all: the apathy of human beings." Helen Keller

Evidence: Jam 2:17

Faith without works . A Christian farmer in western Kansas felt sure that God spoke to him to give his $40,000 hail insurance to missions. So, in faith he gave the money, trusting that God would protect his crop. Sure enough, the hail came and severely damaged all his neighbor’s crops, but not his.

In contrast, there is a well-known story about a brilliant tightrope artist named Blondin, who pushed a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls. After he had walked to the other side, the crowd roared with applause at his amazing feat.

He asked a small boy in the crowd if he believed that Blondin could walk back. The boy said, " Yes, sir!" He then asked if the boy thought he could do it with him in the wheelbarrow. The boy said he believed he could do it, to which the famous tightrope walker said, " Good! Jump in then and I will take you!" The boy would not get in.

Here are two different types of faith. The farmer had faith that he had heard from God; he was so sure that he was prepared to step out. But the boy’s faith was (understandably) lacking; he wasn’t prepared to step out, and get in. Many sincere folks have a measure of faith in Jesus, but they have never trusted in Him. In that sense, their faith, because it doesn’t have works with it, is dead.

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