Notes James 2 Commentary

James 2
 OVERVIEW
Jas_2:1, It is not agreeable to Christian profession to regard the rich, and to despise the poor brethren;
Jas_2:13, rather we are to be loving and merciful;
Jas_2:14, and not to boast of faith where no deeds are;
Jas_2:17, which is but a dead faith;
Jas_2:19, the faith of the devils;
Jas_2:21, not of Abraham;
Jas_2:25, nor Rahab. 

 
SECTION THREE
THE SIN OF RESPECT OF PERSONS
Jas_2:1-13
Jas_2:1 My brethren, 1hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
The second chapter of James begins with a warning against the sin of partiality or respect of persons. It grew out of a sin which James seemingly knew to be prevalent among the Jewish churches and was related to his previous discussion by furnishing a further example of inconsistency on the part of those whose practice of pure and undefiled religion was defective. Just as those who were hearers and not doers lacked self-control over their tongues and did not exhibit the love that led to visiting the fatherless and widows, so also they showed that they did not possess the right attitude toward the poor people. James rebukes them sharply and calls them “evil” and “sinners.” The thought of Jas_1:26 f that religion must reflect the great importance of conduct is now enlarged in a specific illustration of something of which many of his readers were guilty.
Jas_2:1 My brethren,– That is James’ oft-repeated address and (as Mayor says) seems very appropriate here, where he is to address them on a breach of brotherly love.
hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,– “Have (hold) faith” is a characteristic Greek expression for possessing a trait or inner quality. It occurs in such expressions as “have love” (Joh_5:42) and “have hope” (Act_24:15). Other occurrences are Act_14:9; Rom_14:22; 1Ti_1:19. It means virtually the same as to “believe in” something. Thus “faith” is subjective and does not refer to the teaching or doctrine to be received (as in Gal_1:23). This indicates also that “of the Lord Jesus Christ” is objective and means “have faith in” or “believe in” the Lord Jesus Christ. For this usage see Rom_3:26; Gal_2:16; Eph_3:12; Php_3:9. Having such faith is an essential element of being a Christian. “To have faith” in such a context is virtually the same as “to be a Christian.” “The believers” or simply “believing” is often a simple way of saying “Christians.”
The text of Westcott-Hort and several commentators (Cf. the margin of the ASV) take this sentence as a question. There is no way except the context to tell for sure. The Greek verb form here is the same for the imperative and the indicative (question), and the particle with which the sentence begins may be the negative with an imperative or an interrogative particle expecting a negative answer. Knowling points out that the conjunction “for” in verse 2 is smoother if read after an imperative than after a question. Too, the question expecting a “no” answer would be quite ironic: “You don’t hold the faith . . . with respect of persons, do you?” On the whole, the reading of the ASV is best. Taken as an imperative the construction means “Quit having faith . .” James knows that his brethren are guilty.
the Lord of glory,–Jesus is either described as “Lord of glory” or as “the Lord, the glory” (apposition). The arrangement of the words makes it difficult to decide; both yield good sense. The first expression means either that He is the Lord of the realm of glory or brightness, where God lives, or it is a qualitative (descriptive) modifier meaning “the glorious Lord.” If it is to be taken as an appositive with “the Lord Jesus Christ,” it means Jesus “who is the glory.” The thought is that of the identification of Jesus (or the transference to Him) of the Shekinah or “glory” of God by which His presence was signified at the tabernacle in the Old Testament. See Exo_24:17; Exo_40:34; Num_14:10.
with respect of persons.–Some things are incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ. John taught that one could not love God and hate his fellow man (1Jn_4:20). Faith in Jesus as Lord excludes partiality or respect of persons. To hold Jesus in proper respect as Lord necessitates the right attitude toward men. So James demands that Christians quit combining faith in Jesus with the wrong attitude toward the poor.
“Respect of persons” in the Greek originally meant to “lift up the face of someone” or to “receive him with favor.” So in Mal_1:8, “Will he accept thy person?” It then came to mean “show favoritism” (see Lev_19:15; Psa_82:2). The noun itself is not used in the Septuagint, but its meaning is clear. It is found in Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9, and Col_3:25. One of the laws of the Old Testament was: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor” (Lev_19:15). The Pharisees and chief priests flattered Jesus that “he did not receive persons,” i.e., “show not favor” (Goodspeed) or “pay no deference” (NEB). It is distinctly noted in the New Testament that there is no respect of persons with God (Act_10:34). For this reason, masters must not threaten (Eph_6:9); slaves must not do wrong (Col_3:25). God does not even favor the “pillars” of the church (Gal_2:6). He will judge impartially (Rom_2:11; 1Pe_1:17). Using another word of the same meaning, Paul tells Timothy that he is to treat elders impartially (1Ti_5:21). Thus the importance of the principle is seen. In the context the evil judging of people by appearances or partiality is called “evil thinking,” “sin,” and “transgression.” James is dealing with the sin of showing partiality because of wealth. In our age it might be the same, or it might be social standing, occupation, nationality, or color. Whatever sociological grounds we may insist on for distinctions and separations in our communities, schools, etc., James would insist that distinctions of persons in the church are sins.
Jas_2:2 For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing;
2 For if there come into your synagogue—James dramatizes the sin of partiality by a concrete example: action in the very assembly of the church. “Synagogue” was the technical term for a Jewish congregation or group meeting for worship (Mat_4:23; Act_17:1). It was also used by metonomy for the place of meeting (Luk_7:5). The literal meaning of the word, however, had no religious connotation. Compare its use in Gen_1:9 for the gatherings of water. It means literally a “bringing together” or ” assemblying” (from sun, “together,” and ago, “I lead or bring”). For comparson, see Heb_10:25 (Gr.) and notice how the word “assembly” is used there.
The use here to describe an assembly of Christians is probably to be seen as a reflection of the situation where the churches (especially the Jewish churches) are still so closely related to the synagogues of the Jews that no great distinction is made between them. Notice how Paul separated the disciples from the synagogue (Act_19:9). The Jewish Christians would probably continue for some time to call their own assemblies after their Jewish names. It is certain that the synagogue influenced the early churches a great deal. The organization of the local churches with a plurality of elders seems to have been taken over from the synagogue. So it is not surprising that James still uses the term. An inscription of the early fourth century A.D. is mentioned in Arndt-Gingrich (Dit. Or. 608) bearing the reading “synagogue of the Marcionites” from near Damascus.
a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, . . . a poor man in vile clothing;–One can almost see the picture of the congregation meeting together in some rented hall or some house belonging to a member and the two strangers (certainly outsiders) entering (not necessarily at the same time). It is implied that they are strangers, for the treatment accorded each is based upon looks, not upon previous knowledge of their characters. The first visitor is a rich man, who comes probably out of curiosity. His gold ring (Luk_15:22) and fine clothing indicate that he is rich. The sources show that the wearing of rings was a custom. Often rings were worn on all but the middle finger. So bad did the ostentation become that some early Christian writers thought that Christians should avoid rings altogether except for sealing documents. “Fine clothing” is literally “bright” or “shining” apparel. Luke uses the same expression for the clothing of the angel who appeared to Peter (Act_10:30) and for the clothes Herod put on Jesus in mockery (Luk_23:11). The rich man is followed by a poor man in “vile” clothes. James is even more specific; the words literally describe his dress as “dirty” or “filthy” (cf. the figurative use of the word for moral uncleanness in Rev_22:11).
Jas_2:3 and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool;
3 and ye have regard to–The verb means “take a look at” (Luk_9:38) or “fix the eyes upon.” Then it means to “gaze fixedly on” or “pay special attention to” (NEB). In Luk_1:48 it has a sense of “care especially for.” Here the verb calls attention to the fixing of the eyes of the people on the visitor, then to the special attention paid to him as the impression is created by his dress that he is “somebody.”
and say, Sit thou here in a good place;–This would be the leader of the congregation, who indicates a place for the visitor, or perhaps the usher. It might even be a member who yields his good place to the rich visitor. There is some discussion as to whether the word rendered “in a good place” really means this or rather “please.” At any rate, the suggestion is that of a cordial reception. Our sources mention the custom of designating seats in assemblies: Luk_11:43; Luk_20:46; Mar_12:39.
and ye say to the poor man, Stand . . . or sit under my footstool.–Letting a visitor stand rather than providing a seat (even if some member has to stand) is a mark of discourtesy among most people. To have to sit on the floor at someone’s feet is equally a slight, unless it is that of voluntary submission of the student to his teacher, as in Luk_8:35; Luk_10:39 (of Martha at Jesus’ feet); and Act_22:3. The incident which James has recreated is probably just a typical way in which the respect of persons was shown. There may have been other ways (Cf. 1Co_11:22).
Jas_2:4 do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
4 do ye not make distinctions among yourselves,– The verb here has the double sense of making distinctions and of doubting or wavering. This accounts for the margin of the ASV “Are ye not divided in your own mind?” Oesterley takes the verb in the latter sense as indicating a spirit of class distinctions among them which would divide the church, a meaning which is in Josephus (Wars 1:27); 4Ma_1:14; and in the New Testament in Act_15:9 (“put no difference between us and them”); and 1Co_4:7 (“who maketh thee to differ”). Compare also Act_11:12, “Go with them, making no distinctions.” Mayor is similar but suggests the idea is that of inner divisions, the double mind of 1:8. This means that there is a sharp distinction between what one thinks at one time (profession) and what one thinks or does at another (practice). This is, then, a form of “wavering, doubting, or hesitating.” This meaning for the verb seems to have been used first in the New Testament. Goodspeed translates “waver.” Either meaning of the verb is well attested and will fit the context. The meaning “make distinction” seems to fit better; at least it goes better with the next word “become judges.” At any rate, the idea of James is that their actions represent a vacillation, either of a group among its members or of individuals in consistency or inner approval of a course of action. The end result is judging the worth of men by appearances.
judges with evil thoughts?–The Greek has literally “judges of evil thoughts.” The possessive is a descriptive or qualitative use (as in 1:25, “hearer of forgetfulness” = “forgetful hearer”) and is equal to “evil-thinking judges.” Mayor translates “wrong-considering judges.” In 4:11 James says that the one who speaks against his neighbor judges him. Jesus said that evil judging rises from the heart (Mat_15:19) and is one of the things which defile the man. In making distinctions on outward appearances they were judging. Jesus had judging from appearances in mind when he said, “Judge not that ye be not judged” (Mat_7:1). Only God is qualified to judge; even when we see evidence of evil deeds, human judgments are not correct, because we cannot know the heart. Judgments on the basis of the kind of clothing worn is even less judicious and hence “evil” or sinful.
The argument of verses 5-12 runs as follows: God judges by different standards from those being used by James’ readers. He has selected as His own the poor of the world, for as a group they possess the faith to be heirs of the kingdom. The rich, on the other hand, oppress the poor and blaspheme the name called upon the Christians. It is assumed that some claim that in their action they were fulfilling the royal law given by Moses to love the neighbor. If this is so, it is well so far as it goes. But the principle of justifying ourselves by the law demands that every law be kept. It takes only the breaking of one law to make a lawbreaker. The same law that teaches to love the neighbor teaches also not to respect per-sons. So the appeal to the law fails as long as partiality is shown.
All the Christian’s acts are to be judged, as James had already shown, by the law of liberty. This law actually frees him from the law as such and judges him by the law of love. Such a law implies mercy and procures for the one showing mercy the mercy of God Himself. So the one who speaks and acts as one to be judged in this way may be happy and confident in the face of impending judgment.
Jas_2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?
5 did not God choose them that are poor as to the world–This verse sets forth the proof that the action of the readers is wrong. Their favoritism is both inconsistent with God’s attitude toward the poor and also with the attitude of the rich themselves toward God’s people. The Jew was confident that he was God’s chosen. Deu_14:1-2, “You are sons of the Lord your God . . . because you are to the Lord your God a holy people, and the Lord your God chose you that ye might become a people of his own possession.” Back of the thought is the idea that it was not any intrinsic merit or wealth that caused the selection, but the promise of Israel’s fulfilling God’s purpose in their faith. The New Testament adopts this as fulfilled in the church. Christians are God’s elect (Eph_1:4; 1Pe_1:1). A lack of worldly pride is seen in the fulfillment: “But God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world that he might put to shame the things that are strong” (1Co_1:27). This same concept lies behind James’ words. God has chosen those who are poor in some respects (i.e., in regard to the world) but rich in another (i.e., in regard to the faith) to be His own and to be the heirs of His promises. This does not mean “rich in faith” as though they had faith in abundance, nor does it mean that their faith is their riches. The dative is the dative of relationship, like “fair in respect to God” in Act_7:20 and “powerful in respect to God” in 2Co_11:4. The wealth that is connected with the faith of the Christian is the same as that to which he is heir–the kingdom, the salvation which is in Christ. Whether the ASV is right in taking “rich in faith,” etc., to be an implied predicate (supplying “to be” rich) is open to question. What the language says as it stands is that God chose the poor, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. These are the kind he chooses. When one becomes these, he is one of the chosen. This does not make the poor as a class destined to become rich in faith and heirs, nor does it exclude the rich. It merely observes that there is a condescension in God’s choice. Poverty and election usually coincide. God knew that the world would be so constituted that those fulfilling his purpose would largely fall among this group, and so it has happened (1Co_1:26). The rich themselves may qualify, as James has indicated in Jas_1:10. (See also 1Ti_6:17 ff) But riches are a danger for one and make his way to salvation difficult (Mat_19:23 ff).
James’ point is quite plain: Of the two visitors to the service, the poor is much more likely to become a Christian and become an heir of the heavenly kingdom; yet the Christians so look upon worldly appearances that they favor the other man. It is not that they ought to be discourteous to either person; but they should not dishonor either, especially the poor. In mistreating the poor they are mistreating the same kind of people as themselves. From this James turns to the way the rich generally treat the Christians.
Jas_2:6 But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, andthemselves drag you before the judgment-seats?
6 But ye have dishonored the poor man.–The action of the church in showing partiality and giving the rich man the good seat and making the poor stand or sit on the floor simply because of his poverty was a dishonor. “Despised” is a possible meaning (Cf. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament), but by etymology and usage the word usually meant to “dishonor” or “show disrespect to.” The verb usually means “to insult or degrade” (Mar_12:4; Act_5:41). “The poor man” is the generic use of the singular noun with the article, not merely “this poor man,” but the poor as such. See Jas_5:6 for what is probably a similar usage.
Do not the rich oppress you,–The verb means to “dominate” or “exercise power over,” almost always in a bad sense. It is at times used of the tyrannical rule of the devil or evil spirits over men (Act_10:38). It signifies also exploiting people, often being used in the Old Testament of exploiting widows and orphans (Mic_2:2; Amo_8:4; Zec_7:10; and Jer_7:6). The verb is past tense in Greek (aorist), which may be the aorist of proverbial or general statements (gnomic).
and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?–The pronoun “themselves” is emphatic and points to the fact that it is the very people who do this that are being respected. They are the ones guilty of dragging orhaving Christians dragged before the judgment-seats. James is probably thinking of the rich Sadducees who persecute Christians (Act_4:1; Act_13:50). The Sadducees, though small in number, controlled the Sanhedrin with its wealth acquired from the tribute money from Jews all over the world. They were the chief instigators of the early persecutions of the church. Christians because they were despised may also have been often singled out by the rich merchants and landowners and prosecuted for their debts. “Drag” implies force and is actually mentioned in cases of arrest in Act_9:1; Act_16:19; Act_21:30. Such is the kind of action Jesus had forewarned his disciples about (Mat_10:7; Joh_16:2). The judges were the Jewish courts which the Romans permitted (Mat_10:17; Mat_9:2; Mat_26:11; 1Co_6:2; 1Co_6:4).
Jas_2:7 Do not they blaspheme the honorable name 5by which ye are called?
Note: The last part of Verse 7 could be translated from the Greek “which was called upon you?” See Act_15:17 and compare.
7 Do not they blaspheme–To “blaspheme” is to “revile” or “speak disrespectfully” of something that is honorable or sacred. The word is usually translated “blaspheme” when it is something holy or sacred (Act_19:37; Rom_2:24) and “revile” when it is directed toward man (Tit_3:2; Rom_3:8). Literally the word means to “speak evil.”
the honorable name,–The name meant is undoubtedly (in view of Biblical usage) the name of Jesus. The Jews would not ordinarily blaspheme the name Christ (Messiah), which was a title sacred to them, except as they might do so by ironically ridiculing the claim of Jesus to be the Christ (as in Mar_15:32). “Blaspheme” here implies the desecration of the name in the knowledge that Christians considered it a worthy or sacred name. 1Co_12:3 (“Jesus is anathema”) shows that some cursed the name of Jesus. Pliny’s letter in the first century shows that rulers put Christians on the stand to “curse Jesus,” which it was understood “no true Christian would do.” A writer tells of being brought to his senses in this respect by the look on his Arab guide’s face when he thoughtlessly used the word “Allah” as a byword. Zahn and others think the reference is to rich Christians who apostatize and in persecution curse the name of Jesus as Lord, the idea being that the rich were more easily induced to do this. This Plummer and Mayor reject, pointing out that “upon you” (rather than “upon them”) differentiates the readers from those who do this. Luke speaks of the unbelieving Jews (Act_13:45) as “contradicting, speaking blasphemy.”
by which ye are called?–The passive (as in the ASV margin) is to be read: “which is called upon you.” The proper background for the phrase is Amo_9:12, quoted in Act_15:17 : “I will build again the tabernacle of David . . . that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called.” The passive of the verb here is used with the noun “name” as in the Old Testament to designate the latter as the property of the one wearing the name. See 2Sa_6:2 (of the ark); 1Ki_8:43; Jer_7:30 (of the temple); Jer_14:9 (of Israel); and also Num_6:27; 2Ch_7:14; Isa_63:19; Jer_25:29. It is even used of the wife assuming the husband’s name (Isa_4:1) and of the children (Gen_48:16). Actually it makes little difference whether the active or passive translation is given, since, after the name is called upon one, it is assumed by him and he is called by it (Isa_43:7). This does not mean that the Israelite wore a form of Jehovah’s name; it was fulfilled in his acknowledging that he belonged to Jehovah. So James had said, “James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas_1:1). This is the meaning of the NEB translation: “The honored name by which God has claimed you,” which gives the significance of the wording rather than the translation.
In view of this background the probability is that the reference is to the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ upon the believer at baptism (Act_2:38, “in the name of Jesus Christ”; and see Act_8:16; Act_10:48) . From this it is very unlikely that that the reference is to the derogatory use of the name “Christian.
“Calling upon the name of Jesus” (Act_22:16) is different. This signifies calling upon God or Jesus (Cf. 1Sa_12:17 f) or their name (Gen_13:4; Gen_21:33) in worship (prayer). This may be in a plea for help (2Sa_22:7) in recognition of authority (as is probably Act_3:6; Act_19:13). Stephen dies “calling upon the name of the Lord” (Act_7:59); his actual words were “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” and “lay not this sin to their charge.” The concept occurs often: Act_2:21; Act_9:14; Rom_10:13 f; 1Co_1:2; and especially 2Ti_2:22. Compare “If ye call upon God as father” (1Pe_1:7).
Jas_2:8 Howbeit if we fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: (See Lev_19:18)
8 Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law,–This section has some difficulties of interpretation, but the sense seems to be as follows: James anticipates that some of his hearers will justify their showing favors to the rich by referring to the commandment which said that the Jew was to love his neighbor as himself. It may be that James knew that this was already being used as an excuse. He shows that such an attempt fails as a justification of the action on the grounds that it falls short of fulfilling the whole law.
“The royal law” is identified by James as summed up in (“according to”) loving one’s neighbor’ (Lev_19:18) . Why is this called the “royal” law? It is either because of its transcending importance among the laws of the Old Testament (Cf. Jesus’ saying that this was the “second” like unto “Love God with your whole heart.”) or because it is from the King (Compare “royal country” “the King’s country,” Act_12:20). Knowling and Ropes favor the idea that the meaning is “supreme”; but Arndt-Gingrich take the other meaning. At any rate, the appeal is to the law of love as that of first importance. James’ critics are saying, “Surely an action which fulfills such a law could not be wrong.”
Note: ‘Adventists often make “the royal law” mean the Ten Commandments. The expression may mean (with Ropes) not merely this passage, as “law” is not used in the sense of specific commandments, but of the whole Law of Moses of which Lev_19:18 is a part, and a part whose perfect keeping implies the keeping of the whole law (Mar_12:31; Rom_13:8).
ye do well.–James has no quarrel with fulfilling the righteousness of the law. Nor does the New Testament ever have. What was morally right under the law is an expression of God’s will and is the object of achievement under the gospel (Romans 7; Rom_8:3; Rom_13:10). There is little difference between the morality of the law and the gospel, though there is a difference in application. If one actually was trying to fulfill the concept of love as laid down in the law, he would be doing excellently.
Jas_2:9-26 but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.
9 but if ye have respect of persons,–James assumed that this is so, just as he had assumed that they were attempting to fulfill the royal law. (In both places he used a condition assumed as fulfilled.) The respect of persons had been demonstrated in the favor to the rich. The excuse involved the readers in an inconsistency which James goes on to explain. “Ye commit sin” means (compare note on 1:20) “Ye practice sin,” become guilty of sinning. The reason that this can be said so specifically is that the law plainly forbade this. As has been pointed out, partiality is prohibited in the same chapter which speaks of love of neighbor, Lev_19:15 : “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.” Compare Deu_1:17; Deu_16:19. Thus the law points to the one who respects person as a transgressor. By an appeal to the law, nothing but sin can be made of their action toward the poor.
Jas_2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law,–This verse is difficult, but it is usually interpreted as follows. It states the principle which makes the former argument valid. The keeping of the whole law is useless as a matter of justification unless it is kept perfectly.
and yet stumble in one point,–The verb “stumble” here, as in Jas_3:2, means to “sin” (See Rom_11:11; 2Pe_1:10; Jud_1:24). “In one point” means “one precept or commandment,” with the word “point” or “precept” understood.
is become guilty of all.–This means to become guilty of violating the law as a whole–of becoming a lawbreaker. One does not need to go to rabbinical parallels to illustrate this. Paul stated the principle to the Galatians: “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal_3:10). Nor is this a strange rule even in civil law. If one murders, he becomes a lawbreaker and may pay the supreme penalty, though he may have kept all law for many years. Paul explains in Romans 7 that the law of sin in our members brings us into sin even if we desire to keep the law. So we all sin (Cf. Jas_3:2). This is the reason that one cannot be justified by the law; he cannot keep it perfectly as he must do to be declared innocent (be justified).
Thus James is saying that those who appeal to the law to justify their partiality are condemned as transgressors because they are guilty of breaking another precept in the same action. James is not saying that the law is still binding upon Christians as such; he is answering those who appeal to the law of love to justify their sin. This is clear from verse 12. Christians are under the law of love. Under this they are really free from the law to love their neighbor (Gal_5:13) but have become slaves to Christ and their neighbors out of love.
Jas_2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (See Exo_20:13 f. Deu_5:17 f. )
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery,–Commentators labor explaining why James chooses these two commands (perhaps because they offend most against the law of love?). These are likely chosen as typical laws. The law is an expression of the will of the lawgiver. One cannot pick out the law which pleases him and let the others go. The only way to be approved by the law is to keep the whole law. Paul in Romans 2 pointed out the inconsistency of the Jews, who took pride in themselves as “teachers” or “guides of the blind”: they only taught the law but did not keep it, or they kept one part and neglected the other (Rom_2:17 ff). So if one keeps some laws but breaks others, he “becomes a transgressor of the law.” Thus by the appeal for a judgment by the law, those showing partiality condemned themselves as sinners.
Jas_2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.
12 So speak ye, and so do,–James uses imperatives in the present tense, of continuous action. We are to live continuously both in our words and speech in view of the way we are to be judged.
as men who are to be judged by a law of liberty.–Jesus emphasizes the urgency of the Christian life. The Christian expects the Lord at any time. He must be ready at any time to give account. At the time when the world expects not, the Lord will come. The construction used in Greek1 was one that replaced the Classical future in some circumstances. It was used of things which were sure to come to pass. It was a favorite construction in expressing decrees or what was fixed by necessity (Mat_25:31; 2Co_5:10; Act_11:28; Act_24:25; Act_27:10). “Judged” here does not mean, as in some other passages in James, “condemned” (Cf. 4:11), but it means to be confronted by the judge to be assessed as guilty or justified according to law. Christians understand that they are to be judged by the gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom_2:16). “By a law of liberty” is a reference to the description of the “word of truth” or the “implanted word” (1:18, 21), as “the law of liberty” in Jas_1:25. For the meaning of the expression, see the comment on that passage. It seems most likely that James repeats his reference to this term by way of contrast with the law or test being proposed by those who were guilty of partiality. They had implied that they justified their action by appealing to the royal law of Lev_19:18. James has countered by showing that that provision is a part of the whole of the Jewish Law, which included the Ten Commandments. Justification under that law demands a consistency of action in keeping the whole law; one cannot just choose which he would keep and let the others go. Partiality is condemned by the same law, so no appeal to the law can be made to justify something it condemns. Having shown that this device will not work, James then in our present verse says, in effect, that Christians are not judged by the Law of Moses anyway, but by the perfect law, the law of liberty. Remembering the free yoke which we have assumed to the will of Christ, out of the debt of gratitude which we owe to Him, we ought to act toward the poor as that law of love (freely assumed and no longer a burden of law) indicates that we should. The exact stipulation of that law, of course, is that we are all one man in Christ Jesus: whether Jew or Greek, bond or free, rich or poor. Our judgment as Christians will not be as a matter of law, but as a matter of obedience to this law of liberty.
Jas_2:13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.
13 For judgment is without mercy–The “judgment” referred to is that implicit in the expression of the previous verse “judged by the law of liberty.” The judgment which Christians will be subjected to is that of the gospel of Christ. Christ’s teaching about that judgment shows plainly what basis will be used to justify his followers, those “blessed of the Father” who will be welcomed into the “joys of the Lord.” But those who have not ministered to the unfortunate will be told, “Depart from me, ye cursed” (Mat_25:24; Mat_25:41). Even under the law of liberty no mercy will be shown those who do not meet the test of mercy to others.
to him that hath showed no mercy:–“Mercy” in such an expression as this is virtually a synonym for the right attitude toward the poor. “Pity” or “compassion” on those without the necessities of life (the widow, the fatherless, the one without food and clothing), as we saw in Jas_1:27, is a vital part of Christ’s law of love. This teaching is quite plain. This Jesus illustrated in the parable of the unmerciful servant (Mat_18:23-35), the story of a servant forgiven of an enormous debt who in turn refused compassion on a fellowservant who owed him a small amount. The principle of reciprocity is basic to forgiveness. He who is not forgiving cannot be forgiven. But the classic expression is Jesus’ own picture of the last judgment, in which the disciples are separated as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats on the basis of whether “ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren” (Mat_25:31-46). John asks how one could claim that the love of God dwells in him who sees a brother hungry and does not feed him (1Jn_3:17) . Love must be not merely in word but in deed. This is James’ climax to the discussion of the sin of judging. Those who take the attitude of despising the poor, as they were doing, will face the judgment under the law of liberty without mercy, for they have shown the poor no mercy.
mercy glorieth against judgment.–This states the opposite and favorable side: Those who have shown mercy under the law of liberty may face that judgment with confidence. Mercy “glories” or “boasts” against the threat of judgment because it leaves the judgment with nothing to condemn. The man who has loved the poor and has shown mercy toward them (all other things being equal) will be justified in the last judgment and will receive the blessing of Christ. Just as “love casteth out fear” (1Jn_4:18), so having mercy relieves the Christian of the fear of judgment.
Thus James deals with the sin of partiality in the church. He has shown that it is a sin clearly inconsistent with the Christian’s profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
SECTION FOUR
THE RELATION OF FAITH AND WORKS
James 2:14-26
The last half of James 2 constitutes one of the best-known and most controversial sections of the epistle–indeed, of the whole Bible. Martin Luther thought that James here was in direct opposition to Paul’s teaching on justification by faith in Romans; and, since he considered Paul’s doctrine as the touchstone for interpreting the New Testament, he considered James an inferior part of the canon–a “right strawy epistle.” At the proper point the relationship of James and Paul in their teaching on justification will be examined.
The relation of this section to the earlier parts of the letter should not be lost sight of. James has insisted that true religion must show itself in proper response. It is not merely the hearer who is saved by the word, but the doer. Religious works or acts of service which do not find accompaniment in works of love and moral living are vain (Jas_1:22-25). Faith toward Christ must not be held with respect of persons, or the Christian becomes a sinner (Jas_2:1-8). James now shows that faith as the foundation attitude of the gospel must find expression in works of obedience if it is to be a saving or justifying faith. If it does not, it is a dead faith; and the man who thinks that such faith will save is vain. There must be more than faith; works must help faith for it to achieve its purpose of justification. But one will not understand Jas_2:14-26 unless it is remembered that with James, no less than with Paul, faith is the necessary foundation or ground of salvation.
Some have wondered if James was refuting Paul’s language in Romans 3-4. This can hardly be true if one accepts both letters as inspired. The Spirit of God does not refute itself. It is quite possible to demonstrate that there is no necessary contradiction between the meaning and application of the two passages. Others think that James may have been correcting a wrong use of Paul’s teaching by some of the early Christians. This is only barely possible. Paul wrote the Roman letter in the year 58 A.D., and James died in the early 60’s. We do know, of course, that some of Paul’s teaching was abused, such as his teaching of grace, which was used to teach antinomianism (Rom_6:1 ff). Thus some may have excused their lack of obedience to the law of liberty by seizing upon Paul’s teaching that justification was by faith as the merit apart from the works of the law.
Other commentators, however, feel that it is unlikely that Palestinian Jewish Christians would have appropriated and misused Paul’s doctrine. They feel that James is simply writing against the tendency of Jews to feel that their racial and religious position with the superior knowledge and beliefs put them in a more favorable position with God and, in fact, guaranteed them salvation even without adequate response to the teaching. This was the shallowness which had been refuted by the great prophets of the O.T. There would still be such pride and shallowness in some Jews who were attracted to or embraced Christianity. Nicodemus thought that by accepting Jesus as a teacher come from God he could join forces with Jesus. He was taught that he must be born again even to see the kingdom (Joh_3:1-5). James has already shown that some looked into the word or were hearers and did nothing.
Another question which is often raised by way of introduction to this passage is whether James is speaking about the initial act of justification in primary obedience to the gospel (becoming a Christian) or whether he is speaking of the fruits of good works in the Christian’s life (as in Jas_3:17). The question is important because some would apply the principle of James to the discussion about baptism as a saving act of obedience (1Pe_3:21; Act_2:38; Mar_16:16) as proving that the faith of the alien must be expressed in a work of obedience to be “perfected” and justifying. Others argue that Paul had taught that justification is by faith without any work of obedience in being saved and that by “justify” in James 2 the author means “the declaring of righteousness” which belongs to the saved and that this is done by such works or good deeds as are the fruits of faith in the Christian’s life, for example, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
This question is somewhat difficult to answer. Ropes thinks that James in 1:19-21 is speaking of a Christian’s attention to the knowledge of God’s word and not to initial acceptance of the gospel. But Ross applies it to such hearing of the gospel as that of the Bereans in Act_17:11. The use of the word “justify” is thought by some to favor the idea of primary obedience, but in a passage like Gal_5:4 it seems to refer to the activities of Christians. Too, Paul seems to speak of “salvation” to those members of the church (Php_2:15) as something dependent upon works–continued obedience to the will of Christ during the course of the Christian life. Strictly speaking, a Christian’s justification or pardon from sin is conditioned in the N.T. upon repentance and confession of sins (1Jn_1:7-9; Act_8:22 f). But his continual acceptance by the Father is dependent upon his fruitful obedience to the truth. Hence it really makes little difference whether the passage is taken one way or the other. Paul’s salvation without works included the obedience of faith (Rom_1:5; Galatians 2:27). Though it seems that James and Paul are using the term “works” in different ways, still, if James is speaking of activity of the Christian life, he is talking about the principle of justification, which works in both areas.
Jas_2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith,–James begins his refutation of the erroneous idea that faith can save without works by pointing up the issue sharply with a series of questions to state his fundamental position that faith which does not result in works is vain or useless, just as religion which is not lived out is vain (Jas_1:26).
“What doth it profit?” means “What good is it to the man?” Compare Jesus’ “What shall a man be profited?” (Mat_16:26). Paul asked the same question about his suffering. If there is no resurrection, “What is the profit?” The adjective is found in the LXX in Job_15:3. It is not that there is no profit in faith. James would never affirm this. Nor does James deny that one might really have faith without works. But he affirms that faith alone is without profit for a man, because it cannot result in his salvation.
One should not emphasize the “say he bath faith” to imply that James means that one claims to have faith but really does not. It is essential to James’ argument that one may be assumed to be a believer without being a worker. A faith which is not active may be unworthy of the name and of no value, but that does not mean that it is insincere. “Faith” is introduced without definition as the basic ingredient of the Christian life. A “believer” is a frequent name in the Bible for a Christian (Act_16:1; 1Ti_5:16). James has already emphasized faith in his letter (1:3, 6; 2:1). He uses it in a general sense without regard to the subtleties or implications of meaning (e,g., “trust” or “endurance”).
but have not works?–By “works” James means any obedience to the law of Christ as a Christian, but generally the term refers to “good deeds” or “conduct,” the fruits of the Christian life (Mat_5:16; Mat_23:3; Rom_2:6; Joh_3:20). In Tit_1:16 Paul uses it of conduct, consisting of many deeds over a period of time. James has already emphasized that the word of truth must continue to be looked into and “done.” He has mentioned specifically such things as “visiting the widows and orphans” (1:21, 25-26). Later he will say that the wise teacher must show “by his good life his works in meekness of wisdom” (3:13), and he specifies “full of mercy and good fruits” (3:17). Thus the reference is to such works which fulfill the law of liberty and by which men will be judged. James is using the same word as Paul in his statement that man is not justified by works (Rom_3:28; Rom_4:2), but he means something altogether different. Paul means meritorious works, such as those performed under the law, which have no relation to the blood of Christ and are performed as the basis or merit of justification in themselves. With James the idea is that a Christian who accepts Christ as his sacrifice and thus has God’s righteousness imputed to him must live in obedience of faith to the law of Christ, manifesting his faith in works. Paul would have no quarrel with this. As a matter of fact, Paul is just as insistent on it. The Christian must work out his salvation (Php_2:12). He is created unto good works (Eph_2:9). He must present his members as instruments of righteousness (Rom_6:13). Paul warned his readers who were Christians that “If ye live after the flesh, ye must die” (Rom_8:13). The Christian must bring forth fruit unto God (Rom_7:4). Paul himself is the one who coined the phrase “the obedience of faith” (Rom_1:5; Rom_16:26). Paul would never have denied that works of obedience to the law of Christ are necessary to make a Christian’s faith perfect and saving.
can that faith save him?–James uses the word “faith” here with the article so as to mean “the kind just mentioned,” that which has no works, or “faith alone.” The question is asked in Greek in such a way as to expect a negative answer: James emphatically is asserting that such a faith (one which has not works) cannot save. “Save” here is to be taken in the same sense as the word in 1:21 “receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your soul.” James means the future salvation which is still to be worked out by the man born again (Compare 1:18 with 21 and also II Thessalonians 5:23; 2Pe_1:5).
Jas_2:15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
15 If a brother or sister be naked–James begins his discussion of the merits of the claim for a non-working faith by an illustration in which he supposes a fellow Christian, a “brother or sister,” did not have the necessities of life. Hereby he emphasizes in a strong and concrete way the necessity of the work of faith. A Christian is under obligation to work that which is good toward all men, but especially toward those of the household of faith (Gal_6:10). We must not love in word only, but in deed as well (1Jn_3:17-18). James has just demonstrated that works of mercy are necessary toward the poor (2:13). “Naked” does not mean no clothes absolutely. The word is often used for scanty clothes (Joh_21:7) or clothes which are virtually none at all.
in lack of daily food,–The lack of clothing and food emphasizes the destitution of the fellow Christian. A Christian who does not rise to help his brother in such condition has not the love of God (1Jn_3:17).
Jas_2:16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?
16 and one of you say unto them,–James is thinking of any Christian who might speak these words of seeming concern for brethren. It is not to be thought that James means that those who argue that faith alone is sufficient for salvation are the ones who act this way. He is simply using an illustration to show such people that faith expressed in word only would be worthless. There are many who say and do not, just as there are many who look into the perfect law and do not obey it.
Go in peace,–A similar farewell greeting occurs in Jdg_18:6 (Ms. B); 2Sa_3:21; and Act_16:36. The phrase means something like our English “Keep well” (Arndt-Gingrich). The phrase indicates a real concern for the welfare of the needy.
be ye warmed and filled;–Huther takes the verbs as reflexive (middle) as meaning “warm and fill yourselves.” This is possible from the form of the verbs, as the forms can be interpreted two ways. But Ropes correctly shows that the context demands the passive. “Warmed” means warmed by good clothes (Job_31:20; Hag_1:6). Thus James’ words might be translated, “Keep well. Dress warmly and eat well.”
ye give them not the things needful to the body;–It is to be noted that James had begun by supposing that this should be done by a member of the church. So he says, “Ye give them not.” The necessities are, of course, the food and clothing necessary to life.
what doth it profit?–What value would your good blessing and farewell be? They would not only be useless, but somewhat of a mockery. The application to the thought of the context is given in the next verse.
Jas_2:17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
17 Even so faith, if it have not works,–James thus applies the illustration to the contention. Just as the answer to the needy man without deeds of charity would be profitless, so also faith if it have not works is useless. Faith’s “having works” is to be thought of in the sense of something having or including something in itself, and thus bringing it about or causing it (Arndt and Gingrich).
James has talked of patience “having perfect work” (1:4); compare “fear hath torment” (1Jn_4:18) and “boldness which bath great recompense of reward” (Heb_10:35). Thus James means that faith may or may not lead to or be characterized by works or good deeds. Compare Paul’s “work of faith” (1Th_1:3). If it does not produce works or good deeds, it is of no value.
is dead in itself.–A faith which does not cause works is dead. James does not contrast faith and works, but a faith which is active and a dead faith which is not. The dead faith is idle or vain (verse 20). This sense of “dead” to mean “idle” or “without value” is common: Rev_3:1 (“having a name that you live and are dead”); Heb_6:1; Heb_9:14; Rom_6:11; Rom_7:8. James says that “of itself” it is dead, thus not able to accomplish anything. “In itself” probably means “as long as it remains or continues by itself” or alone (Arndt and Gingrich). This is the usual meaning of the Greek phrase (Cf. “to live by one’s self,” Act_28:16). This is more likely than Ropes’ idea that it means “within itself,” referring to the inward power. As long as faith is strictly by itself, it is valueless; the moment it acts it is no longer without works and is no longer dead or useless.
Jas_2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
18 Yea, a man will say,–The meaning of this verse seems plain, but it is difficult to explain in detail. Some commentators take the whole sentence as the saying of one contending that faith alone will save. Others take the first part to be the contention of such a one, but they take James’ answer as beginning with “show me.” In this view the man is simply a supposed objector, as in 1Co_15:35. Still others see the speaker as different from either James or the “faith only” man of verse 14. Lenski makes the speaker someone who comes to James’ readers and says that “you” (some Christian) have faith, and “I” (James) have works. It does not appear important to the thought to settle this point. It is clear that James is refuting the idea that one may be saved in one way, another by a different way.
Thou hast faith, and I have works:–The point of this statement is that one person may excel in one thing and another in still something else, but this does not mean that both may not be acceptable. Each man has his strong points. One man may be saved by his faith, another by his good deeds. Huther and others cannot see these words as coming from an objector who argues for “faith only,’ since, in this regard, the objector ought to say, “You have works and I have faith,” instead of “You have faith and I have works.” To avoid this he understands the speaker (like Lenski, above) to be someone different from both James and the man of verse 14. This man on the side might say to James’ opponent, “You have faith and I (James) have works.” Either way James is rejecting the contention that a one-sided insistence on faith or works will benefit.
show me thy faith apart from thy works,–Whichever way the former part of the sentence goes, this seems to be the reply to the contention that one may have faith and another works. The challenge is to demonstrate or prove the existence of faith without works. How can it be done? If a man tells me that he will kill me if I don’t surrender my wallet, how can I demonstrate that I believe him? I might believe he meant it and still value the contents so much that I would try to avoid parting with my wallet, but it would be hard to prove the presence of faith except by obeying the thief. There is a semantic sense in which some would argue that “real” faith must act and that, unless faith acts, it is not genuine. This is probably not James’ point. Faith is demonstrable only through works.
and I by my works will show thee my faith.–This is the logical and (to James) the only way to prove one’s faith. The man who professes the faith of Christ and really works at the job of producing fruits to the name of Christ will never be doubted as being a sincere believer. He proves his faith by his works. One who boasts of his faith but never does anything about it would be doubted.
The use of the “you” in the refutation of an idea, in which the writer turns aside to address an imaginary opponent, is supposed to be the evidence that James is patterning his document on the Greek Diatribe style. But it is doubtful that James had ever seen or heard any such in reality. There are too many other possible parallels. Note what is said on the point in the introduction. Metzger points out that the style is well known in rabbinical writings. The Old Testament style of the prophets in addressing their enemies could be James’ model, if one is needed (see on Jas_5:1).
Jas_2:19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
19 Thou believest that God is one;–Having taken care of his objector, James now goes to the heart of the argument over the relation of faith and works. Some commentators suppose that in this first concrete instance James touches on the idea that any Jew would claim for his justification–that he believed in the one God of Israel. Had not this belief in Monotheism been the basis of Israel’s salvation? This was the fundamental proposition in the Jews’ confession of faith or Shema, which they prayed daily: Deu_6:4; Neh_9:6; Isa_45:6; Mat_23:9; Rom_3:30; 1Co_8:4; 1Co_8:6; and Jas_4:12. Compare Hermas, Mandates 1, 1. 2, “Believe this first of all things, that God is one.” This is the great and fundamental truth of all the Hebrew-Christian religion. But the belief of this alone is not enough.
thou doest well:–James does not despise faith. It bears repeating that James, as Paul, takes faith to be the foundation and meritorious basis of our salvation. James would never belittle faith or any claim to faith. One who believes God is doing well. If he lets that faith do for him what it should, he is on his way to salvation. If not, then he is no better than the demons.
the demons also believe, and shudder –“Demons” were “evil spirits” under the service of Satan. They possessed people and in the gospel age were subject to the power of Jesus and the apostles acting in His name. The Gospels show that they recognized Jesus as the Holy one of God and were tormented in His presence. They also believe. But there is no evidence that they can or will repent or express their faith so that they may be redeemed. If a man only believes, in what way is he better than the demons?The verb “shudder” originally meant to “bristle” (as Job_4:14 f). But it is used simply of one who stands in awe or reverence (Dan_7:15) . Here it may refer to the demons’ fear of impending punishment.
On the teaching of the Bible on demons the student may consult R. C. Trench, On the Miracles (chapter on the demoniac at Capernaum) , Unger’s Biblical Demonology, and the article by Sweet in the New International Bible Encyclopedia. We are not to attribute the statements of Bible about demons to superstition or mental diseases. God’s word affirms their existence. It is no more difficult to believe in demons than to believe in God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, angels, or the devil. For passages that mention and assume the existence of such, see: Luk_8:30; Mat_11:18; Luk_7:33; Joh_7:20; Joh_8:48 f; Mat_12:24. The Bible hints (though it does not state plainly) that the demons were to be consigned to the abyss (Mat_8:29; Luk_8:31). In 1Ti_4:1 ff the false teaching is attributed to the influence of demons.
Jas_2:20 But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?
20 But wilt thou know, 0 vain man,–The language calls upon the believer in “faith only” to be willing to recognize or acknowledge the truth. Compare comment on 1:3 and on “would be a friend” in 4:4. James is so confident of the truth of his position and of the force of his reasoning that he calls upon the errorists to concede. The term “vain man” is an expression somewhat equivalent to “foolish one.” The man who will argue in such fashion as the above is “vain” in James’ mind. Thus James indicates his vexation at him. From this verse James is presenting his argument’s proof, beginning with Abraham’s justification.
faith apart from works is barren?–“Apart from works” is a variation of “faith if it have not works.” Cf. Heb_4:15, “apart from sin” (without committing sin). Thus it is a faith which does not express itself in works. The MSS. vary between “barren” and “dead,” but “dead” is probably a scribal change to make it agree with verse 26. “Barren” comes originally from a word which means “unemployed” or “idle” (Mat_20:3; Mat_20:6; Tit_1:12). Then the word comes to mean “lazy” and “useless.” It has no connection with the idea of fruit. “Useless” is probably the meaning here. Cf. 2Pe_1:8, “barren (useless) unto the knowledge of Christ.” It is useless to have faith if it does not express itself in obedience. Some commentators who think that James is refuting Paul refer the expression “0 vain man” to Paul. But James certainly did not have Paul’s teaching in mind.
Jas_2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
21 Was not Abraham our father–James’ first example is Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. The use of Abraham is due to his historical place in the Bible and also to the fact that he is the father of the Jews. His example of faithfulness was mentioned by Jewish writers. Ecclesiastes relates: “Abraham was a great father of many nations who . . . when he was proved was found faithful” (44:19f). We also find in 1Ma_2:52, “Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?” Such quotations show that the matter of Abraham’s faith was a familiar one to James’ audience. New Testament writers also hold up the faith of Abraham as an example. See Heb_11:8 ff; Gal_3:6 ff; Rom_4:3. As has been stated, it is possible that the point is raised because the Jews felt that being a descendant of Abraham or an orthodox believer was sufficient for salvation.
justified–The word is a key one here. It had two general meanings: (1) “to vindicate” or show that one’s course is wise or just. This was a frequent meaning in the Old Testament, where God, by giving Israel victory in battle, justified her cause. Compare Mat_11:29; Luk_7:25; Luk_7:35 (“Wisdom is justified by her children”); 1Ti_3:16. (2) “To be acquitted or pronounced and treated as righteous” or innocent. This is termed the forensic or legal use of the word. This was also a frequent use in the Old Testament. Cf. Exo_23:7 (“I will not justify the wicked”); Deu_25:1; 1Ki_8:32; Isa_5:23; Isa_50:8 (of Jehovah); 53:11 (“my righteous servant shall justify many”). N.T. passages which have this meaning, besides James and Paul, are Mat_12:37 (“For by thy words thou shalt be justified”) and Luk_18:14 (the Pharisee “went down to his house justified”).
It has been contended that the first meaning is that of James here and that he means that Abraham was merely declared or proved righteous; that the course of God in blessing him and selecting him and giving him the promise earlier was vindicated or shown to be right by his action in offering his son. But this hardly does justice to James’ argument. James is talking about faith saving a man (verse 14). It is not contemplated merely that one already just or acquitted is proved or declared righteous, but the action of God in declaring him righteous is referred to.
by works.–These words declare the grounds or reasons for which Abraham was declared righteous. James used the plural word as he had previously done (verses 14, 17, 18) because he is still thinking of the category of things by which one is saved (“works” along with “faith”), and the offering of Isaac is an instance of the category. It is not Abraham’s general conduct or whole life that is in point, but the one act of offering.
in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?–In the Greek text the verb is a participle used in an adverbial (causal) sense. Other examples of Abraham’s faith are mentioned: believing the promise of a son (Rom_4:17-21); the departing from his native land (Heb_11:8-12); the sacrificing of Isaac while thinking that he would be raised (Heb_11:17-19). In Gen_22:9 ff there is nothing said of “justification.” But the offering was followed by a blessing’s being pronounced upon him that his seed would be multiplied and all nations blessed through him “because thou bast obeyed my voice” (Gen_22:17-18). Cf. verse 16, “because thou hast done this thing.” From this James could easily infer the blessing of justification which had been connected with the earlier faith (Gen_15:6). Gen_15:6 also does not mention “justification,” but in Paul’s use of the passage he infers justification, as James does here in 2:21. Later in Genesis it was said that the promise were reiterated “because that Abraham obeyed my voice” (26:5). Thus James could see that (though is it not specifically stated) the Old Testament record indicated that acts of obedience had led Abraham to another declaration of righteousness before God. Thus the act (“works”) is shown to be the basis of his justification. This is not to say that his works alone saved him, which James would not have affirmed. James mentions only what has been left out or neglected by some in man’s justification. The two worked together, as James goes on to show.
In Greek James’ question “Was not Abraham justified by works?” is introduced by the negative particle (ou) which expects a “yes” as an answer. James is saying in a most emphatic way that works were the basis of Abraham’s being justified.
As has been shown, Abraham’s offering of Isaac was the cause of a later or additional justification to that of Gen_15:6. But Paul’s use of the Genesis passage in Rom_4:2; Rom_4:5 to affirm that Abraham was not justified by works and that “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness” raises the question as to whether James and Paul contradict each other in their use of the words “justified by works” and “faith.” This question must not be avoided. Schrenk (Bible Key Words, Righteousness, p. 40) says that Paul could never have stood for the contention that Abraham was justified on the ground of the work which accompanied and authenticated his faith.
It must be admitted that Paul and James use the word “justify” in the same sense (though talking about a different occasion of declaration of righteousness). But a contradiction is avoided by seeing that they used the word “works” in a different context or meaning. Paul is thinking of the works of the Law of Moses as the basis of justification. Notice Gal_2:16; Gal_3:11; Gal_5:4, where Paul adds “the law” to his denial that one is justified by works. He insists that Abraham’s justification was before the Law and apart from it, just as he insisted (Rom_4:10 ff) that it was before circumcision. James is thinking of works of faith or obedience. That Paul would have denied this in the sense that James means it no one can say, for Paul did not deny it. Further, in Tit_3:5; Tit_3:7 Paul combines being “justified by his (God’s) grace” with being saved by baptism as “the washing of the new birth.” Thus it is not beyond Paul’s thought that a work of obedience growing out of one’s faith in God or Christ is the basis of justification.
Jas_2:22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works,–This statement may well be a question as the margin indicates, though it is impossible to tell from the original. Either makes good sense in the context. As it stands in the text, it forms a conclusion to the deduction that Abraham was justified by works in offering Isaac. If it is a question, then James is asking the reader if this does not follow. James asks if the fact that faith “worked together with works” is not proved by the incident just mentioned. James demonstrates the mutual dependence of faith and works. Abraham’s faith “cooperated with” or “aided” works (that is, to achieve their desired end–justification). The verb means to “cooperate with” or “help” someone. Thus Paul used it when he said that God works together all things for good to those who love Him: “In everything God helps (or works for) those loving him in obtaining that which is good” (Rom_8:28). Cf. also 1Co_16:16; 2Co_6:1.
and by works was faith made perfect;–Some would take the verb to mean “declared or proved” complete. But Huther is right in saying that the word does not mean this. It means to be “completed” or “perfected” (Luk_13:32; Act_20:2 f). James does not mean that Abraham had a faith which was imperfect or defective in itself so that real faith came about only after he had obeyed God’s command. His faith was real before. But he means that Abraham’s faith was not perfected or completed so that it did for him what God had intended it to do until after the obedience. The faith that he had was complemented or helped along by his work of obedience; they went hand in hand (Knowling), with faith being made stronger by the tests to which it was put until in the great test of offering his son it reached perfection. Faith and works give each other elements of character that neither has alone. James does not teach works alone any more than he teaches faith alone. There is a work of faith (1Th_1:5; Gal_5:6) or an obedience of faith (Rom_1:5; Rom_16:25). When the two aid each other, faith accomplishes its end–justification.
Jas_2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; ” and he was called the friend of God.
23 and the scripture was fulfilled–The scripture referred to is Gen_15:6, which relates that when God told Abraham that Eliezer of Damascus, his adopted heir, was not to be the one through whom the promise was to be fulfilled Abraham “believed and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” What does James mean by “fulfilled?” Some say it means “confirmed” and that this statement was only confirmed in the offering of Isaac, not that justification actually took place then. But “confirmed” is not a meaning which can be ascribed to the verb. In such a context the verb refers to the fulfillment of God’s predictions or promises in some future event. Even in the O.T. this was its meaning (1Ki_2:27). Its N.T. usage is abundant (Mat_1:22; Luk_1:20; Act_1:16). Even the promise of Jesus is said to have been fulfilled (Joh_18:9; Joh_18:32).
It is true that the statement as it occurs in Genesis is not a prediction but a statement of fact. But James deduced (as we have shown) from the statements of Gen_22:16-18 that a justification had taken place “because he had done this.” Huther says: “But as it notifies facts which point to later actions in which they received their full accomplishment, James might consider it as a word of promise which was fulfilled by the occurrence of these later actions.” It is possible that a thing spoken at one time and fulfilled in a measure at one time may later receive another and more complete fulfillment. So one must consider some of the passages quoted in the N.T. See comment by J.W. McGarvey on the passages quoted in Matthew 1 in the note at the end of his first chapter in New Testament Commentary on Matthew and Mark. So James sees that the perfection of Abraham’s faith in the offering of Isaac and the justification which is implied following it fulfill the statement of Gen_15:6 of Abraham’s faith and the reckoning for righteousness. It is no contradiction that Paul saw justification as taking place at the time of Gen_15:6 also.
Abraham believed God,–This passage originally referred to Abraham’s belief that he would become the father of a seed. But it is also a general statement of Abraham’s trustfulness exemplified by his whole life, as James sees in subsequent events.
and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,–The verb “reckoned” is frequently used in the Septuagint “to express what is equivalent to, having the like force and weight as something mentioned” (Knowling). Cf. Isa_40:17 (“count as nothing”); Rom_2:26 (“uncircumcision regarded as circumcision”). The verb also has the meaning of crediting something to one’s account which does not (properly) belong to him (Psalms 31 [32]:2). Either of these senses will satisfy the meaning here. God took Abraham’s faith instead of righteousness (which he did not have in the absolute, being a sinner); he thus credited to Abraham’s account the
righteousness which he did not before possess. This is equivalent to saying, as Paul had seen (Rom_4:2 ff), that he was “justified” or declared righteous. This is practically the same as saying that he was forgiven of his sins because of his perfect faith. This remains with James, as well as Paul, the meritorious basis of man’s salvation. Ours is the faith in the sacrifice of Jesus as God’s son for us. James’ point is that this faith reckoned for righteousness was fulfilled (at least in an additional measure) by the offering of Isaac.
and he was called the friend of God.–Abraham became the friend of God as a result of his exercise of faith. He was not called the friend of God (at least not in Scripture) until much later (Cf. the margin: Isa_41:8; 2Ch_20:7). His becoming the friend of God was a result of the expression of his faith in offering Isaac. He was justified by the deed and as a consequence also was referred to as God’s friend.
Jas_2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified,– This is the conclusion James thinks all can see from what he has presented. He has fully demonstrated that it takes both faith and works to procure man’s justification. Especially does he think that he has shown this from Abraham’s case. It is clear that works growing out of his faith were the cause of the justification which followed his offering of his son. It was “because you have done this” that the blessing followed. So works justify, not in themselves alone, but still they justify.
and not only by faith.–To a man wishing to be saved by the “word of truth” (Jas_1:21) faith alone is not enough. Faith “in itself is dead,” “is useless” (verses 18, 20). As in Abraham’s case faith must cooperate with works, and the works must complete and bring faith to its goal of justification. The stress is on the word “only.” James could not deny that faith justified Abraham; the very passage in which he saw Abraham’s work of offering as the “fulfillment” emphasized that “Abraham believed.” James is thinking of a faith which exists “in” or “by” itself and apart from any expression or work. Since such a faith is “idle” and “useless,” it cannot justify. Hence salvation or justification in the sense that works perfect faith is “by works” and not “by faith alone.” Paul’s use of “faith without works of the law” is quite different but perfectly in harmony with James.
NOTE ON “FAITH ONLY”
The doctrine of “justification by faith only” has become a loaded expression in modern denominational theology. It is a real bone of contention. The modern denominational doctrine (at least in some groups) is that in conversion man is saved at the instance of faith, when he puts his trust in Christ as his personal Savior. This leads to the denial of the efficacy of other acts of obedience, especially baptism. The Bible plainly teaches that baptism as an act of faith is a condition of salvation or remission of sins (justification). See Act_2:38; Mar_16:16; 1Pe_3:21; Act_22:16. This does not mean that baptism is sacramental in the sense in which sacraments are generally understood. A sacrament (as used in Catholicism) is an act which has its efficacy in itself and in the validity of the administrator (an authorized person) and requires no faith on the part of the one on whom it is administered. In such an act faith does not “work together,” for there is no faith.
But this use of the term “faith only” is not the historic meaning of the term. Martin Luther did not mean this by his formula, and to attribute the rise of the term in its denominational sense to him (as is so often done) is an injustice. Luther meant that faith is the only meritorious ground of justification–salvation or remission of sins can never be obtained on any grounds apart from faith in Jesus’ blood. There are only two means of salvation as Paul stated them in Rom_3:27 : “the principle” (law) of faith and the “principle” (law) of human works of merit (such as those under the law). See New English Bible on this verse. Since Paul rejected the principle of works, it follows that, unless one is to be saved by the principle of faith, he cannot be saved. This expression did not originate with Luther; others had used it before him (Cf. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, pp. 164f). But he stoutly defended the translation of Rom_3:28 : “Man is justified without the works of the law through faith only.” To deny this (to Luther) would be to deny the whole teaching of Paul and to affirm that one can be saved by his own works without the Lord Jesus. In this understanding Luther is correct.
But Luther himself emphasized the importance of baptism. He is quoted as saying, “We are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith which is alone.” Some of the harshest things which Luther ever said were said in one edition of his commentary –against those who deny the place of baptism in the New Testament. Thus we see that “faith only” can be used in two senses. It can be used compositely as the principle of justification. But it can be used analytically, where the process of obedience is broken down into its component parts. In the first sense, salvation is by “faith only”; in the second sense, it is “by works and not by faith only,” for here faith is only one of the conditions of pardon: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mar_16:16); “Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins” (Act_2:38). Thus the denominational doctrine of salvation at the moment of faith –without obedience–is not a Biblical teaching, and it does not take its roots from the reformers. It is rooted in the conversion experience theology of early American revivalism. It sets aside the plain teaching of the Bible on the doctrine of obedience and works of faith.
It is easy to see, therefore, that there is no contradiction between Paul’s use of justification of faith (only or “without works”) and James’ teaching that justification is by works and not by faith only. Paul is thinking of the composite nature of faith as the principle of justification by faith rather than by the works of the law (or of human merit). James is thinking analytically of faith as a condition of justification and insists that it must obey the conditions of the teaching of Christ and perfect itself in works.
25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
25 And in like manner was not also Rahab . . . justified by works, –James now adds a case drawn from people other than the family of Abraham. The reason for this probably was to broaden the principle and to show that it operated outside the chosen family in the Old Testament. The principle includes every race, sex, and condition of life. Paul argues that anyone who comes to accept the principle of faith upon which Abraham was justified becomes in this sense a “child of Abraham” as he becomes “the father of all them that believe” (Gal_3:7-9).
Rahab was a Canaanite, a woman fallen under the weight of sin. Yet by believing in the God of Israel, of whom she had heard (Jos_2:9 ff), and receiving the spies and sending them out another way, she walked in the steps of the faith which Abraham had (Rom_4:12). In this way her acceptance with God is proved. She is listed among the Old Testament worthies of faith (Heb_11:31) and appears among the genealogy of Jesus Christ the Savior Himself (Mat_1:5). Thus believing in the God of Israel and showing her faith through deeds, she was justified by her works and became listed as an ancestress of the Messiah.
she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? –The details are given in Joshua 2 and 6:23. Heb_11:31 says, “By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that were disobedient, having received the spies with peace.” Thus the writer of Hebrews, as well as James, emphasized that her faith was demonstrated in “obedience” in receiving the spies. Her justification by works is therefore proved. Her faith cooperated with, or helped, her works and was perfected by what she did.
Jas_2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead,–James sees the whole case as made out and concludes the argument with another illustration. The “for” is added as a particle of conclusion. This is grounds for saying what has been said already about faith and works. He is drawing the same conclusion as in verse 24. But he also repeats the statement of verse 17 that “faith apart from works is dead” and adds to it the illustration which gives it vividness.
“The body” is the human body, and “the spirit” is the animating principle of life. As in Ecc_12:7, “The dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it.” When the spirit leaves the body, it dies and returns to the dust. From then on the body is nothing. So James insists that apart from works faith is dead. Faith not expressed in works is like the body which has been left by the spirit; it is a dead body. The sense of “dead” here is probably like that of “idle” or “barren” in verse 20; it is to be taken in the sense of “useless,” unable to profit.
Let us all take heed to James’ admonition. Let the sinner respond to the commission to heed ,what Jesus says to those who ask, “What must I do to be saved?” And let the Christian (to whom this is written primarily) remember that a life of genuine obedience to the will of Christ in worship, service, and morality is necessary to perfect the faith with which he began to live for Christ.

James 2
Verse 1 
The first section of this chapter (Jas_2:1-13) carries a warning against courting the favor of middle-upper income people or the wealthy, against showing special courtesies and solicitude. There are no doubt many congregations which are tempted to do this very thing. After all, there are budgets to be subscribed, programs to be financed and all kinds of good works which require constant scrambling on the part of the church elders and deacons in their efforts to finance such things. Therefore, the tendency is to do a little bowing and scraping when some well-to-do person condescends to visit the assembly of the church. It was no different in that generation to which James addressed these remarkable words. The warning is clear enough: “Don’t do it!”
The second section will be introduced separately at the end of Jas_2:13.
It will be remembered that “Perfection” is the overall theme of this epistle, and this first portion of James 2 relates to the general subject by guarding against partiality and false judgments of men upon the basis of external conditions.
My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. (Jas_2:1)
My brethren … Significantly, this entire epistle is addressed to Christians, true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ; for only such persons could truthfully be addressed as “brethren.” As Lenski said, “This is preeminently a New Testament writing and by no means a legal one.”[1] To read James as if it were addressed to Jews is to miss the meaning altogether.
The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ … As usual, the scholars cannot agree on whether “faith” is here subjective or objective. Zerr made it objective, “referring to the Christian religion.”[2] Roberts said that “It is subjective and does not refer to the doctrine or teaching.”[3] As Gibson said, “Here it may be either (1) objective as in Jud_1:3; Jud_1:20, or (2) subjective, as in Mar_11:22.”[4] Despite such views, we accept Zerr’s understanding of the passage which sees it as a clear reference to “the Christian religion.”
Our Lord Jesus Christ … This exact title of the Master is found in that letter addressed by James and the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to the Syrian churches (Act_15:26), and this is considered by some to support the proposition that this epistle was written by the same James.
The Lord of glory … The first two words of this are italicized, showing that they are not in the Greek, leading some to translate this place, “Our Lord Jesus Christ the glory,” much in the same manner that Christ is called the way, the truth or the light. Tasker favored this construction,[5] as also did Wessel: “Jesus is here called simply, the glory.”[6]
With respect of persons … The meaning of this will be sharpened by James’ further words in this paragraph. What is condemned here is not the valid and proper respect which belongs to the noble and the great of this world, but the condemnation is against “the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf.”[7] Furthermore, it is not the appreciation for such persons merely, but the partiality exhibited in the treatment of them, the toadying in their presence.
[1] R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of … the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), p. 564.
[2] E. M. Zerr, Bible Commentary, James (Marion, Indiana: Cogdill Foundation, 1954), p. 244.
[3] J. W. Roberts, The Letter of James (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1977), p. 69.
[4] E. C. S. Gibson, The Pulpit Commentary, James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 21, p. 27.
[5] R. V. G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), p. 56.
[6] Walter W. Wessel, Wycliffe New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 950.
[7] E. G. Punchard, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VIII (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 363.

Verse 2 
For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing;
What a marvelous insight this gives into the early Christian assemblies. They were open meetings, in which men of all classes and conditions might enter.
Synagogue … This is the only place in the New Testament where this name is given for a Christian meeting place; but as Roberts said, “The literal meaning of the word had no religious connotation, being used in Gen_1:9 for the gatherings of water.”[8] In time, however, the word came to have very definite religious overtones, John referring to “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev_2:9). It appears from the usage of the word here that in Jerusalem, from which James presumably wrote, the Jewish name of the meeting house was currently used by Christians of their own meeting houses, a usage which, at that time, had no doubt already disappeared in most other places.
Gold ring … fine clothing… Lenski paraphrased James’ thought here thus: “Are you Christians still impressed by a gold ring and a bright rag?”[9] Deriving his information from Seneca, Barclay wrote:
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[10]
Clement of Alexandria justified the wearing of one ring by Christians that it might be used as a seal, but said that it ought to have a religious emblem on it, such as a dove, fish or anchor.
It is a very vivid picture which James brings to our minds in this passage. The Christians have assembled for worship; and suddenly there walks in this distinguished looking man with a gold ring and obviously expensive clothes. He creates quite a stir. Someone, one of the ushers perhaps, bows him into a good place; and then, when a working man, still wearing his work clothes, comes in, he is told to sit on the floor or stand! Such conduct, either then or now, is disgraceful. But does it still happen? Who can deny that it does?
[8] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 70.
[9] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 564.
[10] William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), p. 64.

Verse 3 
and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool;
A number of totally false assumptions on the part of Christians acting in such a manner are discernible in this situation condemned by James. By such conduct, the perpetrators of this injustice revealed that they considered fine clothing a mark of good character and shabby clothes a mark of bad character. It showed that they considered wealth to be a guide to the worth of persons, that financial ability should procure a more favorable acceptance in the church, and that social and economic caste systems are allowed in the religion of Christ. All men should be thankful that James came down very hard against such false values.

Verse 4 
… do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
An alternative reading for the first clause is given in the ASV margin thus, “Are ye not divided?” The same word is translated “doubt”; and as Ward said:
The distinctions (doubt) consist in the fact that faith is manifested by attendance of the assembly and worldliness by contempt of the poor. The inconsistency is analogous to that of the doubter.[11]
Judges with evil thoughts … The persons guilty of the type of behavior in view here betrayed, by their conduct, the essential worldliness within them, and this proved that they were still acting in the evil spirit of the unregenerated world.
ENDNOTE:
[11] Ronald A. Ward, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1227.

Verse 5 
Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?
“Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luk_6:20), thus said Jesus; and there can hardly be any doubt that James had such words in view here. Christ did not teach that the poor are saved because of their poverty, nor that the rich are condemned because of their wealth; and yet the singular fact may not be denied that in the journey required of all that they leave everything for the Master, the poor having less distance to go, in greater numbers find the Lord of glory. It is true in every age, as in that of Paul, that not many mighty, not many noble are called.
Again, we have this blunt paraphrase from Lenski:
You acted as if this were what your Christian faith had taught you, whereas it taught you the very opposite. Look at your own numbers! How many of you would be heirs of the kingdom if God would act as you do?[12]
There is also the counter-productivity of such conspicuous partiality. As a matter of fact, the poor visitor at church is a hundred times more likely to become a Christian than the wealthy visitor; and it is a sin against the growth of the church to exhibit the kind of partiality that would tend to discourage the poor.
As Russell pointed out, God’s choice of the poor is not based upon their poverty alone:
The phrase means more than the mere accident of temporal poverty. It relates rather to indifference to worldly possessions and is qualified by the final words of the verse, “to them that love him.”[13]
[12] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 568.
[13] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 573.

Verse 6 
But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment seats?
It simply does not make sense for the church to dishonor the poor and to fawn upon the wealthy and powerful. As Calvin put it, “Why should a man honor his executioners and at the same time injure his friends?”[14]
Do not the rich oppress you …? There had been countless examples of this right there in Jerusalem, where the Sadducees, the rich party of their day, were notorious oppressors of the poor.
Drag … “This implies force and is actually mentioned in cases of arrest in Act_9:1; Act_16:19, etc.” [15] Christians were widely hated, and this would have made it easier for prosecutors to seek them out and harass them.
Judgment seats … These were both Jewish and Roman courts.
“Josephus speaks of the cruelty of the rich Sadducees to the poor in Jerusalem”;[16] and besides this, both Isaiah (Isa_3:15) and Amos (Amo_4:1) speak of the same thing.
[14] Quoted by A. F. Harper, Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol. X (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), p. 211.
[15] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 76.
[16] Quoted by J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1035.

Verse 7 
Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called?
The obvious reference here is to the name of Jesus Christ, in the name of whom all Christians were baptized (Act_2:38), and upon whom the name was formally declared as in the baptismal formula given in Mat_28:18-20. Some have marveled that James did not spell out the name of Christ in this passage; but as Oesterley said, “This was due to the Jewish heritage of James.”[17] “A feeling of reverence led the Jews as far as possible to avoid mentioning the name of God.”[18] This also, in all probability, accounts for the few references to Jesus Christ throughout this epistle. A. Plummer commented that “The last clause literally means `which was called upon you,’ and we need not doubt that the reference is to the name of Christ, which was invoked upon them at their baptism.” [19]
By which ye are called … The fact of the epistle’s being addressed to baptized believers in Christ is evident in this.
[17] W. E. Oesterley, Expositor’s Greek New Testament, Vol. IX (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 440.
[18] Ibid.
[19] A. Plummer, Biblical Illustrator, James (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 227.

Verse 8 
Howbeit if ye fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
The royal law … It is impossible to view “royal law” as a reference to the Law of Moses, because Moses was never a king. Furthermore, James mentioned the “law of liberty” a moment later (Jas_2:12); and he is presenting not two laws but one. In addition, the reference to the “kingdom” (Jas_2:5) leads naturally to the conclusion that it is the law of that kingdom to which reference is made here. Throughout James, there are dozens of references to the teachings of Jesus Christ (see introduction), and it is illogical to consider this as referring to anything else.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself … To be sure this was in the Law of Moses (Lev_19:18); but it is the reaffirmation of it by Christ (Mar_12:31) of which James spoke here. As Harper put it: “God has chosen the poor to be heirs of the kingdom (Jas_2:5), therefore, the royal law is for those of God’s kingdom.”[20] Christ the King in his kingdom sanctioned and made binding this law upon all who would follow him; therefore, it is the royal law.
ENDNOTE:
[20] A. F. Harper, op. cit., p. 212.

Verse 9 
but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.
Even Christians who willfully violate the commandments of Christ are transgressors, being breakers of his law. It is a gross error to refer this to keeping the Law of Moses; but of course the same principle held with reference to it. People like those showing partiality to the rich and powerful, through their value judgments based upon external conditions, were violating the law of love, as taught by Jesus and his apostles. As Wessel said, “The law here is not the Old Testament law as such, but the whole spirit (of Christ) which is contrary to partiality.” [21]
ENDNOTE:
[21] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 952.

Verse 10 
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.
As Dummelow put it: “It might be said that even if a man transgressed the Law of Christ in the matter or respect of persons, he was only breaking a small part of that Law. Not so. The Law, like the Lawgiver, is one.” [22] This is another instance of James’ reiterating a principle laid down by Jesus Christ (Mat_5:19). “Transgression of one precept of the Christian rule of faith is a breach of the whole, because it breaks fellowship with the object of faith.”[23] All of this is part and parcel of the “perfection” theme which dominates the epistle, having the great value of showing that even Christians who earnestly strive to do the will of Christ are nevertheless not able to attain any acceptable degree of perfection in their own right. The proper respect for this truth will have the practical effect of driving every man to Jesus Christ, in whom alone the perfection required by Almighty God (Mat_5:48; Col_1:28) may be received through God’s grace.
Regarding this principle that breaking Christ’s commandments in one particular is the same as breaking all of them, commentators have given many illustrations. If one strikes a great mirror in only one place, the whole is broken; if one breaks over a fence at only one place, he has violated all of it; if a chain of a thousand links is broken in only one, the chain is broken, etc., etc. The thing in view here, of course, is the law of love; but there are many other commandments of Christ which are today violated by men with impunity; and not the least of these regards baptism and the Lord’s supper, the command to assemble in worship, etc.
[22] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1035.
[23] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 952.

Verse 11 
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killeth, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
This verse is the reason, to be sure, why some insist on construing James’ words in this section as a reference to the Law of Moses; but there are some considerations that forbid this. In this verse, James was clearly rebuking those who were dishonoring the poor man, equating their conduct with murder, based upon Jesus’ elaboration of that command in Mat_5:21-22. He even reversed the order of the commandments to achieve more readily this application. Therefore, it is still the Law of Christ which James is holding before his readers. Harper agreed that James here reflects Jesus’ explanation of the commandment on killing.”[24] Thus, it is no small breach which those who showed the partiality were guilty of. Their unfeeling snobbery toward the poor was exactly the same kind of personality destruction which Jesus equated with murder.
ENDNOTE:
[24] A. F. Harper, op. cit., p. 213.

Verse 12 
So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.
Very few deny that “law of liberty” is here a further reference to the teaching and doctrine of Jesus Christ; and why is it called a law of liberty? As contrasted with the Law of Moses, called by the apostles “a yoke of bondage,” the teachings of the Son of God are characterized by marvelous freedom. For example, there are only two great ceremonial ordinances in Christianity, baptism and the Lord’s supper; and one of those (baptism) needs to be observed only once in a lifetime, and the other may be observed anywhere on earth. How different is this from that Law of Moses which required all worshipers to go up to Jerusalem to worship? Another contrast is in the countless sacrifices of Moses’ law and the one true and only atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of the whole world. Then again, the Law of Christ is the law of liberty because men assume its obligations of their own free will. All are invited, but none are compelled. James’ admonition here is that Christians who have voluntarily taken upon themselves to live as Christ directed should not revert to the unholy value-judgments of the unregenerated. It is true of every Christian that he is received by Christ, even though his life is flawed by many sins; he is received despite his lowliness in the world. Therefore, how incongruous it is that he should ignore these graces he has received by denying them to others.

Verse 13 
For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.
This is not a harsh judgment, for the sterner side of the judgment of God was enunciated by our Lord himself (Mat_6:14), where it is stated that “If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Nevertheless, it remains true that “mercy glorieth against judgment.” The most wonderful truth revealed in all of the word of God is that mercy stands higher than the law as the guiding principle of God’s relationship with men. This was symbolized in the Old Testament by the Mercy Seat which was placed above and on top of the Ark of the Covenant. See discussion of this in my Commentary on Hebrews, pp. 189-191. However, it is in the New Testament that the full impact of God’s mercy comes to its glorious climax in the crucifixion of the Son of God that men through him might have eternal life.
On Jas_2:14-26 : This paragraph is perhaps the most disputed and misunderstood passage in the New Testament; but the interpretation presented here flows out of deep convictions: (1) that here indeed we have the inspired word of God; (2) that this portion of the New Testament is as easily understood as any other; (3) that the simple answers are the true ones; (4) that there is not the slightest contradiction between Paul and James; (5) that Paul’s affirmation that we are justified “by faith” and James’ declaration that we are justified “by works” mean simply that we are indeed justified “by both,” and that it is a sin to assert that men are justified either (a) “by faith alone,” or (b) “by works alone”; (6) that all of the alleged contradiction between the sacred writers James and Paul derives not from what either of them said, but from the false allegations of theologians concerning what they meant; (7) and that Luther did not misunderstand James (as frequently urged), but that he misunderstood Paul. The interpretation advocated here is oriented in the New Testament and not to theological speculations which have so largely supplanted the sacred text.
What is the subject matter of this paragraph? Gibson’s quotation from Lightfoot emphasizes the view which is advocated here, thus:
So long as our view is confined to the apostolic writings, it seems scarcely possible to resist the impression that St. James is attacking the teaching, if not of St. Paul himself, at least of those who exaggerated and perverted it.[25]
Further, it is the conviction of this writer that the paragraph should most certainly be interpreted exactly in view of the apostolic writings, and that conclusions established from this viewpoint are a thousand times more dependable than conclusions grounded in non-apostolic literature. Thus, no hesitation is felt in naming the antinomian perversion of Paul’s teaching regarding justification “by faith” as the specific error James refuted in these verses. And what is that perversion? It is the proposition that men are justified “by faith only.” The modern outcropping of that delusive error has its roots in the teachings of Martin Luther; and it aids understanding of it to remember that Luther clearly understood James as a contradiction of his false theory, which he mistakenly attributed to the apostle Paul, incorrectly believing that he had discovered it in Paul’s writings.
Many commentators have agreed with this identification of James’ subject matter. For example, “Some believe that James is attacking an antinomian perversion of Paul’s teaching”;[26] “James was not attacking Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith but rather a perversion of it.” [27] The perversion is justification “by faith only.”
[25] E. C. S. Gibson, op. cit., p. 30.
[26] T. Carson, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 575.
[27] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 952.

Verse 14 
What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
If a man say he hath faith … Here, at last, is that subjective trust/faith which is so frequently imported into New Testament passages. The word for “faith” here is exactly the one used in Rom_5:1; Eph_2:8, etc.; and the allegation that here is a pretended faith, or some inferior brand of faith, is absolutely illogical, there being no word in the apostolic writings regarding “kinds” of faith. The usual approach to this is grounded in the notion that James used “faith” in a different sense from that in which Paul used it; but, as Maier warned, “There is a frequent misuse of multiple meaning in Scripture.”[28] The introductory phrase, “if a man say,” is alleged as a denial that the man really had faith; but, on the other hand, it indicates the absence of works. What he had was “faith only”; and the only possible way of identifying the existence of “faith only” is from what “they say” who profess to have it. Thus, this is exactly the type of identification of “faith only” that should have been expected; in fact the only one possible. That the professor did indeed have faith appears in James’ tacit admission of it in “can that faith save him?”
Can that faith save him … ? So stated as to require a negative answer, this is a refutation of the heresy that men are saved by “faith only.” Note that James did not allege any deficiency in the man’s faith, thus assuming that his claim was honest, but making his denial of the man’s salvation to rest on the absence of works. It is clear enough that James did not here teach that the man was not justified “by faith,” but that he could not be justified by “faith only.”
ENDNOTE:
[28] Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977), p. 74.

Verse 15 
If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?
If a brother or sister … one of you … These words tied in with “my beloved brethren” in Jas_2:14, make it impossible to suppose that James was addressing some external theory. No, the problem addressed was exactly the one that exists today, namely, Christians supposing that “faith only” saves them and that there is no need for works. “One cannot save himself, anyway; saving faith is all that matters, etc.” So men say; but James shows how worthless faith is without works. This is so plainly the teaching of this place that it is admitted for solifidians, who then allow good works as being indeed necessary for a Christian’s justification but affirm that this ultimate justification is totally dissociated from the primary and initial justification at the time of conversion. Although incorrect, this rationalism is, in fact, destructive of the “faith only” theory. Roberts pointed out that “It really makes little difference whether the passage is taken one way or the other.”[29] To use James’ words out of context, what could be the profit of an initial justification (at conversion) “by faith only,” if the Christian’s continued fellowship with Christ and his ultimate conversion, in the last analysis, still depended upon his being justified “by works”?
Since that ultimate justification surely depends upon works, as almost universally admitted, why should it be thought unreasonable that the initial justification (in conversion) also depended upon the convert’s repenting of his sins, confessing Christ, and being baptized? Did not the Christ himself deny salvation to those who would not confess him, even though they “believed on” him? (Joh_12:42). Did he not also teach that those who will not repent cannot be saved? (Luk_13:3; Luk_13:5). Did he not also declare that unless one is baptized (born of the water and of the spirit) he cannot enter the kingdom of God? (Joh_3:5). But it is replied that “saving faith” always does these things anyway. This will be more thoroughly explored in the Excursus on Solifidianism at the end of this chapter; but here it should be noted that such things as confession, repentance and baptism are a “work of faith” only in the sense that “the faith” commands them. Subjective faith does not baptize sinners; they must themselves have this done. Subjective faith does not repent; the sinner must himself do the repenting.
ENDNOTE:
[29] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 85.

Verse 17 
Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. As Ward said, “Faith alone in Jas_2:24 and faith without works in Jas_2:26 correspond with what is said here.”[30]
Is dead in itself … The dead do not do anything, the same being analogous with trust/faith without works. But is this not equivalent to the proposition that faith without works is not “real faith”? Indeed no. Is a dead body no longer a body? Is a dead body not real? Is a dead body different in nature from a living body? Is a single characteristic of a body lost by the mere fact of death? Thus, a faith that is genuine enough in itself, when dead, is not essentially different. Thus, there is no reason to make this place an excuse for affirming that those “without works” had the wrong kind of faith. The most marvelous body that ever lived may be compared with the most marvelous faith that ever existed; but if that marvelous faith is without works, it then has the same status as a dead corpse.
Before leaving this verse, it should be noted that the KJV has a better rendition of it, “Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone.” Gibson affirmed that “The KJV rendition appears to be justified.”[31]
[30] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1228.
[31] E. C. S. Gibson, op. cit., p. 31.

Verse 18 
Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works shall show thee my faith.
These words, together with the argumentative form of the verses that follow, imply that a well-known subject of controversy is being dealt with.[32]
Thou hast faith … I have works … As Tasker noted, “The pronouns do not refer to James and the objector, but are the equivalent of one' andanother,’ and are merely a more picturesque way of indicating two imaginary persons.”[33] What James is really saying is that some people do in fact claim to be saved “by faith only,” while others are diligent to maintain good works which alone are the proof of faith.
Show me thy faith apart from works … This is an impossibility, of course; and here is the reason why James introduced this entire discussion by the remark, “If a man say.” The grounding of justification upon anything so unprovable as “faith only” has the inherent flaw of being predicated upon something which is not only undemonstrable to others, but which also is incapable of being certainly known by the claimant. Of all the ephemeral, uncertain, untrustworthy and utterly fallible assurances of salvation ever advocated, that of the trust/faith of sinners has to be declared the most unreliable of all. A faith without works, unproved by any act of obedience, cannot ever be known certainly to exist by anyone supposing that he has such faith. This phenomenal uncertainty accounts for the necessity of constant stress of the false doctrine from the pulpits of those communions misled by it.
On this verse, Roberts pointed out that:
There is a semantic sense in which some would argue that real faith must act, and that unless faith acts, it is not genuine. This is probably not James’ point.[34]
The notion that “real faith must act” cannot be true, as proved by statements in Joh_12:42. See full comments in my Commentary on John, pp. 305-307.
Our Lord spoke of justification (Luk_18:14), and of being justified by words (Mat_12:37), and of faith saving (Luk_7:50).[35]
Despite the truth of the above, no one ever accused Jesus of teaching that salvation is by “faith only,” or of contradicting himself when he said one shall be justified by “his words.” However, Ward turned to the thief on the cross for confirmation of the “faith only” concept, thus: “The penitent thief had no time left for works; and faith had no time in which to die.”[36] Ward overlooked the most remarkable “works” of the thief in that he confessed Jesus Christ as Lord under the most unfavorable circumstances and prayed for his remembrance in the kingdom. Certainly, this was something more than faith only.
Punchard said, “The bearing of this verse is commonly misunderstood. The words are those of scorn.”[37] The scorn was of course directed against first-century Solifidianism.
[32] W. E. Oesterley, op. cit., p. 445.
[33] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 66.
[34] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 89.
[35] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 576.
[36] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1228.
[37] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 367.

Verse 19 
Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe and shudder.
An examination of the demonic faith to which James referred here reveals it is nothing different in any particular whatever from the faith of all Christians, except in that one fatal flaw of being “faith only.” The allegation commonly made upon the basis of what is written in this verse, to the effect that those James sought to correct were possessors of monotheistic faith in God but that they were not believers in Jesus Christ our Lord, is wrong for two reasons: (1) The ones being corrected were Christians. See under Jas_2:15-16. (2) The demons referred to fully believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God Most High, the promised Messiah, and the ultimate Judge who would torment the wicked (see Mar_1:34 and Luk_8:28). Thus the point of James here is that a person having “faith only” is not better than a demon, nor has he any better hope of salvation. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that the great majority of those preaching “faith only” are not practitioners of it, indicating that they themselves do not dare trust it. In the matter of baptism, for example, preachers of salvation by “faith only” are more diligent to baptize people than some who hold the ordinance to be a divinely imposed precondition of primary justification.
Demons also believe … In this series of commentaries there have been included many essays on the subject of demons and demonic possession; but it is appropriate here to include the vital comment of J. W. Roberts:
It is no more difficult to believe in demons than to believe in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, in angels, or in the devil. The Bible hints (though it does not state plainly) that demons were to be consigned to the abyss.[38]
It has been noted that the demonic faith in view here had all the elements of the distinctive faith of Christians. As Lenski put it, “James is not listing all that such a faith accepts, for quantity is not the point.”[39] The point is that “all faith,” even the faith strong enough to move mountains, if “alone” is worthless; and who said that? Paul! See 1Co_13:2. Regarding the possible reason why James did not spell out the fact of demons believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, see under Jas_2:7.
[38] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 91.
[39] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 585.

Verse 20 
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?
On this verse, Barclay noted that “The fact that Christianity must be ethically demonstrated is an essential part of the Christian faith throughout the New Testament.”[40] Barclay’s affirmation, however, does not go far enough. It is precisely in restricting James’ teaching on works to the ethical field that Solifidianism stumbles. The importance of the great Christian ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper, along with the absolute necessity of the church and a consistent fellowship in “the body of Christ” are also most certainly included. See Excursis on Solifidianism at end of chapter.
O vain man … As Tasker said, “The vain man addressed is anyone who is so devoid of spiritual understanding that he does not see that faith which never results in works is merely a sham.”[41] As Roberts puts it:
The language of Jas_2:20 calls upon the believer in “faith only” to be willing to recognize or acknowledge the truth. James is so confident of the truth of his position and of the force of his reasoning that he calls upon the errorists to concede.[42]
The man who will still uphold “faith only” in James’ mind is shallow in his mind; nevertheless he will proceed to present arguments from the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament.
[40] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 73.
[41] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 67.
[42] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 91.

Verse 21 
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
The essential error in the usual interpretation of this verse was succinctly stated by Lenski, thus: “James is not speaking of the first verdict which God pronounced upon Abraham when Abraham was first brought to faith.”[43] By such a device as this, the solifidians attempt to make that first occasion the true salvation of Abraham (by faith only), thus making James’ statement that Abraham was “justified by works” refer to a confirmation only of that first justification. However, as Roberts clearly stated it:
This hardly does justice to James’ argument. James is talking about faith saving a man (Jas_2:14). It is not contemplated merely that one already just or acquitted is proved or declared righteous; but the action of God in declaring him righteous is referred to.[44]
But did not Paul say that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness” (Rom_4:3), the same being a verbatim quotation from Gen_15:6-7. Let it be noted, however, that neither the Genesis record nor Paul’s use of it carries any hint whatever to the effect that Abraham’s faith only was the basis of God’s reckoning unto him righteousness. It is deplorable that the KJV rendition of this verse was changed (presumably with a view to clouding its meaning). The KJV has: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac, etc.” That this is indeed what the Scriptures teach is evident from the following considerations:
The statements in Gen_15:6 and Rom_4:3 must be understood, as Tasker pointed out, “as being in a sense prophetic of that event (the sacrifice of Isaac).”[45] Neither Genesis nor Paul in Romans affirmed that God at the instant of Abraham’s having faith then and there declared Abraham justified.
Upon the occasion of Abraham’s offering Isaac, God interposed, saying:
Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son (Gen_22:12).
When God said, “now” I know, that was equivalent to saying that until then God had not known (except prophetically). Non-biblical writers saw this and understood it. “Sirach wrote: “Abraham was a great father of many nations who.., when he was proved was found faithful’; and 1Ma_2:52 has, Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.?'"[46] James in this passage gives the occasion when Abraham was justified, and it was not that of his first believing but that of his meeting the divine test of his faith. If God had already justified Abraham on the basis of his "faith only" there could have been no reason whatever for God's testing his faith. Never did any man pass a sterner test of faith than did Abraham; and, if Abraham was not justified until he passed it, how could it be supposed that any man could be saved merely upon an alleged trust/faith, and that without his meeting any test whatever? What is the test? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Special attention should be paid to the kind of works which James alleged as the basis of Abraham's justification. The usual scholarly bias that "works of ethical behavior" are in view here should be challenged. What was ethical about Abraham's offering Isaac as a burnt sacrifice to God? In this is seen the fact that the works that justified Abraham were precisely and only those works performed in obedience to God's specific command. "Was not Abraham our father justified ..." The device of making the word "justified" here to be something other than the meaning in Paul's use of the word should be noted. As Roberts declared, "It rest be admitted that Paul and James use the wordjustify’ in the same sense.”[47] The one word from both James’ and Paul’s writings which is positively used in two different senses is “works,” Paul using the term as a reference to the works of the Law of Moses, and James using it of works of obedience to the commands of God, as in the case of Abraham here given. An understanding of this is vital to understanding what either James or Paul taught.
[43] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 589.
[44] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 93.
[45] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 69.
[46] Quoted by J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 92.
[47] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 94.

Verse 22 
Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
“The literal meaning here is, “faith cooperated with his works”;[48] and here is the key to understanding all that both Paul and James wrote on this subject. Faith and works are coordinates, cooperation, being in the very nature of cooperation, operative upon a common level. One may only marvel at a view which asserts that “We are not to suppose, however, that it was Abraham’s faith plus his works which now brought about his justification.”[49] Of course, that is exactly what we must not merely suppose, but receive as gospel truth. Lenski was certain that Abraham did not really perform the works indicated, “The reference is to a faith which produces its proper fruits.”[50] This, of course, is the old device of making the faith actually “the doer” of the justifying works; but such obedience as that exhibited by Abraham was rendered, not by his faith, but by Abraham, his works appearing in this verse as a factor in addition to faith, working together with his faith, “cooperating” as the text has it. A similar thing was in view on Pentecost, when Peter commanded that believers “have themselves baptized,” making their obedience something for which they were responsible and were required to have done (see comment on Act_2:38 in this series).
And by works was faith made perfect … Here is the clinching argument that faith “without works” is imperfect, utterly unable to save. Inherent in this is also the truth that works are not merely something that genuine faith “does,” but something in addition, something needed for the perfection of faith. Once more there comes to view the overall theme of “perfection” with which the epistle is concerned throughout. Lenski rejected the ASV rendition of this clause, saying that “It leaves a wrong impression?[51] Despite this, there is no acceptable rendition by which this could legitimately be replaced. We must receive and accept the words as they stand in our versions. Why it should be considered an incongruous thing that Abraham’s faith should have been “made perfect” by his works of obedience, when the New Testament flatly declares that even the Son of God himself was “made perfect through obedience” (Heb_5:8-9), must ever remain an unqualified mystery. This is one of many indications of how bitterly this section of the word of God has been contested and denied.
[48] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 68.
[49] Ibid.
[50] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 594.
[51] Ibid., p. 592.

Verse 23 
… and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
James here quoted exactly the same passage that Paul quoted in Rom_4:3, proving that his teaching concerned exactly the same kind of justification as that in view by Paul; it does, however, explode any possibility of “faith only” having been the grounds of that justification, even in the teachings of Paul.
And he was called the friend of God … References to Abraham as the “friend of God” are found in 2Ch_20:7 and Isa_41:8. Tasker’s explanation of why God called Abraham his friend is this:
God did not hide from Abraham what he proposed to do (Gen_18:17); Abraham rejoiced to see the day of the Messiah (Joh_8:56). Similarly … Jesus called the apostles his “friends.” “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you” (Joh_15:15).[52]
Even the designation of Abraham as “the friend of God” did not derive from “faith alone” on Abraham’s part, being founded partially also upon his life of obedient service.
ENDNOTE:
[52] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 70.

Verse 24 
Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
The KJV is better in this verse, having “not by faith only,” since James’ efforts in the whole paragraph are directed against supposing that salvation is “by faith only.” The meaning is allegedly the same. “In the Greek, the adverb `only’ comes last, emphatically.”[53]
By works a man is justified … The weight of this is seen in the extension to include all men who shall ever be saved. “A man” has the function of moving James’ teaching away from Abraham as an illustration of it and making it inclusive of all men forever. Ward of course makes the works James mentioned “the evidence of justification,”[54] whereas James in this verse has reference to the “means of justification.” We appreciate the candor of E. C. S. Gibson who left Jas_2:24 altogether out of his interpretation. This verse so dramatically and effectively refutes Solifidianism that it is actually amazing that any of its adherents would bother to comment on it.
What screams of outrage would arise if one dared to amend James’ statement here to read, “By works only is a man justified”! And yet, that is exactly what men have done to the teachings of Paul in their false allegations that he taught “justification by faith only.” There is just as much Scriptural authority for one of these propositions as there is for the other, namely, none at all.
There is another grave error which should also be refuted, namely, that the acceptance of what James here said makes such an acceptance tantamount to a man’s thinking he can “earn salvation,” or that humble recipients of God’s word in this passage are guilty of making themselves “their own saviour,” or that faithful working Christians think they are placing God in debt to them. How ridiculous is such nonsense! Even when Abraham met the test of offering his son Isaac upon the altar, he was still a sinner, the unworthy recipient of the grace of Almighty God; and so it is with all who ever were or ever shall be saved. Roberts summed up this verse as follows: “It was because Abraham had done this that the blessings followed. So works justify, not in themselves alone, but still they justify.”[55]
[53] E. G. Punchard, op. cit., p. 367.
[54] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1229.
[55] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 97.

Verse 25 
And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
In like manner … In view of this introductory phrase, one must look for some correspondence between the cases of Abraham and Rahab, which appears to be this, that both alike performed works which in themselves would have been illegal or sinful, unless they were undertaken in direct consequence of being understood as the will of God. In the instance of Rahab, it is likewise clear that in her case also, she was justified as a consequence of what she did, and not upon the basis of “faith alone.” Her case also is illuminating in that there is no excuse whatever for supposing that any great subjective trust/faith led to her justification before the reception of the messengers, there being no Scriptural basis whatever supporting such a thought.
In that she received … Here again the superiority of the KJV is evident, there being no way whatever to deny that Rahab was justified “when she had received the messengers, etc.” One should deplore the alteration of this in subsequent versions; because the element of “when” is surely in both testaments. If it was not “when she received the messengers” in Rahab’s case, when was it?

Verse 26 
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
See under Jas_2:17, above, for elaboration of the meaning of the comparison here. Ward warned against “pressing the parallelism too far”;[56] but it is not apparent to this student how that would be possible. Certainly all of the faith in the world without works has exactly the same efficacy in providing salvation as a dead body.
The conclusion of this section on James’ refutation of the solifidian perversion of the apostle Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith is very well stated by J. W. Roberts thus:
Thus the doctrine of salvation at the moment of faith – without obedience – is not a Biblical teaching …. It is rooted in the conversion experience theology of early revivalism. It sets aside the plain teaching of the Bible on the doctrine of obedience and the works of faith.[57]
James is a very practical book; and, from the very nature of its purpose, James deals with what men must do to be saved. Much of Paul’s teaching is directed to the same end (though not all of it, some of it being concerned with God’s part in redemption); therefore the “justification” in this section of James (and in much of Paul), plainly regards that lower level involving what men must do. In the ultimate and final sense of being the grounds upon which God’s justification is given to men, there is not anything that sinful men can either believe or do which finally justifies them. God indeed reckoned righteousness unto Abraham, but that did not make Abraham righteous, nor was he ever so in the absolute sense; so it is with Christians. Neither faith nor works, of whatever degree or quality, can make them righteous. The perfect faith and obedience of Jesus Christ our Lord are the unique ground of human redemption, which is achieved for them by Jesus Christ, received by men when they believe (have faith) and obey the gospel, being baptized into Christ, having renounced themselves; and thus united with Christ, identified with Christ, being actually Christ as members of the spiritual body (the church) of which Christ is head, and remaining “in Christ” throughout life; THEN they are truly justified eternally, their faith and righteousness being not theirs, but his, no longer merely reckoned unto them, but their true possession “as Christ.” Both the faith and the works which justify sinful men, therefore, are related to that higher consideration of their relationship with the Lord of glory. Certainly, men must have faith and obedience before they can be incorporated “into Christ”; and in him, having been baptized unto him, they become partakers of the true righteousness (perfect faith and perfect obedience) of Christ. In Christ, therefore, the righteousness (faith and obedience) which saves and justifies them is not theirs but Christ’s. It is no mere reckoned or imputed thing, not a forensic righteousness at all, but an eternal, perfect and beautiful status of the absolute and genuine righteousness of Christ. That is what Paul referred to when he spoke of presenting every man “perfect in Christ” (Col_1:28).
In reality, then, the solifidian nonsense of justification “by faith alone” profoundly misses the point on two vital counts: (1) Nothing that a sinner either believes or does can save him “out of Christ” (though, of course, he must both believe and obey the gospel in order to enter Christ). (2) Even in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the true ground of all human redemption, even in his case, it was not “faith only,” but a perfect faith and a perfect obedience.
How regrettable are the weary disputes of men regarding the part sinners have in their redemption; how preposterous is the notion that what a sinner “believes” could endow him with eternal life! To receive that as God’s free gift, he must qualify for entry into Christ’s spiritual body, through faith and obedience of the gospel, or as Jesus stated it, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The function of baptism in this is that it is entering “into Christ,” where all righteousness and redemption are found. How dark is that tragedy of human arrogance which would make a sinner his own saviour through claiming eternal life as a consequence of his “faith only.”
EXCURSUS ON SOLIFIDIANISM
Solifidian, from which the noun Solifidianism is derived, means “one who maintains that faith alone, without works, is the one requisite to salvation (from Latin “solus”, alone plus “fides”, faith).”[58]
Under Jas_2:26 it was explained that Solifidianism is founded upon an altogether inadequate understanding of the true ground of justification, that ground being neither human faith nor obedience nor both of them together. The one and only true grounds are the perfect faith and obedience of the Son of God. In the light of this, the doctrine is a theological “faux pas” of phenomenal dimensions. It claims eternal salvation for sinners, along with eternal justification (in the highest sense), grounded upon a purely human act of obedience, that is, the subjective trust/faith of sinners. Thus it makes sinners their own saviour by grounding the hope of salvation upon what the sinners themselves do. Logically and theologically, this is an arrogant absurdity.
Even if the major thesis of solifidianism were provable (which it is not), it would still fall short of any ultimate justification. That thesis is that in some way “saving faith,” as it is called, includes all necessary acts of obedience, or produces them, or issues in them, or even does them. This is considered by holders of the doctrine to be a vital element of it, as judged by so many varied and repeated assertions of it. First, we shall notice a sampling of such assertions, demonstrating their falsity; and then, it will be pointed out that even if allowed as true, the whole concept of justification as resting upon what sinners themselves either believe or do, or believe AND do, still makes man his own saviour and misses altogether the only possible justification “in Christ” our Lord.
Assertions relative to “saving faith’s” (so-called) inclusion of all necessary works:
“Faith cannot be severed from works.”[59] This cannot be true, because many of the rulers of the Jews “believed on” the Lord Jesus Christ (Joh_12:42); and B. F. Westcott assured us that the words there employed by the apostle John mean the completeness and fullness of faith.[60] Yet those same people were the ones who murdered the Son of God. They had every kind of faith there is; so faith can and often does exist without works, being therefore separated from works. See full comment on the text from John in my Commentary on John, pp. 305-307.
“Faith uses works as its means.”[61] This is untrue because James represented works, not as something faith was using, but as something “working with,” or “cooperating with” faith (Jas_2:22). Likewise, the author of Hebrews made faith and baptism (a work in the usual solifidian view) to stand as coordinates in the foundation of the first principles of the gospel (Heb_6:1-2).
“If faith is genuine, works will follow.”[62] Again, Joh_12:42 refutes this. See above. Further, James’ challenge to errorists refuted in this chapter carried no criticism of their faith, other than the fact of its being without works. If it had been true that those workless Christians did not have the “right kind of faith,” James would have dealt with that instead of the need for works. The entire last section of James 2 proves that faith can, and did, exist apart from works; and that it is not true that where faith is genuine works will follow.
“Works are an expression of faith.”[63] This is false because works are something done by the believer, not by his faith. Eternal justification, as viewed by Paul, was grounded (in one sense) upon what men do (Rom_2:6-10; 2Co_5:10, etc.). In those citations from Paul, it is not deficiency of faith, but the deeds done by the believer, that is stressed.
“Works are the necessary fruits of faith.” [64]
“Faith bringeth forth works.”[65]
“Faith always issues in good works.”[66]
“Faith is bound to overflow in action.” [67]
“There is no faith that does not issue at once in loving obedience .”[68]
“Obedience is the inevitable and immediate issue of faith.”[69]
Not any of these statements is in the Bible, nor is a single one of them true. If such notions as these had been a fact, James would not have bothered to give his urgent exhortation to good works. If such statements as the above had been the truth, and there had been the “wrong kind of faith” in any of the Christians he addressed, he would have devoted his energies to correcting the deficiency of their faith, instead of ordering them to obey the precepts of the Master relative to good works.
“Not for faith plus works does James plead, but for faith at work.”[70] Like most of the samplings noted above, this also is a clever remark, but it is not true. James did plead for “faith plus works,” flatly declaring that there was no profit in the faith that did not have that “plus.”
“Real faith unites a man with Christ.”[71] Significantly, this particular error is rather seldom advocated, in all probability because it is so frontally contradicted by the New Testament which nowhere carries such a statement as this, but which does categorically state no less than three times that one is “baptized into Christ,” or “into his body” (Gal_3:26-27; Rom_6:3-5,1Co_12:13). No amount of faith ever united a man with anything, the P.T.A., the Masonic Lodge, the Democratic Party, nor the spiritual body of Christ.
“James was pleading for the work of faith.'" This statement found in a number of commentaries is true, the error lying in the misunderstanding of "the work of faith," which means not the work which faith does, but the work commanded by "the faith" in the objective sense. Paul mentioned "work of faith" (1Th_1:3), but his reference carries the thought that the Thessalonians were obeying the commandments of God, not that their "faith" was doing all the work. "The ground of justification is faith, and that only."[72] This type of statement is not merely untrue; it contradicts the word of God in Jas_2:24, which declares that a man "is justified ... and not by faith alone." This kind of statement is not nearly as common as it once was, because more and more who believe it are embarrassed by James' refutation of their theory; but instead, greater and greater reliance is rested in the type of statements examined above, where the common design is in every case that of declaring Solifidianism. Over and beyond all of these efforts to prove the unprovable, however, there looms the cosmic fact that even if faith should be viewed as all-inclusive of everything else, the basing of justification upon it (in any final sense) would still be making man his own saviour, still predicating the reception of eternal life upon thoughts and deeds of fallible and sinful men. Who could believe it? The basis of the final and eternal justification of the redeemed has already been determined and announced by God himself, the same being the righteousness of God "in Christ," available to those and those alone who are truly "in him," and moreover are "found in him" at last (Php_3:9). Nevertheless, it is still an interesting and important question of whether faith plus works (of some kind), or merely "faith alone" is required of sinners seeking justification on the secondary and lower level which must be achieved "by them" before they may even become eligible for entry "into Christ" where alone true justification is available. The whole problem then turns upon one question alone, and that is, "How are men truly united with and broughtinto’ Christ?” Fortunately, the Scriptures do not leave such a question open, announcing repeatedly that men are “baptized into him.” This mountain fact lies behind Jesus’ declaration in Mar_16:15-16. Thus, even upon that lower level of secondary justification regarding fulfillment of preconditions of redemption, “faith alone” is valueless, even for the initial phase of justification; and, after that, the necessity of remaining “in Christ,” of being found “in him” at last, even this will be determined by one’s “deeds” (Rom_2:6-10; 2Co_5:10), which have the utility, along with faith, of keeping one “in Christ.” The all-important thing that must precede final and ultimate justification is that the one to be justified must be “in Christ” and found “in him” at the end of his probation.
Therefore, the whole question of “faith plus works of obedience” or “faith only” should never have been raised. This is true because “faith only,” no less than “faith plus obedience” is a “work” performed by sinners (being also, in a sense, a work performed by God, in the sense that God commanded it); and the predication of justification upon either “faith only” or “faith plus obedience” makes what the sinner does the grounds of justification; and the solifidian who bases his supposed salvation upon subjective trust/faith, rather than upon an obedient faith, does not gain the slightest advantage in such a conception, everything, in the last analysis, depending upon whether or not at last he shall be found “in Christ.” The impossibility of “faith only” entering one “into Christ” is the ultimate condemnation of Solifidianism.
The concept of “saving faith” (so-called) as a religious experience: This is positively the most irrational and unbiblical idea ever to invade Christianity. The concept, variously advocated, supposes that “at some particular moment,” “with emotions better felt than told,” “in answer to prayer, …. under the emotional appeal of revivalism,” or in some other bizarre circumstance, the sinner suddenly “experiences FAITH.” Boom! All of his sins are forgiven; he is transformed spiritually, born again and saved eternally! The word of God nowhere pictures any such “spiritual orgasm” as that! This is pure voodoo-ism. No Biblical precept, no apostolic example even hints at such a thing. That is not the way Paul was converted; no member of the historical church as reviewed in Acts of the Apostles ever came “into Christ” in the manner of this false conception. Unscriptural and erroneous as such a “conversion” truly is, the mistake is compounded and multiplied by the solifidian arrogance of making that the only thing necessary for salvation and claiming eternal justification on the basis of it! There has never been a religious teaching that cried any louder to Almighty God for a drastic correction than does this one.
The satanic thrust of this evil theory also registers in its hatred of all who seek salvation and justification (even on the level of fulfilling preconditions of redemption) through faith and obedience of the gospel, and its adamant opposition to all preaching of the New Testament plan of salvation, accusing the followers of the New Testament of lacking salvation altogether and of attempting to be their own saviour. The illogical nature of this attitude appears in the fact of their denial of salvation predicated upon FAITH AND OBEDIENCE, while claiming it for themselves on the basis of FAITH WITHOUT OBEDIENCE, overlooking the fact that FAITH AND OBEDIENCE surely has everything their method has AND MORE! The only thing the true method of redemption lacks which theirs has is the alleged “faith experience,” which to them is everything. The incongruous assertion that “faith only” could have anything not found in “faith and obedience” is impossible of being taken seriously.
No “experience” that any man ever had could rival that of Paul on the Damascus road. He actually saw the Lord! But three days later, he was still a, praying, penitent, grieving sinner; and so he remained until he heeded the command of Ananias to “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins!” (Act_22:16). Too bad that Paul never knew anything about being saved by “faith only.”
The alleged Scriptural support of Solifidianism is extensive and will be briefly examined here. Solifidian methodology is characterized by the employment of a number of devices, as follows:

1. There is the literalization of synecdoche. Synecdoche, a type of metonymy in which one thing stands for a group of related things, is frequently used (especially by Paul) in the New Testament; and one of his frequent uses of this figure of speech is that of making “saved by faith” a synecdoche, or short-form way of saying, “saved by faith, repentance, confession, baptism, hope, the blood of Christ, and all other great essentials of the Christian religion.” In my Commentary on Romans, a large number of Pauline uses of synecdoche were pointed out, there being no doubt whatever of Paul’s “saved by faith” always being inclusive of many other things also; never did he mean “faith alone.” The device of literalizing the synecdoche is a denial of the word of God. Take the synecdoche: “Philip II had 1800 sails in his navy.” “Sails” actually means “fully equipped and manned warships”; the solifidian misunderstanding of it would assert the meaning to be: “Philip II had no warships at all and had gone into the cloth business!”
2. Another popular device is that of making passages which attribute salvation to “faith without works” mean that nothing whatever is to be done by the sinner except to believe in Christ. The error of this is multiple. “Without works,” in the Pauline usage, in the vast majority of instances, means “works of the Law of Moses” and faith means either (a) all the Christian requirements (synecdoche), or (b) “the whole Christian religion” (faith used objectively). Again, the solifidian misinterpretation reads “works” to include every conceivable kind of human activity, whereas the New Testament speaks of seven classes of works, including the “work of faith,” deeds done in obedience to divine commandments,” as necessary to salvation. It is a perversion of God’s word to apply “without works” as meaning “without obedience to Christ.”
3. The device of interpreting New Testament references to “faith” as meaning (subjectively) the unscriptural “experience of faith” in which instantaneous salvation results. Many have been deceived into thinking this meaning is in the New Testament; but it is not, the usual meaning of the word faith in the New Testament being simply that of “faithfulness” or “fidelity.” See in my Commentary on Galatians (p. 44) for extended discussion regarding the error of construing New Testament references to “faith” as having the meaning of “subjective, sinner’s trust/ faith.” There are more than a hundred instances in the New Testament in which the solifidian bias of reading “faith” in the subjective sense has been imported and read into the text; one notable scholar even declared that 2Ti_4:7 is “best understood subjectively”! In that passage, how can it be denied that Paul’s saying he had “kept the faith” means anything other than that he had been true to the holy religion of Christ?
4. Outright mistranslation of God’s word is also used extensively to mutilate and alter passages which do not “fit” solifidian error. Thus, Joh_3:16 is perverted to read “SHALL have everlasting life” instead of “SHOULD have, etc.”Rom_10:10, “Confession is made unto salvation,” is perverted to read, “It is stating his belief by his own mouth that CONFIRMS his salvation” (Phillips). These are only two of many scores of such arrogant changes which solifidian scholars perpetrate against the sacred word. It is very difficult to believe that the consciences of those who commit this type of outrage could be easy in the doing of such things. The great plethora of “modern English” translations of the New Testament has many of them that in no sense may be legitimately called translations, being loaded with Solifidianism and other errors throughout.
5. The device of substituting sinner’s trust/faith for “the faith of Christ (the faith Christ had) in Rom_3:22; Rom_3:26; Gal_2:16; Gal_2:20, and many other places, carries the effect of making the sinner his own saviour (through his providing the “saving faith”); whereas the faith that truly saves is “the faith of Christ” PLUS the perfect obedience of Christ! See extensive discussions of this subject in Romans (my Commentary on Romans) and Galatians (my Commentary on Galatians), under above references.
6. Rejection of whole blocks of the New Testament that cannot be made to fit the solifidian straitjacket has, from time to time, been brazenly advocated. Martin Luther rejected James because he thought it contradicted Paul; whereas, it only contradicted what Luther erroneously alleged to be Paul’s teaching. There is no logic at all in the allegation that it was actually James which was misunderstood by Luther, and that James does not contradict Solifidianism. Of course it does! Then, there is the case of Arthur Cushman McGiffert, the theological “giant” who rejected the Pastorals, grounding his case on the assertion that “Nowhere in them is `faith’ used in the great Pauline sense (solifidian sense, of course)!” McGiffert was absolutely correct in seeing that Solifidianism is bluntly contradicted by the Pastoral epistles. Countless other examples of such behavior in smaller particulars could be pointed out, raising the question of what must be thought of a theory whose adherents seek to change the word of God, rather than give up their error?
7. Another device is that of bypassing the spiritual body of Christ in their doctrine of salvation “by faith alone:” Solifidian theology pays scant attention, if any, to the overwhelmingly important Pauline teaching of “salvation in Christ.” The expression “in Christ” (in him, in whom, in the Lord, etc.) is used 169 times in Paul’s writings. Forgiveness, eternal life, salvation, redemption of sins, hope, grace, love, etc. – in fact EVERYTHING is “in Christ.” Therefore, when Paul speaks of “faith in Christ,” what does he mean? Sinner’s subjective trust/faith? No! That is not “in Christ,” it is in the sinner! A number of Pauline references to “faith in Christ” mean “faith” exercised by one “who has been baptized into Christ,” thus stressing the theater of faith, not the mere subjective trust/faith of sinners. No unbaptized believer has faith “in Christ,” as long as he is “out of Christ.” The hard logic of this basic truth shows the fundamental error of Solifidianism.
   Throughout this series of commentaries, careful attention has been paid to solifidian mistranslations, perversions and other devices used in allegations of Scriptural support of their error; and the above are only a few samplings from the wholesale outrages committed against the New Testament by unspiritual men who, under a pretense of “spirituality” are guilty of misrepresenting the word of God.
   The candid manner of discussing Solifidianism, adopted here, should not be construed as a private judgment against “other Christians” (so-called). We do not maintain the position that intellectual error, even on so important a topic as this, may necessarily lead to final condemnation. In fairness, as noted earlier, it must be said that many solifidians, to the best of their ability, proceed to obey the teachings of the New Testament, in spite of their incorrect theory; and to the extent that they indeed “do believe and obey” the truth, they have exactly the same hope as all others who “believe and obey the gospel.”
   However, and here is tragedy, countless “professed” Christians are not in any sense obeying the gospel, walking in the teachings of the New Testament, ordering their lives by the precepts and examples of the apostles, nor in any other sense exhibiting the character and conduct of genuine followers of Christ. Their lapse in this whole area of “doing” the religion of Christ covers all phases of it; from violation of Christ’s commandment to be baptized, forsaking his word relative to the Lord’s supper, denying any appreciation for the church which is his spiritual body – from all such violations as these, all the way to a total abandonment of ethical and moral behavior by living in gross sins such as drunkenness, adultery, fornication, falsehood, stealing, idleness – put in all the lists of sins in the New Testament. Such things are openly practiced by a very large portion of those in our nation today who, according to themselves, are “saved by faith alone.” It is in this frame of reference that this rather extensive discussion of the key error in modern theology is offered.
   [56] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1229.
   [57] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 100.
   [58] Britannica World Dictionary.
   [59] Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 924.
   [60] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 186.
   [61] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 591.
   [62] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 1229.
   [63] Ibid., p. 1228.
   [64] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1035.
   [65] T. Guthrie, Biblical Illustrator, op. cit., p. 254.
   [66] Many commentators use this statement.
   [67] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 78.
   [68] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 69.
   [69] Ibid., p. 70.
   [70] T. Carson, op. cit., p. 576.
   [71] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 63.
   [72] Albert Barnes, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 48.
    
   LESSON TWO
   Jas_1:26-27; Jas_2:1-6
    
   Jas_1:26 If any man thinketh himself to be religious,–The word ”religious” is from the Greek threkos, oecurring only here in the New Testament. The kindred noun threskia, religion, occurs in 1226,27; Act_26:5; Col_2:18. It refers to the outward profession of religion, corresponding to eusebeia, godliness, the inward profession of religion. In its context, threskos designates the person whose opinion of himself is that he is “piously observant of the external duties of his faith” (The Amplified NT). But what he thinks of himself in no way coincides with what God knows about him.
    
   while he hridleth not his tongue hut deceiveth his heart, this man’s religion is vain.—-The Greek for “bridleth” literally means “to guide with a bridle.” See Jas_3:2-3. One who does not control his tongue, but lets it go like an unbridled horse, is self-deceived in thinking that he is religious in a way that pleases God. Such a person fails to curb the impulse to malice as expressed in verbal abuse and contempt. See Jas_1:21. James may he thinking of religious people who let their tongues run away with them in their criticism of those with whom they disagree, especially in religious matters, who cannot discuss such differences without heing spiteful and acrimonious. They think that they are truly, sincerely religious to so denounce the errors and failings of others, assuming an air of righteous indignation. But God knows otherwise. As John Calvin observed, “For they who are free from grosser sins, and even hear the outward form of sanctity, will often exalt themselves by detracting others under the pretence of zeal, whilst their real motive is love of evil-speaking.”
    
   It may be, however, that James has in mind the unbridled tongue that engages in any and all forms of evil speaking, which he further deals with in Jas_3:1-12. In any case, the person who does not bridle his tongue, no matter how faithful he may be in following certain phases of religion as ordained in God’s word, has a religion that is vain or futile, that makes no appeal for divine mercy, grace, and approbation. Such a religion can never lead anyone to heaven.
    
   Jas_1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this,—The two adjectives pure and undefiled present the positive and negative sides of the kind of religion that has the approval of God our Father, which is genuine in His sight. Such a religion is sincere, free from the contamination of self-pleasing and self—seeking, which seeks to he like the generous, loving, merciful, holy heavenly Father. James does not, however, deny the place in divinely acceptable religion of what we commonly call worship, such as prayer, singing, partaking 0f the Lord’s supper, etc.; but he does insist that the religious life that excludes chastity and acts of charity can never be divinely approved. Cf. Hos_6:6; Mic_6:8; Mat_9:13.
    
   to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictinn,——The objects of good works that characterize pure and undefiled religion are not limited to those specified here. Indeed, we are commanded, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men . . .” (Gal_6:10). James uses a figure of speech known as synecdoche, a part for the whole. He specifies the afflicted widows and fatherless because they are typical and outstanding instances of those needing aid, who are the least able to take care of themselves.
    
   The obligation Christians have to those in need is designated by the word “visit,” from the Greek episkeptesthai (episkeptomai), meaning “primarily to inspect (a late form of episkopeo, to look upon, care for, exercise oversightl” (W. E. Vine). The idea of “care for” involves anything and everything we can do to help those who are afflicted. But the most effective service we can render them is that which brings us into personal contact with them. See Mat_25:36; Luk_1:78-79. Acts of charity that avoid personal involvement in the lives of the afflicted are not those of the religion of which James speaks. The Christian who tries to escape from the actual sight of suffering, privatiun, and hunger, even though he may salve his conscience with impersonal donations to charity, is not an imitator of Him who during His early ministry entered the haunts of suffering and woe to make loving, personal contact with the actual persons who were their victims.
    
   and to keep oneself nnspotted from the world. This second characteristic of true religion is personal purity, the word “world” being used as the corrupting influence of the world without God. See Jas_4:4; 2Pe_1:4; 2Pe_2:20; 1Jn_2:15-17. Perhaps James thought is that to mix with the outside world, even in doing acts of charity, exposes one to the risk of moral corruption. But this does not imply that personal purity is to be sought by the selfish, cowardly avoiding of involvement with the real needs of suffering, sinful mankind, whatever the risks or dangers may he.
    
   Concerning the import of the words “keep oneself,” A. R. Fausset observed, “With jealous watchfulness, at the same time prayingr and depending on God as alone able to keep us (Joh_17:15; Jud_1:24) .” See 1Co_10:13.
    
   Jas_2:1 My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. The sense of these words can best be seen by the renderings of the following modern versions: “My brethren, while holding to your faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who is the glory, do not exhibit partiality” (Weymouth); “My brothers, do you try to combine faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with acts of partiality?” (Goodspeed); “My brothers, believing as you do in our Lord Jesus Christ, who reigns in glory, you must never show snobbery” (NEB); “My brothers, as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory, pay no servile regard to people” (Moflatt).
    
   Who are the persons to whom Christians are to show no “respect” in this particular context? In our comments we shall assume that they are both saints and sinners, Christians and non-Christians. Since God treats all men impartially (Act_10:34; Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25; 1Pe_1:17), so also must His children. It is sinful to show partiality to men, whether they are in or out of the body of Christ (2:9). Edward Plumptre’s comments on this passage expresses the folly of Christians showing partiality to any man: “In believing in Him who was emphatically a Sharer in the eternal glory (Joh_17:5), who had now returned to that glory, men ought to feel the infinite littleness of all the accidents of wealth and rank that separate man from man.”
    
   Jas_2:2 For if there come into your synagogue,——The word “synagogue” is the transliteration of the Greek sunagoge, from sun, together,
   and ago, to bring; hence, a gathering, assembly, or congregation. By metonymy it also means a place of worship. In this passage alone is it expressly applied to a Christian assembly or place of worship, probably so used by James because it was a term most familiar to the Christians of Jewish background to whom the epistle was written.
    
   a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing,–The Greek does not signify a man wearing a single gold ring, which would not attract attention where most of those assembled wore a ring, but a “gold-ringed man,” having his fingers loaded with rings. This was a mark of ostentatious vanity. Juvenal describes one who had rings of gold, light or heavy according to the season; and Martial writes of one who wore six rings on each finger and kept them on even when bathing. Then, too, the Greek literally signifies one who wears “bright or shiny clothes.” Such ostentatious, flashy, expensive jewelry and clothing would more likely be worn by a pagan or Jew than a Christian. See 1Co_14:23.
    
   and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing;–The word “vile” denotes dirty, squalid attire, which signifies this person’s poverty just as the expensive finery of the other person signifies his wealth.
    
   Jas_2:3 and ye have regard to him that wearelh the fine clothing,—The Greek for the word “regard” literally signifies “look upon,” with the idea of special consideration and attention. Although this person is no more important in the eyes of God than the poor man, he is shown special consideration because of his wealth.
    
   and say, Sit thou here in a good place;—This person is invited to a prominent seat because of the signs of his wealth, with the ostensible purpose of currying his favor and approbation. We are reminded here of the rebuke Jesus gave the scribes and Pharisees for loving “the chief seats in the synagogues” (Mat_23:6). It is just as wrong to show deference to a man because of his wealth as it is for him to seek such deference. Today it is not the custom to show special attention to a rich man by inviting him to sit in a prominent place in our services; but any other kind of special treatment we give him because of his wealth is here condemned in principle, just as any mistreatment of the poor man is also condemned.
    
   and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool;—No deference at all is shown to the poor man, although he is just as important to God as the rich man. He is not granted the plain civility and courtesy of being offered any kind of seat, but is told “to stand there” by the wall or wherever else he might be wedged in, or to sit on the floor at the font of the speaker’s footstool where there may be just enough room to uncomfortably crouch. See Rom_12:16.
    
   Jas_2:4 do ye not make distinctions among yourselves,~The word “distinctions” in the Creek is the same as “doubteth” in Jas_1:6. The question can thus be rendered as “have ye not wavered?” (Goodspeed) or “are ye not divided in your own mind?” (ASV footnote). The wavering or divided mind may here signify part wishing to be loyal to Christ and part wishing to gain the favor of the rich man. Or the idea may he “that in making a distinction between the rich and the poor, they expressed a doubt concerning the faith which they professed, and which abolished all such distinctions” (Marvin Vincent).
    
   and become judges with evil thoughts?~—This reference is to evil-thinking judges, the sense of the phrase being that those who show such favoritism to the rich are guilty of making unjust distinctions between men. This was a characteristic vice of oriental judges. Cf. Deu_1:17; Joh_7:24.
    
   Jas_2:5 Hearken, my beloved hrethrenv-The imperative “hearken” emphasizes the urgency of what follows; and the word “beloved” expresses the loving concern of the writer for his brethren in Christ, with the hope that they will give heed to his warning against showing respect of persons.
    
   did not God choose them that are poor as to the world—The poor designated here are those who are comparatively materially destitute in contrast to those who are “rich in this present world” (1Ti_6:17). James does not have in mind, however, all the poor (nor does he exclude all the rich). Mat_11:5 refers to the gospel being preached to the poor, but it is obvious that not all the poor accept this message. And it is just as obvious that not all the rich reject the gospel (1Ti_6:17-19). James Macknight observed that “among the Gentiles, the prejudices of the rich against the gospel were not as great as among the Jews. Hence more persons of rank and education among the Gentiles were converted than among the Jews.”
    
   What James does affirm here is that the poor as a class furnish more followers of Christ than the rich as a class. All subsequent history attests to the faCt that the gospel has always had more appeal to the poor than to the rich. Cf. 1Co_1:26, “For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.”
    
   to be rich in faith,—Faith is not that which constitutes their riches but that which gives them access to “the unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph_3:8). An implied contrast is drawn between material poverty and spiritual riches. One may, like the rich fool in the Lord’s parable (Luk_12:16—21), have great material possessions and not be “rich toward God”; but however materially poor one may be who is a faithful Christian, he is exceedingly rich in the eyes of the Lord. We are reminded of the Lord’s commendation of the church in Smyrna, “I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich)” (Rev_2:9). It is noteworthy that the Lord’s earthly poverty is the source of all the believer’s riches: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich” (2Co_8:9).
    
   and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him? Those Christians who truly love the Lord, no matter how materially poor they may be, not only enjoy His unsearchable riches in this life but shall also enjoy the even greater riches of the heavenly kingdom, The Lord will say to them in the last judgment, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mat_25:34). See Luk_12:32; Rom_8:17; 2Ti_4:8; Heb_1:14.
    
   Jas_2:6 But ye have dishonored the poor man. The word “ye” is addressed to Christians and is meant to be most emphatic. It is as if James were saying, “The dishonoring of the poor man, looking on him with contempt, can be expected of those of the world; but it is especially reprehensible for you who are Christians, who claim to he godlike in your attitude, to do so. Surely, much better things are expected of you than those who have never come to Christ.” In this rebuke of Christians who dishonor the poor, James does not imply that it is right to dishonor the rich. Indeed, the word of God exhorts, “Honor all men” (1Pe_2:17).
    
   This means that we are to show respect for the common humanity of all men, who are made in the image of God. Thus every person who comes into our midst, rich and poor alike, should be treated with honorable friendliness. To fail to so treat the poor man is to fail to treat him with the honor he is due.
    
   Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment seats? The word “oppress” is from the Greek katadunasteuousin, used only here and in Act_10:38. It signifies “lording it over you, act the potentate over you.” Cf. 1Pe_5:3. Among the oppressive acts of the rich against those to whom James wrote his epistle was the dragging (implying Violence) of them before the judgment seats, or courts; that is, instituting persecutions for religion and oppressive lawsuits against them. This does not mean that any particular rich Christian would so mistreat his brethren, but that he belonged to a class that did. James would remind his readers that the treatment they were receiving from the rich was no worse in the eyes of God than their dishonoring of the poor. See 5:1-6; Luk_12:58; Act_8:3; Act_9:2.
    
   Questions for LESSON FOUR
    
   Verse 26. Discuss the vain religion of the person who “bridleth not
   his tongue but deceiveth his heart.”
   Verse 27. Discuss pure and undefilecl religion.
   Verse 1 (Jas_2:1)|. What is meant by the phrase “hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . with respect of person”?
   Verse 2. How does James use the word “synagogue”? Discuss the respective attire ot the rich man and poor man.
   Verse 3. What is meant by “have regard to him” that wears the tine
   clothing? Discuss the treatment of the poor man.
   Verse 4. What is meant by making “distinctions among yourselves”
   and becoming “judges with evil thoughts”?
   Verse 5. What is the significance of the address in this verse? Discuss the choosing ot the poor at the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the divine kingdom.
   Verse 6. Why is the dishonoring ot the poor by Christians so reprehensible? Discuss the oppression of the readers at James’ epistle by the rich.
    
   LESSON FIVE
   James 2 :7-14
    
   Jas_2:7 Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called ?—The blasphemy spoken by both rich pagans and rich Jews is further illustrative of their contempt for Christians. “Only indirectly rich Christians can he meant, who, by their inconsistency, caused His name to be blasphemed; so Eze_36:21-22; Rom_2:24” (A. R. Fausset).
    
   The footnote in the ASV for the phrase “by which ye are called” is “which was called upon you,” the literal rendering of the Greek. James refers to the holy. honorable name of Jesus Christ, which was called or invoked upon them when they were baptized into Him (Mat_28:19; Act_2:38; Gal_3:26-27). See 1Co_3:23. The Greek for the phrase “called upon you” also occurs in the Septuagint of 2Ch_7:14; Jer_14:9; Jer_15:16; Amo_9:12; referring to those who were marked by God’s name as being His own.
   Jas_2:8 Howbeit if ye fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,—In his use of the term “royal law,” James may be referring to the entire body of moral law, which is called royal because its promulgator through inspiration given James is Jesus Christ, regarded as true king, superior to the Roman emperor, and because it is given to a sovereign people, Christians, who are a “royal priesthood” (1Pe_2:9). If this is the correct interpretation, the word “fulfill” answers to the teaching of the following passages: “Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and it there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom_13:8-10); “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” {Gal_5:14).
    
   It may be, however, that James uses the term “royal law” as an express reference to the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” because it is not only promulgated by a sovereign and given to a sovereign people, but because it is also sovereign over all other moral laws. If this is the valid interpretation, James uses the word “fulfill” in the sense of “carry out the contents of a command” (Joseph Thayer). Cf. Mar_12:28-31; 1Jn_4:20.
    
   The phrase “according to the scripture” refers to Lev_19:18, which was spoken by Moses and was familiar to the Jewish Christians to whom James wrote. But these Christians were to recognize that the authority behind this command to love one’s neighbor was no longer Moses but Christ (Mat_17:5; Joh_1:17), who carried it to such perfection and laid such stress on it that it is called “a new commandment” (Joh_13:34) and “his commandment” (Joh_15:12). See Mat_5:43-44; Luk_10:25-37.
    
   ye do well:–If a Christian shows impartiality in his treatment of all men, rich and poor alike, loving them as he loves himself, he acts in a way that is beautifully acceptable to God. He thus glorifies the beautiful name of the loving Christ, who died for all and invites all to come unto Him (Heb_2:9; Mat_11:28-30). The impartial, cordial treatment of all men by the Christian does indeed correspond to the spiritual beauty and majesty of the name of Christ. No one can be a faithful Christian who does not love those whom Christ loves.
    
   Jas_2:9 but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin,—James forthrightly labels as sin the ungodly conduct of showing deference to the rich in contrast to the contemptible treatment of the poor, thus having respect of persons. The import of the Creek is “it is sin you are working.” No excuse that any Christian might make to justify such conduct can evade the plain fact that it is sinful, as much so as murder, stealing, lying, adultery. and such like, being convicted by the law as transgressors. The word “transgressors” is from the Greek parabatai (parallatcs), from para, beyond, and baino, to go. Consequently, a transgressor is one who goes beyond the line. Those who have respect of person, contrary to God’s law, are thus convicted by that law of going beyond the line which it represents.
    
   Jas_2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.~There is no question that the obligation of keeping the law on the part of Christians pertains to the law of liberty, the law of Christ (Jas_2:12). James is certainly aware that Christians are to follow Christ rather than Moses. But in this verse and the one to follow, he probably has in mind the law of Moses, the old covenant, taking the strictly Jewish standpoint in appealing to his readers, who had been converted from Judaism to the gospel but who had most of their lives prided themselves on being loyal to the law of Moses. He thus wants them to see that what was true concerning the striving for complete loyalty to the law of Moses is especially true concerning the striving for complete loyalty to the law of Christ, because the full consequences of Judaism led to Christianity. Cf Heb_2:1-3. Hence, even though James may have in mind the law of Moses7 he does so in order to enhance his readers’ attention to their responsibility to Christ and His law.
    
   The case of a person stumbling in just one point of the law is purely hypothetical. James uses an extreme case to illustrate his point since he plainly states that “in many things we all stumblen (Jas_3:2). He is simply declaring that the law is a unit, and that to violate one point of it is actually to violate the whole of it. If any part of a man is leprous, the whole man is judged to be a leper. In a human court no just judge will excuse a prisoner’s one Crime because of his noncommission of all other possible crimes. His one infraction reckons him as a lawbreaker, as much so as if he has transgressed every other law of society. Thus to violate the law by having respect of persons makes one guilty of the whole law as if he has transgressed it in all points. “The law is one seamless garment which is rent it you but rend a part, or a musical harmony which is spoiled if there be one discordant note” (Tirinus); “a golden chain whose completeness is broken if you break one link” (Gataker). Cf. Gal_3:10; 1Jn_5:3.
    
   Jas_2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law. ln designating the commands to abstain from adultery and killing, James probably continues the appeal to his readers from the Jewish standpoint, referring to the sixth and seventh commandments of the decalogue. But at the same time he does not forget that Jesus also taught these commands, which are binding on His followers. He designates the particular sins of adultery and killing because they are the most glaring cases of the failure to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The keeping of one of God’s commandments does not keep a person from being a transgressor of the law if he breaks another. Thus those who disobey the Commandment of love in showing respect of persons can find no justification for such ungodly conduct by claiming to keep the other commandments of the law.
    
   Jas_2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to judged by a law of liberty.——James plainly tells his readers that they are to speak and act in conformity to the law of the liberty, the law of Christ, which Christ affirms will be the basis for His judgment of them: “The word that 1 spake, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Joh_12:48). Again, as in Jas_1:25-27, James insists that the law of liberty, which frees men from the guilt of sin7 in no way frees them from the responsibility of being obedient to all of its requirements. See Ephesians 228-10; Rom_6:1. It is as if James were saying, “Don’t think you can show respect of persons, thus violating the rule of love which Jesus so plainly and emphatically teaches in His law, and fail to be judged by that law, even though you are faithful to all the rest.” When Christians manifest love toward all men, rich and poor alike, both in speech and in action, they are exercising their glorious liberty in the gospel to live as those who truly recognize that they have been made free from sin to be servants of righteousness (Roman 6:17,18). Cf. 1Pe_2:16; 2Pe_1:9.
    
   Jas_2:13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: The word “mercy” is from the Greek eleos, meaning “pity, especially on account of misery” (George Berry}, “kindness or good will towards the miserable and afflicted, joined with a desire to relieve them” (Joseph Thayer). See Hos_6:6; Mat_9:13; Mat_12:7. In their unloving attitude toward the poor man (Jas_2:2-3), James’ leaders had failed to show them mercy. If they thus had persisted in such a sinful course, they could have expected no mercy when they would eventually face the Lord in judgment. This also is the emphatic import of Mat_25:41-46. Cf. Mat_7:22-23.
    
   John Adam appropriately wrote, “James speaks here as from the day of doom itself, like one looking back to the transactions of life as over, as things of the past, not of the future or the present. His statement is to the effer‘t that those persons who show no mercy, who work none in the case of their fellow creatures” shall find none at the Divine tribunal hereafter, but be dealt with in strict justice, according to its rigid, unmitigated requirements, apart from any modifying influence or mingling element of mercy. Having: acted, not in the spirit of the law of liberty, hut in opposition to it, they shall reap no benefit from it themselves at the great future assize.” See Mat_18:23-35.
    
   mercy glorieth against judgment.—-This statement answers to Mat_5:7, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” James personifies judgment and mercy. While judgment threatens condemnation, mercy interposes amt prevails over judgment. This meaning is made plain in the rendering of the NEB: “mercy triumphs over judgment.” As the ancient writer Chrysostom observed, “Mercy is clothed with 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 enfohls us with her wings.”
    
   It is evident that the merciful person, who has walked in the light of God’s word and has thus been continually cleansed from sin (1Jn_1:7), will stand before divine judgment perfect in Christ, with the triumphant, bold assurance that he will receive mercy at the hands of God.
    
   Jas_2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have no works? can that faith save him?—The faith and salvation contemplated here, as also in the other verses to follow in the chapter, do not pertain to the alien sinner but to the child of God. Having previously connected the salvation of the Christian with the faithful reception and doing of God’s word, with practicing pure religion and undefiled before God, with merciful respect for the poor, with striving to obey every commandment of God as those who will be judged by the law of liberty (Jas_1:21-27; Jas_2:1-13), James now climaxes and emphastzes all the foregoing teaching by insisting on the futility of the declaration of a faith that is not manifested in works. The question, “Can that faith save him?,” is entirely rhetorical, the answer being an obvious, emphatic “no!” This answer, which we shall elaborate upon in our comments on Jas_2:24, is in keeping with the entire tenor of New Testament teaching concerning the relationship of faith and works to the salvation of the Christian. Suffice it to say here, it is God’s purpose concerning one who has been saved from his past, alien sins (Mar_16:16; 2Pe_1:9), who has come into vital union with Christ (Gal_3:26-27; 2Co_5:17), that he engage in good works, gospel works, works that glorify God. See Eph_2:8-10; Joh_15:8; Tit_2:14; 1Pe_1:22. Any Christian, then, who fails to maintain a working faith cannot enjoy the continual salvation7 cleansing from sin, pronounced in 1Jn_1:7, that culminates in the eternal, heavenly salvation pronounced in Mat_10:22 : Rom_13:11; 1Th_5:8; Heb_5:9; 1Pe_1:9; 1Pe_2:2; etc. See Mat_7:16-27; Luk_6:46; 1Co_9:24-27; 2Co_5:10; Gal_5:6; Eph_5:3-6; Php_2:12; 1Ti_2:15; 1Ti_4:16; Heb_4:11; Heb_10:26-27; etc.
    
    
   Questions for LESSON FIVE
    
   Verse 7. What is the honorable name that the rich pagans and rich Jews blasphemed?
   Verse 8. What are the possibie definitions of “royal law”?
   Verse 9. Discuss the sin at having respect of persons? Why are those who are guilty of this sin convicted by the law as transgressors?
   Verse 10. Discuss the law to which James refers. Why does one who stumbles in one point become guilty ot the whole law?
   Verse 11. Why are the particular sins ot adultery and killing specified here? Discuss the fact that the keeping ot one of God’s commandments does not keep a person from being a transgressor ot the law it he breaks another.
   Verse l2. Discuss the necessity ot Christians speaking and doing as those that will be judged by a law of liberty.
   Verse 13. Why is judgment without mercy to one who shows no mercy? How does mercy glory against judgment?
   Verse l4. Discuss the futility ot a Christian‘s declaration of a faith that is not manifested in works.
    
   LESSON SIX
   Jas_2:15-23
    
   Jas_2:15-16 If a brother or sister he naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?—These passages that pertain to works of brotherly love are illustrative of the efficacious, saving faith alluded to in the preceding verse. In Jas_2:1 James had said, “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . with respect of persons,” and now it is as if he is saying, “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with the failure to help your fellow Christians.” As the lack of mercy that treats the poor man with contempt when he comes into the Christian assembly negates faith, thus denying, one the mercy of God (Jas_2:3; Jas_2:13), so also the failure to give practical assistance to the needy shows that faith is inoperative and denies one divine mercy. Carefully read Mat_25:41-46.
    
   Imagine the hypocrisy of one who blatantly avows belief in the merciful, loving Christ piously saying to some hungry, ill-clad person to go in peace, to be warmed and filled, and yet doing not a single thing to alleviate his suffering, implying by his utterance, “Let somebody else warm and feed you.” Such speech is vain, useless, profitless. What do you think of a faith that produces nothing more than empty speech? The faith that is devoid of the love for one’s neighbor can never fulfill the law of Christ. See Gal_6:2; 1Jn_3:17-18. As such faith cannot profit one’s neighbor, neither can it save one’s soul. It is axiomatic that a vital faith in Christ, which is always heavenly oriented and motivated by love, will manifest itself in appropriate deeds.
    
   James 17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. In his use of the word “dead” concerning the faith that fails to work, James does not mean nonexistent. It is certainly faith of a sort (Jas_2:19-20), just as a dead body is a body of a sort. But he does insist that the faith which fails to produce works is dead, lifeless, inoperative, useless, without any aeeess to the saving power of God in Christ. It is dead in itself, at the very root and heart of it, no matter how voluble and orthodox it may be. It is in the head but not in the heart, thus being without power and vitality to move its possessor to engage in good works.
    
   Jas_2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:~—Who is this man, an objector or ally? If he is an objector, he is obviously telling the readers of this epistle that what James is telling them is a mistake. One such explanation is that the objector, who resents what James has to say about the necessity of works in justifying faith for the Christian, uses the word “I” in a subtle way to designate James himself, as if to say, “Let James have his works; he makes too much ado about them. You just rest easy with your faith. God will continue to accept you as long you continue to believe in Him and His Son.” Thus the speaker could be an antinomian, one who does not believe that those who have been saved by God’s grace through the merits of Christ are bound to any law, or code of conduct. Cf. Rom_6:1. Or the objector may have in mind the notion held by many Pharisees that they could accept the vicarious responsibility for performing good works on behalf of the masses, as if to say, “You need not worry about any lack of works in connection with your faith as long as there are members like me to perform good works. It will suffice you to make a Confession of faith while others like me assume the responsibility for deeds.” Or the argument could be “that religion is not always manifested in the same way. . .One 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 have real religion” (Albert Barnes).
    
   If the speaker is an ally, which is the more probable meaning, he must be supposed to be addressing the person censured by James, as if to say, “Thou hast faith, while I, the ally of and in agreement with James, have works.”
    
   show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. These can be the words either of an ally of James or of James himself. In either case (more probably those of James’ ally). they strongly argue against the saving power of a dead faith, a faith without works. James or his ally is saying in effect, “You who claim to have faith but do not have works, show me your faith apart from your works, which of course, you cannot do. All you can do is produce a declaration or profession of faith, which consists of words only, nothing else. But I who have a living faith can prove that l have such faith by the only possible way: my works. Thus my faith is more than the mere words of a declaration or profession. I can show you by my works what justifying, saving faith is to any Christian: the genuine
   religious belief that always issues in obedience to the will of God, in being ‘a deer of the word’ (Jas_1:22) .”
    
   Jas_2:19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well.—The footnote in the ASV states that some ancient authorities read “there is one God,” which is the obvious meaning here. Taking the words “thou doest well” literally, any person who believes in the one God, or in the oneness of God, does indeed do well since this belief is the fundamental tenet of the religion of Christ, as it was also of Judaism. See Deu_6:4; Mar_12:29. How can anyone possibly depend on the Saviour for salvation who does not believe in ”the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Pe_1:3)? Thus Jesus emphasized the fundamental significance of belief in God when He declared, “Believe in God, believe also in me” (Joh_14:1).
    
   the demons also believe, and shudder.—The demons certainly recognize the existence of the one God and shudder at the realization that He Will eventually consign them to “the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mat_25:41). This will also be the eternal destiny Of those who claim to be the Lord’s followers but fail to express their belief in good works (Mat_25:41-42). Like the demons, such also shudder when they think of the horrible destiny that confronts them. It is indeed “a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God” (Heb_10:31).
    
   Implied in the demons’ belief in the one God is their belief also in Christ, whom God has appointed to be the final judge of their eternal destiny. We are reminded here of the words of certain demons to Jesus: “What have we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before our time?” (Mat_8:29); “What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mar_1:24). See Act_10:15.
   This statement of James concerning the belief of the demons may imply a touch of irony in his words “thou doest well,” as if to say, “You believe in one God. So what! So do the demons. What superiority do you have over them just because in your daily prayers you confess your belief in the one God, and yet fail to put your works into action?” Such inactive, dead faith can thus be aptly described as devilish. Jesus’ words in Luk_6:46 are appropriate here: “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” The demons say, “Lord, Lord,” and do not the things He says. What superiority over them does the child of God have Who also says, “Lord. Lord.” and fails to obey Him?
    
   Jas_2:20 But will thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is barren? In this rhetorical question James forcibly denounces the person whose faith is devoid of good works. The word “vain” is from the Greek kenos, literally meaninar empty, and occurring only here in the New Testament as applied to persons. It describes one who is spiritually empty, corresponding to the emptiness of his faith. The word “barren,” correspunding to the word “dead” in Jas_2:17, literally means idle, as of money that bears no interest or of fallow land. Thus the barren faith of which James speaks, being devoid of works, is idle or useless in the sense of being unavailing as to eternal salvation. It is axiomatic that a barren faith is the reason for a spiritually barren life, such a life as is unprepared for the heavenly realm. Good works are the only evidence of a faith that continues to trust in Christ for salvation, that depends on Him for the heavenward life.
    
   Jas_2:21 Was not Abraham our father?–James’ allusion to Abraham as
   “our father” is probably meant to stress the affinity he and his fellow Jewish Christians felt concerning the great progenitor of the Jewish race. Cf. Mat_3:9. Or James may have Abraham in mind as the spiritual father of all those whose faith in Christ has wrought their redemption (Galatians 327,81.
    
   justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?– No finer example of a working faith is found in the Old Testament than this. The justification of which James here speaks in no way illustrates the initial justification of the sinner who believes in Christ for his salvation, but it rather is illustrative of the sacrificial nature of the Christian life, of being a friend of Christ. As Abraham was willing to do anything and everything required of him by God. even to the extent of giving up that which was nearest and dearest to him, his beloved son Isaac, so the Christian who follows his example will also be willing to do anything and everything? to make any kind of sacrifice, in obedience to the will of Christ. And as such obedient. working faith made possible Abraham’s continual justification before God. so also will it do the same for the follower of Christ. Thus Jesus taught, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Mat_16:24-25); “If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father. and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. . . . So therefore whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath. he cannot be my disciple” (Luk_14:26; Luk_14:33).
    
   Jas_2:22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works,——There is a play on these words in the Greek: faith “worked with his works” (Marvin Vincent]; “was working with his works” (New ASV). James stresses that the only way Abraham’s faith could be active was in the works he performed in obedience to God’s will. By his faith thus cooperating with the works that sprang from it, it had access to divine justification. See Heb_11:17.
    
   and by works was faith made perfect;—James does not imply that prior to the offering of Isaac the faith of Abraham was defective or wanting in the attitude of suhmissiveness to God’s will. Even before he brought Isaac to the sacrificial altar (which is the significance of the Greek in Jas_2:21 for “offered up Isaac his son upon the altar”, he was willing to do anything and everything that God required of him. See Heb_11:8-10. But in being willing to otter his son, to give up that which was most precious to him. cf. Joh_3:16), his faith was made perfect in the sense that it was brought to completion, reaching the highest state of submissiveness to God and His will. Cf. Jas_1:4; 2Co_12:9; 1 John 4:17.35
    
   The faith of Abraham was such that it unreservedly surrendered to and trusted in God by offering the sacrifice required of him. In so doing his faith was put to the severest trial because obedience to this command (Gen_22:2) was seemingly directly contrary to the promise made to him by God, “For in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen_21:12). Yet Abraham was not staggered by this seeming contradiction between the divine command and the divine promise. He reasoned with himself “that God is able to raise up, even from the dead” (Heb_11:19). He thus recognized that it was his responsibility to obey God and at the same time to trust in Him to keep His promise. His was genuinely living faith, such as should he possessed by every Christian: to obey God at all costs and to trust in Him to keep His promises, even though the harmony between the two cannot always be understood. Cf. Mat_6:33; Luk_21:2; Rom_8:28; 2Co_5:7; 2Co_9:8.
    
   Jas_2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness;—The scripture cited here was spoken of Abraham many years before he offered up Isaac, immediately after God said to him, “Look now toward heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be” (Gen_15:5). It is entirely wrong to conclude that Abraham’s faith was in no way imputed unto him for righteousness until he offered up Isaac many years after his belief in God regarding the seed promise. The faith of Abraham as designated in Gen_15:6 is illustrative of the sinner’s faith in Christ being imputed unto him for righteousness, and the faith of Abraham in offering up Isaac is illustrative of the Christian’s faith being imputed unto him for righteousness. The word “fulfilled” means “fully realized”; andso it was that Abraham’s life of subsequent obedience to God was the full realization of the faith reckoned unto him [or righteousness when he believed in God regarding the seed promise, just as the Christian’s subsequent life of obedience is the full realization of the faith reckoned unto him for righteousness when as a sinner he believed in Christ’s promise regarding salvation from his past sins. More about this in our discussion of Jas_2:24. See Eph_2:10.
    
   and he was called the friend of God.—See 2Ch_20:7 and Isa_41:8. Abraham was given this honorable appelation because he was obedient to God’s will. We are reminded here of the words of Jesus to His disciples: “Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which 1 command you” (Joh_15:14).
    
   Questions for LESSON SIX
    
   Verses 15,16. Discuss works at brotherly love as involved in a living faith.
   Verse I7. Discuss faith without works as being dead in itselt.
   Verse l8. Discuss the meaning of the words “Thou hast faith, and I have works,” both from the standpoint ot an objector and an ally.
   Verse 19. Why can a dead faith appropriately be described as devilish?
   Verse 20. Discuss the word “barren” as it is applied to a dead faith. What is the significance at “vain man”?
   Verse 21. Why does James refer to Abraham as “our father”? Discuss Abraham’s justification by works in offering up Isaac.
   Verse 22. What is meant by “faith wrought with works”? How was Abraham’s faith made perfect by works?
   Verse 23. Discuss Abraham’s offering up Isaac as the fulfillment of the scripture cited in this verse. Why was Abraham called “the friend of God”?
    
   Note: For Lesson covering Jas_2:24-26, See LESSON SEVEN at the end of the Chapter Notes for James Chapter Three.
    
    
   Questions on James Chapter Two
   by E.M. Zerr
8. What faith were brethren professing to hold?
9. In so doing what respect must they not show?
10. To what phase of life does he here refer?
11. What difference should outward appearance make?
12. If we make a difference where is the partiality seated?
13. This makes us judges having what kind of thoughts?
14. Against such choosing what has God done?
15. Were they chosen because they were poor?
16. Would a man be rejected only because of his riches?
17. How do rich men treat the disciples?
18. What is their use of the holy name?
19. State the sum of royal law of the scriptures.
20. This would prevent one from having what?
21. Such partial respect would convict one of what?
22. How does one become. guilty of all the law?
23. Does this mean every mistake a man makes?
24. Could not one make a mistake and not despise the law?
25. If one purposely rejected a command then what?
26. Show the argument of James on this idea.
27. How should we speak and do?
28. How will unmerciful fare in day of judgment?
29. How maya merciful man view the judgment?
30. Can faith without works save a man?
31. Is this principle time in regard to temporal matters?
32. What argument is drawn from destitute persons?
33. In what does faith take part here?
34. What causes faith to be dead?
35. Should a man separate faith from works?
36. State James’ argument at this point.
37. Is it well to believe in one only God?
38. Why is this not enough?
39. Had this faith ever saved a devil?
40. What would James have all vain men to know?
41. Why does he call them vain?
42. By what was Abraham justified?
43. When were these works shown?
44. Compare this with Rom_4:1-6.
45. Explain “by works was faith made perfect.”
46. What scripture did this fulfill?
47. At what time was this scripture made?
48. Did God impute righteousness to him in advance?
49. Will he do that for us?
50. Explain why he would do this for Abraham.
51. What was Abraham called?
52. State what Jesus said similar to this.
53. How does Jas_2:24 harmonize with Rom_3:28?
54. Compare Jas_2:25 with Heb_11:31.
55. Show comparison made in last verse.
56. Was Rahab justified for lying?
57. What spirit is meant in last verse?
     
    Poem: James Chapter Two
    by Ralph Starling
    “FAITH WITHOUT WORKS”
     
    Faith with works are powerful tools
    One without the other will make us fools.
    For as James says, “Faith without works is dead.”
    …..of works without faith the same can be said!
     
    God’s grace is the basis of it all.
    Man’s faith is the factor that’s always on call.
    Works is man’s part that make it complete.
    Salvation is God’s part that He will keep!
     
    What excuse might we make on judgment day-
    That we never were given the plan of the way?
    For Christ paved the way and paid the price.
    That we might by faith do what is right.
     
    To borrow the words of the old song—-
    Love and marriage, love and marriage.
    So, faith and works go together,
    Like the horse and carriage.