Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of James 2:1
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons.
Ch. Jas 2:1-13. Respect of Persons
1. have not the faith ] Better, do not hold. The Greek for “respect of persons” (better, perhaps, acceptance of persons) is in the plural, as including all the varied forms in which the evil tendency might shew itself, and stands emphatically immediately after the negative. The name of “our Lord Jesus Christ” is used obviously with a special force. He had shewn Himself, through His whole life on earth, to be no “respecter of persons” (Mat 22:16), to have preferred the poor to the rich. There was a shameful inconsistency when those who professed to hold the faith which had Him as its object acted otherwise. To the name of the Lord Jesus is added the description “ the Lord of Glory.” The first two words are not repeated in the Greek, but the structure of the English sentence requires their insertion. The motive of the addition is clear. 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 or rank that separate man from man. This seems the most natural construction, but the position of the words “of glory” is anomalous, and some have joined it with “faith” either as a genitive of the object “faith in the future glory,” or as a characterising attribute = “the glorious faith.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
My brethren – Perhaps meaning brethren in two respects – as Jews, and as Christians. In both respects the form of address would be proper.
Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ – Faith is the distinguishing thing in the Christian religion, for it is this by which man is justified, and hence, it comes to be put for religion itself. Notes, 1Ti 3:9. The meaning here is, do not hold such views of the religion of Christ, as to lead you to manifest partiality to others on account of their difference of rank or outward circumstances.
The Lord of glory – The glorious Lord; he who is glorious himself, and who is encompassed with glory. See the notes at 1Co 2:8. The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord should be in no way dishonored.
With respect of persons – That is, you are not to show respect of persons, or to evince partiality to others on account of their rank, wealth, apparel, etc. Compare Pro 24:23; Pro 28:21; Lev 19:15; Deu 1:17; Deu 10:17; 2Ch 19:7; Psa 40:4. See the subject explained in the Act 10:34 note; Rom 2:11 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Jam 2:1-7
With respect of persona–
Respect of persons
I.
THE SIN AGAINST WHICH THE WARNING IS DIRECTED (Jam 2:1-4).
1. It is stated, Jam 2:1. My brethren, he begins, addressing them in a conciliatory manner, well fitted to gain their compliance. He calls on them not to hold, in a certain way, the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is this which alike determines the state and forms the character of the really religious. It is only by believing with the whole mind and heart that we are united to the Saviour, and reap the benefits of His great redemption. Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ–that is, hold it not–with respect of persons. It is more exactly in than with respect of persons, in the practice of anything so obviously opposed to its very nature. And it is strictly in respectings of persons, the plural being used to indicate the various ways of doing what is here forbidden. By it we are to understand partiality, favouritism, unduly preferring one before another, making a distinction among men, not on the ground of character or real worth, but of outward condition, of worldly position and possessions.
2. It is illustrated (Jam 2:2-4). For–this is what I mean, here is a specimen of the kind of thing I am warning you against–if there come into your assembly–that is, your congregation, or place of meeting for divine worship. It brings out the offensiveness of the proceeding, that it took place in the sanctuary, where, even more than in a court of justice, everything of the sort was most unseemly. If there come in, he says, a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel–one who appeared by these marks to be a person of superior position. With a gold ring, literally, gold-fingered, having his hands adorned probably with more than a single ring, it might be with several. In goodly apparel–having a splendid garment, as the word signifies, bright, shining, glittering, either from its colour or its ornaments. But another enters, and what a contrast! And there come in also a poor man in vile raiment. Here is one of mean condition, as shown by his attire, the dirt and rags with which he is covered. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, marking the deference paid to him by saying, Sit thou here in a good place–sit here, near the speaker, in the midst of the assembly, in a comfortable and honourable seat; while your language to the poor is, Stand thou there–stand, that is suitable and sufficient for you; and stand there, away at a distance, behind the others, it may be in some remote corner, some inconvenient position; or, Sit thou here under my footstool; if you sit at all among us let it be on the ground beneath, at my feet, in a mean, low situation of that kind. Supposing them to act in such a manner, he asks (Jam 2:4), Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Are ye not partial in yourselves? do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, or are ye not at issue with yourselves? Is not this way of acting at variance with your principles as Christians? Is there not a wide difference between the faith you profess and the course you thus pursue? Now, what is it that he condemns? Is it showing any deference to those of larger means and higher station? Certainly not. What he condemns is honouring the rich at the expense of the poor–cringing to the one and trampling on the other, and doing this, besides, in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, where all should meet on the same footing, should be viewed as standing on a common level. Favour is still shown to the rich man, where it is neither his right nor his interest to have any, but to rank along with the poorest of his brethren. This is done at times by softening down or keeping back the truth from fear of offending certain influential classes or parties. We have a noble example of the opposite in the case of Howe when acting as one of Cromwells chaplains. He found that a fanatical and dangerous notion regarding answers to prayer prevailed at court, and was held strongly by the Protector himself–a notion which some who knew better did their utmost to encourage. Regarding it with abhorrence, Howe thought himself bound, when next called to preach before Cromwell, to expose the fallacies on which it rested, and the pernicious consequences to which it led. This accordingly he did, doubtless to the no small surprise and chagrin of his audience. During his discourse, Cromwell was observed to pay marked attention; but as his custom was, when displeased, frequently knit his brows, and manifested other symptoms of uneasiness. Even the terrors of Cromwells eye, however, could not make Howe quail in the performance of an undoubted duty; and he proceeded in a strain of calm and cogent reasoning to fulfil his honourable but difficult task. When he had finished, a person of distinction came up and asked whether he knew what he had done? at the same time expressing his apprehension that he had irretrievably lost the Protectors favour. Howe coolly replied that he had discharged what he considered a duty, and could leave the issue with God. This was worthy of his sacred office, and his own noble character. The same thing is frequently done in the way of pursuing a subservient course of conduct toward the rich with the view of gaining their favour.
II. THE REASONS BY WHICH THE WARNING IS ENFORCED.
1. The poor are the special objects of the Divine regard (Jam 2:5). Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith? He has chosen them in His eternal decree; and in pursuance of this, chosen them by separating them to Himself, through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost. And whom has He thus chosen? The poor of this world–the poor in respect of it, in the things of it, the poor temporally. They constitute the class to which the man in vile raiment belonged. Rich in faith–that is, God has chosen them to be this–He has destined them to it, and made them it by His election. And heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him. The Christian is rich at present. He has large possessions, and these belong to the domain of faith. Bat be has also glorious prospects. Already he is a son, but he is also an heir. His inheritance is a kingdom, than which there is nothing greater, nobler, more coveted here below.
2. The rich had shown themselves the great enemies of Christs people and person. He appeals to his readers, Do not rich men oppress you? lord it over you, exercise their power against you–and draw you, drag you; for it implies force, violence–before the judgment-seats. They did so by vexatious law-suits, by false charges, by persecuting measures. Not only so, be asks, Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? The reference is not to the lives of inconsistent Christians, but to the foul-mouthed charges and curses of avowed enemies of the gospel. The worthy or honourable name intended is that of Christ. What title, then, had this class to such a preference? Did their relation to the Church, either in its members or its Head, call for any special favour at the hands of believers? Quite the reverse. (John Adam.)
A comprehensive admonition
I. Observe–A RELATIONSHIP. The apostle addresses them as his brethren.
1. So they were, nationally; they were Jews as well as himself.
2. They were his brethren naturally partaking of the same humanity with him.
3. They were his brethren graciously. Here a nobler relation is gendered, and this comprehends all that worship God in the Spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and who have no confidence in the flesh.
4. They were His brethren impartially, without any distraction; that is, He was regardless of everything that might seem to render them unworthy the privilege as to conditions, or gifts, or office.
II. Here is A CHARACTER. The Lord of glory. You well know to whom this belongs; and this is not the only place where this title is given; for Paul, streaking of the princes of this world, said, None of them knew, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Isaiah Isa 33:21) makes use of a similar term as applied to the blessedGod Himself. The radical idea of glory is brilliancy; the second idea is excellency displayed; and there are three ways in which this character will apply to our Lord and Saviour.
1. He is the Lord of glory because of His personal excellencies. He is fairer than the children of men; He is the chief among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely. All the glory of creatures, whether in earth or in heaven, in their aggregate, is nothing more to His glory than a drop to the ocean, or a beam to the sun.
2. He is called the Lord of glory, because He produces and confers all the excellencies possessed by creatures. By Him kings reign, and princes decree justice. When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
3. There is a world made up entirely of excellencies and glory, when nothing else is to be found, and of that world He is the only Sovereign, the only Disposer.
III. A PECULIAR ENDOWMENT. The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not that we have this faith in equal possession and exercise with Him. No, in all things He had the pre-eminence. He received the Spirit without measure, and in every one of its graces He excelled.
1. But the apostle does not speak here of the faith He possessed and exercised, but of that faith, first, of which He was the Author. He is called, The Author and the Finisher of faith, and this is as true of the graces of faith as of the doctrine of faith.
2. When the apostle speaks of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, he means, secondly, that of which He is the Object. Therefore, they that believe are said to believe in Him.
IV. A PROHIBITION Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect to persons. This regards, not its character, but its perversion; its abuse, and not its nature. Have it not, says James; that is, let it never be so seen in you, let it never be so exercised in you. Here, however, it will be necessary to observe that there is a lawful respect of persons, and there is an unlawful one. The thing, therefore, is not forbidden in every instance, and in every measure and degree. For, in the first place, it is impossible to respect some persons. You will never feel towards a Nero as you would towards a Howard. And if it were possible, it would be improper. The Scripture justifies the distinctions and inequalities of life, and rank and office are to be regarded. But the meaning here is that other things being equal, you should not show more regard to one person than to another, because of some things belonging to him which have no relation to cases of duty or conscience. Let us exemplify the thing four ways.
1. The first is judicially. In a case of this kind pending, how very improper it would be to be lenient to the rich and severe to the poor!
2. The second class we call ministerial. If God blesses the labours of a minister to your soul, you will esteem such; but you are not to make an idol of straw. You should regard all the servants of God as equal; you are to view them in reference to their Master–in reference to their commission–in reference to their place and office–as all respectable, and equally regarded by God.
3. The third class we call ecclesiastical. Here we might refer to the terms of admission into the Church of God, and to the table of the Lord. These ought not to be rigid and severe, but whatever they may be, they ought to be equally applied to the high and the low, to the rich and to the poor.
4. The last class we call denominational. All should belong to some Christian community; but you should never suppose that the party you have joined have all the truth, and that nothing is to be done without them. Let us never forbid others because they walk not with us. To conclude, let us learn then to judge of men regardless of adventitious circumstances. Let our inquiry be, What are they morally? what are they spiritually? Thus may we resemble the citizens of Zion, of whom it is said, in their view a vile person is contemned, while those who fear the Lord are honoured. (W. Jay.)
Respect of persons in religious matters
We may be guilty of this–
1. By making external things, not religion, the ground of our respect and affection. Knowing after the flesh (2Co 5:16) is to esteem any one out of secular and outward advantages. Says Tertullian: We must not judge of faith by persons, but of persons by faith.
2. When we do not carry out the measure and proportion of affection according to the measures and proportions of grace, and pitch our respects there where we find the ground of love most eminent (Psa 16:3).
3. When we can easily make greatness a cover for baseness, and excuse sin by honour, whereas that is the aggravation; the advantage of greatness makes sin the more notable.
4. When we yield religious respects, give testimonies to men for advantage, and, under pretence of religion, servilely addict ourselves to men for base Jud 1:16).
5. When Church administrations are not carried on with an indifferent and even hand to rich and poor, either by way of exhortation or censure.
6. When we despise the truths of God because of the persons that bring them to us. Matheo Langi, Archbishop of Saltzburg, told every one that the reformation of the mass was needful, the liberty of meats convenient, and to be disburthened of so many commands of men just; but that a poor monk (meaning Luther) should reform all was not to be endured. So in Christs time the question was common, Do any of the rulers believe in Him? Thus you see we are apt to despise excellent things, because of the despicableness of the instrument. The same words have a different acceptation, because of the different esteem and value of the persons engaged in them. Erasmus observed that what was accounted orthodox in the fathers, was condemned as heretical in Luther. (T. Manton.)
Respect of persons
I. The persons whom St. James admonished here are THE BRETHREN to whom he giveth this attribute, which thing he doth very conveniently, inasmuch as in the discourse he is to admonish them of a duty of love, whereunto they ought to be the more prompt. The saints of God may well here be called brethren–
1. Because they have one spiritual and Heavenly Father, which is God, who is Father of us all, of whom are all things, and we in Him.
2. As because we have one spiritual Father we are brethren, so because we have one spiritual mother, we are brethren also. Now, as God is our spiritual Father, so is the Church our mystical mother, which hath brought us forth by a new birth, in whose sweet bosom we are nursed, into whose happy lap we are gathered, and bringeth us up under the most wholesome discipline of Jesus Christ, that we might be holy and blameless before Him through love.
3. Neither that only, but they are also begotten with one seed of their new birth and regeneration, which is the immortal seed of the Word.
4. If Christ vouchsafe us the name of brethren, and so we have Him as a common brother, then are we therefore also brethren by right among ourselves.
5. Finally, inasmuch as the saints divide the same inheritance among them, therefore are they called brethren; for brethren they are as Aristotle writeth, among whom the same inheritance is divided; yea, they which divide the same lands, living, patrimony, possession. The sons and saints of God communicate the same inheritance, divide the same kingdom of their Heavenly Father among them, participate the same good things which are above as co-heirs and joint-heirs of the heavenly patrimony, eternal life; therefore are they brethren.
II. The saints whom He calleth brethren, being the persons whom He admonisheth, in the next place cometh THE THING ITSELF, WHEREOF THEY ARE ADMONISHED to be considered that they have not the faith of Christ in respect of persons, wherewith true love, true charity, true religion, cannot stand or consist.
1. What is here meant by faith? Christian religion, the true service of Christ, the profession of the gospel, whereunto respect of persons is contrary, for if pure religion and undefiled before God be this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their adversities, and to regard the poor in their miseries, as before was taught us, then contrary hereunto is the contempt of the poor and preferring of the rich, which respect of persons is here condemned.
2. Christ is called the glorious Lord in this place, sometimes to like purpose is He called the Lord of glory (Psa 24:7; Act 7:2; 1Co 2:8). Christ may be called the Lord of glory–
(1) Because He is full of majesty, power, and glory, at the right hand of God.
(2) Christ is the Lord of glory because howsoever He first came in baseness and great humility, yet at His second appearing and coming He shall come in unspeakable glory.
(3) Christ is a glorious Lord because He bringeth and advanceth
His servants to immortal glory after His appearing in glory.
3. To have this faith of Christ our glorious Lord in respect of persons is to esteem the faith, religion, and profession of Christ by the outward appearance of men.
1. What is respect of persons? It is to respect anything besides the matter and cause itself, which only ought of us to be considered, whereby we decline from the matter to the man, from the thing to the person, and swerve from righteous judgment and true estimation of things.
2. Which sin, as pernicious and perilous in all causes, in all persons, at all times, and in all places, the sacred Scripture condemneth as a thing most repugnant to equity and charity. This evil cannot stand with Christian profession, the gospel teacheth that with God is no respect of persons, but that they all which fear God and work righteousness are accepted through the joyful tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ, in whom there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, neither rich nor poor, but they are all alike unto Him. (R. Turnbull.)
Wrong social distinctions
God Himself has made a distinction among men. That one should be rich and have abundance, and another should be poor and needy, is an arrangement of the Almighty, just as it is His arrangement and appointment, that all the ears of corn should not contain the same number of grains, and that all flowers should not be arrayed in the same gay colours, and that all the stars should not shine with the same brilliancy, but one star differ from another star in glory. But we make an evil distinction when we carry that which is of value only in earthly relations, in civil and social intercourse, into a sphere where, according to the appointment of God, poverty and riches are both of the same value, or rather of no value. For let us only ask ourselves for what purpose do we assemble in the house of God on appointed days? Is it not that we may feel the importance, and attend to the concerns of another life, far different from our earthly and every-day one? Is it not that we may know and enjoy the life eternal, that we may taste the powers of the invisible world? But all the pre-eminence which riches can procure for us is as transitory as riches themselves; the rich man fades away amidst all his affluence, as completely as the poor man perishes in his state of destitution. How iniquitous is it, then, to distinguish the rich as such, and to slight the poor as such, in a place where all are on the same level before God, where all assemble with an equal need of heavenly grace and gifts, and all have a right to rejoice in the same riches, even the fulness of the Divine love in Christ. (B. Jacobi.)
Respect of persons in church
It was my custom occasionally to attend St. Marys, and the sermons of the vicar always delighted me. But as the church was always very full, I was often obliged, though not strong in health, to stand during the whole service. Now, having observed that the persons who were best dressed were always the first to be conducted to seats, although not seat-holders, I yielded to the temptation of resorting to an artifice. I happened to possess a large and beautiful ring. One Sunday morning I put it on and repaired to church as usual. I stood for a minute or two with other people of divers classes near the door. Then, taking off my glove, I raised my hand with apparent carelessness to my ear, and immediately I was led to a comfortable seat. (Autobiography of Bp. Gobat.)
Without respect of persons
Until the last few years of his life Friend Hopper usually walked to and from his office twice a day. When the weather was very unpleasant he availed himself of the Haarlem cars. Upon one of these occasions it chanced that the long, ponderous vehicle was nearly empty. They had not proceeded far when a very respectable looking young woman beckoned for the car to stop. It did so; but when she set her foot on the step the conductor somewhat rudely pushed her back, and she turned away, evidently much mortified. Friend Hopper started up, and inquired, Why didst thou push that woman away? Shes coloured, was the laconic reply. Art thou instructed by the managers of the railroad to proceed in this manner on such occasions? inquired Friend Hopper. The man answered, Yes. Then let me get out, rejoined the genuine republican; it disturbs my cow, science to ride in a public conveyance where any decently behaved person is refused admittance. And though it was raining very fast, and his horse was a mile off, the old veteran of seventy-five years marched through mud and wet at a pace somewhat brisker than his usual energetic step; for indignation warmed his honest and kindly heart and set the blood in motion.
No respect of persons
On one occasion Peter Cartwright, the Backwoods Methodist preacher, was occupying the pulpit of a time-serving fashionable preacher at Nashville. He was in the middle of his sermon, when Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) entered the building and walked up the main aisle. The presence of so great a man, the President of the United States, overpowered the clergyman in charge, and bending over to Peter Cartwright, he said in an audible whisper, General Jackson has come in; General Jackson has come in. And who thundered out Cartwright, is General Jackson? If he doesnt get his soul converted, God will damn him as quick as He would a Gainea negro! It may well be supposed that the congregation was startled, and the next day the Nashville pastor went, with abject apologies, to the General, regretting the indignity that had been offered him. But the independence of the bold Backwoods apostle, so far from giving offence to Old Hickory, won his lasting regard, and the Rev. Peter was afterwards his honoured guest at the Hermitage. (Tinlings Illustrations.)
Your synagogue
The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem still frequented the temple, and those among the dispersion the synagogues; hence there is no cause for surprise in finding Christians mixed with unconverted Jews at this period in a common place of worship. The people sat in the synagogue according to their social rank or trade, and St. James fastens on this exhibition of pride on the part of the higher classes as a ground of convincing them of sin and of violation of the law which enjoined Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. A further argument that the Jewish synagogue is spoken of is that we learn from the context that strangers came in who were provided with seats that happened to be vacant. This would occur constantly in the synagogue, but in the upper chamber of the Christians it would be most unlikely that persons of wealth and eminence, as here described, should thus freely enter the congregation of the despised Nazarenes. A graphic delineation follows of the casual worshippers, for casual they must have been, as the regular comers Would have their seats allotted them. The one is wealthy and proud, the other poor and lowly. The force of this contrast will appear the more when we remember that the Christian portion of the Jewish community was chiefly gathered out of the lower ranks in the social scale. The rich man is described as having a gold ring or rings on his fingers, for it was a common custom to wear a number of these ornaments; he is clad also in handsome attire, literally shining, most likely with reference to the gloss of the texture of his raiment; and the poor man is represented as clothed in shabby attire, most probably with reference to the soil contracted in labour: (F. T. Bassett, M. A.)
A man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel
Degrees of honour in the Church
This place taketh not away degrees of honour from men, neither denieth it honour or worship to be given to men of honour or worship, albeit wicked and unworthy. St. James only teacheth not to judge of the faith and religion of Christ in men by their outward appearance, neither in the public meetings of Christians to reverence or prefer the rich men of the world, being wicked, with the disdaining of the poor which are religious, as the words themselves import when to the rich man we say, Sit here in a good and worshipful place, and to the poor, Sit there, or Sit under my footstool, which argueth contempt of the poor brethren; for if in spectacles and theatrical sights, in election of officers, in parliaments, in assizes and sessions, and in all well-ordered assemblies of men, there is difference of men and comeliness of persons observed, how much more in ecclesiastical meetings ought there an order to be observed whereof the primitive Church was careful, appointing their place for the ministers, theirs for the laity, theirs for them which were to be catechised, theirs for them which were to do penance and to make open acknowledgment of their offences. The same was ratified by councils, confirmed by fathers; and for the business of the churches or the reproving of mens vices and correcting of them which fell both Tertullian and St. Ambrose writeth that there were several places for certain persons assigned. So, then, all difference and degrees of men are not here forbidden, but in Christian assemblies to respect the rich, with the contempt and disdain of the poor, is condemned. (R. Turnbull.)
Showing off dress in church
Perhaps, in the modern church worship, the greatest discouragement which the poor feel is in the dress which their rich brethren and sisters are accustomed to exhibit in the house of God. It is a shame to their poor apparel. It ought to be a shame to any well-to-do Christian woman when she wears her gayest and newest costly clothing to public worship, and appears with diamonds and other very valuable and conspicuous ornaments before the altar of her God. Cannot the Christian women of this age at length have the courage to refuse to continue to be Sunday advertisements of modistes and milliners? A lady in New York, whose pew was on one of the wall sides of the church, and who consequently had the congregation all on one side of her, suggested to her milliner that she put a certain bow on the congregation side of her bonnet! What a revelation was that! And was it solitary? Is not the preparation of many a worshipper made on the congregation side? And is not the house of the Lord thus turned into a show-room, in which those who have no special dry-goods to exhibit are neither welcome nor at home? (C. F. Deems, D. D.)
A gold-ringed man
The custom was one of the fashions of the empire, and had spread from Rome to Judaea. So Juvenal, in a portrait which unites the two forms of ostentations luxury noted by St. James, describes one who, though born as an Egyptian slave, appears with Tyrian robes upon his shoulders and golden rings, light or heavy, according to the season (Sat. 1:28, 30). So in Martial (xi. 60) we read of one who wears six rings on every finger day and night, and even when he bathes. (Dean Pumptre.)
The poor to be treated equitably
The tutor of Cyrus instructed him, when in a controversy, where a great boy would have taken a large coat from a little boy because his own was too little for him and the others was too big, he adjudged the great coat to the great boy. His tutor answered, Sir, if you were made a judge of decency or fitness, you had judged well in giving the biggest to the biggest; but when you were appointed judge, not whom the coat did fit, but whose it was, you should have considered the title and the possession, who did the violence, and who made it, or who bought it. And so it must be in judgments between the rich and the poor: it is not to be considered what the poor man needs, but what is his own. (Jeremy Taylor, D. D.)
Bowing to an old coat
The rich man is like him who, walking in the market with the cast-off coat of a nobleman to which the tinsel star was still sewn, felt elated and proud–a great man truly, because all bowed and raised their hats. Reaching home, he strutted before the glass with a lord-like air, and caught sight of the star. Aha! cried he, blushing red with shame, what a fool the world is to bow to an old coat! (H. O.Mackey.)
Judges of evil thoughts
Our judgments of others
I. OURS IS A CRITICAL AGE, and we, most of us, have learned how to criticise. It has been raised to a science. We can distinguish the false from the true, the impostor from the honest man. We can put the motive to everything that is done. We can estimate character, we can measure the degrees of virtue and of vice; nay, so clever have we grown in this accomplishment, that we discover things that never existed, see unkindness where none was meant, deceit and hypocrisy in the honest and the true, selfishness in some act of generosity which we cannot otherwise account for.
II. JUDGE NOT.
1. Because we cannot judge aright. Even when there is no beam in our own eye to obscure our vision, and no want of charity to bias our judgment, we cannot truly judge of the motives which are at work in another. The French have a motto, that To know everything is to forgive everything; and if this is not literally true, at least it embodies a truth, which we are slow enough to admit, that we often judge by the outside fact and give no credit for the hidden motive. Men who see into their neighbours, says an acute observer of human nature, are very apt to be contemptuous; but men who see through them find something lying behind every human soul which they cannot judge and dare not sneer at.
2. It is the very worst policy possible. The man who judges harshly will be harshly judged. But he who has always a good word to say of another will find but few critics and many friends. I was much struck by a chance remark made to me by a friend not long ago. Speaking of a neighbour, he said: He seems a good sort of man. I never heard him speak against any one; and that is the kind of man I like.
3. If you are honest with yourself, you dare not judge. To judge, you must yourself be at least free from the sin which you profess to judge Mat 7:5; Joh 8:7). It is Gods prerogative (Rom 14:4). What if the Master should judge us as we are so ready to judge our fellow men? What if God should take us at our word, and forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us? (A. L. Moore, M. A.)
Evil thoughts
Evil thoughts, if cherished, blight virtue, destroy purity, and undermine the stablest foundations of character. They are very much like rot in timber, like rust in iron. They eat into the man. And when the process has gone on for awhile, and there comes the stress of an outward temptation, down they go into a mass of ruins.
Hath not God chosen the poor?—
The rich and the poor
Let us not misunderstand St. James. He does not say or imply that the poor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or that his poverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any more than that the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has declared any preference, it is for the poor rather than for the rich. The poor man has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live according to Gods will, and to win the blessings that are in store for those who love Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life is perpetually brought home to him, and he is spared the peril of trusting in riches, which is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He has greater opportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike, and fewer occasions of falling into those sins which separate him most fatally from Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is not salvation, Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of reverence rather than of contempt. But the error of the worldly Christians whom St. James is here rebuking does not end with dishonouring the poor whom God has honoured; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as a class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the reverse, as experience is constantly proving. Do not the rich oppress you? &c. St. James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period (A.D. 35-65) were among the worst oppressors of the poorer Jews, and of course were specially bitter against those who had become adherents of the Way, and who seemed to them to be renegades from the faith of their forefathers. It was precisely to this kind of oppression that St. Paul devoted himself with fanatical zeal previous to his conversion (Act 9:1-2; 1Ti 1:13; 1Co 15:9; Php 3:6). The judgment-seats before which these wealthy Jews drag their poorer brethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts (cf. 1Co 6:2; 1Co 6:4)
, but are probably the Jewish courts frequently held in the synagogues. The Roman Government allowed the Jews very considerable powers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely ecclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic law penetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was concerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law. Consequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was more secure and less provocative of rebellion when the Jews were permitted to retain a large measure of self-government. These were the times when women bedight the priesthood for their husbands from Herod Agrippa II., and went to see them officiate, over carpets spread from their own door to the temple; when wealthy priests were too fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice without first putting on silk gloves; when their kitchens were furnished with every appliance for luxurious living, and their tables with every delicacy; and when, supported by the Romans, to whom they truckled, they made war upon the poor priests, who were supported by the people. Like Hophni and Phinehas, they sent out their servants to collect what they claimed as offerings, and if payment was refused the servants took what they claimed by force. Facts like these help us to understand the strong language used here by St. James, and the still sterner words at the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state of society the mere possession of wealth certainly established no claims upon the reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning upon rich people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem to St. James to be specially perilous and distressing then. Do not they blaspheme the honourable name by which ye are called? 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. That the blasphemers are not Christians is shown by the clause which was called upon you. Had Christians been intended, St. James would have written, Do not they blaspheme the honourable name which was called upon them? That they blasphemed the name in which they were baptized would have been such an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to indicate it. These blasphemers were, no doubt, Jews; and St. James has in his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent utterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation. His argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of honouring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any dishonour done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the meanness of flattering their own oppressors and the wickedness of reverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of their own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord. But perhaps (the argument continues) some will defend this respect paid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the contrary, simple fulfilment of the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy of respect and honour, yet nevertheless they are our neighbours, and no misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to treat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves like to be respected and honoured, and therefore we pay respect and honour to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly, if that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbour as yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he chances to be poor? The law of loving ones neighbour as ones self is a royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as it is one of those two on which hang all the law and the prophets (Mat 22:40). Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as to cover the whole duty of man. Thus St. Paul says of this royal law, The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Gal 5:14); and St. John teaches the same truth in a different way when he declares that he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen (1Jn 4:20). Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in-one point, he is become guilty of all. The law is the expression of one and the same principle–love; and of one and the same will–the will of God. Therefore he who deliberately offends against any one of its enactments, however diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of offending against the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but selfishness–not Gods will, but his own. He keeps nine-tenths of the law because he likes to do so, and he breaks one-tenth because he likes to do so. (A. Plummer, D. D.)
The poor chosen by God
1. God often chooses the poor of this world. The lion and the eagle are passed by, and the lamb and the dove chosen for sacrifice (Mat 11:25). This God does–
(1) Partly to show the glory of His power in preserving them, and truth amongst them, that were not upheld by worldly props.
(2) Partly to show the riches of His goodness.
(3) Partly to discover His wisdom by making up their outward defects by this inward glory.
(4) Partly that the members may be conformed to the Head, the saints to Christ, in meanness and suffering.
(5) Partly because poverty is a means to keep them upright: riches are a great snare.
2. There are poor in this world, and poor in the world to come. Though here you swim and wallow in a sea of pleasures, yet there you may want a drop to cool your tongue.
3. The poor of this world may be spiritually rich (2Co 6:10).
4. Faith makes us truly rich; it is the open hand of the soul, to receive all the bounteous supplies of God. If we be empty and poor, it is not because Gods hand is straitened, but ours is not opened.
5. The Lord loves only the godly poor (Mat 5:3).
6. All Gods people are heirs (Rom 8:17).
7. The faithful are heirs to a kingdom (Rev 1:6).
8. Heaven is a kingdom engaged by promise. It is not only good to tempt your desires, but sure to support your hopes.
9. The promise of the kingdom is made to those that love God. Love is the effect of faith, and the ground of all duty, and so the best discovery of a spiritual estate. (T. Manton.)
To the poor
I. THE IMPORT OF THE STATEMENT.
1. Not that only the poor are chosen.
2. Not that all the poor are chosen.
3. More of the poor are chosen than of the rich.
II. THE REASONS OF THE FACT.
1. It illustrates the sovereignty of God.
2. It furnishes a powerful argument for the truth of Christianity.
3. It occasions a magnificent display of the character and genius of the gospel.
4. It shows the estimate that is formed by God of the value of wealth.
5. It teaches Christians to raise their thoughts to heaven. (G. Brooks.)
Poverty gives opportunity for manifold virtues
A wise man is placed in the variety of chances, like the nave or centre of a wheel in the midst of all the circumvolutions and changes of posture, without violence or change, save that it turns gently in compliance with its changed parts, and is indifferent which part is up, and which is down; for there is some virtue or other to be exercised whatever happens, either patience or thanksgiving, love or fear, moderation or humility, charity or contentedness, and they are every one of them equally in order to his great end and immortal felicity; and beauty is not made by white or red, by black eyes, and a round face, by a straight body and a smooth skin; but by a proportion to the fancy. No rules can make amiability, our minds and apprehensions make that; and so is our felicity: and we may be reconciled to poverty and a low fortune, if we suffer contentedness and the grace of God to make the proportion. For no man is poor that doth not think himself so. But if in a full fortune with impatience he desires more, he proclaims his wants and his beggarly condition. (Jeremy Taylor, D. D.)
Penury not the deepest poverty
Life has deeper poverties than penury, because it has treasures costlier than gold. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)
Poor yet good
Better go to heaven in rags, than to hell in embroidery. Many whom the world regards as dirt, the Lord esteems as jewels. Judge a Christian not by his coat, but by his character. Poor yet rich
A poor seal may be a rich Christian, and a rich man may have a poor soul. (J. Trapp.)
Grateful for poverty
In the last will and testament of Martin Luther occurs the following remarkable passage
Lord God, I thank Thee that Thou hast been pleased to make me a poor and indigent man upon earth. I have neither house, nor land, nor money to leave behind me. Thou hast given me wife and children, whom I now restore to Thee. Lord, nourish, teach, and preserve them, as Thou hast me. (K. Arvine.)
Little happiness with rich men
Big bells are very apt to be poorly cast. I never heard of a bell which weighed a great many thousand pounds which, first or last, did not break. And what a sound a big bell that is broken gives! If you take these overgrown rich men and ring them, how little happiness you find in them! (H. W. Beecher.)
Virtue the way to honour
At Athens there were two temples, a temple of virtue and a temple of honour; and there was no going into the temple of honour but through the temple of virtue; so the kingdoms of grace and glory are so joined together that we cannot go into the kingdom of glory but through the kingdom of grace. (T. Watson.)
Ye have despised the poor
Sins of the rich against the poor
I. The first evil for which the profane rich men are to be held as execrable is their TYRANNY; they oppress the poor by tyranny. Men are oppressed by tyranny divers ways.
1. When they are imprisoned, afflicted, persecuted by the rich and mighty men of the world.
2. When in the trades of this life they deal hardly, deceitfully.
3. When they wring them by usury, forfeitures, exactions, impositions, and all manner of extortion.
4. When they weary and waste the bodies of the poor with toilsome labour unrewarded.
II. Another and second evil for which they ought to be held accursed is their CRUELTY AND UNMERCIFULNESS; for they draw the poor before judgment seats for their profession and religion.
III. The third sin in the rich men of the world wherefore they are to be held accursed IS THEIR BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE RELIGION OF CHRIST, they blaspheme the worthy name whereby ye are named.
1. When they deride, jest, scorn, and scoff at Christian religion, speaking maliciously and disdainfully against Christ and His profession.
2. As by their speech, so by their lives, men blaspheme and dishonour the gospel when they which profess religion walk not, neither live thereafter, by which means the gospel is slandered, dishonoured, and blasphemed. (R. Turnbull.)
The sin of neglecting the poor
I. GOD HAS NOT OVERLOOKED THE POOR.
1. His sovereignty has been exercised in their favour.
(1) Our Lord, when He undertook mans nature, was born amongst the poor, brought up in poverty, and made acquainted with all its sufferings and privations.
(2) During the personal ministry of our Lord, while the chief priests rejected Him and members of the higher classes among the Jews treated Him with scorn, the common people heard Him gladly.
(3) See 1Co 1:26-28.
2. The poor are interested in Gods promises.
3. They are interested in His kingdom (Luk 12:32). As the result of all this mercy and grace, many amongst the poor are being prepared for their future inheritance. There are amongst them some who are distinguished by their faith and by their love, as well as by their position and hopes.
II. THE INFLUENCE WHICH THIS TRUTH OUGHT TO HAVE UPON OUR CONDUCT, as those who wish to serve the Lord Christ.
1. The poor should have the gospel preached unto them.
2. Civility and kindness should be shown towards them.
3. Active benevolence. (W. Cadman, M. A.)
Men who despise the poor
These men harden themselves in their sternness; they stand fixed in their own determination, even as on a rock. It is useless for me to place before such men that tender object of sympathy, a helpless infant, without one rag to shelter it from the blast; they will use their ample cloak to hide their faces from the very misery which that cloak would cover. It is needless to tell them that the fire in the widows cottage never burns when they can make themselves joyful and happy in their cold stern-heartedness. For such men I can but feel unmitigated and unbounded sorrow. How truly pitiable is he who at the end of a life, perhaps of fourscore years, falls asleep without being able to call to mind one act of benevolence (E. West.)
Despising the poor
He thats down, down with him. (Anon.)
Taking undue advantage of poverty
Men go over the hedge where it is lowest. (J. Trapp.)
A threefold sin
This is a sin against race, grace, and place. (J. Trapp.)
God honouring, men despising
The pronoun is emphatic, God chose the poor, ye put them to shame. (Dean Plumptre.)
Dishonouring whom God honours
With Haman–like impiety ye would disgrace the man whom the King delights to honour. (A. Plummer, D. D.)
Professors, yet persecutors
There seems, at first, a want of logical coherence. The rich man first appears as gaining undue pre-eminence in the assembly of Christians, and then as one of a class of persecutors and blasphemers. This, however, is just the point on which St. James lays stress. Men honoured the rich Christian, not because he was a Christian, but because he was rich, i.e., because he was connected with a class, which, as such, had shown itself bitterly hostile to them. (Dean Plumptre.)
A rogue in the heart
Many a man has a paternoster round his neck and a rogue in his heart. (M. Luther.)
Tyranny of money
Money is now exactly what mountain promontories over public roads were in old times. The barons fought for them fairly; the strongest and cunningest got them, then fortified them and made every one who passed below pay toll. Well, capital now is exactly what crags were then. Men fight fairly (we will at least grant so much, though it is more than we ought) for their money; but once having got it, the fortified millionaire can make everybody who passes below pay toll to his million, and build another tower of his money castle. And I can tell you the poor vagrants by the roadside suffer now quite as much from the bag-baron as ever they did from the crag-baron. Bags and crags have just the same result on rags. (J. Ruskin.)
Oppression
Oppress you; yea, devour you, as the greater fish do the lesser. (J. Trapp.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER II.
We should not prefer the rich to the poor, nor show any
partiality inconsistent with the Gospel of Christ, 1-4.
God has chosen the poor, rich in faith, to be heirs of his
kingdom, even those whom some among their brethren despised
and oppressed, 5, 6.
They should love their neighbour as themselves, and have no
respect of persons, 7-9.
He who breaks one command of God is guilty of the whole,
10, 11.
They should act as those who shall be judged by the law of
liberty; and he shall have judgment without mercy, who shows
no mercy, 12, 13.
Faith without works of charity and mercy is dead; nor can it
exist where there are no good works, 14-20.
Abraham proved his faith by his works, 21-24.
And so did Rahab, 25.
As the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without good
works, 26.
NOTES ON CHAP. II.
Verse 1. My brethren, have not] This verse should be read interrogatively: My brethren, do ye not make profession of the faith or religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with acceptance of persons? That is, preferring the rich to the poor merely because of their riches, and not on account of any moral excellence, personal piety, or public usefulness. , faith, is put here for religion; and , of glory, should, according to some critics, be construed with it as the Syriac and Coptic have done. Some connect it with our Lord Jesus Christ-the religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Others translate thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus. There are many various readings in the MSS. and versions on this verse: the meaning is clear enough, though the connection be rather obscure.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Have not; profess not yourselves, and regard not, or esteem not in others.
The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; i.e. faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; not the author but the object of faith is meant, as Gal 2:20; Gal 3:22; Phi 3:9.
The Lord of glory; Lord not being in the Greek, glory may be joined with faith, ( admitting only a trajection in the words, so frequent in the sacred writers), and then the words will run thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. the faith of his being glorified, which by a synecdoche may be put for the whole work of redemption wrought by him, which was completed by his glorification, as the last part of it; or, by a Hebraism, the faith of the glory, may be for the glorious faith. But the plainest way of reading the words is (as our translators do) by supplying the word Lord just before mentioned; Lord of glory, ( Christ being elsewhere so called, 1Co 2:8), i.e. the glorious Lord; as the Father is called the Father of glory, Eph 1:17, i.e. the glorious Father: and then it may be an argument to second what the apostle is speaking of; Christ being the Lord of glory, a relation to him by faith puts an honour upon believers, though poor and despicable in the world; and therefore they are not to be contemned.
With respect of persons; the word rendered persons signifies the face or countenance, and synecdochically the whole person; and, by consequence, all those parts or qualities we take notice of in the person. To respect a person is sometimes taken in a good sense, Gen 19:21; 1Sa 25:35. Mostly in an evil, when either the person is opposed to the cause, we give more or less to a man upon the account of something we see in him which is altogether foreign to his cause, Lev 19:15, or when we accept one with injury to or contempt of another. To have, then, the faith of Christ with respect of persons, is to esteem the professors of religion, not for their faith, or relation to Christ, but according to their worldly condition, their being great or mean, rich or poor; this the apostle taxeth in the Hebrews to whom he wrote, that whereas in the things of God all believers are equal, they respected the greater and richer sort of professors, because great or rich; so as to despise those that were poor or low. The Greek hath the word plurally, respects, which may intimate the several ways of respecting persons, in judgment or out, of judgment. This doth not exclude the civil respect we owe to magistrates and superiors upon the account of their places or gifts; but only a respecting men in the things of religion upon such accounts as are extrinsical to religion; or, with prejudice to others as considerable in religion as themselves, though inferior to them in the world.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. brethrenThe equality ofall Christians as “brethren,” forms the groundwork of theadmonition.
the faith of . . .Christthat is, the Christian faith. James grounds Christianpractice on Christian faith.
the Lord ofglorySo 1Co 2:8. As allbelievers, alike rich and poor, derive all their glory from theirunion with Him, “the Lord of glory,” not from externaladvantages of worldly fortune, the sin in question is peculiarlyinconsistent with His “faith.” BENGEL,making no ellipsis of “the Lord,” explains “glory”as in apposition with Christ who is THEGLORY (Lu 2:32); thetrue Shekinah glory of the temple (Ro9:4). English Version is simpler. The glory of Christresting on the poor believer should make him be regarded as highly by”brethren” as his richer brother; nay, more so, if the poorbeliever has more of Christ’s spirit than the rich brother.
with respect ofpersonsliterally, “in respectings of persons”;”in” the practice of partial preferences of persons invarious ways and on various occasions.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
My brethren,…. As the apostle is about to dissuade from the evil of having respect to persons, this is a very fit introduction to it, and carries in it an argument why it should not obtain; since the saints are all brethren, they are children of the same Father, belong to the same family, and are all one in Christ Jesus, whether high or low, rich, or poor:
have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the] Lord of glory, with respect of persons: that is, such as have, and hold, and profess the faith of Christ, ought not along with it to use respect of persons, or to make such a distinction among the saints, as to prefer the rich, to the contempt of the poor; and in this exhortation many things are contained, which are so many arguments why such a practice should not be encouraged; for faith, whether as a doctrine or as a grace, is alike precious, and common to all; and is the faith of Christ, which, as a doctrine, is delivered by him to all the saints, and as a grace, he is both the author and object of it; and is the faith of their common Lord and Saviour, and who is the Lord of glory, or the glorious Lord; and the poor as well as the rich are espoused by him, as their Lord and husband; and are redeemed by him, and are equally under his government and protection, and members of his body: the Syriac Version reads, “have not the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus”, c. meaning either the glory which Christ is possessed of, whether as the Son of God, in the perfections of his nature, or as man and Mediator, being now crowned with glory and honour, and which is seen and known by faith or else that glory which Christ has in his hands, to bestow upon his people, and to which they are called, and will appear in, when he shall appear, and about which their faith is now employed: and since this glory equally belongs to them all, no difference should be made on account of outward circumstances, so as to treat any believer with neglect and contempt.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Regard Due to Poor Christians; Partiality Condemned. | A. D. 61. |
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
The apostle is here reproving a very corrupt practice. He shows how much mischief there is in the sin of prosopolepsia—respect of persons, which seemed to be a very growing evil in the churches of Christ even in those early ages, and which, in these after-times, has sadly corrupted and divided Christian nations and societies. Here we have,
I. A caution against this sin laid down in general: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, v. 1. Observe here, 1. The character of Christians fully implied: they are such as have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; they embrace it; they receive it; they govern themselves by it; they entertain the doctrine, and submit to the law and government, of Christ; they have it as a trust; they have it as a treasure. 2. How honorably James speaks of Jesus Christ; he calls him the Lord of glory; for he is the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. 3. Christ’s being the Lord of glory should teach us not to respect Christians for any thing so much as their relation and conformity to Christ. You who profess to believe the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the poorest Christian shall partake of equally with the rich, and to which all worldly glory is but vanity, you should not make men’s outward and worldly advantages the measure of your respect. In professing the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, we should not show respect to men, so as to cloud or lessen the glory of our glorious Lord: how ever any may think of it, this is certainly a very heinous sin.
II. We have this sin described and cautioned against, by an instance or example of it (Jas 2:2; Jas 2:3): For if there come into your assembly a man with a gold ring, c. Assembly here is meant of those meetings which were appointed for deciding matters of difference among the members of the church, or for determining when censures should be passed upon any, and what those censures should be therefore the Greek word here used, synagoge, signifies such an assembly as that in the Jewish synagogues, when they met to do justice. Maimonides says (as I find the passage quoted by Dr. Manton) “That is was expressly provided by the Jews’ constitutions that, when a poor man and a rich plead together, the rich shall not be bidden to sit down and the poor stand, or sit in a worse place, but both sit or both stand alike.” To this the phrases used by the apostle have a most plain reference, and therefore the assembly here spoken of must be some such as the synagogue-assemblies of the Jews were, when they met to hear causes and to execute justice: to these the arbitrations and censures of their Christian assemblies are compared. But we must be careful not to apply what is here said to the common assemblies for worship; for in these certainly there may be appointed different places of persons according to their rank and circumstances, without sin. Those do not understand the apostle who fix his severity here upon this practice; they do not consider the word judges (used in v. 4), nor what is said of their being convected as transgressors of the law, if they had such a respect of persons as is here spoken of, according to v. 9. Thus, now put the case: “There comes into your assembly (when of the same nature with some of those at the synagogue) a man that is distinguished by his dress, and who makes a figure, and there comes in also a poor man in vile raiment, and you act partially, and determine wrong, merely because the one makes a better appearance, or is in better circumstances, than the other.” Observe hence, 1. God has his remnant among all sorts of people, among those that wear soft and gay clothing, and among those that wear poor and vile raiment. 2. In matters of religion, rich and poor stand upon a level; no man’s riches set him in the least nearer to God, nor does any man’s poverty set him at a distance from God. With the Most High there is no respect of persons, and therefore in matters of conscience there should be none with us. 3. All undue honouring of worldly greatness and riches should especially be watched against in Christian societies. James does not here encourage rudeness or disorder. Civil respect must be paid, and some difference may be allowed in our carriage towards persons of different ranks; but this respect must never be such as to influence the proceedings of Christian societies in disposing of the offices of the church, or in passing the censures of the church, or in any thing that is purely a matter of religion; here we are to know no man after the flesh. It is the character of a citizen of Zion that in his eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoureth those that fear the Lord. If a poor man be a good man, we must not value him a whit the less for his poverty; and, if a rich man be a bad man (though he may have both gay clothing and a gay profession), we must not value him any whit the more for his riches. 4. Of what importance it is to take care what rule we go by in judging of men; if we allow ourselves commonly to judge by outward appearance, this will too much influence our spirits and our conduct in religious assemblies. There is many a man, whose wickedness renders him vile and despicable, who yet makes a figure in the world; and, on the other hand, there is many a humble, heavenly, good Christian, who is clothed meanly; but neither should he nor his Christianity be thought the worse of on this account.
III. We have the greatness of this sin set forth, Jas 2:4; Jas 2:5. It is great partiality, it is injustice, and it is to set ourselves against God, who has chosen the poor, and will honour and advance them (if good), let who will despise them. 1. In this sin there is shameful partiality: Are you not then partial in yourselves? The question is here put, as what could not fail of being answered by every man’s conscience that would put it seriously to himself. According to the strict rendering of the original, the question is, “Have you not made a difference? And, in that difference, do you not judge by a false rule, and go upon false measures? And does not the charge of a partiality condemned by the law lie fully against you? Does not your own conscience tell you that you are guilty?” Appeals to conscience are of great advantage, when we have to do with such as make a profession, even though they may have fallen into a very corrupt state. 2. This respect of persons is owing to the evil and injustice of the thoughts. As the temper, conduct, and proceedings, are partial, so the heart and thoughts, from which all flows, are evil: “You have become judges of evil thoughts; that is, you are judges according to those unjust estimations and corrupt opinions which you have formed to yourselves. Trace your partiality till you come to those hidden thoughts which accompany and support it, and you will find those to be exceedingly evil. You secretly prefer outward pomp before inward grace, and the things that are seen before those which are not seen.” The deformity of sin is never truly and fully discerned till the evil of our thoughts be disclosed: and it is this which highly aggravates the faults of our tempers and lives–that the imagination of the thoughts of the heart is evil, Gen. vi. 5. 3. This respect of persons is a heinous sin, because it is to show ourselves most directly contrary to God (v. 5): “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith? c. But you have despised them, <i>v. 6. God has made those heirs of a kingdom whom you make of no reputation, and has given very great and glorious promises to those to whom you can hardly give a good word or a respectful look. And is not this a monstrous iniquity in you who pretend to be the children of God and conformed to him? Hearken, my beloved brethren; by all the love I have for you, and all the regards you have to me, I beg you would consider these things. Take notice that many of the poor of this world are the chosen of God. Their being God’s chosen does not prevent their being poor; their being poor does not at all prejudice the evidences of their being chosen. Matt. xi. 5, The poor are evangelized.” God designed to recommend his holy religion to men’s esteem and affection, not by the external advantages of gaiety and pomp, but by its intrinsic worth and excellency; and therefore chose the poor of this world. Again, take notice that many poor of the world are rich in faith; thus the poorest may become rich; and this is what they ought to be especially ambitious of. It is expected from those who have wealth and estates that they be rich in good works, because the more they have the more they have to do good with; but it is expected from the poor in the world that they be rich in faith, for the less they have here the more they may, and should, live in the believing expectation of better things in a better world. Take notice further, Believing Christians are rich in title, and in being heirs of a kingdom, though they may be very poor as to present possessions. What is laid out upon them is but little; what is laid up for them is unspeakably rich and great. Note again, Where any are rich in faith, there will be also divine love; faith working by love will be in all the heirs of glory. Note once more, under this head, Heaven is a kingdom, and a kingdom promised to those that love God. We read of the crown promised to those that love God, in the former chapter (v. 12); we here find there is a kingdom too. And, as the crown is a crown of life, so the kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom. All these things, laid together, show how highly the poor in this world, if rich in faith, are now honoured, and shall hereafter be advanced by God; and consequently how very sinful a thing it was for them to despise the poor. After such considerations as these, the charge is cutting indeed: But you have despised the poor, v. 6. 4. Respecting persons, in the sense of this place, on account of their riches or outward figure, is shown to be a very great sin, because of the mischiefs which are owing to worldly wealth and greatness, and the folly which there is in Christians’ paying undue regards to those who had so little regard either to their God or them: “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seat? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called? v. 7. Consider how commonly riches are the incentives of vice and mischief, of blasphemy and persecution: consider how many calamities you yourselves sustain, and how great reproaches are thrown upon your religion and your God by men of wealth, and power, and worldly greatness; and this will make your sin appear exceedingly sinful and foolish, in setting up that which tends to pull you down, and to destroy all that you are building up, and to dishonour that worthy name by which you are called.” The name of Christ is a worthy name; it reflects honour, and gives worth to those who wear it.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
My brethren ( ). Transition to a new topic as in Jas 1:19; Jas 2:5; Jas 2:14; Jas 3:1; Jas 5:7.
Hold not ( ). Present active imperative of with negative , exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned.
The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ ( ). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” like (Mr 11:22), “have faith in God.” See the same objective genitive with in Acts 3:6; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Rev 14:12. Note also the same combination as in 1:1 “our Lord Jesus Christ” (there on a par with God).
The Lord of Glory ( ). Simply “the Glory.” No word for “Lord” () in the Greek text. clearly in apposition with . James thus terms “our Lord Jesus Christ” the Shekinah Glory of God. See Heb 9:5 for “the cherubim of Glory.” Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are Rom 9:4; 2Cor 4:6; Eph 1:17; Heb 1:3. Cf. 2Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-11.
With respect of persons ( ). A Christian word, like (Ac 10:34) and (Jas 2:9), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from (Luke 20:21; Gal 2:6), which is Hebrew idiom for panim nasa, “to lift up the face on a person,” to be favorable and so partial to him. See in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in Rom 2:11; Col 3:25; Eph 6:9 (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Have [] . Rev., hold, not in the sense of hold fast, cleave to, but of possessing, occupying, and practicing, as a matter of habit. Thus we say that a man holds his property by a certain tenure. A rented estate is a holding. So of an opinion, or set of opinions, with which one is publicly identified. We say that he holds thus and so.
With respect of persons [ ] . From proswpon, the countenance, and lambanw, to receive. To receive the countenance is a Hebrew phrase. Thus Lev 19:15 (Sept.) : Ouj lhyh proswpon ptwcou : Thou shalt not respect the person (receive the countenance) of the poor. Compare Luk 20:21; Rom 2:11; and Jude 1:16.
The Lord of glory. Compare 1Co 2:8; Act 7:2; Eph 1:17.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
This chapter concerns the relationship between works and faith as they manifest justification before men.
1) One is cautioned to avoid holding or grasping the former fashion or things of the world, showing partiality to a person, while claiming to hold the faith of Jesus Christ.
2) Prejudice and partiality are not Christian virtues. Rom 12:9-10. Christian virtues are to be observed without “preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality” 1Ti 5:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
This reproof seems at first sight to be hard and unreasonable; for it is one of the duties of courtesy, not to be neglected, to honor those who are elevated in the world. Further, if respect of persons be vicious, servants are to be freed from all subjection; for freedom and servitude are deemed by Paul as conditions of life. The same must be thought of magistrates. But the solution of these questions is not difficult, if what James writes is not separated. For he does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love.
Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context and surely ambitions is that honor, and full of vanity, which is shewn to the rich to the contempt of the poor. Nor is there a doubt but that ambition reigns and vanity also, when the masks of this world are alone in high esteem. We must remember this truth, that he is to be counted among the heirs of God’s kingdom, who disregards the reprobate and honors those who fear God. (Psa 15:4.)
Here then is the contrary vice condemned, that is, when from respect alone to riches, anyone honors the wicked, and as it has been said, dishonors the good. If then thou shouldest read thus, “He sins who respects the rich,” the sentence would be absurd; but if as follows, “He sins who honors the rich alone and despises the poor, and treats him with contempt,” it would be a pious and true doctrine.
1 Have not the faith, etc. , with respect of persons. He means that the respect of persons is inconsistent with the faith of Christ, so that they cannot be united together, and rightly so; for we are by faith united into one body, in which Christ holds the primacy. When therefore the pomps of the world become preeminent so as to cover over what Christ is, it is evident that faith hath but little vigor.
In rendering τὢς δόξης, “on account of esteem,” ( ex opinione ,) I have followed Erasmus; though the old interpreter cannot be blamed, who has rendered it “glory,” for the word means both; and it may be fitly applied to Christ, and that according to the drift of the passage. For so great is the brightness of Christ, that it easily extinguishes all the glories of the world, if indeed it irradiates our eyes. It hence follows, that Christ is little esteemed by us, when the admiration of worldly glory lays hold on us. But the other exposition is also very suitable, for when the esteem or value of riches or of honors dazzles our eyes, the truth is suppressed, which ought alone to prevail. To sit becomingly means to sit honorably.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
TEMPTATIONS TO PARTIALITY
Jas 2:1
THE arguments of Martin Luther against the Apocryphal books were so unanswerable as to tear that addition from the sacred volume.
His attack upon the Epistle of James fared very differently, however, for the simple reason that the latter volume was inspired, and not even a Luther could shake a sentence thereof.
The more one studies this Epistle, the more is he amazed at the criticisms which Luther passed upon it. The idea that it should ever have been regarded as teaching contrary to the Apostle Paul, strikes its good students as a strange conclusion.
The objection that it does not honor Jesus Christ is stranger still in view of the sentences upon which one comes in its study; while the argument that it appeals to the letter of the Law rather than to the spirit of the Gospel overlooks the great truth James is here presenting, namely, that Christianity has no other way of expressing itself than through human conduct.
In our first talk upon James, we saw that he was the brother of the Lord. That fact alone would account for his not having mentioned Jesus often. Had he referred to Him as constantly as the other Apostles, he would seem to have been boasting his blood-kinship.
What more would you ask from a younger brother than James has conceded to Jesus, when, in the opening sentence of his Epistle he calls Him the Lord Jesus Christ? And of what further emphasis of this relationship have we need than to have him begin this second chapter with the phrase, My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons? That this viewpoint was not another from that of the Apostle Paul we shall plainly see before we have finished this chapter; and that he was an evangelist rather than a legalist, will also appear as we sound the meaning of his sentences, and come to understand the errors he meant to combat, and the conduct for which he called.
For the sake of aiding the memory in retaining what may be said, and for the sake of relating Scripture to Scripture that we may make progress in our study, I have deemed it wise to discuss this chapter under these suggestive thoughts: The Democracy of the Church, The Conduct of the Redeemed, The Demonstration of Faith.
THE DEMOCRACY OF THE CHURCH
Jesus Christ has been called the most consistent democrat of all the centuries. If the word is to be understood as opposing all imperialism, all aristocracy, all oligarchy, all despotism, certainly He is worthy the name. His Gospel was a Gospel for the people; it was not the leaven of society, but the leveler of life; and His Church is the only institution that was ever animated by the spirit of a practical communism.
James saw this truth. Doubtless he had heard the same from his own Brothers lips, and in this Epistle he exalts the democracy of the Church. His words make emphatic some things concerning that democracy.
It despises class distinctions.
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons,
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
He knew that an appeal of this sort made to Jewish Christians would remind them of their own Law, for was it not written into Lev 19:15:
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour?
The synagogue of the Jew was often the scene of court. A man having a claim against another would take it there for trial, and the temptation for the judges would be to receive a favorable impression of the man who came into the synagogue with, gold rings on, and in fine clothing; while they would look with a certain amount of contempt upon the poor man in vile clothing. Before the case was heard it seemed to be practically judged by the reception accorded the litigants. Running to the man in fine clothing they would say: Sit thou here in a good place; and turning with a scowl to the poor fellow: Stand thou there; and then, as if fearing they had gone too far, evincing a spirit of partiality, and exercising inhumanity by asking a man to stand, they would modify it a bit by saying: Or sit here under my footstool.
That such things did occur in the Jewish synagogues is evident when God, by the mouth of Moses, charges the judges, saying:
Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is Gods (Deu 1:16-17).
It is a mistake to suppose that the Law of the Old Testament is abrogated by the Gospel of the New. Jesus Christ came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; and Christianity consists not in displacing the eternal principles of human justice, but rather in giving to them more tender regard and a more spiritual translation. If, therefore, God had found it necessary to warn Jewish judges lest they make distinction between the rich Hebrew and the poor Hebrew, how much more must He warn Hebrew Christians lest, in the Church, they make distinctions between wealthy Jewish converts, and the poor, but regenerate Gentiles.
No century ever saw such extremes of riches and poverty as the first century. There one was born to a seat on the throne of empire, and others were sold to slavery before their eyes were open to the light. When the great Apostle Paul penned his Epistle to the Galatians, he reminded them of a truth which was difficult for this caste-cursed people to understand.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.
People sometimes speak of the early Apostles as reformers; they were revolutionists rather. The man who would dare to pen what James writes to a people who were facing imperialism, oligarchy, even despotism, sent forth sentences of revolution.
And yet, what revolution was ever more sadly needed? The very life of the Church depended upon its being accomplished. Arthur T. Pierson says truly: The most formidable foe to human progress has been caste, the arbitrary elevation of an elect few above the many, and the erection of barriers, more or less inflexible, to prevent the average man from advancing beyond the common mass or rising above the common level. He is a philanthropist who, in any department of life, helps to break down caste barriers or encourages aspiration after excellence.
That is what James is about in this Epistle. That is what Jesus, his elder Brother, had taught by practice and precept. He, who was Himself a Jew, had sung the praises of the despised Samaritans; and He who was Himself a Rabbi, had deigned to sit at the table of a publican; and when they called Him in question for His conduct, He answered by holding their paper partitions of society to scorn. The Church, the institution founded by Jesus Christ, was so honorable that the most exalted must humble himself to enter it; and yet so democratic that the penitent publican found its doors swinging wide in holy invitation.
The great truth of its democracy was never better expressed than when the Abbess of Port Royal, Angelique, said, I belong to the order of all the saints; and all the saints belong to my Order.
Louis Albert Banks has remarked, A church that is sufficiently aristocratic to quarantine against one little waif, whatever its poverty or ignorance or race or color, establishes a quarantine against the presence and glory of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
It honors the true heirs.
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him? (Jas 2:5).
How seldom is the term heir truly applied. I noticed in a newspaper this startling head-line, A Policeman Murders an Heiress, and the article related how a Chicago policeman, becoming enamored of a young woman with $500,000, on finding his affection was not reciprocated, shot her to death.
Such is the use of the words heir and heiress when the newspapers print them, or the populace employs them.
She cannot talk, she cannot sing,She looks a fright; but folks aver Ten millions have been set apart To talk and sing and look for her.
But Gods thoughts are not as our thoughts; He knows who the true heirs are; His language is not like that of the daily press, or the local platform. In the Person of Jesus He said, Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Mat 5:5); and to those who had to question concerning what they should put on, He said, Fear not, little flock; for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. The children of the Kingdomthey are the heirs. The rich in material wealth are sometimes the paupers, in Heavens judgment. To the Laodicean Church, so increased with goods that it could say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, He declared, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked (Rev 3:17). A mans life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth (Luk 12:15).
He who can boast only a few years lease upon a material possession here is poor indeed compared with him who has a claim upon the eternal riches. I have known a man, a member of the organized bodythe churchworth a half million, to sit in his pew when an offering was being taken, and contribute, in response to a most urgent appeal for a most needy work, a sum smaller than his cigars for a week had cost; and I have seen another, depending upon a day-wage, in answer to the same call, contribute a sum five times as large. Tell me, will you, which was the heir-the sordid, self-bound child of selfishness and luxury, or the tender-hearted, liberal-handed, self-sacrificing son of God?
Years ago at Newport, I looked upon the place of W. K. Vanderbilts summer residence; and later saw the Geo. Vanderbilt palace at Asheville, N. C. The public has its attention called to these, and are told that they are the homes of the heirs of the great Vanderbilt house. The surroundings are beautiful; the appointments are splendid; the interiors luxuriant; but who would think of comparing this inheritance to that of the poor in this world, who are yet rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which He promised to them that love Him?
It exalts character and Christ.
But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Here he refers again to this court trial in the synagogues, Do not they blaspheme that worthy Name by the which ye are called? The Apostle is exalting character as against station, and defending the Name of Christ as against blasphemy. He knew the intimate relation between these two Christ and character. He knew that Christ was in character, and the highest character was in Chris. He knew that riches often resulted in rendering men selfish, arrogant, and despotic; that with them they pampered themselves on the one hand, and oppressed their neighbor on the other.
The rich of James time had been slow to accept Jesus. You remember the significant question which the Pharisees put to the officers who came to them, concerning Jesus: Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? But this people who knoweth not the Law are cursed (Joh 7:48-49). Thus they blasphemed the Name of Jesus.
Wealth has now ceased to do it after that manner. Christianity is not only eminently respectable, but it is so honorable that the wealthy sometimes wear its name, much after the manner of jewels, as an additional adornment. You will find that a large section of that society which is utterly worldly, is recorded on church books, and calls itself Christian. They attend church occasionally; Easter and Christmas they are almost certain to be present, but their lives are in no wise ordered after the precepts of Jesus.
I am compelled to agree with a sentence in The True Estimate of Life, which reads after this manner: The most terrible blasphemy of the age is not the blasphemy of the slums, but the blasphemy of the temple, and the church, and the place of worship, where men pray these prayers and then go out to deny every principle of Divine government in their lives.
If there was ever an opportunity to exalt Christ by righteous character, that opportunity exists today, and let us remember that only genuine character can accomplish it; and that character is not such as the culture of the school and the suavity of society can produce, but such as comes alone from the indwelling of the Spirit of God.
THE CONDUCT OF THE REDEEMED
James passes from his censure of the rich to the discussion of the general subject of how Christians should behave.
If ye fulfil the royal Law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
But if ye have respect to persons, ye Commit sin, and are convinced of the Law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty.
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Three things concerning the conduct of the redeemed are made clear by the pen of the Apostle.
It must be free from conscious transgression.
If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the Law as transgressors.
It is a sin of which a man is conscious; it is a sin such as destroys ones peace of mind; and it makes little difference if he be upright at other points, he knows himself to be under condemnation at this point.
Courage is impossible to a man under conviction for sin; communion with God is impossible to a man who is consciously committing any sin. Let us not misunderstand the Apostle when he says:
Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. He does not mean that the man who has a small fault is just as degraded in character and under just as deep condemnation from the Divine standpoint, as the man who is full of faults. James is not reaffirming the position of Draco, that Small crimes deserve death; and that there is no worse punishment for great crimes; nor yet is he returning to the statement of the Stoics that the theft of a penny is as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of virtue is left; and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as in seventy fathoms.
He means to say: Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Here is a man who is very respectably moral, a good churchman, regular in his contributions, active in his participation, but who despises the poor; James says that man commits sin and is convicted, and having offended in one point, he is guilty before God. Now I have heard people object to this statement, and say that If I offend in one point, I am not to be judged guilty of all. But let us see what James means. I was at the trial of a negro who had snatched a purse, and who should have been convicted, and was not. Suppose he had put this plea in as a reason for being exempt from trial: Yes, sir, I did take this purse, but you must remember that that is only one little transgression of the law; just think of all the laws I have kept. The laws of this city number thousands and I have kept them all except this one; ought I not then to be accorded my liberty, seeing that I have kept thousands of laws and offended in only one point? The judge would have laughed him to scorn.
If any one imagines that he can offend at one point and not be guilty of all, he needs to sit at this Apostles feet and learn that if he stumble at one point he offends in all, for the Law is a unit. A man might as well say that he had not smitten a house because he had only smitten one in the house, but that house is one. When you smite the son, you smite the father, you smite the mother, you smite the daughter; Gods Law is one, and when you offend at one point you are guilty of all. Communion with the Father is broken by this conscious transgression, and such is not to be the conduct of the redeemed.
Again, This conduct must be exempt from attempted compromise.
For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.
Oh, how searching this statement! I have known men to be guilty before God of dreadful violation of law, but who have thought a compromise might be effected; I have known a man who was taking advantage of his fellows, but being liberal in his gifts, he thought to condone the cheat. There are great corporations in this country who ruthlessly wreck all smaller competitors and compel exorbitant prices for the commodities which they control, and then turn about and give a million or two to a religious institution and suppose that they have made it all right with God. I have known a man living in daily violation of the Seventh Commandment, who really seemed to think that if he could go on preaching the Gospel it would in some way condone his awful offense. The Apostle spurns such a thought: Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.
In other words, if we are doing some things that are wrong, the points in which we are right shall in no wise condone that offense. I have known people whose hearts were set upon worldly measures, to imagine that by increasing activity in church, conscience was to be silenced and criticism conquered. Truly, as another has remarked, Gods government is an imperial government, an autocratic government; He never permits us to make compromises with Him for a single moment. He speaks the words of authority; He makes rules for us without ever consulting us; and having done so, our only course is implicit, unquestioning, and immediate obedience.
The Apostle explodes the old opinion of the rabbis that if one keep the Law at one point, he would be made free. He reminds them, on the contrary, that one sin, indulged in habitually, reveals a spirit of revolt and will bring us to judgment. Did you ever stop to think of what it would mean if men should adopt this philosophy of the rabbis, and keep assiduously some of the Commandments while they broke others? There is not a single one of the Ten Commandments which, if broken wfith impunity, would not wreck society. Break the first, and you fill the world with idolatry; break the second, and you introduce fetish worship; break the third, and profanity will pollute every mind; break the fourth, and the strongest pillar of national life is destroyed, and desecration reigns; break the fifth, and the home is dissolved; break the sixth, and life is no longer safe; break the seventh, and social disorder reigns; break the eighth, and property rights are at an end; break the ninth, and there is no truth; break the tenth, and moral chaos follows.
What one of these things would you like abolished? Ah, James is our teacher. The conduct of the redeemed admits of no compromise with sin. Once more,
It must find expression in the Law of Liberty.
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty.
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
It seems to me that in this expression James is emphasizing afresh what the great Psalmist has expressed when he says, I will walk at liberty: for I seek Thy Precepts (Psa 119:45). In other words, while he taught these people that they must be obedient to the Law of God, he turned about to show that that is not legalism, that they are not to keep the Commandments to escape condemnation; that they are not to treat the poor with inhumanity lest they fall under Divine judgment. They are to keep the Commandments because they love the Lord; and to treat the poor with humanity because the poor are their brothers; and while they do the things that the laws demand, they do the things that are the promptings of their own hearts. Such obedience is liberty. I rejoice in the laws of this state; I esteem the laws of this city; they are no fetters to me. I prefer laws, and if there were no penalty attached to the law, it would still be sweet to obey it. Such is indeed the Law of Liberty.
Years since, in conversation with Dr. B______ he told me that on an ocean steamer he conducted devotional services every evening, at the request of the captain. A man in attendance called upon him and thanked him for the service and then asked him some questions. The answers of Dr. B______ did not please the man, and he said, Now I have been very much pleased with your devotional exercises, but when you talk to me about your views of personal conduct you are entirely too strict; you are an old fogy; you put me into bondage, and I want to be free. To which Dr. B______ responded, Dont you want to be in bondage? The great Apostle Paul called himself the bondservant of Christ, and so far as I am concerned I want to be a bondservant of Christ; not to do what my flesh desires, but to do what His blessed tongue commands.
We see the point! The Apostle Paul who had been breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Church, when once he was converted, turned his face Heavenward and said, what? Jesus? No: Lord! That moment he took the place of a bondservant! Lord! and that moment he asked for direction, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? The answer to that question determined the Apostles conduct. Was he a slave? Yes! And was he at liberty also? Yes! Love enslaves its subjects, but it leads them by the paths where the sweetest perfumes fill the air, the most beautiful flowers break into beauty, and the sweet voiced birds break into singing. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty.
THE DEMONSTRATIONS OF FAITH
James has not yet finished this chapter. From The Democracy of the Church, and The Conduct of the Redeemed, he passes to a discussion of The Demonstrations of Faith.
His first remarks mean this
An empty profession is hypocrisy.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
All good things are counterfeited. There are advantages to be derived from assuming to be in possession of them. In business it means something to be a Christian; hence some men who have no love for Christ in their lives, profess Christianity. There is never a week but letters of business come to my office asking if I can commend applicants for positions. What is the significance of it? This, that Christianity is honorable and to be trusted; and whenever men find there is profit in things, they profess them, whether they possess them or not. James knew that to be so, and he charges men who profess and do not possess, with hypocrisy, and reminds them that their profession is vain. He asks, not Can faith save them?; but he questions, Can THAT faith save them? What faith? The faith that is profession, not possession. To ask this question is to answer it. You do not need to tell the unregenerate man that his profession is inoperative; he knows it!
The great Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Faith which worketh by lovethat is the only sort of faith that can accomplish anything.
Some men profess faith whose profession is in vain; other men possess faith and the possession is above the price of rubies. But ere we pass this point let us be reminded that in a mere profession of faith one fares worse than simply to come short of Divine favor. His lying hypocrisy brings him into disfavor with the infinite Father.
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy Works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
But James proceeds to another point of almost equal importance.
Intellectual belief brings redemption to no one.
Thou believest that there is one God.
You boast yourself to be a Unitarian; you remind us that the fundamental thing in all religion is the fact that there is one God. It is a great basal truth, and you believe it. Do not boast it! I heard a minister of the Gospel, some time since, say, If it be scientifically demonstrated that Jesus Christ was born as a natural man, never begotten by the Holy Ghost, what of it? Jehovah remains and I believe in His existence.
James knew some such ministers, and he answered: You do! Great belief! thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble There are not many men who doubt that there is a God; the heavens declare His glory. There are no devils who question it; the last one of them has felt the power of His hand. But God has never promised redemption to such as merely consent to His existence. We are not to believe that He is only; we are also to believe that He is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6).
That is the way Abraham believed. His faith was of the sort that begot works; on the basis of it he quit his home in Chaldea and turned his back upon family and friends for Gods sake, and He counted it to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). Dr. Deems asked, Why was it so counted? and answers, Because he was righteous. Faith in God is righteousness and makes a man righteous. Theodore Parker, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, have all paid certain tributes to God, or to His Son Jesus Christ; but the saints of the Old and New Testament have done better than the tribute of language; they have lived their faith. That is what James demands.
We may conclude our study today with seeing this great truth to which he has steadily moved in this chapter, namely,
Good works, alone, manifest a living faith. Martin Luther said, Faith is a lively, busy, active thing so that it is impossible for it not to be ceaselessly working good. And Luther was right! What evidence have we that a body is alive? None, whatever, unless it moves. When the physician can find no pulse-beat, and the family can discover no quiver of the flesh, and the visitor coming in can detect no motion, we count a man dead. Action is an evidence of life. The sap in the tree we cannot see, but I shall shortly know what trees in the park are alive and what are dead, for if the living sap be there, it will express itself in foliage and fruit.
That is what James means. If there is life in your church and mine, it will manifest itself in the flowers and fruit of righteousness, and that righteousness will not be in the abstract, but in the concrete. It will mean liberal offerings to the Lord; it will mean young men and women rising up to go to home and foreign fields as missionaries of His cross; it will mean the better manning of every one of our institutions calling for Christian service; it will mean a personal consecration to the great soul-winning work to which Christ devoted His life. What shall it mean? It is ours to answer that question! What shall it mean now, and in this church?
Let me ring the changes upon the great thought of this Epistle; for as Abrahams profession was justified by his works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar, and Rahabs regeneracy was proven by her conduct, in that she received the messengers and sent them out another way; so the days to come will demonstrate, absolutely, the degree of faith resident in this Church of God.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
SINS OF PARTIALITY, ETC.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Jas. 2:1. Have not.Better, hold not. Webster translates, Without showing degrees of deference, maintain ye your faith. The Lord of glory.There are no words in the Greek answering to the Lord, but the insertion is necessary in order to complete the English sentence. Some would, however, give to the genitive, , only the qualifying power of an adjective, and render either glorious faith, or faith of the glory revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Plumptre explains thus: 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. Respect of persons.Greek is a plural, in respectings of persons; showing preferences for one person rather than another.
Jas. 2:2. Assembly.Greek, . The only place in the New Testament where the Jewish word is used for a Christian congregation. In the Jewish synagogue the people sat according to their rank, and members of the same trade sat together. James regards this as unadvisable in Christian congregations. The word , translated Church, was preferred for Christian assemblies. It implied that those attending were called out from the rest of mankind, and united by new and spiritual bonds. Gold ring.Better, a man golden-ringed, in bright apparel. Gorgeous apparel, splendid in colour and ornament. Gay, Jas. 2:3. Vile.Dirty, squalid, the sign of poverty, or of some mean form of occupation.
Jas. 2:3. Have respect.Give special consideration and attention to. Under my footstool.That is, on the floor at my feet. In practice the seats most coveted among the Jews were those near the end of the synagogue which looked towards Jerusalem, and at which stood the Ark, that contained the sacred scroll of the law.
Jas. 2:4. Partial.Same word as waver, doubt, of chap. Jas. 1:6. Are ye not divided in your mind? Part wishing to be loyal to Christ, and part wishing to gain the favour of the well-to-do man. Have ye not doubted whether in Christ rich and poor really are one? Judges of evil thoughts.Better, become judges having evil thoughts, which altogether bias your judgment. Evil-thinking judges.
Jas. 2:5. Rich.That is, to be rich. The poor in this world, or so far as this world is concerned, are referred to. A true estimate of poverty and riches is suggested. Heirs of the kingdom.Some of the better manuscripts read, heirs of the promise.
Jas. 2:6. Despised.Done dishonour to. Their acts expressed a cherished contempt. Oppress you.Lord it over you act the potentate over you. Draw you.Drag you. It is not that a particular rich member does this, but that he belongs to a class that does it.
Jas. 2:7. They.The rich class, largely composed of Sadducees. Ye are called.Or, which was called over you [at baptism] (Mat. 28:19).
Jas. 2:9. Commit sin.Alford, It is sin that ye are working. Convinced.Convicted by.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Jas. 2:1-9
Right and Wrong Respect of Persons.It has well been said of St. James, that he manifests a straightforward good sense which scatters at a stroke the precepts of hypocrisy, and the illusions of religious conceit. He assails the characteristic faults of the Jewish mind; the religious arrogance, presumption, and laxity; the asperity of mutual crimination, and the readiness to assume an intolerant jurisdiction over other mens conduct and opinions. How little practical influence a merely ritual religion, a religion of professions and sentiments, might be was shown in the assemblies of the Jewish Christians. Class distinctions were unduly recognised; the rich worshippers were flattered, and the poor neglected or insulted. In a Christian community there should be the equality of a common Divine life, for that life a rich man can have in no fuller and no healthier measures than a poor man can have. By the term respect of persons we understand, showing special favour to some, not on the basis of good judgment, or from a desire to do right, but on the ground of personal favour, or to gain some personal advantage. It is therefore again and again asserted that there is no respect of persons with God; it is again and again urged that respect of persons is a grievous sin in judges and magistrates. St. James points out that it is a most unworthy and most mischievous spirit, when it gets into Christian communities. But it is important that we should recognise a right respect of persons as well as a wrong. So long as there are varieties of station, varieties of relationship, and varieties of ability among human beings, there will be spheres for a proper respect of persons. The child ought to respect his parent; the servant ought to respect his lord; the workman ought to respect his master; the poor ought to respect the rich; the citizen ought to respect his governors. But then it is equally true, though less recognised, that the parent ought to respect the child, the lord the servant, the master the workman, the rich the poor, and the governor the citizen. It was just in this mutual respect that the social system of China failed. It is in this that the social system of Christianity claims universal acceptance. In China five relations are recognised, but in each case exclusive attention is given to the claims of the superior on the inferior; the inferior is not conceived as having any rights against the superior. The five relations are: sovereign and minister; father and son; husband and wife; elder and younger brothers; and friends. Christianity must not be thought of as a force interfering with social relationships, and affecting those signs of mutual respect which materially help to preserve the order of society. It does give a man such self-respect as will keep him from adulation or flattery of anybody, and from servility in his dealings with anybody. St. James, however, is not dealing with general social relations; he is writing to Judo Christians concerning what is befitting for them in their specially Christian relationships. They are brought into fellowship on conditions which altogether override all social distinctions. Neither intellect, nor wealth, nor manners, nor clothes give a man special claim or place in a Christian community. Spiritual life alone gives a man a place, and spiritual gifts alone give a man a position. Within Christian communities persons are respected for their piety and ministry. The Duke of Wellington was right when, kneeling beside a poorly clad villager at the communion-rail, he quietly reproved the verger who wanted to remove the poor man, by saying, Let him alone; we are all equal here.
I. Respect of persons is wrong when it puts circumstances before character.When it shows deference to a man for what he has rather than for what he is. It is the common and every-day estimate that we make of men. The workman judges a man by his ability to find him work. The business man values men by their purchasing power. The poor are unduly impressed by fine clothes. Women are constantly in danger of estimating others by their appearances. It is not possible, nor would it be right, to change altogether the relationships of the week on the Sunday. We should not expect men to be otherwise toward each other at Christian worship than they are towards each other in daily business. St. James proposes no such unreasonable thing. The proper respect due to one another is as necessary in the house of God as anywhere else. Servility is very different from respect. The assumption of St. James is that the man with the gold ring, dressed in fine clothing, is wanting to make an impression, to proclaim his superiority; and what St. James reproves is the failure to deal with such a man according to Christian principles. Christians ought never to be carried away by outward appearances, by circumstances of wealth, by chance of getting personal advantages from the well-to-do. And yet what striking illustrations of the evil St. James denounces can be found in the pew system of our modern churches, especially where the support of worship is directly dependent on the gifts of the people. The man who can pay is everywhere thought more of than the man who can pray. Up to quite recent times there were separate, and specially hard and uncomfortable, seats for the poor in many churches and chapels. They had to sit in a low place. St. James calls this sort of thing wrong, because:
(1) it reveals bad, self-seeking dispositions in those who show such servilitythey are partial, and judges of evil thoughts;
(2) it shows that they formed no true estimate of character, for these showy rich men were just the very men likely to become their oppressors and persecutors; and
(3) the treatment of the poor, contrasted with this treatment of the rich, convicted them of sin against the foundation law of the second tableThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Such servility always shows low conditions of spiritual life; for when we go past our own circumstances to concern ourselves with our own characters, we are pretty sure to be keen to recognise cultured character in others, and to be indifferent to mere show of circumstance.
II. Respect of persons is right when it puts character above circumstances.When it shows deference to a man for what he is rather than for what he has (see Jas. 2:5). That may make us attentive and obliging to poor people as well as rich. Nay, it is quite possible that we may find more call to attention to the poor than to the rich. For it is the compensation of those in lowly estate that they have less to hinder the progress of soul culture, and so often reach heights of Christian attainment, and Christian power of service, that are altogether beyond the rich. But servility to the pious poor would be as mischievous as servility to the showy rich. Let respect be given wherever it is due. But do not be carried away by appearances. The Lord looketh not on the outward appearance. The Lord looketh on the heart. And so should we who are taught of Christ and bear the Christian name.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Jas. 2:1. Worship of the Modern Golden Calf.True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this scripture; but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf. Respecting persons is a sin of the rich, who despise the poor; of judges, who are influenced in their decision by the status of prisoners; and of the poor, who are constantly tempted to timeserving.
No Classes within Christian Churches.Right relations of classes in society involve mutual respect. But Christianity recognises no classes. It brings men into the unity of a common new life. There are no classes in the children of one family. The redeemed are restored sons in the family of God. Christianity makes new relationships on the basis of the new family life. It keeps its respect for cultured and sanctified character, rather than for external conditions.
Jas. 2:2. The Weakness of the Early Church.We must not judge the early Christian Church too harshly. The appearance of a stranger in costly apparel, with a gold ring, however common a mark simply of wealth in later times, would in those days cause a far greater and more painful surprise in an obscure and probably timorous assemblage of Christians than at this distant period we are willing to believe. The time of persecution had already commenced, and upon his testimony how many issues might depend! Anxious to propitiate the favour of the great man, we can easily imagine that every consistent courtesy would be offered to him. The prominently jewelled ring, itself an insignium of the equestrian and senatorial order, would instantly announce the rank of the visitor. Many of these rings are preserved in the national and Continental collections; they are solid, tapering, and of massive gold, with a large jewel, often an onyx or jasper cameo on the face. Some of these specimens weigh nearly an ounce. The gems are often engraved with magical devices, as charms of talismanic power, or valedictory inscriptions for the wearer. Others, like Hannibals famous ring, contain a secret recess, in his instance filled with poison. Such ornaments were both cumbersome and costly, so much so that a Roman writer ridicules an enervated fop by stating that,
Charged with light summer rings, his fingers sweat,
Unable to sustain a gem of weight.
Jas. 2:4. The Sin of Partiality.In the common intercourse of life it cannot but be that men have preferences for one person over another. This, indeed, is the basis of the selections on which human relationships rest. We come into life unions because of our partialities. The sin of partiality is determined by
(1) the occasion,
(2) the way in which it finds expression. Class partialities are wrong. Sect partialities are wrong. Partialities are always wrong when they lead us to do injustice, by giving to one what is due to another, or by withholding from any what is his due. Within the Christian Church, where all should stand in the equality of brotherhood in Christ, partiality must always be a source of bickerings, jealousies, and heart-burnings.
The Worlds Standard.The, world must always measure by its own standard, and consider poverty a curse, just as it looks on pain and trouble as evil. The peril of organised Christianity is unduly estimating those who can pay.
Jas. 2:5. Poverty and Piety.There are no gains without pains, and no pains without gains. Our Lord taught that, relative to the religious life, the rich were placed at some very grave disadvantages. It is but the truth involved in this teaching, that those who are poor in this world are at advantage in relation to the religious life. It must, however, be kept in mind that the cares of the poor, their painful efforts to obtain a livelihood, and the lack of cultured intelligence, provide serious hindrances to piety. There is not much to choose between poor and rich in respect of occupation and worldly care, but the kind of occupations of the rich are more inimical to the religious life and spirit than those of the poor. They tend to nourish self-reliance and self-satisfaction, and so draw mens minds and hearts away from God. True religionthe religion of Christproposes to culture into perfection mans whole nature, but it finds one side of mans nature specially neglected, and it puts its strongest force into it. The passive graces (characteristic of woman) flourish in the soil of dependence; and that is the habitual attitude of the poor. True, the strain of poverty often makes men bitter and hard; but where there is the religious sense, the poor have always been found noble examples of piety, spirituality, and service. Blessed are the poor, when poverty of circumstance is joined with poverty of spirit, that keeps the soul open and receptive.
Powerful Men from the Ranks of the Poor.Moses was the son of a poor Levite; Gideon was a thresher; David was a shepherd-boy; Amos was a herdsman; the Apostles were ignorant and unlearned. The reformer Zwingle emerged from a shepherds hut among the Alps. Melancthon, the great theologian of the Reformation, was a workman in an armourers shop. Martin Luther was the child of a poor miner. Carey, who originated the plan of translating the Bible into the language of the millions of Hindostan, was a shoemaker in Northampton. Dr. Morrison, who translated the Bible into the Chinese language, was a last-maker in Newcastle. Dr. Milne was a herd-boy in Aberdeenshire. Dr. Adam Clarke was the child of Irish cottars. John Foster was a weaver. Andrew Fuller was a farm-servant. William Jay of Bath was a stonemason.
Jas. 2:6-7. Good and Bad among the Rich.The denunciations of the rich by our Lord and by His disciples may be seriously misunderstood and misused. They are when they are employed to support class enmities, and to excite prejudices against the rich, and to hinder them from accepting the religious life. The conditions of society in the time of our Lord need to be fully understood and wisely estimated. Then the rich were self-satisfied Pharisees or cynical Sadducees, and one of the grave disabilities of the age arose from the arrogance, masterfulness, and injustice of the rich. But even then there were good and bad among the rich. There was a Barnabas as well as a Dives, a Joseph of Arimatha as well as a Herod. Let severe reproaches come upon those who are rich and bad. Let the Divine acceptance and human respect come to all those who are rich and good.
I. The bad among the rich are not those who have riches or acquire riches, but those who trust in riches.There are many persons who are born into the possession of wealth. From no point of view can this be regarded as any reproach to them. It simply makes the set of human conditions which are to provide the discipline of their lives. Character has to be won under these conditions, call them conditions of privilege, or of disability, as we may please. There are many who acquire wealth by their genius, perseverance, or by fortunate circumstances. They need not be envied; character has been made or spoiled in the getting of the riches; and now the great question isHow do they stand related to the riches they have acquired? Our Lord repeated His saying so as to make His reference quite clearHow hardly shall they that trust in riches enter the kingdom! It is the trusting in, not the having, that always has made, and still makes, the bad rich man.
II. The bad among the rich are not those who are rich, but those who will be, are determined to be, rich.When a man forces his way to get riches
(1) he can have no spirit of humility and submission before God;
(2) he is very likely to do shameful wrong to his fellow-men; and
(3) he is sure to fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts. There is such a thing as being rich toward God.
Jas. 2:8. The Law of Human Relations.Very remarkable is the insight which our Divine Lord showed in dealing with the revealed law of God. He went behind all formal commands to the essential principle. Love God, and you will do everything right, because love will be the constraint of obedience. There really is no need of a second law. One is only stated in accommodation to human weakness. Loving our neighbour as ourselves is involved in loving God with all our heart. We must love whosoever God loves. We cannot help loving those who stand in the same relation to God as we do. Observe, however, that the claim of the Divine relation is not precisely the same as the human relation. We are not to love God as ourselves. We are not to love our neighbour with all our mind and soul. God stands absolutely first and alone. Our relation to Him is unique, and all-inclusive. A whole devotion of the whole self to God is consistent with all due service of others. But what we give to God may be shared with none. His sacrifice is a whole burnt-offering. There is a careful limitation in the command, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. It is not as you love God. It is as you love yourself. But yourself comes after God, and can stand in no rivalry with Him. We must love ourselves consistently with supreme love to God. We must love our neighbour consistently with supreme love to God. There is a certain subtlety in St. Jamess reference to this law. He hints that our love to self sets us continually upon efforts to serve self; and if we love our neighbour as we love ourselves, that love will continually set us upon efforts to serve them. True love is always, and everywhere, the inspiration of service. Show how this royal law seeks to get applications in the family, business, social, and church spheres. We can never meet aright our obligations to our neighbour until we can be said to love him so as to take a personal interest in his well-being.
Jas. 2:8-10. The Royal Law.After rebuking partiality, St. James goes on to lay down the rule of the believers duty to his fellow-men. In the few words of this most comprehensive law, we have the essence of the second table of the Decalogue. The Christians duty is to cherish towards every man a true kindliness. As thyself; as much in degree would be impossible; but as really, as constantly, as persistently in spite of ill-deserving. We do not exactly love ourselves, but we care for ourselves, we sympathise with ourselves; and without the smallest sentimentalism, in the homeliest reality, we might do the like toward our fellowmen. And to do this is, in the full Scriptural meaning, to love our neighbour as ourself. The law which bids us do so seems all our duty to our brethren in humanity; for once the genuine principle of unselfish kindliness is implanted in us by Gods Spirit, that principle will prompt every right deed, and permit no wrong deed. Prejudice rather than selfishness is the main obstacle within ourselves to the due keeping of the royal lawat least in the case of really worthy people. There are not many who are at all worthy to be called Christian people who find it in the least difficult to feel kindly towards any mortal creature when they really come to know him tolerably well. St. James goes on to point out a too common way in which this law is broken. If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin. This was the besetting sin of the people he had in his mind, and was writing to. It is transgression, plainly enough, whether the person unduly respected be one-self or another. Meeting the possible objection that respect of persons, though not quite right, is no great matter, St. James says, that anything wrong is a great matter; doing wrong, you break Gods law; and if you break Gods law on one point, it will not avail you to plead that you keep it on twenty; you are a law-breaker, a transgressor, and you must rank as such and take the consequences. Far from being a paradox, it is almost a truism. Every man punished for a breach of human law is held a lawbreaker, a criminal, just for the one crime he has done. The law is a whole; you break it by breaking any one of its innumerable provisions. Dwell upon the vital and central matter of that kindly principle within us which will be the spring of all duty to our fellow-men. Nothing worth is that kindliness which dwells in a mere soft heart and a super-sensitive nervous system. Nothing worth is that so-called Christian love which ends in tears, and reaches not to stout, daylight work. Nothing worth is that philanthropy which results from mere physical feeling. Sound, equable, lasting kindliness, not to be discouraged or soured, not to be wearied out, is that which is implanted by Gods blessed Spirit, and which takes note of men not merely as the objects whose sufferings remind of our own, but as beings on whom a common Father has conferred a common immortality, and towards whom a common Saviour has felt a common love. Ordinary people will never attain what is in the least like loving our neighbour as ourselves, unless by the abounding grace of Gods blessed Spirit. It is possible by Gods grace to cultivate and keep a frame so sweet and kindly, as that you shall be sources of blessing and help to those around you, as you go on your pilgrimage way. There are excellent gifts, but there is a most excellent. There are mighty graces, but there is a mightiest. A kind heart, a sweet temper, is the very best thing the Holy Ghost can give to mortal man or woman. It is the thing that is likest God. It is the mind which was also in Christ Jesusthe very same.A. K. H. B.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2
Jas. 2:2-4. A Brahmins Reproof.The other instance in which I had the pleasure to meet this most interesting man (Rammohun Roy) was at breakfast in my own house. On that occasion I invited men of various religious opinions to meet him, and there were about thirty persons present. The conversation was very lively and well sustained. The Brahmin exhibited wonderful shrewdness. Ah, he said, you say that you are all one in Christ, all brethren, and equal in Him. Well, you go to the cathedral at Calcutta; there you see a grand chair of crimson velvet and goldthat is for the Governor-General of India; then there are other chairs of crimson and goldthey are for the members of council; and then there are seats lined with crimsonthey are for the merchants, etc.; then there are the bare benches for the common people and the poor; yet you say we are all one in Christ; but if the poor man whose seat is there, on that bare bench, if he go and sit down on the crimson velvet chair of the Governor-General, they will break his head! yet you are all one in Christ! Some one was about to expound this matter to the Brahmin, and explain the impropriety of any one taking the seat of the representative of majesty. But the thing was too good for our Quaker friend, James Cropper, quietly to let it go. He so thoroughly sympathised with the Brahmins view of the matter, that he could not refrain from interposing. Nay, nay, he cried, thou must not seek to put aside the force of our friends remark. So the Brahmin and our friend James had the matter entirely to themselves.Dr. Raffles.
Jas. 2:5. Gain in PovertyTrees struck by Lightning.When some giant tree is struck by the lightnings flash and scorched to death, its shattered trunk and torn boughs have not been destroyed by the action of fire from without. The tree, it is true, has been subjected to the direct action of the most intense heata heat proportioned to the terrible brilliancy of the electric illumination, which we call lightning. But the action of this heat is rendered fatal by the condition of the tree itself. The dismemberment of its body and branches, which extends to every part, results from the sudden conversion into steam of all the moisture it contains in sap and wood. The instant expansion that thus takes place by the power of the generated steam rends the tree to pieces, just as under very similar circumstances it would burst even a vessel of wrought iron. Thus the giant of the forest falls a victim to its rich and flourishing condition. The greener and fairer the tree, the more its vein-like tissues swell with those nourishing juices that build up a life which has the promise of hundreds of years, the more inevitable and crushing its ruin. It is not otherwise with human greatness and prosperity. While misfortunes stroke finds less upon which to feed in the case of the poor and lowly, whose very poverty is in this respect a protection, its effects are far more deadly on those with whom all is flourishing. Lazarus in his want is far less exposed to the shocks of trial than Dives in his wealth. The humble fishermen of Galilee could, humanly speaking, better face the loss of their all than could the rich and amiable young man, who indeed desired an interest in Christ, but felt that his fortunes were too splendid to be sacrificed even for heavenfor he had great possessions. It is one of the chief and peculiar glories of the philosophy of the gospel that it teaches us not only the dignity but also the gain of poverty, thus extracting its double sting. Hath nut God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him? Deeper and more real than we are sometimes apt to suppose is the meaning of the Masters words when, speaking of a state of which He had actual experience, He said, Blessed be ye poor.James Neil, M.A.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
TEMPTATION IN THE CHURCH
Text 2:14
1.
My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
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;
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;
4.
do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
Queries
87.
What contrast is implied in the title of Jesus: Lord of glory?
88.
Is not the greatest of Gods creation man himself? Then what is wrong with holding respect of persons?
89.
There is some dispute as to whether the Greek text intends this first verse to be imperative or interrogative. In our quoted text, it is imperative. How would it be expressed as interrogative?
90.
To whom is this specific instruction addressed?
91.
What is a synagogue? (We might note that the same word can also be translated assembly or meeting.)
92.
A gold ring and fine clothing is descriptive of what?
93.
What is vile clothing?
94.
Should we have any regard for the rich man, or should we completely disdain him because of his riches? (Think carefully before you answer.)
95.
Just who, in Jas. 2:3, is saying Sit thou here . . .?
96.
Would it be more proper to ask the poor man to sit, and the rich man to stand or sit under a footstool?
97.
What would be a proper solution to the problem in Jas. 2:3?
98.
What is the significance of sitting under a footstool?
99.
What does the R.V. margin say instead of do ye not make distinctions?
100.
Is this distinction between yourselves a disagreement between people within the church, or a generally divided mind the group as a whole holds?
101.
What is evil about these thoughts of distinctions?
Paraphrases
A. Jas. 2:1
My brothers, do not make a class distinction to the rich in matters pertaining to the faith of Jesus, who Himself should have the first glory of everyone.
2.
For if a man, obviously wealthy because of his dress and trappings, should come into your assembly; and another man, obviously poor because of his shabby clothing, should also come;
3.
And you show prejudice by saying to the rich man, Here, sir, take this good seat, and you say to the poor man, Hey you, stand over there; or You can sit on the edge of the platform;
4. Do you not have a prejudiced judgment that comes from an evil money-desire within yourself?
B.*Jas. 2:1
Dear brothers, how can you claim that you belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, if you show favoritism to rich people and look down on poor people?
2.
If a man comes into your church dressed in expensive clothes and with valuable gold rings on his fingers, and at the same moment another man comes in who is poor and dressed in threadbare clothes,
3.
And you make a lot of fuss over the rich man and give him the best seat in the house and say to the poor man, You can stand over there if you like, or else sit on the floorwell,
4.
This kind of action casts a question mark across your faith(are you really a Christian at all?)and shows that you are guided by evil motives.
Summary
Class distinction between the rich and the poor because of the Christians over-emphasis of the importance of money is caused by evil intentions.
Comment
Because of the particular grammatical construction in the original language, it is impossible to determine whether or not the first sentence is intended to be a question or a command. The context however, gives us more of a clue. The imperative form, Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, reads more smoothly with the beginning of the second sentence. . . . For if there come, etc. It also seems quite evident that James knows of instances where such undue prejudiced views are actually held so that the simple asking of a question does not have the force the explanation which follows, demands.
The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ is an expression that here encompasses all Christianity. Hence, in Christian matters show no favoritism because of wealth. That we should give special honor and glory to an individual because he has been blessed with wealth, is incompatible with all Christian teaching. The special title given to the Christ is an indirect but powerful argument for this very point. Christ is the Lord of glory, the one in whom all saints should glory. How careful must we be lest we substitute glory in material possessions for His glory, and so by example and honor worship the golden calf, or at best worship God through the golden calf.
The incompatibility of receiving wealth with special favor in the church with Christianity, is in harmony with many other incompatible circumstances. For instance, one cannot love God and hate his fellow man, 1Jn. 4:20. Likewise, one cannot lift up the face of wealth at the same time that we glory in the Lord Jesus. In so doing we should be combining faith in Jesus with the wrong attitude toward the poor. Since poverty is often the means God uses to open a persons eyes to his special need of Jesus, we should be especially careful not to disdain or humiliate a person in poverty-stricken circumstances. The Old Testament admonished, 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).
Neither must we humiliate the rich by ignoring him, nor humiliate the poor by disdaining him. We can respect Gods noblest creation, man, without showing undue regard for something of such minor consequence as money.
The illustration used of the Holy Spirit seems to have included irony for the sake of emphasis. One might even say that the look of admiration and the offering of a particular kind of seat in Jas. 2:3 is a sarcastic note, so obviously illustrated as to point out the humorous absurdity of the situation. Yet, when we realize the illustration is true to form in many instances, the seriousness of the matter overrides the humor; i.e., it would be funny if it were not so serious. When we see it in print, it appears absurd. When it happens to us, it is unjust. When we are the authors of the situation, then it seems a real temptation and problem. God sees the matter from all viewpoints.
The person speaking is not identified in Jas. 2:3. It could be anyone who is showing special regard to the extent of snobbery of the more unfortunate. It could be the usher who is the church-appointed representative to politely greet all visitors with equal and just respect. It could be one of the church officers who by virtue of his position may represent the attitude of the entire congregation. Thus, the shoe has many sizes and fits many congregations.
The discourteous attitude of ignoring the poor man, or asking him to stand while offering a fine seat to the wealthy, or asking him to sit under my footstool is especially humiliating since the man cannot help the circumstances that apparently cause the discourtesy. To make a man suffer humiliation because of circumstances beyond his control is so completely unjust that the Christian, of all people, should recognize the inconsistency with Christianity. We might add that the illustration encompasses enough to cover many other current situations. In one particular congregation, the minister was putting on a special money-raising drive. He had prepared a large blackboard that covered a huge section of the front of the auditorium. At the top of the board in large letters was printed: $1,000.00 or over. Beneath this in slightly smaller letters with more space were the words: $500.00 TO $1,000.00. Then beneath this, with at least a dozen spaces, were the letters: $100.00 to $500.00, Finally, at the very bottom, in very small letters, were the words: $10 and under. Under this space was room for at least a hundred names in very small print. One young man was so impressed with the campaign that thirty-five years later he still remembered how the one millionaires name was printed at the top of the board in large, black, bold letters. The name of the young mans father, together with a hundred others, was printed in small letters at the bottom of the board. The young mans father was a poor carpenter, and his $10 gift was a real sacrifice!
The do ye not make distinctions of Jas. 2:4 might also be translated: Are ye not divided in your own mind. (A.S.V. margin). Some might argue that the church was divided in this practice, some wanting to honor the rich and others seeing the impropriety of it. They might say, such a practice would divide the church, causing contention. More likely, the division-thought is within the mind of the church as a whole, i.e., there is a sharp distinction between that which the Christians think and profess at one time and what they practice at another time. Thus, the division is the inconsistency between what the Christian knows to be right and what he does when the rich and poor are present. It is a form of wavering like the waves of the sea, or doubting with a lack of faith, or hesitating between two desires.
The Saints who so conduct themselves are said to be judges with evil thoughts. The evil thought is descriptive of the judge, hence they are evil-thinking judges. Jesus said, For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts. Mat. 15:19. Wherein, you may ask, is the evil? For one thing, God is the judge and He judges according to the inner man and the heart. Man cannot know the heart; and even in the case of inappropriate action, man can only determine the heart by the action. God knows the heart. Second, the basis of judgment is completely unjust, that on the basis of possessions and dress and wealth we should show partiality. Third, it may be that the motives of this judgment are completely evil. Money-worship, adoration of things that perish, and subtle planning to obtain gifts and favors for honor bestowed would be particularly obnoxious to God.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
CHAPTER IV
OVER-RATED RICHES
Jas. 2:1-13
Introduction
The ability to accumulate riches, in the minds of many people, seems to qualify any man for any position. Even though the acquisition of riches usually goes with oppression of the poor, purchased political power, and arrogant flaunting of both the laws of God and man, it seems that riches enhance a mans prestige and popularity, whether in politics or in the church. This tendency to honor the rich often results in honoring principles that are contrary to the principles of God and completely opposing all Christian warfare. This tendency to give undue honor to a man just because he is rich becomes a temptation to the saint within the church; and if carried far enough, can completely stifle the churchs growth and progress.
Although there is clearly nothing wrong with being rich, there may be plenty wrong with the method of becoming rich; and the riches themselves can become the most terrible curse to befall a man. It is against this arrogancy that tempts the rich that God speaks. It is against this method of oppression that makes a man rich that God speaks. It is against over-rating riches and thus underrating all spiritual values that God warns. It is the love of money that is the root of all kinds of evil, says the Lord; and this constitutes a form of idolatry as adulterous in Gods sight as falling down before the dumb stone idols. Of all this the Christian must be constantly aware, lest his tendency to over-evaluate money and what money can buy completely blind him to the true riches from God. Treasures in heaven do not consist of things that decay, made with hands and purchased with money.
Special honor and over-recognition of the man who gives a fraction of one percent of his income to buy the church a new carpet often results in complete disdain to the man who gives of his lifes service to keep that same rug clean, gives fifteen percent of his income to keep the lights burning over that rug on Sunday night, and gives his heart to Jesus Christ and his life in complete surrender. Over-honoring the man who purchased the rug may result in discouraging the sinful man whose feet should walk over that same rug to surrender his heart to Jesus. That rug may look very beautiful stretched down the expanse of the buildings isle, but it may also cover a lot of filth and dirt underneath which should be swept out of the presence of the saints. Over-rating riches and the things that riches can buy is a sin, which is in competition with God Himself.
Outline
Special respect to the rich at the expense of the poor and needy is a temptation within the church; for both the rich and the poor are under the same condemnation for disobedience, and both need salvation by grace from the same Savior.
TEMPTATION IN THE CHURCH Jas. 2:1-4.
WHY OVER-RATING RICHES IS A SIN Jas. 2:5-9.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES Jas. 2:10-13.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
TWELVE SERMON TITLES WITH THREE-POINT OUTLINES
TEMPTATION IN THE CHURCH Jas. 2:1-4
A.
Respect of PersonsGeneral teachings against prejudices.
B.
Causes of false respectriches, society, politics, skin color, race, physical beauty, etc.
C.
Judges with evil thoughtsplacing physical values above spiritual worth.
IN WHOM WE GLORY Jas. 2:1
A.
Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
B.
The sin of putting our glory elsewhere.
C.
Fading vs. never-fading glory.
PREJUDICE Jas. 2:2-4
A.
Come from improper regards.
B.
Manifestations of prejudice.
C.
Overcoming prejudices.
EVIL-THINKING Jdg. 2:4
A.
The sin of arrogance in judging.
B.
Sinful motives in judging.
C.
Christ, the judge of us all.
THE CHOICE OF GOD Jas. 2:5
A.
God chooses all, including the poor, the sinner, etc.
B.
God chooses those who love Him.
C.
We choose to be chosen of God.
HEIRS! Jas. 2:5
A.
Heirs by promise.
B.
Heirs of the Kingdom.
C.
Heirs by choice (Gods choice and our choice).
THE SIN OF OVER-RATING RICHES Jas. 2:5-9
A.
God chooses those who love Him. (Riches are not involved).
B.
Men misuse riches. (Oppress the poor, dishonor Christ).
C.
The Royal Law demands that we love all alike.
DANGER OF RICHES Jas. 2:6-7
A.
Oppression of the poor.
B.
Using influence of money for unjust purposes.
C.
Blaspheming the name of Christ.
SINNERS Jas. 2:10-11
A.
What is sin. (The Law).
B.
Transgressing the whole law. (The Transgression).
C.
Guilty! (The Sentence).
FULFILLING THE ROYAL LAW Jas. 2:8-9
A.
What it demands in relationship to our fellow man.
B.
The manner in which the royal law is broken.
C.
The real fulfillment in Christ Jesus.
THE TWO PRINCIPLES THAT RELATE US TO GOD Jas. 2:10-13
A.
Justice.
B.
Mercy.
C.
The superiority of mercy over justice.
A LAW OF LIBERTY Jas. 2:13
A.
Freedom from the law, is not absolute freedom.
B.
Free to love and be loved is not absolute freedom.
C.
Christ doth set us free.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
II.
(1) My brethren.The second chapter opens with some stern rebukes for those unworthy Christians who had mens persons in admiration, and, doubtless, that because of advantage to themselves. (Comp. Jud. 1:16.) The lesson is distinctly addressed to believers, and its severity appears to be caused by the Apostles unhappy consciousness of its need. What were endurable in a heathen, or an alien, or even a Jew, ceased to be so in a professed follower of the lowly Jesus. And this seems to be a further reason for the indignant expostulation and condemnation of Jas. 2:14. Thus the whole chapter may really be considered as dealing with Faith; and it flows naturally from the foregoing thoughts upon Religionor, as we interpreted their subject-matter, Religious Service.
Have (or, hold) not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with (or, in) respect of persons.Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, wrote St. Paul to the proud and wealthy men of Corinth (2Co. 8:9), that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich; and, with more cogent an appeal, to the Philippians (Jas. 2:4-7), In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves: look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of Godi.e., Very God, and not appearance merelynevertheless thought not His equality with God a thing to be always grasped at, as it were some booty or prize, but emptied Himself of His glory, and took upon Him the shape of a slave. Were these central, nay initial, facts of the faith believed then; or are they now? If they were in truth, how could there be such folly and shame as acceptance of persons according to the dictates of fashionable society and the world? Honour, indeed, to whom honour is due (Rom. 13:7). The Christian religion allows not that contempt for even earthly dignitiesaffected by some of her followers, but springing more from envy and unruliness than aught besides. True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this scripture: but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 2
RESPECT OF PERSONS ( Jas 2:1 ) 2:1 My brothers, you cannot really believe that you have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, and yet continue to have respect of persons.
Respect of persons is the New Testament phrase for undue and unfair partiality; it means pandering to someone, because he is rich or influential or popular. It is a fault which the New Testament consistently condemns. It is a fault of which the orthodox Jewish leaders completely acquitted Jesus. Even they were bound to admit that there was no respect of persons with him ( Luk 20:21; Mar 12:14; Mat 22:16). After his vision of the sheet with the clean and unclean animals upon it, the lesson that Peter learned was that with God there is no respect of persons ( Act 10:34). It was Paul’s conviction that Gentile and Jew stand under a like judgment in the sight of God, for with God there is no favouritism ( Rom 2:11). This is a truth which Paul urges on his people again and again ( Eph 6:9; Col 3:25).
The word itself is curious–prosopolempsia ( G4382) . The noun comes from the expression prosopon ( G4383) lambanein ( G2983) . Prosopon ( G4383) is the “face”; and lambanein ( G2983) here means “to lift up.” The expression in Greek is a literal translation of a Hebrew phrase. To lift up a person’s countenance was to regard him with favour, in contradistinction perhaps to casting down his countenance.
Originally it was not a bad word at all; it simply meant to accept a person with favour. Malachi asks if the governor will be pleased with the people and will accept their persons, if they bring him blemished offerings ( Mal 1:8-9). But the word rapidly acquired a bad sense. It soon began to mean, not so much to favour a person, as to show favouritism, to allow oneself to be unduly influenced by a person’s social status or prestige or power or wealth. Malachi goes on to condemn that very sin when God accuses the people of not keeping his ways and of being partial in their judgments ( Mal 2:9). The great characteristic of God is his complete impartiality. In the Law it was written, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour” ( Lev 19:15). There is a necessary emphasis here. A person may be unjust because of the snobbery which truckles to the rich; and may be equally unjust because of the inverted snobbery which glorifies the poor. “The Lord,” said Ben Sirach, “is judge and with him is no respect of persons” ( Sir_35:12 ).
The Old and New Testaments unite in condemning that partiality of judgment and favouritism of treatment which comes of giving undue weight to a man’s social standing, wealth or worldly influence. And it is a fault to which every one is more or less liable. “The rich and the poor meet together,” says Proverbs, “the Lord is the maker of them all” ( Pro 22:2). “It is not meet,” says Ben Sirach, “to despise the poor man that hath understanding; neither is it fitting to magnify a sinful man that is rich” ( Sir_10:23 ). We do well to remember that it is just as much respect of persons to truckle to the mob as it is to pander to a tyrant.
THE PERIL OF SNOBBERY WITHIN THE CHURCH ( Jas 2:2-4 ) 2:2-4 For, if a man comes into your assembly with his fingers covered with gold rings and dressed in elegant clothes and a poor man comes in dressed in shabby clothes, and you pay special attention to the man who is dressed in elegant clothes and you say to him: “Will you sit here, please?” and you say to the poor man, “You stand there!” or, “Squat on the floor beside my footstool!” have you not drawn distinctions within your minds, and have you not become judges whose thoughts are evil?
It is James’ fear that snobbery may invade the Church. He draws a picture of two men entering the Christian assembly. The one is well-dressed and his fingers are covered with gold rings. The more ostentatious of the ancients wore rings on every finger except the middle one, and wore far more than one on each finger. They even hired rings to wear when they wished to give an impression of special wealth. “We adorn our fingers with rings,” said Seneca, “and we distribute gems over every joint.” Clement of Alexandria recommends that a Christian should wear only one ring, and that he should wear it on his little finger. It ought to have on it a religious emblem, such as a dove, a fish or an anchor; and the justification for wearing it is that it might be used as a seal.
So, then, into the Christian assembly comes an elegantly dressed and much beringed man. The other is a poor man, dressed in poor clothes because he has no others to wear and unadorned by any jewels. The rich man is ushered to a special seat with all ceremony and respect; while the poor man is bidden to stand, or to squat on the floor, beside the footstool of the well-to-do.
That the picture is not overdrawn is seen from certain instructions in some early service order books. Ropes quotes a typical passage from the Ethiopia Statutes of the Apostles: “If any other man or woman enters in fine clothes, either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place for them, the lover of brothers and sisters, will rise, and leave a place for them … And if a poor man or woman of the district or of other districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be the respecting of the person of man but of God.” Here is the same picture. It is even suggested that the leader of the service might be liable, when a rich man entered, to stop the service and to conduct him to a special seat.
There is no doubt that there must have been social problems in the early church. The Church was the only place in the ancient world where social distinctions did not exist. There must have been a certain initial awkwardness when a master found himself sitting next his slave or when a master arrived at a service in which his slave was actually the leader and the dispenser of the Sacrament. The gap between the slave, who in law was nothing more than a living tool, and the master was so wide as to cause problems of approach on either side. Further, in its early days the Church was predominantly poor and humble; and therefore if a rich man was converted and came to the Christian fellowship, there must have been a very real temptation to make a fuss of him and treat him as a special trophy for Christ.
The Church must be the one place where all distinctions are wiped out. There can be no distinctions of rank and prestige when men meet in the presence of the King of glory. There can be no distinctions of merit when men meet in the presence of the supreme holiness of God. In his presence all earthly distinctions are less than the dust and all earthly righteousness is as filthy rags. In the presence of God all men are one.
In Jas 2:4 there is a problem of translation. The word diekrithete ( G1252) can have two meanings: (i) It can mean, “You are wavering in your judgments, if you act like that.” That is to say, “If you pay special honour to the rich, you are torn between the standards of the world and the standards of God and you can’t make up your mind which you are going to apply.” (ii) It may mean, “You are guilty of making class distinctions which in the Christian fellowship should not exist.” We prefer the second meaning, because James goes on to say, “If you do that, you are judges whose thoughts are evil.” That is to say, “You are breaking the commandment of him who said, ‘Judge not that you be not judged'” ( Mat 7:1).
THE RICHES OF POVERTY AND THE POVERTY OF RICHES ( Jas 2:5-7 ) 2:5-7 Listen, my dear brothers. Did God not choose those who are poor by the world’s valuation to be rich because of their faith and to be heirs of the Kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you dishonour the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and is it not they who drag you to the law-courts? And is it not they who abuse the fair name by which you have been called?
“God,” said Abraham Lincoln, “must love the common people because he made so many of them.” Christianity has always had a special message for the poor. In Jesus’ first sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth his claim was: “He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” ( Luk 4:18). His answer to John’s puzzled inquiries as to whether or not he was God’s Chosen One culminated in the claim: “The poor have good news preached to them” ( Mat 11:5). The first of the Beatitudes was “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” ( Mat 5:3). And Luke is even more definite: “Blessed are you poor; for yours is the Kingdom of God ( Luk 6:20). During the ministry of Jesus, when he was banished from the synagogues and took to the open road and the hillside and the seaside, it was the crowds of common men and women to whom his message came. In the days of the early church it was to the crowds that the street preachers preached. In fact the message of Christianity was that those who mattered to no one else mattered intensely to God. “For consider your call, brethren,” wrote Paul to the Corinthians, “not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth” ( 1Co 1:26).
It is not that Christ and the Church do not want the great and the rich and the wise and the mighty; we must beware of an inverted snobbery, as we have already seen. But it was the simple fact that the gospel offered so much to the poor and demanded so much from the rich, that it was the poor who were swept into the Church. It was, in fact, the common people who heard Jesus gladly and the rich young ruler who went sorrowfully away because he had great possessions. James is not shutting the door on the rich–far from that. He is saying that the gospel of Christ is specially dear to the poor and that in it there is a welcome for the man who has none to welcome him, and that through it there is a value set on the man whom the world regards as valueless.
In the society which James inhabited the rich oppressed the poor. They dragged them to the law-courts. No doubt this was for debt. At the bottom end of the social scale men were so poor that they could hardly live and moneylenders were plentiful and extortionate. In the ancient world there was a custom of summary arrest. If a creditor met a debtor on the street, he could seize him by the neck of his robe, nearly throttling him, and literally drag him to the law-courts. That is what the rich did to the poor. They had no sympathy; all they wanted was the uttermost farthing. It is not riches that James is condemning; it is the conduct of riches without sympathy.
It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name Christian by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for called (epikaleisthai, G1941) is the word used for a wife taking her husband’s name in marriage or for a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.
The rich and the masters would have many a reason for insulting the name Christian. A slave who became a Christian would have a new independence; he would no longer cringe at his master’s power, punishment would cease to terrorize him and he would meet his master clad in a new manhood. He would have a new honesty. That would make him a better slave, but it would also mean he could no longer be his master’s instrument in sharp practice and petty dishonesty as once he might have been. He would have a new sense of worship; and on the Lord’s Day he would insist on leaving work aside in order that he might worship with the people of God. There would be ample opportunity for a master to find reasons for insulting the name of Christian and cursing the name of Christ.
THE ROYAL LAW ( Jas 2:8-11 ) 2:8-11 If you perfectly keep the royal law, as the Scripture has it: “You must love your neighbour as yourself,” you do well. But if you treat people with respect of persons, such conduct is sin and you stand convicted by the law as transgressors. For, if a man keeps the whole law and yet fails to keep it in one point, he becomes guilty of transgressing the law as a whole. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but kill, you become a transgressor of the law.
The connection of thought with the previous passage is this. James has been condemning those who pay special attention to the rich man who enters the Church. “But,” they might answer, “the law tells me to love my neighbour as myself. Therefore we are under duty to welcome the man when he comes to Church.” “Very well,” answers James, “If you are really welcoming the man because you love him as you do yourself, and you wish to give him the welcome you yourself would wish to receive, that is fine. But, if you are giving him this special welcome because he is a rich man, that is respect of persons and that is wrong–and so far from keeping the law, you are in fact breaking it. You don’t love your neighbour, or you would not neglect the poor man. What you love is wealth–and that is not what the law commands.”
James calls the great injunction to love our neighbour as ourselves the royal law. There can be various meanings of the phrase. It may mean the law which is of supreme excellence; it may mean the law which is given by the King of the kings; it may mean the king of all laws; it may mean the law that makes men kings and is fit for kings. To keep that greatest law is to become king of oneself and a king among men. It is a law fit for those who are royal, and able to make men royal.
James goes on to lay down a great principle about the law of God. To break any part of it is to become a transgressor. The Jew was very apt to regard the law as a series of detached injunctions. To keep one was to gain credit; to break one was to incur debt. A man could add up the ones he kept and subtract the ones he broke and so emerge with a credit or a debit balance. There was a Rabbinic saying, “Whoever fulfils only one law, good is appointed to him; his days are prolonged and he will inherit the land.” Again many of the Rabbis held that “the Sabbath weighs against all precepts,” and to keep it was to keep the law.
As James saw it, the whole law was the will of God; to break any part of it was to infringe that will and therefore to be guilty of sin. That is perfectly true. To break any part of the law is to become a transgressor in principle. Even under human justice a man becomes a criminal when he has broken one law. So James argues: “No matter how good you may be in other directions, if you treat people with respect of persons, you have acted against the will of God and you are a transgressor.”
There is a great truth here which is both relevant and practical. We may put it much more simply. A man may be in nearly all respects a good man; and yet he may spoil himself by one fault. He may be moral in his action, pure in his speech, meticulous in his devotion. But he may be hard and self-righteous; rigid and unsympathetic; and, if so, his goodness is spoiled.
We do well to remember that, though we may claim to have done many a good thing and to have resisted many an evil thing, there may be something in us by which everything is spoiled.
THE LAW OF LIBERTY AND THE LIFE OF MERCY ( Jas 2:12-13 ) 2:12-13 So speak and so act as those who are going to be judged under the law of liberty. For he who acts without mercy will have judgment without mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
As he comes to the end of a section, James reminds his readers of two great facts of the Christian life.
(i) The Christian lives under the law of liberty, and it is by the law of liberty he will be judged. What he means is this. Unlike the Pharisee and the orthodox Jew, the Christian is not a man whose life is governed by the external pressure of a whole series of rules and regulations imposed on him from without. He is governed by the inner compulsion of love. He follows the right way, the way of love to God and love to men, not because any external law compels him to do so nor because any threat of punishment frightens him into doing so, but because the love of Christ within his heart makes him desire to do so.
(ii) The Christian must ever remember that only he who shows mercy will find mercy. This is a principle which runs through all Scripture. Ben Sirach wrote, “Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven. One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek pardon from the Lord? He showeth no mercy to a man who is like himself; and doth he ask forgiveness for his own sins?” ( Sir_28:2-5 ). Jesus said, “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy” ( Mat 5:7). “If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” ( Mat 6:14-15). “Judge not that you be not judged, for with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged” ( Mat 7:1-2). He tells of the condemnation which fell upon the unforgiving servant and ends the parable by saving, “So, also, my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart” ( Mat 18:22-35).
Scripture teaching is agreed that he who would find mercy must himself be merciful. And James goes even further, for in the end he says that mercy triumphs over judgment; by which he means that in the day of judgment the man who has shown mercy will find that his mercy has even blotted out his own sin.
FAITH AND WORKS ( Jas 2:14-26 )
2:14-26 My brothers, what use is it if a man claims to have faith and has no deeds to show? Are you going to claim that his faith is able to save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear, and if they have not enough for their daily food, and if one of you says to them, “Go in peace! Be warmed and fed!” and yet does not give them the essentials of bodily existence, what use is that? So, if faith too has no deeds to show, by itself it is dead.
But someone may well say, “Have you faith?” My answer is, “I have deeds. Show me your faith apart from your deeds, and I will show you my faith by means of my deeds.” You say that you believe that there is one God. Excellent! The demons also believe the same thing–and shudder in terror.
Do you wish for proof, you empty creature, that faith without deeds is ineffective? Was not our father Abraham proved righteous in virtue of deeds when he was ready to offer Isaac his own son upon the altar? You see how his faith co-operated with his deeds and how his faith was completed by his deeds, and so there was fulfilled the passage of Scripture which says, “Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, for he was the friend of God.” You see that it is by deeds that a man is proved righteous, and not only by faith.
In the same way was Rahab the harlot not also proved righteous by deeds, when she received the messengers and sent them away by another way? For just as the body without breath is dead, so faith without works is dead.
This is a passage which we must take as a whole before we look at it in parts, for it is so often used in an attempt to show that James and Paul were completely at variance. It is apparently Paul’s emphasis that a man is saved by faith alone and that deeds do not come into the process at all. “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” ( Rom 3:28). “A man is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ…because by works of the law shall no one be justified” ( Gal 2:16). It is often argued that James is not simply differing from Paul but is flatly contradicting him. This is a matter we must investigate.
(i) We begin by noting that James’ emphasis is in fact a universal New Testament emphasis. It was the preaching of John the Baptist that men should prove the reality of their repentance by the excellence of their deeds ( Mat 3:8; Luk 3:8). It was Jesus’ preaching that men should so live that the world might see their good works and give the glory to God ( Mat 5:16). He insisted that it was by their fruits that men must be known and that a faith which expressed itself in words only could never take the place of one which expressed itself in the doing of the will of God ( Mat 7:15-21).
Nor is this emphasis missing from Paul himself. Apart from anything else, there can be few teachers who have ever stressed the ethical effect of Christianity as Paul does. However doctrinal and theological his letters may be, they never fail to end with a section in which the expression of Christianity in deeds is insisted upon. Apart from that general custom Paul repeatedly makes clear the importance he attaches to deeds as part of the Christian life. He speaks of God who will render to every man according to his works ( Rom 2:6). He insists that every one of us shall give account of himself to God ( Rom 14:12). He urges men to put off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light ( Rom 13:12). Every man shall receive his own reward according to his labour ( 1Co 3:8). We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that every one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body ( 2Co 5:10). The Christian has to put off the old nature and all its deeds ( Col 3:9).
The fact that Christianity must be ethically demonstrated is an essential part of the Christian faith throughout the New Testament.
(ii) The fact remains that James reads as if he were at variance with Paul; for in spite of all that we have said Paul’s main emphasis is upon grace and faith and James’ upon action and works. But this must be said–what James is condemning is not Paulinism but a perversion of it. The essential Pauline position in one sentence was: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” ( Act 16:31). But clearly the significance we attach to this demand will entirely depend on the meaning we attach to believe. There are two kinds of belief.
There is belief which is purely intellectual. For instance, I believe that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides; and if I had to, I could prove it–but it makes no difference to my life and living. I accept it, but it has no effect upon me.
There is another kind of belief. I believe that five and five make ten, and, therefore, I will resolutely refuse to pay more than ten pence for two fivepenny bars of chocolate. I take that fact, not only into my mind, but into my life and action.
What James is arguing against is the first kind of belief, the acceptance of a fact without allowing it to have any influence upon life. The devils are intellectually convinced of the existence of God; they, in fact, tremble before him; but their belief does not alter them in the slightest. What Paul held was the second kind of belief For him to believe in Jesus meant to take that belief into every section of life and to live by it.
It is easy to pervert Paulinism and to emasculate believe of all effective meaning; and it is not really Paulinism but a misunderstood form of it that James condemns. He is condemning profession without practice and with that condemnation Paul would have entirely agreed.
(iii) Even allowing for that, there is still a difference between James and Paul–they begin at different times in the Christian life. Paul begins at the very beginning. He insists that no man can ever earn the forgiveness of God. The initial step must come from the free grace of God; a man can only accept the forgiveness which God offers him in Jesus Christ.
James begins much later with the professing Christian, the man who claims to be already forgiven and in a new relationship with God. Such a man, James rightly says, must live a new life for he is a new creature. He has been justified; he must now show that he is sanctified With that Paul would have entirely agreed.
The fact is that no man can be saved by works; but equally no man can be saved without producing works. By far the best analogy is that of a great human love. He who is loved is certain that he does not deserve to be loved; but he is also certain that he must spend his life trying to be worthy of that love.
The difference between James and Paul is a difference of starting-point. Paul starts with the great basic fact of the forgiveness of God which no man can earn or deserve; James starts with the professing Christian and insists that a man must prove his Christianity by his deeds. We are not saved by deeds; we are saved for deeds; these are the twin truths of the Christian life. Paul’s emphasis is on the first and James’ is on the second. In fact they do not contradict but complement each other; and the message of both is essential to the Christian faith in its fullest form. As the paraphrase has it:
Let all who hold this faith and hope
In holy deeds abound;
Thus faith approves itself sincere,
By active virtue crown’d.
Profession And Practice ( Jas 2:14-17)
2:14-17 My brothers, what use is it, if a man claims to have faith and has no deeds to show? Are you going to claim that his faith is able to save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and if they have not enough for their daily food, and if one of you says to them, “Go in peace! Be warmed and fed!” and yet does not give them the essentials of bodily existence, what use is that? So, if faith too has no deeds to show, by itself it is dead.
The one thing that James cannot stand is profession without practice, words without deeds. He chooses a vivid illustration of what he means. Suppose a man to have neither clothes to protect him nor food to feed him; and suppose his so-called friend to express the sincerest sympathy for his sad plight; and suppose that sympathy stops with words and no effort is made to alleviate the plight of the unfortunate man, what use is that? What use is sympathy without some attempt to turn that sympathy into practical effect? Faith without deeds is dead. This is a passage which would appeal specially to a Jew.
(i) To a Jew almsgiving was of paramount importance. So much so that righteousness and almsgiving mean one and the same thing. Almsgiving was considered to be a man’s one defence when he was judged by God. “Water will quench a flaming fire,” writes Ben Sirach, “and alms maketh an atonement for sin” ( Sir_3:30 ). In Tobit it is written, “Everyone who occupieth himself in alms shall behold the face of God, as it is written, I will behold thy face by almsgiving” ( Tob_4:8-10 ). When the leaders of the Jerusalem Church agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles the one injunction laid upon him was not to forget the poor ( Gal 2:10). This stress on practical help was one of the great and lovely marks of Jewish piety.
(ii) There was a strain of Greek religion to which this stress on sympathy and almsgiving was quite alien. The Stoics aimed at apatheia, the complete absence of feeling. The aim of life was serenity. Emotion disturbs serenity. The way to perfect calm was to annihilate all emotion. Pity was a mere disturbance of the detached philosophic calm in which a man should aim to live. So Epictetus lays it down that only he who disobeys the divine command will ever feel grief or pity (Discourses 3: 24, 43). When Virgil in the Georgics (2: 498) draws the picture of the perfectly happy man, he has no pity for the poor and no grief for the sorrowing, for such emotions would only upset his own serenity. This is the very opposite of the Jewish point of view. For the Stoic blessedness meant being wrapped up in his own philosophic detachment and calm; for the Jew it meant actively sharing in the misfortunes of others.
(iii) In his approach to this subject James is profoundly right. There is nothing more dangerous than the repeated experiencing of a fine emotion with no attempt to put it into action. It is a fact that every time a man feels a noble impulse without taking action, he becomes less likely ever to take action. In a sense it is true to say that a man has no right to feel sympathy unless he at least tries to put that sympathy into action. An emotion is not something in which to luxuriate; it is something which at the cost of effort and of toil and of discipline and of sacrifice must be turned into the stuff of life.
Not “either Or”, But “both And” ( Jas 2:18-19)
2:18-19 But some one may well say, “Have you faith?” My answer is, “I have deeds. Show me your faith apart from your deeds and I will show you my faith by means of my deeds.” You say that you believe there is one God. Excellent! The demons also believe the same thing–and shudder in terror.
James is thinking of a possible objector who says, “Faith is a fine thing; and works are fine things. They are both perfectly genuine manifestations of real religion. But the one man does not necessarily possess both. One man will have faith and another will have works. Well, then, you carry on with your works and I will carry on with my faith; and we are both being truly religious in our own way.” The objector’s view is that faith and works are alternative expressions of the Christian religion. James will have none of it. It is not a case of either faith or works; it is necessarily a case of both faith and works.
In many ways Christianity is falsely represented as an “either or” when it must properly be a “both and”.
(i) In the well-proportioned life there must be thought and action. It is tempting and it is common to think that one may be either a man of thought or a man of action. The man of thought will sit in his study thinking great thoughts; the man of action will be out in the world doing great deeds. But that is wrong. The thinker is only half a man unless he turns his thoughts into deeds. He will scarcely even inspire men to action unless he comes down into the battle and shares the arena with them. As Kipling had it:
O England is a garden and such gardens are not made
By saying, “O how beautiful,” and sitting in the shade;
While better men than we began their working lives
By digging weeds from garden paths with broken dinner knives.
Nor can anyone be a real man of action unless he has thought out the great principles on which his deeds are founded.
(ii) In the well-proportioned life there must be prayer and effort. Again it is tempting to divide men into two classes–the saints who spend life secluded on their knees in constant devotion and the toilers who labour in the dust and the heat of the day. But it will not do. It is said that Martin Luther was close friends with another monk. The other was as fully persuaded of the necessity of the Reformation as Luther was. So they made an arrangement. Luther would go down into the world and fight the battle there; the other would remain in his cell praying for the success of Luther’s labours. But one night the monk had a dream. In it he saw a single reaper engaged on the impossible task of reaping an immense field by himself The lonely reaper turned his head and the monk saw his face was the face of Martin Luther; and he knew that he must leave his cell and his prayers and go to help. It is, of course, true that there are some who, because of age or bodily weakness, can do nothing other than pray; and their prayers are indeed a strength and a support. But if any normal person thinks that prayer can be a substitute for effort, his prayers are merely a way of escape. Prayer and effort must go hand in hand.
(iii) In any well-proportioned life there must be faith and deeds. It is only through deeds that faith can prove and demonstrate itself; and it is only through faith that deeds will be attempted and done. Faith is bound to overflow into action; and action begins only when a man has faith in some great cause or principle which God has presented to him.
The Proof Of Faith ( Jas 2:20-26)
2:20-26 Do you wish for proof, you empty creature, that faith without deeds is ineffective? Our father Abraham was proved righteous in consequence of deeds, when he was ready to offer Isaac his son upon the altar. You see how his faith co-operated with his deeds and how his faith was completed by his deeds, and so there was fulfilled the passage of Scripture which says, “Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness and he was called the friend of God.” You see that it is by deeds that a man is proved righteous and not only by faith. In the same way was Rahab the harlot not also proved righteous by deeds, when she received the messengers and sent them away by another way? For just as the body without the breath is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
James offers two illustrations of the point of view on which he is insisting. Abraham is the great example of faith; but Abraham’s faith was proved by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac at the apparent demand of God. Rahab was a famous figure in Jewish legend. She had sheltered the spies sent to spy out the Promised Land ( Jos 2:1-21). Later legend said that she became a proselyte to the Jewish faith, that she married Joshua and that she was a direct ancestress of many priests and prophets, including Ezekiel and Jeremiah. It was her treatment of the spies which proved that she had faith.
Paul and James are both right here. Unless Abraham had had faith he would never have answered the summons of God. Unless Rahab had had faith, she would never have taken the risk of identifying her future with the fortunes of Israel. And yet, unless Abraham had been prepared to obey God to the uttermost, his faith would have been unreal; and unless Rahab had been prepared to risk all to help the spies, her faith would have been useless.
These two examples show that faith and deeds are not opposites; they are, in fact, inseparables. No man will ever be moved to action without faith; and no man’s faith is genuine unless it moves him to action. Faith and deeds are opposite sides of a man’s experience of God.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
3. No obsequiousness to rich incomers to the Christian synagogue, 1-4.
1. My brethren The apostle is still administering lessons to the Synagogue of believers. In the first chapter he reproves their disputatiousness; in the present, their courting the rich.
Of glory Omitting the Italic words, the Greek order is, our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, in which the author does not suppose that inserting the identifying name Jesus Christ prevents of glory from belonging to Lord, so as to make Lord of glory, namely, Jesus Christ. Faith in so glorious a Lord is not in consistency with respect of persons. Respect of persons (see note on Act 10:34,) means to regard a man for his rank, personal appearance, or any other reason than his true deserts or value. All men are equal before the Lord of glory; and therefore, in his Church, rich and poor are equally valuable in the sight of Him who died for all.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘My brothers, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, with respect of persons.’
James commences by drawing their attention to the fact that the glory of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is far above that of any other. He is our Lord, set above all things (Act 2:36; Eph 1:20-22); He is Jesus Who will save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21), He is the expected Messiah, the enthroned Christ (Act 2:35), but above all He is the Lord of glory (compare 1Co 2:8 where it is closely associated with the poor and weak Christians of this world described in 1Co 1:18-31; Mat 16:27; Mat 25:31), the possessor of all things, the One Who is over all in splendour, the One Who will come as judge. It is a pointed reminder in the light of what is to follow. Beside Him the glory of the rich man fades into insignificance, and the true glory belongs to those who are rich in faith and heirs of the Kingly Rule of God over which He presides in glory. To them will be the glory. By this means the writer immediately set their minds on things above (Col 3:2).
In the Old Testament ‘the glory’ can have a number of meanings, but its prime significance is in describing the glory of the Shekinah, the revelation of YHWH in blinding light (Exo 16:7; Exo 16:10; Exo 24:16-17; Exo 33:22; Exo 40:34; Lev 9:6; Leviticus 23; often in Numbers; Deu 5:24; and so on) Whom no man has seen or can see because He dwells in unapproachable light (1Ti 6:16). Indeed in the Psalms He is ‘the King of glory’ (Psa 24:7-10), and ‘the God of glory’ (Psa 29:3), good parallels with ‘the Lord, Jesus Christ, of glory’, and YHWH’s glory is regularly referred to by the Psalmists. When the glory of YHWH left the Temple in Ezekiel it was a sign of His rejection of Jerusalem (Eze 11:23) to which the glory would never return. When it would re-enter the Temple it would be to a heavenly Temple (there is no suggestion anywhere that it should be built. It was already there in vision. Only the altar was to be built in the new earthly Temple as a contact point with it) situated on a mountain outside Jerusalem in what was an idealised picture (Eze 40:2; Eze 45:1-6; see chapters 40-44). In Zec 7:13 it was the coming king, ‘the Branch’ who would ‘bear the glory’, that is, would enjoy royal honour as the representative of YHWH. Thus to be the Lord of glory was to represent YHWH, the King of glory, both as revealing Him to man and as ruling on His behalf. But it also meant more. It meant that He had returned to His Father to receive the glory that had been His before the world was (Joh 17:5)
A secondary meaning of ‘the glory’ was as indicating the possessions and prosperity of a man or a of nation (e.g. Isa 17:3-6; Jer 13:18; Jer 48:18). Thus the Lord ‘of glory’ might be seen as signifying Him as the Possessor of Heaven and earth (Gen 14:22) and as over the angels. But no doubt the primary idea here is to relate Him to the glory of YHWH (compare Joh 17:5), and to act as a contrast to the ‘glory’ of the rich man with his golden ring and his fine clothes.
‘My Brothers.’ James wants them continually to realise that he writes not as a superior but as a brother to his beloved brothers and sisters. Compare Jas 1:2; Jas 1:9; Jas 1:16; Jas 1:19; Jas 2:5; Jas 2:14-15; Jas 3:1; Jas 4:11; Jas 5:7; Jas 5:9; Jas 5:12; Jas 5:19. By this he stresses that they are all ‘sons of God’ and on an equality with each other. In other words they are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Chapter 2. Faith Without Works Is Dead.
The Fact That Faith Without Relevant Action Is Dead Is Illustrated ( Jas 2:1-7
The passage is split up into three sections, commencing with an example of so-called believers revealing the falsity of their faith by showing partiality to the rich, continuing with an examination of why this is wrong having judgment in view, and finalising with the arguing of the case from Scripture.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Faith Without Works Illustrated In Action In The Treatment Of The Rich As Compared With The Poor In The Assembly ( Jas 2:1-7 ).
a
b For if there come into your synagogue (assembly) a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing, and you have regard to him who wears the fine clothing, and say, “You sit here in a good place” (Jas 2:2-3 a).
c And you say to the poor man, You stand there, or sit under my footstool. Do you not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? (Jas 2:3-4).
d Listen, my beloved brothers, did not God choose those who are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingly Rule which He promised to those who love him? (Jas 2:5).
c But you have dishonoured the poor man (Jas 2:6 a).
b Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? (Jas 2:6 b).
a Do they not blaspheme the honourable name by which you are called? (Jas 2:7).
Note that in ‘a’ emphasis is on Whom their faith is about, and in the parallel they are warned not to blaspheme His honourable Name. In ‘b’ the rich man is honoured, and in the parallel James reminds his readers that it is the same rich who oppress them. In ‘c’ the treatment of the poor is described, and in the parallel we have the indication that they have thereby dishonoured the poor man. Centrally in ‘d’ the true status of the poor in God’s eyes is revealed. They are rich in faith (the faith of our Lord, Jesus Christ) and heirs of the Kingly Rule of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Facing the Temptation of Showing Partiality – We can face this temptation by judging others, or we can focus upon the teaching of the Word of God and learn to be a quick hearer and doer of the Word of God. Many church members focus on how others dress and judge others while sitting in church rather than focusing upon the preaching of the Word. Imagine being in a congregation of believers and looking around judging other and ignoring the preaching of the Word (Jas 2:1-5). Thus, James condemns this behaviour within the congregation of believers by showing them that it is the very rich people who are exalted in church on the Sabbath that are oppressing them during the week (Jas 2:6-7).
Jas 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
Jas 2:1
Jas 2:1 Comments – Jas 2:1 tells us not to have partiality among people. Jas 2:2-4 explains the meaning of the word “partiality” by giving an illustration.
Jas 2:1 Scripture Reference – Note a similar verse:
Lev 19:15, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”
Jas 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Jas 2:2
Comments – The author is obviously speaking to Jews who are still accustomed to worshipping in the traditional synagogue.
Rev 2:9, “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
Rev 3:9, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”
Jas 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Jas 2:4 Jas 2:5 Jas 2:5
Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7 Jas 2:6-7
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Path of Faith and Patience – Once James lays the foundational truths in our lives that there are two ways to face trials, with humility or with pride, by becoming doers of God’s Word or by yielding to our own lusts (Jas 1:2-27), we are ready to receive much wisdom from God to help us overcome anything. James will then take us through a course of learning how to walk by faith in every area of our lives. He will show us how we demonstrate our faith by not showing partiality (Jas 2:1-26), by taming our tongue (Jas 3:1-18), and by managing our temper (Jas 4:1 to Jas 5:6).
Outline – Note the proposed outline:
1. Quick to Hear Jas 2:1-26
2. Slow to Speak Jas 3:1-18
3. Slow to Wrath Jas 4:1-12
4. Covetousness Jas 4:13 to Jas 5:6
5. Final Appeal: Patience and Prayer Jas 5:7-18
Jas 2:1-26 Quick to Hear: Overcoming Partiality by Refusing to Judge the Poor and Showing Him Mercy (Submitting our Hearts to God) One of the greatest temptations of the flesh is to show partiality among the various social classes of a church congregation. In Jas 2:1-26 we find a teaching on having faith towards God without showing partiality towards others. Jas 2:1-26 paints a picture of Jewish believers gathering in the synagogue (Jas 2:2) according to their tradition. They show partiality by seating the rich Jews in good seats near the front to be seen by others, while making the poor Jews sit or stand in the back. We know from the writings of Eusebius that James, the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, worshipped and prayed in the Temple, showing that he sought to coexist with non-believing Jews as much as possible ( Ecclesiastical History 2.23.1-25). Thus, Jewish believers would have continued their tradition of worshiping in the Temple in Jerusalem and attending the synagogue as well as assembling with local believers. I have seen the partiality described in Jas 2:1-26 many times while a missionary in Africa, where the rich were seated in the front at functions and the poor stood outside on in the rear. This African custom was adopted by their churches as well, providing a vivid picture of this warning against showing partiality among the early church.
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Facing the Temptation of Showing Partiality Jas 2:1-7
2. The Path of Death Jas 2:8-13
3. The Path of Life Jas 2:14-26
Other Passages on Partiality – We find a similar passage of Scripture regarding warnings against partiality in 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21, in which Paul teaches the Corinthians to stop showing partiality towards church leaders.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Dead Faith Compared with Living Faith.
Caution against partiality:
v. 1. My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons.
v. 2. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment,
v. 3. and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool;
v. 4. are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
v. 5. Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?
v. 6. But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seats?
v. 7. Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
v. 8. If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well;
v. 9. but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the Law as transgressors. It is a peculiar fact that history repeats itself, that the same conditions seem to be found in the Christian congregations after just about so long a time of Gospel preaching. The apostle does not hesitate to attack the evil with all the power at his command: My brethren, not in respect of persons hold the faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord of Glory. The Christian faith must not be abused, nor dare shame and disgrace be brought upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior and the King of Glory. The reference is probably to the fact that the second person of the Godhead was present in the cloud of glory which accompanied the children of Israel on their journey through the wilderness and afterward appeared at the dedication of the Temple of Solomon. Such a condition of affairs, however, such servile regard of people, altogether out of agreement with the spirit shown by Jesus Christ in His treatment of men, had crept into the churches. Men were not regarded on the basis of their Christianity, their moral excellence, their personal piety, their usefulness to the congregation, but on the basis of the wealth which they had accumulated.
This is brought out with great emphasis and effectiveness by the apostle: For if there enters into your common assembly a man bedecked with gold rings, in a splendid garment, but there entered also a poor man in a sordid garment, and you (would) attend to the wearer of the splendid garment and say to him, Sit thou here in the best place, and to the poor man you would say, Keep standing here, or sit down at my footstool, do you not therefore discriminate among yourselves and become judges according to evil considerations? The text pictures a meeting, an assembly of worship, as it was held in those days. In steps a man whose wealth and influence is apparent at first glance. He is bedecked with gold rings, he wears the fine white garment which was assumed by rich Jews. Hardly has he entered the door, when the members crowd forward to meet him. With obsequious deference they place the best seat in the room at his disposal, their faces, at the same time, displaying the admiration for wealth and power which fills their hearts. But immediately after there steps in a poor man, clad in a simple garment, perhaps even soiled with the labor of his hands. There is no deferential ushering as he apologetically tries to find a place where he may stay. Instead, he is curtly told that he may stand in the room reserved in the rear; or, if that does not suit him, he may sit down on the floor. Note: History repeats itself also in this, that these very conditions obtain in many so-called Christian houses of warship to this day. But the apostle gives his opinion of such behavior in sharp words, telling his readers that they are thereby making a false distinction, a wrong and foolish discrimination, that they are dividing the congregation of the Lord into parties without the consent of the Lord, in a manner which in no way accords with His own acceptance of publicans and sinners. Incidentally, men calling themselves Christians and yet acting in such a manner become judges according to evil surmisings, according to false considerations. To judge a man by his outward appearance only and to condemn him on account of his poverty is to defame him both in thought and deed, an act very decidedly at variance with the Eighth Commandment.
In solemn warning the apostle calls out: Listen, my beloved brethren: Did not God choose the poor according to this world, rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him? This fact the readers should consider, of that they should never lose sight. It is the poor people in this world’s goods, the weak, the foolish, that God has chosen, 1Co 1:27-28. The wise and mighty of this world are inclined to sneer at the Gospel of the poor Galilean fishermen and of the Nazarene that died on the cross. Therefore the Lord has chosen the poor, not because their hearts by nature are any better than those of the wealthy and mighty, but because they at least have not the handicap which riches are apt to prove to contend with. And it is the Lord’s choosing which has made the poor rich in faith, which has assured them of the inheritance of the saints in light, the glorious reward of mercy in heaven above, which God has promised to those that love Him. Reproachfully the apostle therefore writes: You, however, insult the poor, both dishonoring and despising them.
In this connection the apostle reminds the Jewish Christians of another fact: Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before their tribunals? Do they not blaspheme the excellent name which was laid upon you by your call? He speaks of the rich people as a class, characterizing them by the behavior which is commonly found where they have the power. They make use of violence, they oppress those that are not in their own class, they try to lord it over them at all times; they foster lawsuits, believing that their money will buy them the decision which justice would never render. And altogether too many of them will not believe that they are in need of the Savior and His redemption, they blaspheme the name of Him that called the Christians by faith, and added them to the communion of saints. The conduct of the believers, therefore, in acting with a false deference to all the wealthy people, is all the more reprehensible.
The apostle, then, offers this conclusion: If, indeed, you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, you do well; but if you have respect of persons, you commit a sin, and are convicted by the Law as transgressors. There is a royal law, a rule of the Kingdom, which should be heeded also by Christians as expressing the will of God, namely, the precept that they should love their neighbors as themselves, making no distinction between rich and poor, between fashionable and unimportant. Such conduct is well-pleasing to God. But if the Christians make such false distinctions as outlined by the apostle above, preferring the rich and influential merely on account of their money and not on account of their Christian life and moral worth, then they are transgressing the will of God and stand convicted by Him and by His Law, which will then apply once more. It is a willful, conscious sin of which they will be guilty, and there will be no excuse for them. It is a warning which will bear repetition in our days.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Jas 2:1-13
WARNING AGAINST RESPECT OF PERSONS.
Jas 2:1
The translation is doubtful, two renderings being possible.
(1) That of the A.V. and R.V., “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”
(2) That of the R.V. margin and Westcott and Hort, “Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory?” According to this view, the section commences with a question, as does the following one, Jas 2:14. According to the former view, which is on the whole preferable, it is parallel to Jas 3:1. The faith of our Lord. “The faith” here may be either
(1) objective (tides quae creditur), as in the Epistle of St. Jud Jas 1:3, Jas 1:20; or
(2) subjective (tides qua creditur), “Have the faith which believes in,” etc..
Our Lord Jesus Christ. Exactly the same title occurs in Act 15:26, in the letter written from the Apostolic Council to the Syrian Churchesa letter which was probably drawn up by St. James himself. The Lord of glory. The same title is given to our Lord in 1Co 2:8, and seems to be founded on Psa 24:7, etc. The genitive, , must depend on in spite of the intervening . Similar trajections occur elsewhere; e.g. Heb 12:11, where depend, on , and, according to a possible view, Luk 2:14. Bengel’s view, that is in apposition with can scarcely be maintained, in the absence of any parallel expression elsewhere. Respect of persons ( ) literally, reception of faces. The substantive is found here and three times in St. Paul’s EpistlesRom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; the verb () only here in Col 3:9; in Act 10:31. None of them occur in the LXX., where, however, we find in Le Act 19:15; Mal 2:9, etc. (cf. Luk 20:21), for the Hebrew . Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out that, in the Old Testament, the expression is a neutral one, not necessarily involving any idea of partiality, and more often used in a good than in a bad sense. “When it becomes an independent Greek phrase, however, the bad sense attaches to it, owing to the secondary meaning of as a mask,’ so that signifies ‘to regard the external circumstances of a man’his rank, wealth, etc.as opposed to his real intrinsic character. Thus in the New Testament it has always a bad sense.” It is exactly this regard to external circumstances against which St. James is warning his readers; and the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ had himself been known, when on earth, as no respecter of persons (Luk 20:21), would give point to his warning. The plural ( ) is perhaps used to include the different kinds of manifestations of the sin.
Jas 2:2-4
Proof that they were guilty of respect of persons. Observe the insight which this passage gives us into the cha-racier of the assemblies of the early Christians, showing
(1) that the entrance of a rich man was not entirely unknown, but
(2) that it was probably exceptional, because so much was made of him. Notice
(3) used here, and here only in the New Testament, of a Christian assembly for worship (cf. Ignatius, ‘Ad Polye.,’ c. 4., ).
Jas 2:2
A man with a gold ring ( ). The word is found here only. The English Versions (both A.V. and R.V) needlessly limit its meaning. The man was probably bedecked with a number of rings, and had not one only. In goodly apparel. The same phrase is rendering “gay clothing” in Jas 2:3. The variation is quite unnecessary, the Greek being identical in both places, and rightly rendered by R.V. “fine clothing.” It is curious to find a similar needless variation in the Vulgate, which has in veste candida in Jas 2:2, and veste proeclara in Jas 2:3.
Jas 2:4
The copula () of the Received Text is certainly spurious. It is found in K, L, but is wanting in , A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic. B also omits the negative ). If this manuscript is followed, the sentence must be read as a direct statement, and not as interrogative. But if (with most manuscripts and editions) the interrogative be retained, the translation is still doubtful. may mean:
(1) “Are ye not divided in your own mind?” so the Syriac and R.V., which would imply that this respect of persons showed that they were halting between God and the worldin fact, double-minded.
(2) “Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?” R.V. margin; this gives an excellent sense, but is wanting in authority, as there appears to be no other instance forthcoming of the passive with this meaning.
(3) “Did you not doubt among yourselves?” this (doubt) is the almost invariable meaning of in the New Testament, and the word has already been used in this sense by St. James (Jas 1:6). Hence this rendering is to be preferred. So Huther, Plumptre, and Farrar, the latter of whom explains the passage as follows: “It shows doubt to act as though Christ had never promised his kingdom to the poor, rich in faith; and wicked reasonings to argue mentally that the poor must be less worthy of honor than the rich.” Judges of evil thoughts ( ); sc. their own (thoughts), which caused them to respect persons. Thus the phrase is equivalent to “evil-thinking judges.”
Jas 2:5-9
Proof of the sinfulness of respect of persons.
Jas 2:5
Hearken (). This has been noticed as a coincidence with the speech of St. James in Act 15:13. It is, however, too slight to be worth much (cf. Act 7:2; Act 13:16; Act 22:1). For , read (, A, B, C), “poor as to the world;” perhaps “in the estimation of the world.” These God chose (to be) rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, etc. The kingdom; mentioned hero only by St. James (and even here, , A read ); cf. in verse 8. Which he hath promised. As Dean Plumptre has pointed out, “it is scarcely possible to exclude a direct reference to the words of Christ, as in Luk 6:20; Luk 12:31, Luk 12:32; and so we get indirect proof of a current knowledge, at the early period at which St. James wrote, of teaching which was afterwards recorded in the written Gospels.”
Jas 2:6
You have dishonored by your treatment the poor man, whom God chose; while those rich men to whom ye pay such honor are just the very persons who
(1) oppress you and
(2) blaspheme God and Christ.
Poor rich. In the Old Testament we occasionally find the term “poor” parallel to “righteous” (Amo 2:6; Amo 5:12); and “rich“ to “wicked” (Isa 53:9). St. James’s use here is somewhat similar (see on Jas 1:9, etc). “Christiani multi ex pauperibus erant: pauci ex divitibus” (Bengel). The “rich men” here alluded to are evidently such as was the Apostle Paul before his conversion.
(1) They dragged the poor Christians before the judgment-seat ( ). So Saul, “haling () men and women, committed them to prison” (Act 8:3).
(2) They blasphemed the honorable Name by which Christians were called. So Saul thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, and strove to make them blaspheme (Act 26:9-11).
(3) All this they did in person (); “themselves,” just as Saul did. No difficulty need be felt about the presence of these rich men in the synagogues of the Christians. It will be noticed that St. James never calls them “brethren.“ Further, it must be remembered that, at this early date, the Church had not yet learnt by bitter experience the need for that secrecy with which in later days she shrouded her worship. At this time the Christian assemblies were open to any who chose to find their way in. All were welcome, as we see from 1Co 14:23, etc., where the chance entry of “men unlearned or unbelieving” is contemplated as likely to happen. Hence there is no sort of difficulty in the presence of the “rich man” here, who might be eagerly welcomed, and repay his welcome by dragging them to the judgment-seat. Draw you before the judgment-seats. The account given by Josephus of the death of St, James himself affords a good illustration of the manner in which Christians were liable to this. But the tribunals need not be confined to Jewish ones. Other instances of similar treatment, illustrating the thoughts and language of the passage before us, may be found in Act 16:19; Act 17:6; Act 18:12. Litigation of an entirely different character between Christians themselves is alluded to and condemned by St. Paul in 1Co 6:1-20.
Jas 2:7
That worthy Name ( ); the honorable Name; probably the Name of Christ, by which the disciples were known (Act 11:26), and for which they suffered (Act 5:41; 1Pe 5:14 -16). By the which ye are called; literally, which was called upon you ( ). A similar expression is found in St. James’s speech in Act 15:17, in a quotation from Amo 9:12.
Jas 2:8
What is the connection with the foregoing? is ignored altogether by the A.V. Translate, with R.V., howbeit if ye fulfill, etc.; Vulgate, tamen. According to Huther, St. James here meets the attempt which his readers might, perhaps, make to justify their conduct towards the rich with the law of love; whilst he grants to them that the fulfillment of that law is something excellent, he designates directly as a transgression of the law. Alford thinks that the apostle is simply guarding his own argument from misconstructiona view which is simpler and perhaps more natural. The royal law. Why is the law of love thus styled? (The Syriac has simply “the law of God.”)
(1) As being the most excellent of all laws; as we might call it the sovereign principle of our conduct. Such an expression is natural enough in a Greek writer; but it is strange in a Jew like St. James (in the LXX. is always used in its literal meaning); and as the “kingdom” has been spoken of just before (verse 5), it is better
(2) to take the expression as literal here”the law of the kingdom” (cf. Plumptre, in loc). Thou shalt love, etc. (Le 19:18). The law had received the sanction of the King himself (Mat 22:39; Luk 10:26-28).
Jas 2:9
And are convinced, etc.; better, with R.V., being convicted by the law ( ). The Law of Moses directly forbade all respect of persons; see Le 19:15 (three verses above the passage just quoted by St. James), .
Jas 2:10
In this verse the subjunctives , are rightly read by the Revisors, with , B, C. The Law was express on the need of keeping all the commandments; see Le 19:37 (the same chapter to which St. James has already referred), ). He is guilty of all. The very same thought is found in rabbinical writers (Talmud, ‘Schabbath,’ fol. 70); a saying of R. Johanan: “Quodsi racist omnia unum vero omitter omnium est singulorum reus.” Other passages to the same effect may be seen in Schottgen, ‘Horae Hebraicae,’ vol. 1. p. 1017, etc.; and cf., ‘Pirqe Aboth,’ 4.15. Was it a false inference from St. James’s teaching in this verso that led the Judaizers of Act 15:1-41. to lay down the law “Except ye be circumcised after the customs of Moses ye cannot be saved”? “Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” might seem to suggest such an inference: “To whom,” says St. James himself, “we gave no commandment” (Act 15:24).
Jas 2:11
Do not commit adultery do not kill. The order of the commandments is remarkable; what is now the seventh is placed bolero the sixth. This appears to have been the usual order at that time. In this order our Lord quotes them in Luk 18:20, and St. Paul in Rom 13:9. Philo also has the same order, and expressly comments on it, drawing from it an argument for the heinousness of adultery. In the Vatican Manuscript of the LXX. in Exo 20:13-15 the order is, “Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill.” But the Alexandrian Manuscript has the usual order, which is also found in Mat 19:18 and Mar 10:19 (according to the correct reading).
Jas 2:12, Jas 2:13
Conclusion of the subject: (cf. Jas 1:25).
Jas 2:13
A clear reminiscence of our Lord’s teaching in the sermon on the mount (Mat 7:1, etc.; Mat 5:7): . is certainly the right form of the word (, A, B, C, K), not (Receptus with L), and the of the Textus Receptus is entirely wanting in manuscript authority, and should be deleted. The subject is ended by the abrupt declaration, almost like a cry of triumph, “Mercy glorieth against judgment.”
Jas 2:14-26
WARNING AGAINST RESTING CONTENT WITH A MERE BARREN ORTHODOXY. Preliminary note: This is the famous passage which led to Luther’s depreciation of the whole Epistle, which he termed a “right strawy” one. At first sight it appears, indeed, diametrically opposed to the teaching of St. Paul; for:
(1) St. Paul says (Rom 3:28),” We conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from () works of Law,” whereas St. James asserts (verse 26) that “faith without () works is dead,” and that man is “justified by works and not by faith only” (verse 24).
(2) St. Paul speaks of Abraham as justified by faith (Rom 4:1-25.; cf. Gal 3:6, etc); St. James says that he was justified by works (verse 21).
(3) St. Paul, or the Pauline author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, appeals to the case of Rahab as an instance of faith (Heb 11:31);
St. James refers to her as an example of justification by works (verse 25). The opposition, however, is only apparent; for:
(1) The two apostles use the word different senses. In St. Paul it always has a depreciatory sense, unless qualified by the adjective or . The works which he denies to have any share in justification are “legal works,” not those which he elsewhere denominates the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22), which are the “works” of which St. James speaks.
(2) The word is also used in different senses. In St. Paul it is (Gal 5:6); in St. James it is simply an orthodox creed, “Even the devils (verse 19): it may, therefore, be barren of works of charity.
(3) The apostles are writing against different errors and tendencies: St. Paul against that of those who would impose the Jewish Law and the rite of circumcision upon Gentile believers; St. James against “the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the still weightier matters of a self-denying love”. [The tendency of the Jews to rely on their claim as “Abraham’s children” is rebuked by the Baptist (Mat 3:9) and by our Lord (Joh 8:39). So Justin Martyr speaks of the Jews of his day: .]
(4) The apostles regarded the new dispensation from different standpoints. With St. Paul’ it is the negation of law: “Ye are not under Law, but under grace” (Rom 6:14). With St. James it is the perfection of Law. But, as Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out, “the ideas underlying these contradictory forms of expression need not be essentially different.” The mere ritual has no value for St. James. Apart from anything higher it is sternly denounced by him (Jas 1:20, etc). The gospel is in his view a Law, but it is no mere system of rules, “Touch not, taste not, handle not;” it is no hard bondage, for it is a law of liberty, which is in exact accordance with the teaching of St. Paul, that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty“ (2Co 3:17). But:
(5) The question now arises. Granting that St. James does not contradict the doctrine of St. Paul, is he not opposing Antinomian perversions of it, and writing with conscious reference to the teaching of the apostle of the Gentiles, and the misuse which some had made of it? To this question different answers have been returned. “So long as our range of 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. But when we realize the fact that the passage in Genesis was a common thesis in the schools of the day, that the meaning of faith was variously explained by the disputants, that diverse lessons were drawn from itthen the case is altered. The Gentile apostle and the Pharisaic rabbi might both maintain the supremacy of faith as the means of salvation; but faith with St. Paul was a very different thing kern faith with Maimonides, for instance. With the one its prominent idea is a spiritual life, with the other an orthodox creed; with the one the guiding principle is the individual conscience, with the other an external rule of ordinances; with the one faith is allied to liberty, with the other to bondage. Thus it becomes a question whether St. James’s protest against reliance on faith alone has any reference direct or indirect to St. Paul’s language and teaching. Whether, in fact, it is not aimed against an entirely different type of religious feeling, against the Pharisaic spirit which rested satisfied with a barren orthodoxy fruitless in works of charity”. In favor of this view of the entire independence of the two writers, to which he inclines, Bishop Lightfoot urges:
(a) That the object of the much-vaunted faith of those against whom St. James writes is “the fundamental maxim of the Law,” “Thou believest that God is one” (Deu 6:4); not “the fundamental fact of the gospel,” “Thou believest that God raised Christ from the dead” (Rom 10:9).
(b) That the whole tone of the Epistle recalls our Lord’s denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems directed against a kindred spirit. To these we may add:
(c) That the teaching of St. Paul and St. James is combined by St. Clement of Rome (‘Ep. ad Corinthians,’ c. 12) in a manner which is conclusive as to the fact that he was unaware of any divergence of view between them, whether real or apparent. We conclude, then, that the teaching of St. James has no direct relation to that of St. Paul, and may well have been anterior in time to his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.
Jas 2:14-17
(1) First point: Faith without works is equivalent to profession without practice, and is therefore dead.
Jas 2:14
Omit the article (with B, C1), and read : so also in Jas 2:16. Can faith save him! rather, with R.V., that faith ( ); the faith in question.
Jas 2:15, Jas 2:16
Observe the practical character of the illustration chosen, from works of mercy (cf. Jas 1:27). in Jas 2:15 should be deleted (omitted by B, C, K); also the disjunctive particle at the commencement of the verse (with , B).
Jas 2:16
Depart in peace ( ); cf. Act 16:36. This is something quite different from the fullness of our Lord’s benediction, “Go into peace ( )” (Mar 5:34; cf. Luk 7:50; Luk 8:48).
Jas 2:17
Being alone ( ); R.V., in itself. But the rendering of the A.V. appears to be justified by the LXX. in Gen 43:31, ….
Jas 2:18, Jas 2:19
(2) Second point: Even the devils believe (). How worthless, then, must be faith () alone!
Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say ( ). The objection in 1Co 15:35 is introduced by precisely the same words. It is somewhat difficult to see their drift here, as what follows cannot be an objection, for it is just the position which St. James himself adopts. The formula must, therefore, be taken as introducing the perfectly fair retort to which the man who gives utterance to the sentiments of verse 16 lays himself open. Without thy works. Instead of (, A, B, C, Latt., Syriac, Coptic), the Received Text has the manifestly erroneous reading (K, L), in which it is happily not followed by the A.V.
Jas 2:19
(1) “Thou believest that God is one,” R.V., reading : or
(2) “Thou believest that there is one God,” A.V. and R.V. margin, reading . The reading, and by consequence the translation, must be considered somewhat doubtful, as scarcely any two uncials read the words in precisely the same order. The illustration is taken from the central command of the Old Testament (Deu 6:4), indicating that the ease of Jews is under consideration. The following quotations from the Talmud will show the importance attached by the Jews to this command. It is said (‘Berachoth,’ fol. 13, 6) that whoever in repeating it “prolongs the utterance of the word ‘One,’ shall have his days and years prolonged to him.” Again we are told that when Rabbi Akibah was martyred he died uttering this word “One;” and then came a Bath Kol, which said, “Blessed art thou, Rabbi Akibah, for thy soul and the word ‘One’ left thy body together.”
Jas 2:20-24
(3) Third point: Proof from the example of Abraham that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. In Gen 15:6 we read of Abraham that “he believed in the Lord; and he accounted it to him for righteousness” (LXX., , quoted by St. Paul in Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). But years after this we find that God “tested Abraham” (Gen 22:1). To this trial St. James refers as that by which Abraham’s faith was “perfected” (), and by which the saying of earlier years found a more complete realization (cf. Ecclesiasticus 44:20, 21, “Abraham kept the Law of the Most High, and was in covenant with him and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed,” etc).
Jas 2:20
Faith without works is dead. The Received Text, followed by the A.V., reads , with , A, C3, K, L, Syriac, Vulgate (Clementine). The Revisers, following B, C1, if, read , “barren” (so Vulgate Amiat. by a correction, otiosa).
Jas 2:23
And he was called the Friend of God. The expression comes from Isa 41:8; 2Ch 20:7 (in the Hebrew, ; LXX., ). The same title, , is given to Abraham by Clement of Rome (‘Ad Corinthians,’ 10.; 17), and was evidently a standing one among the Jews. Philo actually in one instance quotas Gen 18:17 as instead of . Illustrations from later rabbinical writers may be found in Wetstein, and cf. Bishop Lightfoot on ‘Clement of Rome,’ p. 61. To this day it is said that Abraham is known among the Arabs as El Khalil, equivalent to “the Friend.”
Jas 2:25
(4) Fourth point: Proof from the case of Rahab the harlot of justification by works (cf. Jos 2:1-24.; Jos 6:25). Rahab is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament in Heb 11:31, where she also appears as , and is spoken of as having “received the spies,” cf. here. There, however, she is regarded as an instance of faith (see above in preliminary note). The only other place where her name occurs is in the genealogy of our Lord, in Mat 1:5, “Salmon begat Booz of Rachab ( ).“
Jas 2:26
Conclusion of the whole matter: “As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.”
HOMILETICS
Jas 2:1-13 -1
Respect of persons is inconsistent with the first principles of Christianity.
1. One great function of Christianity was to create a sphere in which there should be neither Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor barbarian, bond nor free. “All equal are within the Church’s gate” is true, not only of the material building, but equally of the spiritual fabric of the Catholic Church, which, like her Divine Head, is no respecter of persons. Bengel well remarks that the equality of Christians, indicated by the name “brethren” (Jas 2:1), is the foundation of the admonition with which the chapter opens.
2. St. James gives but one instance of the kind of respect of persons which is forbidden, viz. the respect shown to the rich in assemblies of Christians for worship. Other forms of the same sin are common enough and are equally reprehensible, e.g. the homage paid to a man in society because he is rich, without regard to his character and moral worth. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that Christianity accepts as a fact class distinctions, and that we are bidden to give “honor to whom honor is due.” “The Christian religion allows not that contempt for even earthly dignities affected by some of her followers, but springing more from envy and unruliness than aught besides. True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this Scripture, but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf” (Punchard).
3. Respect of persons, regard to outward appearances, the gold ring and the gay clothing, evince not merely evil thinking but want of faith (verse 4); i.e. a halting between God, who is no respecter of persons, and the world, which judges only by that which is external. How foolish also to regard the persons of men, when the object of our faith is the Lord of glory himself!
Jas 2:5
Worldly poverty is by no means inconsistent with true riches
rather it is often accompanied by them, for “God chose the poor as to the world to be rich in faith;” not as if poverty were necessarily accompanied by goodness, or as if all the rich were rejected. But “not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called;” while “the poor,” as a class, “have the gospel preached to them.” It has been well said that “the temptations of riches assumed in that age very gross forms of sensuality or of greed; but do they become less dangerous by losing a portion of their grossness?”
Jas 2:10
The obedience which God requires is absolute.
“Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Why, since the breach of but one command is certainly not as sinful as the breach of all? Because
(1) “the principle of duty and of obedience to all the commandments is one; so that if we choose for ourselves nine commandments to keel), and one to break, we are not doing God’s will, but our own;
(2) all the precepts are alike expressions of one Divine will, and rest on one authority;
(3) all the precepts are manifestations of love at worklove first to God, and then to our neighbor; and each particular failure shows defect in this” (Dean Scott). “A garment is torn, though you only take away one piece of it; a harmony in music is spoiled if only one voice be out of tune” (Starke). The perfect figure of the circle is marred by a flaw in any one part of it. So to break one command out of all is to violate the whole principle of obedience. Thus men have no right to pick and choose which commandments they will keep, or to
“Compound for sins they are inclined to,
By damning those they have no mind to.”
As Christians, we are not entitled to bow down in the house of Rimmon, nor does the strictest obedience to one command give us a dispensation to break another; e.g. spotless chastity on the part of the unfallen will not atone for Pharisaism and harshness to the fallen, for “if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.”
Jas 2:13
The character of mercy.
The most suggestive commentary on this verse may be found in Shakespeare’s lines
“The quality of mercy is not strain’d;
It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptered sway,
It is enthroned in the heart of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.”
(‘Merchant of Venice,’ act 4. so. 1)
Jas 2:14-26
Faith and works.
I. THE HOLLOWNESS OF PROFESSION WITHOUT PRACTICE; of a mere orthodox creed without the deeds of love, which are as the fruits by which the tree is known. There is no reason to think that the Pharisee of the one parable was unorthodox, or that Dives in another was a heretic; but the faith of each of these was worthless, because not a “faith which worketh by love.” The good Samaritan was a stranger and an alien, but did by nature the deeds of the Law; and thus (although “salvation is of the Jews”) is held up for an example. The barren fig tree stands forth as the type of profession without practicea great show of foliage, the ordinary sign that marked the presence of fruit, but after all “nothing but leaves.” So is the man who says to his destitute brother, “Depart in peace, get warmed and filled,” but gives him none of those things which be needful for the body; and the fate of the fig tree is a warning to all ages of the danger in which such stand.
II. THE NEED OF WORKS.
1. In the case of Abraham his faith was perfected by his obedience.
2. Rahab the harlot was justified by works. Works are necessary for all Christians, wherever they are possible,
(1) as the fruits of faith, and
(2) as the evidences that the faith is genuine.
Hence judgment by works is expressly taught in the New Testament. So in the Athanasian Creed, “They that have done good shall go into life everlasting,” etc.
III. On the apparent difference between the teaching of St. James and of St. Paul, see Farrar’s ‘Early Days of Christianity,’ vol. 2. p. 99. “We may thank God that the truth has been revealed to us under many lights; and that by a diversity of gifts the Spirit ministered to each apostle severally as he would, inspiring the one to deepen our spiritual life by the solemn truth that works cannot justify apart from faith, and the other to stimulate our efforts after a holy life by the no less solemn truth that faith cannot justify us unless it be the living faith which is shown’ by works. There is in the diversity a deeper unity. The Church, thank God, is ‘Circumamicta varietatibus’clothed in raiment of many hues. St. Paul had dwelt prominently on faith; St. Peter dwells much on hope; St. John insists most of all on love. But the Christian life is the synthesis of these Divine graces, and the works of which St. James so vehemently impresses the necessity, are works which are the combined result of operative faith, of constraining love, and of purifying hope.”
HOMILIES BY C. JERDAN
Jas 2:1-7
Respect of persons.
In the closing sentences of the preceding chapter James has been speaking of the true cultus or ritual of the Church; and here he warns his readers against a violation of it which they were in danger of committing, and of which indeed they had been already guilty, even when assembled for public worship.
I. THE EVIL HERE CONDEMNED. (Verse 1) It is that of Pharisaic contempt of the poor. The apostle does not, of course, mean that social distinctions are nowhere to be recognized by God’s people. The Scriptures teach no such doctrine. Bather they enjoin Christians to “render honor to whom honor is due” (Rom 13:7). In ordinary society we are to act with manly deference towards our superiors, whether they be such in age, rank, office, knowledge, wealth, or influence. The apostle refers in this exhortation to the spiritual sphere. He urges that within the sacred circle of our Church life respect is to be paid to religious character, and not to material wealth. A true pure faith in “the Lord of glory” is incompatible with the entire spirit of snobbery, and especially with the maintenance of unchristian distinctions of caste within the Church. The British Churches of the nineteenth century unhappily need the warning of this passage almost as much as the congregations of the Dispersion in the apostolic age (see Kitto’s ‘Daily Bible Illustrations,’ vol. 1. twelfth week, first day).
II. A PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL. (Verses 2, 3) The case supposed is in all respects an extreme one; yet how correctly it depicts human nature! It presents the thought of “the influences of clothes,” or that “society is founded upon cloth” (Carlyle). The deference paid to the gold-ringed man in presence of the congregation is described with dramatic realism. A cordial welcome greets him when he caters, and he is conducted fussily to a principal seat; while the poor man in the squalid clothing is coldly pointed to a place where he may stand, or at most is permitted to sit in an uncomfortable comer. The apostle’s graphic picture suggests to the thoughtful reader other examples of the same sin. We shall mention only one or two. The arrangements for seating a congregation amongst ourselves sometimes show “respect of persons,” as in the case of an elevated and luxurious pew for the lord of the manor. Ministers in the pulpit are tempted to avoid enforcing practical duties too pointedly, lest their exhortations and reproofs should be unpalatable to influential families. Church courts are sometimes prone to mete out different measures to different classes of offenders. Congregations have been known to elect men of substance to spiritual office, rather than those who possessed the requisite qualifications of mind and character; and, on the other hand, members of Churches are sometimes actuated by mean jealousy of a wealthy fellow-worshipper, even to such an extent that they would fain, were it possible, abridge his liberty in the exercise of his ordinary rights as a member of the congregation. In these and many other ways Christian people have often shown themselves to be “evil-thinking judges,” and have thereby entailed upon the Church much mischief and damage.
III. THE GROUNDS OF THE CONDEMNATION. The apostle’s reproof is faithful, but it is also affectionately tender (verses 1, 5). He indicates from various points of view the wrongfulness of the partiality which he is denouncing.
1. Mere earthly distinctions should be indiscernible in the presence of “the Lord of glory.“ (Verse 1) There is an argument in the very use here of this great title. Worldly distinctions of wealth and rank should be dwarfed into nothingness before our minds when we realize that those who assemble in the house of God are the guests of “the Lord of glory.”
2. Respect of persons is inconsistent with sound Christian principle. (Verse 4) The believer “looks at the things which are not seen;” and he ought not to do so with a wavering mind or a vacillating will. Ecclesiastical servility towards the rich is a form of mammon-worship; while the one power which the Church should exalt is that of character.
3. “God is no respecter of persons.“ (Verse 5) The New Testament rings with declarations of this truth. “The Lord of glory,” when he lived on earth, was no sycophant of the rich. He was himself a poor man. He chose the poor rather than the rich to possess spiritual means in his kingdom. In “dishonoring the poor man,” therefore, the Church was despising one for whom Christ died, and a possible heir of the heavenly glory.
4. The rich as a class had been the enemies both of Christ and his people. (Verses 6, 7) With a few noble exceptions, the upper classes persecuted the Christians in the days of the apostles. They harassed them with lawsuits. They slandered them before the judges. They cursed the blessed Name of Christ which it is the mission of the Church to exalt. It was, therefore, contrary to “the spirit of a sound mind” to court the rich. To do so showed a deficiency of common sense. It indicated a lack of self-respect. And, above all, it was disloyal to the blessed Name.C.J.
Jas 2:8-11
Stumbling in one point.
In these verses James takes the high ground that “respect of persons” is a transgression of the law by which we are to be judged; anal one which, like every other, involves the guilt of breaking the whole law.
I. TO RESPECT PERSONS IS TO COMMIT SIN. (Verses 8, 9) It involves disobedience to “the royal law.“ This is a noticeable expression. Any Divine commandment may be described as “royal,” seeing that it emanates from the supreme Sovereign of the universe. Rather, however, may the moral law receive this epithet because it is regal in its own character. God’s law is the law of love; and love is kingly. The Divine nature itself is the foundation of virtue; and “God is love.” Hence the Divine law is the eternal rule and final standard of rectitude. It possesses supreme excellence and supreme authority. Every other system of legislation, and all other rules of duty, ought to be subordinate to “the royal law.” This law, we know, cannot be unjust; for it is a transcript of the moral perfection of the Divine nature, and is therefore the Alpha and Omega of all laws. The royal law is to be fulfilled “according to the Scripture;” for, while its ultimate source is in the nature of God, the one authoritative record of it to which sinful men have access is to be found in the Bible. We must consult “the law and the testimony” if we would ascertain the edicts of the great King, and learn the “newness of the spirit” in which these are to be obeyed. God’s Word lays bare before us our half-buried and forgotten moral convictions; it restores the weather-worn inscriptions upon the gravestones of our sin-dead hearts. The apostle cites, as the great precept which forbids respect of persons, the words of Le 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself“the same precept which our Lord had employed as his summary of the principle underlying the last six commandments. We are to love our neighbor, i.e. any one to whom we have it within our power to become helpful, even although he may be a stranger and a Samaritan. Those who discharge this duty aright “do well.” But, enlightened love for ones neighbor is inconsistent with respect of persons. We may not limit the precept either to our wealthy neighbor or to our poor neighbor. Indeed, to show partiality is not so much to trait the precept as to discard it altogether. Favoritism is the outcome of selfishness, rather than of the love that “seeketh not its own.” Those, therefore, who practice it are not guilty of a trifling impropriety, but of direct and palpable sin, both against the Old Testament law anti “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.”
II. TO TRANSGRESS IN ONE POINT IS TO TRANSGRESS THE WHOLE LAW. (Verses 10, 11) Let no one plead that respect of persons in the Church is so trivial a fault that it ought to be overlooked, especially in view of the social and pecuniary benefits which may be expected to result from it. The apostle assures us that partiality is a sin, and that he who indulges in it disobeys the whole moral law. To unthinking minds this latter assertion may sound very doubtful doctrine, leading them to askIs this statement of the nature of casuistry, or is it sober truth in the form of paradox? Does it not seem contrary to true moral perspective to affirm that a man who is noted for his blameless life “becomes guilty of all” when he “stumbles in one point”? Do not some sins, like some diseases, shut out the possibility of others which lie in an opposite direction? But a little consideration will reveal the deep moral truth of this saying. For:
1. The Lawgiver is one. (Verse 11) Every precept of the law possesses the same Divine authority. The sixth commandment is invested with the same solemn sanctions as the seventh. “God spake all these words.” To disregard any one precept, therefore, is to violate the entire authority by which the whole Law has been ordained. It follows from this that:
2. The Law itself is one. How immeasurably “the royal law” is exalted, in its grand essential unity, above human systems of jurisprudence! The common law of England has to submit to have its defects supplied, and its rigors mitigated, by equity; but how very far yet are our common law and equity and statute law from coalescing into a unity! But the Divine legislation forms a perfect code; for it is a perfect reflection and expression of the mind or’ God. The Bible jurisprudence knows no distinction between law and equity. It is independent of glosses and commentaries. It abhors legal fictions. Having for its Author the God of love, its vital unity is found in the principle of loving obedience. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10). So, to “stumble in one point” is to break the whole law. For, as has been said, the law is a seamless robe, which is torn although only a part be torn; or a musical harmony, which is marred if one voice be singing out of tune; or a necklace of pearls, from which a single pearl cannot be dropped without breaking the string upon which the others hang, and letting them fall to the ground.
3. The spirit of obedience is one. True reverence for the law is inspired by love to the Lawgiver; and therefore obedience is impartial, and strives to be perfect. Our first parents, in eating the forbidden fruit, fell from the spirit of obedience, and dishonored the whole law. In like manner, the man who habitually breaks one of the commandments shows that in principle he is disloyal, and that he would transgress any other precept were he exposed to similar temptation to do so.
CONCLUSION. We should not be able to contemplate this subject without being impressed with such considerations as these:
1. The obligation which rests upon us to render perfect obedience to the law of God.
2. The impossibility of our doing so in our own strength, or during the present life.
3. The necessity of clothing ourselves with the righteousness of Christ.C.J.
Jas 2:12, Jas 2:13
Law and judgment.
In these weighty words James reminds his readers that they are on their way to a dread tribunal where they shall be judged according to their works, and where with what measure they mete it shall be measured to themselves.
I. THE CERTAINTY OF JUDGMENT. The apostle takes the fact for granted. This certainty is attested by:
1. Human nature, Man possesses intuitively the conviction of his moral responsibility. Conscience anticipates even now the sentence which shall proceed from the bar of God. If he be not our Judge, the deepest dictates of morality are illusions.
2. Divine providence. While there is abundant evidence that the world is under moral government, it is also plain that there are many inequalities which require adjustment. The world is full of unredressed wrongs and undiscovered crimes. Providence itself, therefore, points to a day of rectifications.
3. The Word of God. The Bible everywhere represents the Eternal as a moral Governor; and the New Testament in particular describes the final judgment as a definite future event which is to take place at the second advent of Christ.
II. THE STANDARD OF JUDGMENT. The poor heathen, since they sin without law, shall be judged without law. Those who possess the Bible shall be tried by the higher standard of that written revelation. Believers in Christ, however, shall be “judged by a law of liberty” (verse 12). This law is, of course, just the moral law viewed in the light of gospel privilege. In the Decalogue, the form which the law assumes is one of outward constraint. As proclaimed from Sinai, it constituted really “an indictment against the human race;” and it was surrounded there with most terrible sanctions. But now, to the Christian, the law comes bound up with the gospel; and the power of gospel grace within the heart places him on the side of the law, and makes it the longer the more delightful for him to obey it. In the believer’s ear the law no longer thunders, “Thou shalt not.” To him “love is the fulfillment of the law.” The commandments, being written now upon his heart, are no longer “grievous” (1Jn 5:3). The law has become to him “a law of liberty.”
III. THE SUBJECT–MATTER OF JUDGMENT. “So speak ye, and so do” (verse 12). The standard will be applied to our words and to our actions. The apostle has already touched upon the government of the tongue in Jas 1:19, Jas 1:26; and he has dealt with practical conduct in the intervening verses. His teaching here is an echo of that of the Lord Jesus upon the same theme (Mat 12:34-37; Mat 7:21-23). A man’s habits of speech and action are always a true index of his moral state. If we compare human character to a tree, words correspond to its leaves, deeds to its fruit, and thoughts to its root underground. Words and actions will be judged in connection with “the counsels of the hearts” of which they are the exponents.
IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDGMENT. (Jas 1:13) This doctrine of merciless judgment to the unmerciful is enunciated in many parts of Scripture. It receives especial prominence in the teaching of our Lord (Mat 5:7; Mat 6:12, Mat 6:14, Mat 6:15; Mat 7:1; Mat 18:23-35). We can never, of course, merit eternal life by cherishing a compassionate spirit. But, since mercy or love is the supreme element in the character of God, it is plain that those who do not manifest active pity towards others have not themselves been renewed into his image, and are therefore unsaved. The purpose of the gospel is to restore man’s likeness to God, who “is love;” so that the man who exhibits no love shows that he has not allowed the gospel to exercise its sanctifying power within him, and he shall therefore be condemned for rejecting it. But the medal has another side; for the apostle adds, “Mercy glorieth against judgment.” This seems to mean that the tender-hearted and actively compassionate follower of Christ need not fear the final judgment. His mercifulness is an evidence that he is himself a partaker of the mercy of God in Christ. He shall lift up his head with joy when he stands before the bar of Heaven (Mat 25:34-40). His Judge will be the Lord Jesus, over whose cradle and at whose cross mercy and judgment met together. God himself, in order to effect our redemption, sheathed the sword of justice in the heart of mercy; and his redeemed people, in their intercourse with their fellow-men, learn to imitate him by cultivating the spirit of tenderness and forgiveness. Thus it is an axiom in the world of grace, acted on both by God and by his people, that “mercy glorieth against judgment.”C.J.
Jas 2:14-19
Works the test of faith.
God has joined faith and works together; but perverse human nature will insist upon putting them asunder. In the apostolic age, Paul met with many people who made works everything, to the neglect of faith; and James met with others who made faith everything, to the neglect of works.. In our time, too, multitudes outside the Church are saying that good conduct is the one thing needful, while orthodoxy of creed is comparatively unimportant.
“For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight;
His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.”
(Pope)
Within the Church, on the other hand, many are clinging to a lifeless formal faitha faith which assents to theological propositions, but which does not influence dispositions. This latter error the apostle here exposes and refutes.
I. THE INSUFFICIENCY OF A BARREN FAITH. (Verse 14) The case supposed is not that of a hypocrite, but of a self-deceiver. The man has faith, of a sort; but it is only the cold assent of the intellect. It does not purify his heart, or renew his will, or revolutionize his moral nature, as saving faith always does. Its weakness is seen in the fact that it is unproductive. It does not stir up its possessor to any habit of self-denial or of sympathetic benevolence. This faith coexists, perhaps, with respect of persons (verses 1-13); or with an unbridled tongue, or a passionate temper, or a disposition to decline accepting the blame of one’s own sins (Jas 1:1-27). How many persons who “say they have faith” by assuming the responsibilities of Church membership, yet “have not works”! How many do not observe family prayer, or impart religious instruction to their children, or make any real sacrifice of their means for Christ’s cause, or devote themselves to any personal effort to advance his kingdom! James asks concerning such inoperative faithCui bono? And the answer is, that no good use can be made of it. The faith which does not fill one’s heart with love to God, and which does not produce practical sympathy towards one’s fellow-men, is a spurious, worthless, bastard faith. Such a faith not only leaves its possessor unsaved, but increases the moral deterioration which shall make him the longer the less worth saving.
II. EVIDENCE ADDUCED TO SHOW THIS INSUFFICIENCY. (Verses 15-19)
1. An illustrative case. (Verses 15-17) It is the bitterest mockery for a man who is himself living in ease and comfort to say to his shivering starving brother, when he sends him away empty-handed, “Depart in peace; do not give way to despondency; God has said he will never forsake his people; he shall give his angels charge concerning you; and I myself will pray for you. ‘Sentimental professions of sympathy which have no outcome of practical help do not “profit“ either person. They tempt the destitute man to become a misanthrope; and they ruin the moral health of the false sympathizer (1Jn 3:16-18). Mere lip-charity is not true charity; and a professed faith which is palpably barren of good works “is dead in itself.”
2. A direct challenge. (Verse 18) This challenge is represented as offered by a true and consistent believer. He defies the professing Christian who divorces faith from practice, to exhibit his faith apart from works. He says in effect, “A believer is to ‘let his light shine.’ Well, I point to the new life which I am living as the appropriate manifestation of my faith; but, since you neglect good works, it is for you to indicate how you can manifest your faith otherwise.” A faith which produces no works is unable to show itself; therefore it is not true faith at all.
3. An actual example. (Verse 19) Should any professing Christian of “the Dispersion” have been pluming himself upon his correct theology and. his notional faith, here was a solemn warning to him. Should he have been resting satisfied with the thought that, living in the midst of polytheism, he was holding fast by the Hebrew doctrine of the unity of God, this verse would remind him of the profitlessness of such a conviction, unless it; expanded into the blossoms and fruits of holiness. “The demons believe,” and yet they remain demons. The unclean spirits whom Jesus exorcised had plenty of head-knowledge and head-faith about both God and Christ; but their faith was of a kind that made them “shudder” with terror when they realized the great verities. Being a merely intellectual credence, it could not cleanse the soul; it could only produce the “fear” which “hath punishment.”
Learn, in conclusion, that “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” True saving faith not only asks, with Paul, “Who art thou, Lord?” but with him also passes from that question to this other, “What shall I do, Lord?”C.J.
Jas 2:20-26
Justification by faith and works.
The meaning of this notable passage has been much contested, because its teaching seems to many minds to contradict the doctrine of justification by faith. It was this apparent antagonism which led Martin Luther for a time to denounce the whole Epistle of James as a mere handful of “straw.” Since his day, however, good men have been coming more and. more to see that Paul and James, so far from opposing one another, are in reality presenting different sides of the same great truth. Paul, in Romans and Galatians, fights against self-righteousness; James, in this Epistle, contends against formalism and licentiousness. James’s “faith without works” is not the justifying faith of Rom 3:28“working through love;” it is rather the useless faith without love of which Paul speaks in 1Co 13:1-13. The two apostles, as we understand the matter, both treat of the same justification, but they do not contemplate it from the same point of view. Paul looks at justification metaphysically, in its essence as meaning acceptance with God on the ground of the righteousness of Christ; while James views it practically, in its vital connection with sanctification, and its efflorescence in a holy life. The “works” of James are just the “faith” of Paul developed in action. In the verses before us, James continues his illustration of the operative fruit-bearing nature of justifying faith. He adduces two examples from the Old Testament Scriptures.
I. THE EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM. (Verses 21-23) It is remarkable that Paul employs the same illustration in setting forth the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and that he appeals also to the identical Old Testament statement (Gen 15:6) here quoted respecting Abraham’s acceptance (Rom 4:1-25.; Gal 3:6, Gal 3:7). Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith before Isaac was born; while James says that he was “justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar” (verse 21). But James is careful to add, that in this crowning manifestation of his piety the patriarch’s faith co-operated with his works. The confidence which Abraham had reposed in God for so many years was the very life of his obedience to the dreadful command to kill his only son; and. the reflex influence of his victorious passage through such an awful ordeal was that his strong trust in God was still further strengthened and “made perfect” (verse 22). Abraham’s faith alone had been “reckoned unto him for righteousness” ever since the day when he first “went out, not knowing whither he went;” but the longer that he persevered in believing, and kept adding practical virtues to his faith, his original justification was the more confirmed. So, as good works are vitally connected with saving faithbeing, in fact, wrapped up within it in germ from the beginningAbraham may be said to have been “justified by works.” The faith which saved him was a works-producing faith. And he was so greatly distinguished for the fruitfulness of his faith that he became known in Hebrew history as “the friend of God.”
II. THE EXAMPLE OF RAHAB. (Verse 25) Her case seems to have been selected because it was so unlike the preceding. Abraham was a Jew, and the father of the chosen nation; Rahab was a heathen woman. Abraham had for many years received a special training in the school of faith; Rahab had enjoyed no training at all. Abraham was a good and pure man; Rahab had lived a loose and sensual life. Yet this degraded Canaanite obtained “like precious faith” with the illustrious patriarch. The same two Old Testament examples are cited also in Heb 11:1-40.; and certainly they take rank as the two extreme cases selected for special mention in that chapter. The contrast is useful as showing that, invariably, good works are found flowing from a living faith. The object of Rahab’s belief is expressed in her own words in Jos 2:9-11; and her strenuous exertions for the safety of the two spies, made at the risk of her life, bring her faith into prominence, as “working with her works.”
CONCLUSION. In Jos 2:20 the apostle begins the paragraph with a restatement of his thesis; and in Jos 2:24 and 26, after presenting the scriptural examples respectively, he introduces a triumphant “Q.E.D” He has shown that the faith which lies only in the cold assent of the intellect to a system of divinity is more like a lifeless corpse than a living man (verse 26). Truly saving faith consists in such a warm personal trust of the heart as will manifest itself in a life of holy obedience. So the ethical in religion ought never to be divorced from the evangelical. Every Christian minister should preach many sermons on distinctively moral subjects, taking care, however, that such discourses are informed with gospel motives. And every member of the Church should practice in the market-place and the workshop the morality of the Sermon on the Mountnot simply because a holy life is the appropriate evidence of faith, but rather because it is the great end in order to which the believer’s faith is reckoned fur righteousness.C.J.
HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER
Jas 2:1-13
Respect of persons.
Amongst the other evils of which these Christian Jews were guilty, was the gross evil of respect of persons. James presents the scene graphically, according to his wont. There is the synagogue, with the worshippers gathering for worship, some taking the good places, as it were the chancel-seats, near to the ark with the roll of the Law, and to the table of the Lord; some the lower seats, away from the speaker anti the Word. When, lo, a rich man enters, some stranger to the place, blazing in Tyrian purple, all embroidered o’er with gold, and heavily laden with jeweled rings. And him the officious ministrants conduct with ostentatious honor to the stalls in the chief part of the synagogue. A poor man enters, likewise a stranger, in squalid garb, and. with some contempt of gesture or of tone the deacon points him to a remote place in the building, or bids him sit below the rich man’s toot-stool on the ground. So did the Christian Church do homage to the pomp and wealth of the world, and despise the poor. Against this practice James levels his rebuke, and shows the inconsistency and the sin of such respect of persons.
I. THE INCONSISTENCY. He points out the inconsistency of such conduct:
1. With their faith. (Verses 1, 4) The faith of Christians is precisely that faculty of their nature by which they discern and espouse spiritual things as distinguished from the things of the world. And in virtue of this faith they are supposed to be raised above the tyranny of world-attractions. The glory of earth does not dazzle them, for their faith has caught the vision of a higher glory, even a heavenly, of which Jesus Christ is Lord. They sit in heavenly places with him. And in virtue of this faith they must estimate a man according to his relation to the invisible world, his relation to Christ and God. There is to them a citizenship, a brotherhood, which takes precedence of all other social claims. How, then, with such a faith, the faith of the Lord of glory, could they be caught with the glitter of rings and of cloth of gold? And how ignore the equal relationships to the spiritual kingdom of God? Their conduct was in utter inconsistency with their belief, their faith; they were double-minded, evil-thoughted judges.
2. Also, with their world-relationships themselves. (Verses 6, 7) For they were in the world, though properly not of it. And what were their relations to the several classes of the world as such? Their relation to the rich was unquestionably that of persecuted and persecutors, of oppressed and oppressors (verse 6). And to such would they cringe and pay homage; to men of such a class? To those likewise who not only oppressed them, but blasphemed the name by which they were called (verse 7)? The inconsistency of their conduct, then, was sufficiently glaring: they were inconsistent with their professed faith, double-minded, trimming between the world and God; and they were inconsistent with their own relation to the world, for they did reverence to that very power which was often turned against themselves, and against the holy Name they bore.
II. THE SIN. All inconsistency may with truth be charged home upon the inconsistent man as being essentially sinful. But the inconsistent conduct of these Jews was more directly and immediately open to that charge, as being a breach of the royal law, the law of love.
1. The specific sin, i.e. the particular aspect which the sin of uncharity assumed in this special case.
(1) Want of regard for the spiritual interests of the poor. They were brothers in their common need, but these had not treated them as such. The most commanding claim of one on the love and help of another, that of spiritual necessity, had been almost ignored.
(2) Want of considerate tenderness for their special lowliness of estate. The greater their want, the greater should be the regard of Christians for them. So God’s special regard for them (verse 5). So God in Christ (Mat 11:5).
2. The generic sin, i.e. its general nature, as uncharity, apart from this special manifestation.
(1) Transgression of the law of a Kinghis will disregarded.
(2) Transgression of a kingly lawthe sway of the principle destroyed. Viewed either way, it loses its character of isolated transgression, of a particular fault, and runs up into the dark character of sin! And all sin is essentially one. As has been said, it is “only accident, or fear, or the absence of temptation, that prevents our transgressing” other commandments also (Plumptre); potentially, when one is broken all are broken. Yes; adultery, murder, and all other deadly evil. “Guilty of all.”
The conclusion of all is, “With what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again.” A law of liberty, but not of liberty to sin. And if we disregard the law that should make us free, for us there is, not love, but judgment. A merciless judgment, if we have been merciless. But if, on the other hand, our hearts have been loving, and. our lives merciful, through the faith of Christ, then judgment shall be disarmed, and we shall learn what those words mean, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”T.F.L.
Jas 2:14-26
Faith and works.
The supposed antagonism between Paul and James. Misapprehension. Paul’s great argument is that, not by seeking to fulfill an impossible righteousness do we make ourselves just before God, but by acknowledging our sin and accepting his salvation. James’s argument is, that the very faith which saves us is a faith which brings forth after-fruits, or it is not true faith at all. So, then, the “works” to which the one refers are works done with a view to salvation, that God’s favor may be won by them; the works to which the other refers are works springing out of salvation, because God’s favor has been so freely and graciously bestowed. Let us study James’s presentation of this truthfaith as a mere profession; faith as a practical principle.
I. FAITH AS A MERE PROFESSION. All profession which is mere profession is vain, and worse than vain. This needs no proving, and therefore James, in his usual graphic style, illustrates rather than proves the truth.
1. The faith of mere profession is a mockery. (Verses 15, 16) Picture the scene which he supposes: “If a brother or sister be naked,” etc. What mockery! So is it possible for our “faith“ to be a consummate caricature of the truths we profess to hold. Take, e.g., the central creed of our religion: “I believe in God the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost.” What does this mean to us? That we live to God as our Father, by the grace of his salvation, and through the power of his Spirit? Or are these mere names to us? The world knows. And better no professed faith at all than a faith which is belied by all our life.
2. The faith of mere profession is but the dead semblance of the living thing. (Verses 17, 20, 26) Take the living man, and you have spirit, expressing itself in body, and actuating the body in all the active movements of the outer life. But mere body? A ghastly, pseudo-expression, not real; and no movement, no life. The spirit, the living principle, is gone! The analogy: what the spirit is to the expression of the spirit in the bodily form, and to the movements of active life which are carried on through the bodily instrumentality, that faith is to the profession of faith which shows it forth to men, and to the works by which it lives and moves in the world. But mere profession? Corpse-like! For there is no quickening principle there, and consequently no movement of life. So our creeds may be dead bodies, not instinct with any quickening principle, not bringing forth any fruits.
3. The faith of mere profession may consist with the deepest damnation. (Verse 19) Orthodoxy? You have it there! But to what result? A shuddering! Oh, let us learn this: a truth that is not wrought into the life is no truth to us; nay, it may but ensure our speedier and more dreadful ruin! Who are the atheists of the present day? Who the Christless ones? To whom was it said, “Thou, which art exalted unto heaven,” etc. (Mat 11:23)? Let us learn, that the belief which now we trifle with, and glibly profess, may one day make us shudder!
II. FAITH AS A PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE. “Can that faith save him?” No, indeed; impossible per se! For whatever saves us must change us; and therefore the faith must he, not mere profession, but vital principle. True faith is trust; what we believe we live by. And faith in Christ, being a trustful surrender to Christ, is essentially operative. It must work; if it have not the “promise and potency” of work, it is not faith at all.
1. Faith manifested by works. (Verse 18) So far as there are true works, there is virtually true faith in the Christ of the heart, with whatever error mingled. We are warranted by Christ’s own words in saying this: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Mat 7:16-20). So, then, true works are an evidence to all of the true faith from which alone they can spring. But the converse is true: a lack of works is sure proof of a lack of faith.
2. Faith justifying by works. (Verses 21, 23, 24, 25) Only in so far as the faith is vital and operative does it justify, though the works themselves are really the outcome of the faith, or, more strictly, the result of the salvation of which the faith lays hold. James does not use the phrase, “justified by works,” with metaphysical precision, but rather for broad, popular effect; and what he really means is, “justified by a working faith.” Mingled with this, there may be likewise the idea in his mind, according to verse 18 (see above), “accredited to the world as a justified man.” So Abraham; so Rahab.
3. Faith perfected by works. (Verse 22)
(1) Perfected as a principle by coming to a practical issuefor this the true natural history of all principles of action. Compare the passing of a law and its ultimate application.
(2) Perfected as a principle in itself, by the reaction upon it of its own exercise. For this the law of all exercise: the muscle, the brain. So faith itself the stronger for the very works which it originates and sustains. Abraham again.
All which, being translated into perhaps more experimental language, means, “Christ in you;” and the Christ within must live and wink (Gal 2:1-21.-20), May the faith that appropriates such a life be ours!T.F.L.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Jam 2:1. With respect of persons. The word signifies the respect of persons in judgment, not purely according to the merits of the cause, but according to external respects which relate not to it. As for instance, 1st, The dread of any man’s power, or the fear of what he may do to us if we judge against him. See Lev 19:15. Deu 1:17. Or, 2nd, The poverty of any man, which renders him less able to suffer punishment or loss. See Exo 3:3 rdly, It is respecting persons in judgment, if we favour a cause by reason of any gift or hope of gain. See Deu 16:19. Or, 4thly, By reason of relation, affinity, friendship, or affection. In spiritual or evangelical matters, it is to have respect to men, in reference to things which render them neither better nor worse, neither more nor less acceptable in the sight of God. As for instance, To respect them, 1st, in regard to their nation or their offspring. See Act 10:34-35 for God will have no respect to nations, or external professions, in his future recompences. See Rom 6:9-10. Or, 2nd, With respect to their condition, as being masters or servants. See Eph 6:9. Col 3:25. 1Pe 1:17. Or, 3rdly, To their quality. This is the thing here censured,not as it respects the due subordination of ranks, which is necessary to the existence of society, but merely as it regards judicial matters; and in this latter and only true sense, the rule may be carried in its essence and spirit into every department of religious, civil, social, and domestic life.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jas 2:1 . In close connection with the thought contained in chap. Jas 1:27 , that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love.
After the impressive address , he first expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger regards the clause as interrogative, remarking: interrogationis formam sensus gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the interrogation with may not always require a negative answer, yet it is only used when the interrogator, with every inclination, to regard something as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case; comp. Winer, p. 453 f. [E. T. 641]; Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the fact mentioned in what follows, the of the readers, was undoubtedly true. is thus imperative, as Jas 1:16 , Jas 3:1 .
The plural is used because the author thinks on individual concrete instances in which the general fault manifested itself (Hornejus: multiplex illud malum in vita est); comp. Col 3:22 ; 2Pe 3:12 . For the explanation of (only here and in Rom 2:11 ; Eph 6:9 ; Col 3:25 ), foreign to classical Greek, see Mat 22:16 ; Luk 20:21 ; Gal 2:6 (see Meyer in loc .); from the O. T. Lev 19:15 ; Deu 1:17 , and other places (the verb , Jas 2:9 ; the adjective, Act 10:34 ). The phrase . is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as , , (Rom 1:28 ), for James intends not to reproach his readers, that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith free from . Also does not stand for , whether in the meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut captivam et inefficacem); but expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your faith, so that it is as it were enclosed in , i.e. combined with it. Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a distinction of persons according to their external relations.
De Wette’s opinion is incorrect, that here is to be understood of “the management of the concerns of faith.”
Faith is more exactly described as ]. Most expositors (particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, de Wette, Brckner, Wiesinger) take as a genitive of object, and make , as a second genitive (besides ), dependent on ; thus: “the faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ.” Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory (comp. 1Co 2:8 ; Psa 29:3 : ), nor the dependence of two genitives ( and ) on one substantive ( ), see Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238], has anything against it; yet this construction cannot be held to be correct, because the name , which follows , so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend on ; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written either . , , or . . , . . [110] It is evidently an entire mistake to construct with , whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel bonorum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Heisen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make depend on ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus; so also Bouman; also Lange: “the Messiah exalted in His glory above Judaistic expectations.” Decisive against this construction are (1) the close connection of and , as when those two names are so directly united as here, is purely nomen proprium; (2) the N. T. mode of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article before would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions) was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on , and . . . as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: “faith in the glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ, founded on Him,” namely, , Rom 8:18 . This construction, although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler, with Bengel, to regard as in apposition with .; still the idea is too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luk 2:32 , Eph 1:17 , 1Pe 4:14 , Isa 40:5 , are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justification of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite as a genitive of quality, not with only, but with the whole expression . . . ., by which is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are (Luk 16:8 ), (Luk 18:6 ), . At all events, is added in order to mark the contrast between the paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ.
[110] The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is separated from the word which governs it; see Phi 2:10 ; Rom 9:21 ; and Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238]; but in that case the intervening word is never in apposition with the preceding idea, with which it is completely concluded.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
V. THIRD ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE THIRD FORM OF TEMPTATION. EBIONITE CONDUCT
CAUTION AGAINST JUDAISTIC PARTIALITY, AGAINST FAVOURING THE RICH (THE JUDAIZING CHRISTIAN) AND DEPRECIATING THE POOR (THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN) IN THEIR CHURCH-LIFE. CONSISTENT PROOF OF FAITH DEMANDED IN THE WORK OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERLY LOVE AND IN THE ACKNOWLEDGING OF UNITY OF FAITH IN THE FAITH-WORK OF ABRAHAB THE PATRIARCH AND IN THE FAITH-WORK OF RAHAB, THE GENTILE HARLOT. DEAD AND LIVING FAITH
James 2
1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2For if there come unto your assembly1 a man with a gold ring,2 in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment: 3And ye have3 respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him,4 Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here5 under my footstool:6 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world,7 rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom8 which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you9 before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10For whosoever shall10 keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11For he that said, Do not commit adultery,11 said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13For he shall have judgment without mercy,12 that 14hath shewed no mercy; and13 mercy rejoiceth against judgment. What doth it profit,14 my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?15 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute16 of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith,17 if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without18 19thy19 works, and I will shew thee20 my faith by my21 works. Thou believest22 that 20there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?23 21Was not Abraham our 22father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with24 his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24Ye see then25 how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers,26 and had sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without27 works is dead also.
Footnotes:
[1] Jam 2:1. Lange: My brethren, do not practise the faith in our lord Jesus, the Christ of glory [the Messiah in His glory exalted above Judaistic expectations] with respectings of persons [personal considerations, partialities.]
[ hold not ye the faith [the Lord] of glory in respecting of persons.M ]
Jam 2:2. . A. G. K., Tischendorf; omit B. C. Sin. al. Lachmann [AlfordM.], an important variation, showing that the reference is not to particular synagogues.
[2] Jam 2:2. [2 =golden-ringed.M.]
Lange: For if there had entered into your common assembly ()a man with a gold fingerring, in a clean splendid garment, but there had also entered a poor man in an unclean garment.
[For if there come into your place of assembly a man with golden rings, etc.M.]
[3]Jam 2:3. . B. C. K. Tischendorf [Alford], is more expressive than A. G. Lachmann.
[4]Jam 2:3. The omission of A. B. C. Sinait. keeps the expression more general and gives it more dogmatical colouring [than its insertion, Rec. K. L. Vulg. and al.M.]
[5] Jam 2:3. inserted in C.** G. K., is omitted by A. B. C.*The addition of in A. Vulg. [Syr.M]. Lachmann, seems to be exegetical and intensive, but may have been dropped owing to a moderation in expression.
Lange: And ye were looking upon [made a looking up, a demonstration of] him who wore the clean splendid garment and should say [to him] [thou], sit thou here on the best place, but should say to the poor, [thou] keep standing here [on the standing place], or sit [here] under [down at] my footstool.
[6] Jam 2:4. omitted before by A. B. C. Sinait, may have been objected to in the apodosis as a striking form, Lange: Did ye not then separate [divide] among ourselves, and become judges according to evil considerations?
[Did ye not distinguish (invidiously) among ourselves etc.M.]
[7]Jam 2:5. Rec. reads ; [A.** C.** K. L. M.]; A.* B. C.* Sin. etc. The variations seem to be exegetical illustrations.
[8] Jam 2:5. For [A. and] Sin.; read .
Lange: hath not God also chosen the poor [according to the world), who are rich in faith, heirs, of the [glorified Messiah] kingdom
[9] Jam 2:6. [For A. Sinait, read .M.]
Lange: [But] is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not just they, who drag you to the courts of judgment?
[Is it not they that drag you into courts of justice?M.]
Jam 2:7. Lange: Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair [glorius] name, which hath been made to you a surname?
[ that glorious name, which was invoked over you?M.]
Jam 2:8. Lange: If indeed ye fulfil [complete under the New Testament] the royal law [the law of the kingdom] according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye act beautifully [conformable to the beautiful name of Christ as Christians].
[If, however, ye fulfil etc.M.]
Jam 2:9. Lange: But if ye practise respect of persons, ye practise sin, convicted by the [very] law as transgressors.
[But if ye respect persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.M.]
[10] Jam 2:10. and , the most authentic readings. So [A. B. C. Sinait.M.] Lachmann, Tischendorf.
Lange: For whosoever should observe in one thing [commandment] the same hath become guilty of all.
[For whosoever shall have kept etc.M.]
[11] Jam 2:11. A. B. C. Sin. have the Present , .
Jam 2:12. [ as those about to be judged by the law of liberty.M.]
[12]Jam 2:13. not , is the true reading. So A. B. C. [K. AlfordM.] Lach., Tisch. On the form, itself and variations of spelling it see Huther.
[13] Jam 2:13. before , found only in minuscule codd; after , is probably also a stylistic insertion; the variations in A. [Vulg.; C.**M.]; are exegetical efforts to render the text more easy. instead of supported by A. B. Tischend. [Alford.M.]
Lange: For the judgment is merciless to him who did not practise mercy, and mercy boasteth [triumphantly] against the judgment [thus Christian mercy triumphantly excels the judging legalistic spirit of Judaism.]
[For the judgment [will be] merciless to him who wrought not mercy. Mercy boasteth [triumpheth] over judgment.M.]
[14] Jam 2:14. , Tischend. following the majority of Codd. Lachmann: . So also in Jam 2:16.
Lange: [what profit doth it bring] if any man were to say that he hath faith, but were to have no works. Faith [in such a case] surely cannot save him?
[ can his faith [ ] save him ?M.]
[15] [Jam 2:15. the most authentic reading; omit B. Sinait.M.]
Lange: But if a brother or sister were naked and bare and destitute of daily food.
[16] Jam 2:16. after in A. G. Lachmann, is unimportant as to sense. Sin. [B. C. K. Syr. Tischend. Alford.M.] omit it.
Lange: And one of you should say to them: Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, but ye were not to give to them those things which are needful to the body what would that profit?
[And some one from among you say to them but ye give them not the necessaries of the body, what is the profit ?M.]
[17] Jam 2:17. [A. B. C. K. Tischend. Alf.M.], is the most authentic and most emphatic reading.
Lange: So also faith, if it has not works, is dead for itself.
[So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself ( .M.]
[18]Jam 2:18. A. B. C. Sin. Lachmann, Tischend. [ Rec. K. L.M.]
[19]Jam 2:18. after omitted by A. B. [Tischend. Alford.M.]
[20]Jam 2:18. after wanting in Vulg. Syr. B. C. It seems to have originated in the parallelism of this sentence with the one preceding it according to its rejected readings.
[21] Jam 2:18. B. C. after [A. K. L. insert it.M.]
Lange: But some one will say [to a man of such faith]: thou hast faith and I have works: show me thy faith without the works [how canst thou do it?] and I will show thee my faith out of [by] the works.
[Nay, some one will say show me thy faith without [apart from] the works, and I will show thee my faith by [out of ] my works.M.]
[22] Jam 2:19. Different readings, Rec. with G. ; A. Sinait. Lachmann, ; B. Tischend. [Alford]: . The strongest emphasis of A is also the most probable.
Lange: Thou believest [the article of the law and of doctrine] that God is one: that thou doest well therein; the evil spirits [the demons] also believe that and shudder.
[23] Jam 2:20. A. C.**G. K. [Rec. Vulg. Copt.M.], opposed by in B. C* etc.; the latter more probable (Lachm. and Tischend. support it) because the former seems to have been occasioned by Jam 2:17.
Lange: But wilt thou know it, O empty man! that faith without works is useless [inefficient]?
[ that faith without [apart from] the works is useless [bootless. Alford]?M.]
Jam 2:21. Lange: justified [proved righteous] by works [out of works] when he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar of sacrifice [Genesis 22]?
[ When he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar.M.]
[24] Jam 2:22. [ A. Sinait.M.]
Lange: Thou seest that his faith was energetically joined with his works [was manifested as one with his works] and that faith was completed by works [out of works].
[Thou seest that faith was working together with his works and that by [] works faith was made complete.
Jam 2:23. Lange: And thus also was fulfilled righteousness [in justification proper Gen 15:6.]
[25] Jam 2:24. wanting in A. B. C. Sin. [Tisch. AlfM.] etc.
Lange: Ye see [therefore] that by [out of] works man is justified [proved righteous as man] etc.
[26] Jam 2:25. , C. G. seems to be taken from Heb 11:31.
Lange: and sent them forth by another way.
[27] Jam 2:26. [ , B. Sinait.M.]
Lange: For as the body without spirit etc.
1. Jam 2:1-13
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Analysis: Caution against partiality in the Christian Church-life, that is against the Ebionitizing preference of the Jewish Christian and putting back of the Gentile Christian, in connection with the demand of the proof of faith in the exhibition of brotherly love.Leading points: Reference to the abolition of respect of persons by the Christ of glory.Ebionite conduct in a parable, Jam 2:1-4.Reference to the faith of the poor (in a symbolical sense) as well as to the unbelief of the rich (cf. Mat 22:1-10), Jam 2:5-7.True fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the whole law in the royal commandment of love, as well as the damnable transgression of the whole law in sinning against this commandment, Jam 2:8-13.The true life of faith or faith evinced by the mercy of brotherly love and dead faith illustrated by heartless demeanour, Jam 2:14-17.The proof of faith by the works of faith or the believers justification before the consciousness of the Church; Jam 2:18-19.The two examples of the proof of faith by works as a general example of the unity of the living faith of Jews and Gentiles, Jam 2:20-26.
Caution against partiality in Christian Church-life, that is against Ebionitizing demeanour. The parable of such demeanour. Jam 2:1-4.
Jam 2:1. My brethren, do not practise.The Apostle does not, as is generally supposed, pass from the doctrine of charity to a particular example of charity. If this were so, the example would be ill-chosen, for respect of persons does not violate primarily the duty of charity but the law of justice and equality. He rather passes on to a new form of the temptation.
This clause is not (as Schneckenburger and Kern take it) interrogative, not because the fact in question is beyond all doubt (Huther), for the interrogative form would express this more definitely (is it not so that ye, etc.), but because the form of a warning exhortation makes it imperative. The interrogative construction is inadmissible not only because of the analogy in Jam 1:16 but also on account of the parable which shows the form of the temptation to which they were exposed.
Do not practise: denotes not only, do not hold your faith as if it were shut up in (Huther); still less, do not detain your faith ( Grotius), but still stronger do not hold, cherish it in this form. The faith of fanaticism is not only allied with particularisms but the particularisms constitute its very glory. The Plural points to the ever returning and diversified occurrences of this kind.
The faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ.Different constructions: 1. The faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ (de Wette, Wiesinger, and al.; reference to 1Co 2:8). This construction is inadmissible on account of the position of . 2. taken in a different sense from its ordinary signification=opinion (Calvin: the knowledge of Christ obscured by the respect paid to wealth). Wholly inadmissible, because this mode of expression would be most remarkable and because the faith of Christ itself could not be thus disfigured. 3. etc. Genitive of the subject: the faith, derived from our Lord Jesus Christ, on the glory (Huther). 4. Bengel: is in apposition to Christ ut ipse Christus dicatur . Gloria. Luk 2:32; Eph 1:17 etc. Christ, the glory not sufficiently developed, although the idea that Christ is the Schechinah would otherwise be quite suitable. 5. Laurentius unites with , Christus glori, but Huther objects that this construction would require the Article before . This would however occasion an error as if a twofold Christ were conceivable. In German however we have to emphasize the Article, as far as it is in . The sense is plain: faith in the Christ of glory is incompatible with estimating persons according to carnal respects. See the analogous idea 2Co 5:16 and Eph 2:16-17. Christ in virtue of His exaltation has also acquired the of the unbelieving Jews. See Mat 26:64; Rom 9:5. [But on the whole it seems best, because it is the least forced construction, to govern by , see 1Co 2:8.M.]
Jam 2:2. For if there had entered; gives the reason not of the whole exhortation as such, but of the reference (connected with it) to the glory of Christ, which Luther has made prominent in his free translation; Do not suppose that faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord of glory, suffers respect of persons. The construction which makes the antecedent extend to the end of Jam 2:4 and then makes the consequent begin (Michaelis, Herder etc.) has been justly set aside by Huther; Jam 2:4 is the consequent. The reference of the following exhortation to misconduct in worship has led to the opinion that James is primarily addressing the Church-wardens (Grotius etc). We have already shown that this view over against the grand prophetico-symbolical expression of the Apostle is inadequate The misconduct to which James refers is so general and important as to preclude the literal acceptation of what follows. In the first place it cannot be assumed that such a grievance as that of assigning bad places to the poor had spread throughout the entire Jewish Christian dispersion and in the second, it is even more improbable that James should have received reliable information concerning a disorder so universally prevalent. The also and the Aorist indicate a relation which has become historical and is still in course of development.
Into your common-assembly.Schneckenburger and al. interpret the Jewish synagogue, Huther, the place of the Christian assembly, de Wette, with reference to Heb 10:25, the religious assembly. But the Article indicates that the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion is meant, that is their religious community symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship. The symbol is the more appropriate in that it characterizes the family-bias to union in Judaism. The reference to civil judicial assemblies, which Herder and al. find here, is altogether unfounded. We have endeavoured to bring out in the translation the uniting element of Christianity.
If there had entered a man.The Aorist not only aids the imagination by its picturesque force but indicates the historical fact that believers with Judaistic pretensions had already entered the Church.
With a gold finger-ring.The character of the parables delineating and censuring on the one hand the factious conduct of the Jewish Christians towards the Judaizers proper and on the other towards the Gentile Christians, comes out in the most decided manner. According to Wiesinger and Huther our text gives only an example instar omnium for the representation of that sinful , while many older commentators see in it only a figure of the preference of the rich to the poor, and these are the common views. These views give only rise to the question whether the rich and the poor are to be considered members of the Christian commonwealth (Knapp, Theile, de Wette), or unbelievers or hospites (Pott, Kern, Schneckenburger). Wiesinger, in support of the former view, alleges that the Epistle being addressed to Christian readers, the oppressive disparities between rich and poor should be taken as introcongregational (Jam 4:1; Jam 2:13-15; Jam 5:1); Huther, in support of the latter, that the rich are distinguished from the brethren etc.; Weiss (Deutsche Zeitschrift fr Christliche Wissenschaft, 1854, No. 51) makes the rich a non-Christian, the poor a Christian. Schwegler is altogether wrong in making the rich the Gentile Christian and the poor the Jew, for it would follow from this that the Jewish Christians did exhibit partiality towards the Gentile Christians. But he is on the right track in that he sees in the Epistle a reflection of the circumstances of the time. Now we hold that the rich here and throughout the Epistle is not less symbolical than the rich in the Gospel (Mat 19:24 etc.) and just so the poor. But the attributes of the rich indicate whereof he is proud. He is in the first place a (the word .). That rings with the ancients, especially among the Jews (as a signet-ring) were highly esteemed is evident from Gen 41:42; Est 3:10; Est 8:2; Luk 15:22. Received as a gift it denotes the prerogative of representing the donor; in the parable of the prodigal doubtless the restoration to the filial state. But the man with the gold ring cannot be any other than the Judaist priding himself in and boasting of his covenant-right and sonship (which to the humble was indeed a veritable gold-ring see Romans 9), as a , a gold-finger-ring-wearer by profession. He is further described by wearing a splendid garment () which according to Rev 15:6 involves in particular the idea of purity and connected therewith denotes the Jewish pretensions to purity and holiness or glory. In like manner the garment of the poor, that is, of the Gentile Christian, is not stained in the ordinary sense but from a religious point of view, as is proved by the Zec 3:3-4. In Rev 22:11 also it denotes the opposite of the Holy in a symbolical sense. According to the Jewish conception of purity the Gentile Christians had entered the Church in such a garment; but that James notwithstanding accords to them the wedding-garment is evident from Jam 2:25. Raphelius on , nullum certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum, seu rubrum sit, seu alius generis.
Jam 2:3. And ye were looking upon. is emphatic (Pott). Upon the , also very significant, he who wears that and carries himself in wearing it. Instead of experiencing disgust at the spectacle of vanity which manifestly looks out of that proud dress, they suffer themselves to be deceived by that glitter, which in their estimate should have been valueless, and to be awed by the haughty claims to it. This rich man is first looked at, contemplated in astonishment, then complimented, he also stands first; meanwhile the eye is averted from the poor man, who is furthermore despatched in a hurry. The difference of speech to the one and to the other strongly marks the contrast; they are first distinguished by , then and , and , and are opposites (Huther). The addition or sit thou here, etc, as allowing him to be seated, is intended to modify the hardness of the word keep standing there, but becomes a further humiliation, sit here under my footstool. This means certainly down at my footstool. but the expression involves contempt; as it were under ones feet. Not on the footstool. The Judaist either wanted to acknowledge the Gentile Christian merely as hospes in the Church, or to concede to him at most an inferior right of communion. As the reading [for B**M.] indicates a tendency to soften the harshness of the expression, a similar tendency may have omitted before .
Jam 2:4. Did ye not then separate among yourselves.The comments on this passage are wide apart. Some plead as a declaration, others as a question. 1. Those who take it declaratorily: then, partly ye would not have distinguished (according to sound judgment) among yourselves, partly ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (Grashof); or, then ye are not any longer distinguished among yourselves, i.e., godly and ungodly (Oeder); or, then ye have not rightly judged among yourselves (Oecumenius, Bengel); or, then ye have not yet judged yourselves (Heisen); not yourselves but your garments (Cajetan). But the construction is decidedly in favour of the interrogative form, particulary the hypothetical form and the brevity of the consequent. Hence 2, interrogatively: a. =to doubt in the sense of having scruples concerning a thing. Ye had no scruples, etc.? (Theile). b. to doubt in the literal sense: have ye not become doubters in your faith? or similarly (de Wette, Wiesinger, Huther); c. the verb=to judge: do ye then not judge among yourselves? (Augusti); or the Verb passive: Do ye not condemn yourselves? (Paraeus). d. to make difference; did ye not make differences (in a bad sense) among yourselves? (Grotius, Knapp and al.). This interpretation passes into e. to separate, to divide in a Passive or Middle sense. But the Middle sense lies nearest: do ye not separate, divide yourselves in or among yourselves? (Semler, Gebser, Schneckenburger). We hold with Schneckenburger that the beginning of dissension in the Church primarily takes rise in the minds of those factious Christians. They are also at schism in themselves which schism although it begins with doubting (Jam 1:6) means more than doubting, as is the case in our time with those confessional zealots [confessional=pertaining to a confession, used in German almost as the synonyme of denominationM.], who suspend the communion of the Lords Supper with other Evangelicals while they are willing otherwise to hold fraternal intercourse with them. Creating dissensions reacts on the zealots themselves so that they become divided in themselves. Wiesinger and Huther allege in favour of their exposition that in the New Testament constantly signifies to doubt, which it does in many passages. But the Middle of our verb occurs in our sense in Jude 5, 22 and the transition from the Active (Act 15:9) to the Middle lay quite near, intensifies the question. We have endeavoured in our translation to bring out the paronomasia of and [In German: zerschieden and Schiedsrichter.M.]. From the evil schism in the heart springs evil judging in the life. Richter: after (according to) evil considerations (motives), not the evil, etc. That is, according to the motives of national preferences, claims and prejudices, outward position, etc.
Reference to the faith of the poor in a symbolical sense as well as to the faith of the sick Jam 2:5-7.
Jam 2:5. Listen, my beloved brethren.The painful earnestness of the Apostles mind in view of the dangerous symptoms he had described may be seen in his animated exhortation, his lively address (see Jam 1:16) and his questions.
Did not God choose the poor?Cf. 1Co 12:26. Huther: poor to the world [Germ. for the world.M.]. Wiesinger: poor as regards the world. In the latter sense reference may be made to the analogous Mat 5:3. But that condition of poverty as to the Spirit, simultaneously expresses a longing for the Spirit. But such an element would be out of place here, hence the sense to the world is more appropriate. These persons whom you call poor, because they are Gentile Christians, are rather poor to the world according to their relation to the world; but to you they ought to be rich, seeing they are rich in faith. The fact that the Ebonites afterwards called themselves poor as regards this world, presents no obstacle to this exposition. Their usus loquendi was doubtless rather formed after the pattern of James than vice versa, just as the Gnostics did probably borrow many of their expressions from Paul, not Paul from them. [But the sense poor as regards the world is after all at least as good as that given by Lange; it is general, and there is no reason why even Langes interpretation may not be included in it: the Dative of reference here simply shows that these persons were poor with reference to the world objectively or subjectively or both.M.].
Rich in faith.Not rich in the possession of much faith [nicht reich an Glauben. Germ.M.], but they are rich in virtue of their faith. Still the stress lies not only on the general being rich, the result of the general condition of believing, but also on the particular measure of their being rich as contrasted with the false being rich of the Judaists. Who are rich in faith. Huther: not in apposition with (Erasmus, Baumgarten, etc.), but the complement of , stating whereto God did choose the poor (Beza, Wolf, Wiesinger, etc.). But taking James choosing as exactly synonymous with Pauls we consider to be not proven. Here the word evidently signifies rather calling, with reference to ethical good behaviour to the Divine revelation. That is: the decree (more definitely the election) of God is here viewed (indicated) in respect of temporal manifestation. Wiesinger. Still an essential element of the idea of election is held fast. The nearer definition of the election lies in sc. . That is: Did not God choose these poor according to the world (from among the Gentiles) who prove themselves rich in faith, that they also may be heirs of the kingdom? Cf. Act 15:14, etc.; Ephesians 2.It is to be borne in mind that only the poor to the world were also the rich among the Jews. But this characteristic was not enough here, while the correction poor to the world, rich in faith was sufficiently definite. James therefore here utters the same idea, on which Paul laid peculiar stress as the characteristic of his evangelization, Eph 3:3-6, etc. here, points not to the kingdom as future (so Huther), but as to the joint participation in the true of the Jews.
Heirs of the kingdom.It is the kingdom of God, the real theocracy completed in the New Testament, progressing towards eschatological completion, not the latter only, as Huther maintains. James separates from this kingdom whatever is particularly Jewish, describing it as the kingdom, that peculiar kingdom which God has prepared for those who love Him. The common construction gives a proposition not limited like 1Co 1:26-28, and not sufficiently proven by Mat 19:23; Mat 19:26; viz.: chosen the poor in this sense that those whom God did choose belong to this category, while those belonging to the category of the rich have not been chosen. (Huther). It is impracticable to take the one expression literally, the other figuratively.
Jam 2:6. But ye dishonoured the poor (man). denotes the antithesis of , the antithesis of , as Huther rightly observes. Still the Aorist is used, not only because reference is made to Jam 2:2-3, and because the case is general, but its historical force points to a historical fact, in which Judaizing Jewish Christians have already taken part with the Jews, viz.: the dishonouring of the Gentile Christians.
But is it not the rich?These rich, who use violence towards themselves, i.e. the Christians, (cf. the expressions Mat 20:25). The reference here is not any more to the rich in general than before to the poor (both according to Huther). The populace took as much part in the persecution of the Christians as the nobility, the former indeed were conspicuous in it. Nevertheless it was with the Judaists who fancied themselves theocratically rich, that the impulses to the persecution of the Christians did then still originate. So e.g. the first persecution of the Apostles, the execution of Stephen. , it is just they. All sympathizing of Christian ultras with judaistic Jews contained the germ of want of self-respect, as is the case nowadays with all sympathizing of the evangelical ultras with the ultramontanists and that of pietistic ultras with the confessionalists. Is it not just they who excommunicate you? one might ask in the latter cases.
Jam 2:7. Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair name?Favouring those rich ones would involve not only want of self-respect but even a participation in the guilt of their blasphemous conduct in respect of the fair name. This blaspheming cannot be taken figuratively as if it did denote insult heaped on that fair name by the evil works of the Christian rich men themselves, as Huther rightly observes in refutation of the views of several commentators (also of Wiesinger, whose citations, e.g. Jer 52:5 : and similar ones, do not prove that has the direct meaning to dishonour), nor can the reference be (according to Hensler) to the Christian name, for that is just the transfer of that name to them; the name of the poor is altogether out of the question. It is only the name of Christ to which reference is made, whether believers were already called (which was the case, in part at least, Act 11:26), or not. The name of Christ was transferred to them as a surname denoting at once their peculiarity and to whom they belonged. [They were Christs , 1Co 3:23.M.]. The expression is formed after the Hebrew model (Deu 28:10; 2Ch 7:14; cf. Isa 4:1; Gen 48:16 and Act 15:14; Act 15:17). In virtue of the fact that once the name of Jehovah was called over Israel, Israel was described the people of Jehovah; in like manner Christians are now the Christian people (the people of ChristM.] in virtue of the name of Christ. His name is called fair, in opposition to the insulting blaspheming; it is the fair, the glorious name ; the name of the Lord of Glory (Jam 2:1), in which is all salvation (Act 4:1; Php 2:10, Wiesinger). The Christian rich men could not any more be reproached with the sin of blaspheming the name of Christ ( always denotes abusive language, Huther), than the non-Christian rich men in general (the names even of Pilate, Gallio, Agrippa, Festus and al. may here be called to mind); the reproach fitted solely, if the Judaists were the rich in a figurative sense; to them it was wholly applicable.
True fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the whole law in the royal commandment of love, as well as the damnable transgression of the whole law in sinning against this commandment, Jam 2:8-13.
Jam 2:8. If, indeed, ye fulfil the royal law.The connection, by the introduction of , is difficult, but only, if doubts remain as to what precedes. James had just now reproved his readers for being partial to Judaists, proud of the law and fancying themselves rich, i.e. because they themselves were not free from legal onesidedness. The progress of the thought fully accords therewith: The whole consistency of true fidelity to the law, to be sure, ye ought to exhibit, according to the commandment, thou shalt love, etc.; but your partiality is a breach of the law. According to Huther and many others (Calvin, Theile etc.) James wants to meet the excuse of his readers that their respect of the rich was the outgoing of love; but surely no Jew could have thought of representing as love. Although in this case is rendered certainly (indeed, German freilich) the sense is different: igitur (Schneckenburger) and yet (de Wette) are also, set aside by our explanation. [Whichever particle be chosen, is clearly adversative.M.].
The royal law.The law denotes here not a single commandment (as Huther maintains with reference to Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10; Heb 10:16), for the commandment cited immediately afterwards embraces the whole law as completed in the New Testament. It is royal not only because it is supreme and the most excellent (so Wiesinger with reference to Philo, Plato and also Theile, Schneckenburger and al.). Although Christ, placing Himself on the Jewish stand-point calls it first and great, immediately afterwards He describes it as all-embracing and principial (Mat 22:39), and this New Testament conception of it is found also in Paul, Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14. Now if this principial [i.e. original, initial, elementaryM.] nature of the law and this its oneness, Mar 12:32, are inferred from the Oneness of God, the Giver of the Law, the explanation that it is called royal because it proceeds from God its Author, is not so far-feteched (Raphelius, Wetstein and al.), as Wiesinger supposes, who says that this is true in respect of the whole law; but this objection lacks point, inasmuch as the cited commandment is really the whole law; but it leads to the exposition that the royal commandment is the commandment of Christ (Grotius). Its applying to kings as well as to other men (Michaelis) its being a via regia (Calvin), are explanations which do not reach the fundamental idea; its making kings (Thomas) is less remote; but it is probably called here the law royal and the law of the kingdom, because of the authority of rich men and the contrast between rich and poor must completely vanish before the authority of the king. Before Christ, the Lord of Glory, who has comprehended all laws in this one law, the rich are low and the poor rich (Jam 2:1; Jam 1:9 etc.) Negatively, the law completed in the New Testament is a principle of perfect liberty (Acts 1:35), Positively it is a royal principle exacting perfect obedience to the Lord. Hence we have here once more the word conformably to the previously repeated allusions to the New Testament . [But why not take in its plain and obvious sense, the law royal, the law which is the king of all laws (Alford)? This rendering (with reference to Rom 13:10) suits the context well.M.] refers not only to e but to the whole sentence for the Exodus 20 in its higher royal form is already traced before-hand, Lev 19:18, while that discursive form of the law is referred to the ministration of angels (Gal 3:19).
Ye do well. (German: ye act beautifully,) That is: conformably to the beautiful name, which those men blaspheme. Christianly beautiful, answering to the spiritual beauty or the glory of the name of Christ. Huthers remark that here something is to be conceded, not without irony, to the opponents, lies outside of the context.
Jam 2:9. But if ye respect persons. is . and admirably chosen by James to denote Judaizing Christianity. By such conduct they suppose to avoid sin, but he tells them: by this very thing ye are working sin ( is stronger than , Mat 7:23, etc.).
Convicted by the law.The reference here is certainly to the specific prohibition of prosopolepsy [respect of personsM.] Deu 16:19 and similar interdictions (Huther denies it), inasmuch as it formulates the commandment of love literally and at the same time in the light of it acquires a more general sense; that is, the law of love in its oneness, as applied to the question under notice, runs into an express prohibition of prosopolepsy. The very law therefore on which the Judaist plumes himself, convicts him as a transgressor. The choice of the word has here, as in Rom 2:25, and like Jam 5:14, a peculiar emphasis: the Judaistico-Ebionite transgression of the law as completed in the New Testament is, as it were, a second fall. Cf. Gal 2:18.
Jam 2:10. For whosoever shall have kept the whole law.Hypothetical case, put so as to apply at once to the Jewish stand-point in its full consequence and to the Christian, without being ambiguous, because the full consequence of Judaism leads to Christianity. The uniform solidarity of the law is also acknowledged by the Jews; hence Rabbi Jonathan says; quod si faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singulorum reus. is to be taken agreeably to the preceding. Not the one definite commandment of love (Oecumenius, Semler), which embraces the whole but any one point of the law. Since is rarely used to denote the Mosaic commandments one might feel inclined to take as a neuter (with Schneckenburger and Kern), but since the following , according to Huther and al., renders the construction difficult, it is better to assume James entering into the Jewish mode of view which he potentiates in saying that every separate has also the full force of a . Wiesinger says that James takes the most favourable case in order to make his statement as convincing as possible. But James is hardly willing to yield this most favourable case to the reader. The point to be made is the demonstration of the absolute inviolability of the law. The may be understood as well of a slight offence as of a gross offence, the declaration holding good in either case; but the context seems to require the latter construction which is also favoured by the preposition . Whosoever offends in one point so as to fall, is preminently a transgressor of all laws, i.e., he is an apostate. This sense follows more clearly from the sequel. Such an one is , i.e., held fast in guilt [Germ. arrestedM.] for satisfaction by the suffering of punishment. Each separate law becomes as it were a judge who arrests him.
Jam 2:11. For He who said.The unity of all commandments lies primarily in the unity of the Lawgiver, Mar 12:32, This implies of course the One Spirit of all commandments according to which all commandments are included in each separate commandment and the one sense: the requirement of love and the one recompense.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.Different explanations have been given of the selection of these two commandments. Baumgarten: Because their transgression was punished with death; Wiesinger: because the readers are nowhere charged with (see for the contrary James 4), whereas has the commandment of love as its kernel, because these are the first duties under the law of love to ones neighbour. However we have here once more to call attention to the symbolical character of this Epistle. To the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was at once the prohibition of religious apostasy to heathenism (which probably accounts for the transpositions Mar 10:19, etc. of which Huther makes mention), and the prohibition of murder at once that of lovelessness [coined from the German Lieblosigkeit, for want of a current English equivalentM.] towards our neighbour. The sense therefore is probably as follows: the same God to whose commandment you appeal in your fear of intermingling with heathenism, has prohibited murder, of which you may become guilty by your hatred of men. We have no doubt that also 1Jn 3:15 refers primarily to Ebionite conduct towards Christian fellowship (Jam 2:19). The connection of the words with Mat 5:17-19 is clear.
Jam 2:12. So speak ye and so do ye.Application drawn from what has gone before, but not a new section (Semler). Huther wants to connect with what follows, not with what has gone before. But the double as well as the anteposition of refer strongly to what has gone before. The readers of the Epistle are charged not only after the manner of laymen to judge according to the anti-judaistic conception of the law, which had been laid down, but also to assert it in their respective spheres as witnesses of the truth (see James 3). Thus they were first to speak and to testify but then of course also to act accordingly.
As those about to be judged by the law of liberty.This is not the explication but the reason of the preceding exhortation. The question comes up why here again James calls the New Testament the law of liberty as in Jam 1:25 and not, as above, the royal law? The law of liberty is the New Testament principle of the new life in the Gospel of Christ, which frees us from the restraint of the law. Conscious that according to their faithful or unfaithful conduct with reference to this law they are to be judged, true Jewish Christians and Israelites must cheerfully testify against Judaism and its legalism and exhibit Christian fellowship. It is true that this , as such, admits least a non-observance of this or that commandment (Huther), but this is hardly the reason why it is called .
Jam 2:13. For the judgment is [will be] merciless.Unmerciful is inadequate. Cf. Mat 5:6; Mat 18:23; Mat 25:35. The saying is primarily true objectively. The judgment will be rigidly enforced according to the love displayed in our life by mercy shown to the poor, the suffering and the despised. But the saying holds also good subjectively. A hard, merciless man reacts by his conduct upon his own consciousness; he makes himself a hard self-tormentor, who cannot but see the judgment in all his experience and a merciless judicial decree in all judgment.
Mercy boasteth over judgment.The asyndeton intensifies the antithesis. Since with the Genitive denotes boasting oneself against or over (see Rom 11:8; Jam 3:14), must not be completed by (so Calvin, Bengel and al.), nor interpreted as the triumphant exaltation with which mercy by its assurance of grace confounds (puts to shame) the terrors of the judgment (so Wiesinger), or transforms them into signs of redemption, as says our Lord (Luk 21:38); but it rather signifies the triumphant assurance with which the evangelizing mercy of believers, especially that of a James, a Peter or a Paul or the Gentile world excelled the judging spirit of the Judaists, the cheerful Gospel excelled the gloomy Talmud, the Church of the world the synagogue of the Jewish quarter and the evangelical confession the inquisition of the Middle Ages, to say nothing of the triumph of Christian philanthropy over modern particularism.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Against the genuineness of the Epistle of James there is probably not raised an objection apparently more just than that the person of Christ is less prominent in it than in other Epistles and that the author occupies a comparatively lower Christological standpoint than the most famous Apostles. It certainly does not contain the richly developed Christology which characterizes the writings of Paul and John. The Christology of James in general is on a level with that of his brother Jude and not essentially different from that of the synoptical Gospels. The mind of James is rather-practical and ethical than dogmatical and speculative. Even in respect of insight into the nature of Christ there was among Apostolical authors doubtless a diversity of gifts, cf. 1Co 12:7. It is also very probable that James in his wisdom as a teacher deemed it more judicious to refer the readers whom he addressed, more to the moral precepts of the Gospel than chiefly to the Person of the Redeemer. On this account the comparatively few passages in which he speaks of Him with decision, as e.g. in Jam 2:1, deserve the greater attention. On the sense of the remarkable expression see under Exegetical and Critical. This single passage proves conclusively how far James was from conceiving Christ (as some maintain) according to the old-Ebionite manner to have been a . Describing himself as the servant (bondman) of Jesus Christ (Jam 1:1) shows unmistakably how far he places the Master above himself, and describing Him as , he not only attributes to Him a royal rank but, indirectly at least, a higher Divine nature far exalted above all creatures. Cf. Psa 110:1; Heb 1:13. Nor must we overlook his mentioning the Lord Jeaus Christ at the very beginning of his Epistle in immediate connection with God Himself, and his constant reference to God as the Father shows not indistinctly that in doing so he had before his minds eye the high and holy relation of God the Father to the Son. Of equal importance in estimating the Christology of James is the circumstance of his unequivocally calling Christ the Lord, that is transferring to Him the Old Testament name of God with which he was familiar from his earliest childhood; Jam 5:7-8. Such an appellation was only possible on the conviction that He, who in the Old Testament is universally called Jehovah (Jahve), has revealed Himself in the New Testament as God (the Father) and as Christ. Cf. Wiesingers Commentary on James, p. 65, and Dorners Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, 2d ed., I., p. 95.
2. We should wholly misunderstand James reproof of the sin of respect of persons, were we to infer from it that he was aiming at the establishment of a perfect equality in daily life or even in the assemblies of the Church. God Himself sanctions difference of rank and station, Pro 22:2; Mat 26:11. But it is contrary to the will of God, if men overstep the line of demarcation which He in wisdom has drawn, turn it into an impassable gulf and with the existing difference overlook the higher unity. The arrangement therefore, which especially in former times was so frequently prevalent in many evangelical churches, of assigning splendid seats of honour to the distinguished and of putting back the poor as much as possible, would surely be contrary to the spirit of James. It is one thing to recognize a Divinely appointed difference, but it is another to make arbitrary distinction in the public worship of God.
3. James also teaches the doctrine of Gods eternal election of grace irrespective of wealth or poverty or any outward prerogatives whatsoever. Although it is true that poverty per se is no recommendation and wealth per se presents no insuperable obstacle (cf. Mat 19:25-26; Joh 19:38-39), it is on the other hand not less indubitable (and also a real compensation for so many things of which the poor are deprived in this world), that comparatively by far the greatest number of those who are rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom are found among the poor.
4. The idea of Christian Church-life involves among other things the non-existence of lawsuits among believers, or at least the settling of their differences among themselves. Cf. 1Co 6:1-4. The readers of the Epistle of James appear however to have been far from realizing this ideal, and as a rule it was just the rich who in this respect most oppressed their poor brethren. This is therefore an additional reason for not showing them any greater honour than that to which they were legitimately entitled.
5. David was held guilty of having caused the enemies of God to blaspheme in consequence of his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, 2Sa 12:14. Equally guilty are in James eyes those who by their oppressive conduct cause the goodly name of the Lord to be blasphemed to the Church, the name which in Baptism was invoked over His people. This is again an indirect proof that he ascribes to the Lord Jesus Christ a really Divine dignity.
6. The giving of the law on Mount Sinai took place mainly by the Son of God, who as the Angel of the Lord had led the children of Israel through the wilderness and is on that account called by the prophets King of Israel (Jer 23:5-6; Num 24:17; Jer 30:21; Joh 1:49; Rev 17:14; Rev 19:16), and King of all kings; hence the words royal law refer particularly to Christ, who in His sayings and sermons did so strongly inculcate the duty of love (Mat 22:38-39; Mat 25:12; Mat 25:17; 1Jn 2:5; 1Jn 4:20-21). To love oneself, that is in a well-ordered manner, is nothing else than taking care of ones temporal, spiritual and eternal welfare, so that ones spiritual welfare may also promote ones temporal prosperity. This is done, if we are truly the servants of God, believe on Him and love Him. Now where this love of oneself is well-ordered, it is also a rule of a well-ordered love of ones neighbour; see Mat 7:12. Starke.
7. A single sin against the commandment of God (though he have kept all others) condemns the sinner and burdens him with the curse. If it is presumptuous and intentional, it deprives him of spiritual life, destroys faith, etc., as in the case of David by adultery, in that of Peter by denial and in that of Adam by eating the forbidden fruit. If it is committed through infirmity and haste, sin as sin carries within itself the venom of damnableness, although preserving grace and forgiveness prevent its execution. The law is, as it were, a garment, which is torn altogether, although you only take away a piece thereof; it is like harmony in music which is wholly spoiled if only one voice is out of tune. Starke.
8. If a man transgress only one commandment and, if it were possible, should keep all the other commandments of the law, he would still be guilty of the whole law, because he has offended the same God who gave the whole law and insists upon its being kept not according to one commandment only, but wholly according to all its parts; whence every man may abundantly know that there is not any single sin so trifling and bad as not to be liable to damnation, since also the most trivial offence against the law is a transgression of the whole law. But God forgiving the penitent even the grossest offences in their justification, is done for Christs sake, just as in the case of the converted their daily sins of infirmity, although damnable in themselves, for Christs sake are not imputed unto damnation. Starke.
9. The moral life of the Church of Christ was at all times exposed to the peril of two opposite rocks; moral rigorism on the one hand and antinomian latitudinarianism on the other. The doctrine of James (Jam 2:10-12) concerning the indivisible unity of the Divine Law is admirably adapted powerfully to counteract both maladies. In no event does he favour ascetical rigorism which only too frequently degenerates into soul-killing formalism. The law for which he is zealous, is a law of liberty in the loftiest acceptance of the term, yea the entire antithesis of authority and liberty is converted on his standpoint into a higher unity. The Divine law by no means opposes the Christian as heteronomy, but if he has received it through faith and love into his inmost consciousness, it becomes to him daily more and more an autonomy [heteronomy literally another law, then, living according to another law; autonomy literally ones own law, then, living according to ones own law, self-goverment.M.]. But if on the other hand latitudinarianism arrives only too soon at being rigid in some points and yielding and lenient in others James stands up with inexorable severity and administers the unity of the Divine law as that of an indivisible whole. even the best Christian involuntarily is easily inclined pharisaically to overrate some commandments and to underrate others (cf. Mat 22:36; Mat 23:23). many a man, e.g. who would fear and tremble at the thought of murder would little hesitate in bearing false witness against his neighbour. Here comes in the admonition, Whosoever shall have kept the whole law yet offend in one point, has become guilty of all. It is self-evident that James here does not speak of sins of haste, ignorance or infirmity but of intentional, presumptuous or principled transgressions (transgressing on principle) of one of the commandments. Whosoever has thus become guilty, has disturbed the harmony of the Divine law. Of course not in the sense that a murderer is therefore also a thief, an adulterer or a defamer, but because the transgressor of any one commandment disgraces love, which is the key-note and sum-total of all the commandments. The favourite notion of many people that the province of morals recognizes a greater or a smaller number of adiaphora therefore is here emphatically denied. He who obstinately transgresses one commandment without actually violating the others, omits doing so only because at that instant he does not feel himself incited to a definite act of disobedience. For did he feel it, he would doubtless withdraw himself with equal swiftness from the restraint of any other commandment. But where is then his respect of the Divine law in its totality? Whichever commandment be transgressed, such transgression always reveals selfishness opposing on principle the chief requirement of love.
10. The passage, Mercy boasteth over (against) judgment (Jam 2:13) is not any more isolated than that it contradicts the evangelical doctrine of free grace. In the Old Testament also the idea is repeatedly expressed that love and mercy disarm to a certain degree the severity of that Divine judgment. See e.g., Isa 1:17-18; Dan 4:27. John the Baptist described and insisted upon actual exhibitions of love as one of the marks of a repentance by which men might flee from the wrath to come, Luk 3:8-11. Our Lord described the blessedness of the merciful (Mat 5:7) and set forth love as the standard in the last judgment, Mat 25:34-40. This is also the spirit in which James thinks and speaks and no further intimation is needed to show that he refers to no other Christian mercy than to that which is the fruit of living faith and genuine renovation of the heart. Not only he, who loved much, may therefore hope for forgiveness but also he who asked for much forgiveness, will now also love much, and may look forward to the judgment with greater calmness because this love of faith supplies to him and to others unequivocal proof that he has passed from death unto life. Cf. 1Jn 3:14.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The glorified Christ, the Lord of the Church, the object of faith. Sincere faith may still be very imperfect. Love and faith are indissolubly united, but love is irreconcilable with partial respectings of persons.Agreement of the love insisted upon by James and that described by Paul, 1 Corinthians 13.Rich and poor should appear in the house of prayer at unity among themselves.Christian liberty, equality and fraternity.The catchwords of the revolution only caricatures of a Gospel watchword.The communion of saints is disgraced by lovelessness and party-spirit.Loveless judging of others ill-becoming to one who will be judged himself.The prerogatives of the believing poor! 1, They are the elect of God; 2, they are rich in faith; 3, they are heirs of the kindom of heaven which god has promised both to mobocracy [German Proletariat, a word always used in a bad sense; this must be my apology for the hybrid mobocracy.M] and despotism.He that oppresseth the poor, reproacheth his maker, etc. Pro 14:33poverty evangelically considered.It Isaiah , 1, a great sin, 2, a great shame, 3, a great harm, that the goodly name of Christ, which was invoked over us in Baptism, is dishonoured for our sake; cf. Rom 2:23-24.Love the foremost requirement made by the royal law of Christianity, Joh 13:34-35.The inviolable unity of the Christian code of morality.Whosever shall have kept the whole law, but have offended in one point, etc. This saying 1, is apparently strange 2, but nevertheless perfectly true and therefore 3, calculated to solemnize our minds in the judgment we pass on ourselves and to render us careful in that which we pass on others.The Christian must not consider the commandments of the second table to be less holy than those of the first.We shall be judged by the law of liberty; the meaning, the truth, the solemnity and consolation of this thought.The connection between faith, love, judgment and acquittal.The thought of the impending judgment1, wherein it may alarm the Christian and 2, wherein it may again calm his fears.
On the whole pericope, Jam 2:1-13.Of respect of persons. 1. The character it discloses: it manifests itself a. among Christians (Jam 2:1), b. in religious intercourse (Jam 2:2-3) and c. it springs from impure foundations (Jam 2:4). 2. The wrong it inflicts: a. on the poor (Jam 2:5), b. on the rich (Jam 2:6-7), c. on ourselves (Jam 2:8-9). The judgment it deserves; this is a. terrible (Jam 2:10), b. just (Jam 2:11-12), c. inevitable (Jam 2:13).
Starke:The Jews had the regulation that if the rich and the poor had a cause before a tribunal, both had either to stand or to be seated.
Quesnel:Godliness forbids not the difference of posts of honour but simply disapproves of the rich only being respected and the poor despised, 1Co 11:22.Whoso on account of his occupation has outwardly to wear a vile garment, let him so much the more wear the beautiful garment of Christs righteousness. Isa 61:10.
Starke:The masses always look more at these who are splendidly attired before the world than at those who are gloriously attired before Christ.
Luther:The rich enjoy greater privileges than others in things temporal, but not in things spiritual, Luk 6:24.
Langii Op.:There are rich in the world who are also rich in God, but there are also poor in the world who are likewise poor in God and these are most miserable for time and for eternity, Gen 13:2.
Hedinger:To be a beggar but a true Christian is more than being emperor or king without it.
Cramer:Bodily poverty should not hinder but promote ones salvation Luk 16:22.Those who do not honour Christ in His members are not worthy to be honoured themselves, Luk 10:16; 1Sa 2:30.
Quesnel:There is nothing greater than the name of Christ, but nothing more to be feared than to bear it unworthily.
Starke:The royal law of love makes all to be kings, who are however the subjects of the king of kings, 1Pe 2:9; Rev 18:6.
Cramer:By seeming trifles also the law may be transgressed, Num 15:32, etc.
Nova Bibl. Tub.:The law exacts perfect obedience.
Hedinger:Like as the believer fulfils all the commandments of the law, so the ungodly transgresses all the commandments, 1Jn 3:22.If any man will allow only one sin to have dominion over him, he cannot receive forgiveness of sins, Psa 32:2.
Starke:It is as culpable to be silent when we ought to speak as to speak when we ought to be silent, Isa 56:10.
Luther:The Divine law is the only rule of conduct in whatsoever we do in word or deed, Psa 119:9; Psa 119:15; Psa 119:22.
Quesnel:To be unmerciful, especially towards the innocent and believers, is a sign of men being merely natural and consequently exposed to the wrath of God, Psa 37:26.
Luther:The unmerciful will be damned without mercy and the merciful will be saved of mercy, Jer 15:6; Hos 1:6.
Lisco (Jam 2:1-9):True faith is remote from all sinful partiality.(Jam 2:10-13). Of disobedience to the Divine law.Christianity aims at equalizing the differences among men.
Heubner:All haughtiness is a denial of faith. Unchristian distinguishing between sins.What a contradiction! to see Christians dishonour the poor whom God honours.Without esteeming and keeping all the commandments alike the keeping of this or that is worthless in the sight of God.The assurance which love gives in the judgment.
Von Gerlach:The Apostle calls Christ the Lord of glory in order to show the nothingness of all human distinctions in His sight.The law of liberty has freed us from the bondage of sin, from mercenary work-holiness; we should consider therefore what a testimony there will arise against us in the judgment if we make exceptions and do not keep it in voluntary and childlike love.
Stier:The Christianity of the rich is more frequently ungenuine and not proof than that of the poor.If a father setting out on a journey lays down ten commandments to be observed by his child during his absence, and the child reserves one to be transgressed by himdares such a child appear before his father and say: Father I have obeyed thee, nine of the ten commandments I have well kept! Every sin, thus reserved and remaining, every continuing transgression of one commandment given by the same God cancels our righteousness before the law, so that all its fair numbers turn into so many ciphers.
Neander:Diversities and inequalities founded on the natural relations and organizations of society were not to be abrogated by Christianity but rendered less burdensome, they were to be equalized by the common bond of love and to become matter for the exercise of that Christian love.
Viedebandt:The devil has well succeeded in a double trick: 1. In making the rich think that faith is the disturber of all enjoyment and pleasure, 2. In convincing the poor that faith brings no help.
G. Nitzsch:We do not call a negro a white man because his teeth are white; so none may be called righteous, who only speaks of righteousness or otherwise puts into practice some other part thereof. David says: I keep all thy commandments.
Porubszky:Faith in Jesus Christ tolerates no respect of persons.The moral harmony in the kingdom of God (Jam 2:10-12).The taking to heart of Christian mercy (Jam 2:13).
Jacoby (Jam 2:12):Speaking also is subjected to the royal law of love.It amounts to the same whether our judgment be bribed by riches in money, in intellect or worldly education.
Jam 2:8-13Pericope on the 21st Sunday after Trinity in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and elsewhere.
Baur:Love as to its being and working.
J. Mller:Love the being of the Christian life.
R. Kromm:The Christian is able and bound to keep all the commandments of his God.Of the riches of Christian love.
[Jam 2:1. Social differences are allowed among Christians, Rom 13:7; but invidious distinctions and partiality in spiritual matters are disallowed and unchristian. In the use of the Sacraments, in prayer and praise, in the hearing of Gods Word Christians are on a level. The pew-system is unprimitive and unchristian. The Church is the Lords house, as its name implies (), and in the Lords house the rich and poor alike ought to be provided with equal accommodation for worship without any invidious, unchristian and worldly reference to their pecuniary ability.Ecclesiastical preferment of personal friends and relatives, as such, is another form of respectings of persons.M.].
Wordsworth:Contemplate the Lord of glory (1Co 2:8), who humbled Himself, and took the poor mans nature, and joined all in Himself, and promises glory to humility (Luk 14:11; Jam 4:10). This consideration is the groundwork of the Apostles argument and exhortation. This is the glory which Christ Himself offers to younot the vain glory of this world, which ye seek by preferring the rich to the poor, and by having mens persons in admiration for the sake of advantage to yourselves (Judges 16).
[Jam 2:2. Christian places of worship true synagogues (cf. and Heb 10:25).M.].
[Jam 2:4. Wordsworth:There are two distinct grounds of censure
1. That by this partiality they become like disputants in a law-suit (cf. 1Co 6:6), instead of being brethren: this is the rebuke in this clause.
2. That they thus constitute themselves into judges; this is developed in what follows.
Jam 2:7. The name invoked over Christians in Baptism and in the Benedictions (Mat 28:19; Act 9:14; Act 9:21; Rom 10:12; 1Co 1:2; 1Pe 1:17).In the Jewish synagogue that godly name was blasphemed (1Co 12:3); in the Christian synogogue it was invoked. in the language of the Church denotes the act of solemn invocation. See Bingham, Eccl. Ant. 15, 1.M.].
[Jam 2:13. Chrysostom:Mercy is dear to God, and intercedes for the sinner, and breaks his chains, and dissipates the darkness, and quenches the fire of hell, and destroys the worm and rescues from the gnashing of teeth. To her the gates of heaven are opened. She is the queen of virtues, and makes man like to God, for it is written, Be ye merciful as your Father who is in heaven is merciful. She has silver wings like the dove, and feathers of gold, and soars aloft, and 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 enfolds us in her wings. God loves mercy more than sacrifice.M.].
[Shakspeare, Merchant of Venice, Acts 4. Scene 1.
The quality of mercy is not straind;
It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blessd;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes: etc.M.].
2. Jam 2:14-26
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The true life of faith or faith evinced by the mercy of brotherly love and dead faith illustrated by heartless demeanour. Jam 2:14-17.
Jam 2:14. What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man were to say etc.?James, having illuminated outward legality as lacking the principle of love, now takes it up as outward faith (Glubigkeit) lacking both love and the energy of practical demonstration (Thatbeweis). The sequel shows what he means by practical demonstration; it is the full communion with believing brethren in love and life. The following section (Jam 2:14-26) supports his demand by examples from the Old Testament. Here it is to be remembered that with James is the necessary ground of , which is evident from Jam 1:18-21, but of course that which is not without Works. In disputing the former delusion, James adopts his characteristic mode of first stating in clear and well-defined language the fundamental thought on which all the rest depends and he does it by the introduction of brief interrogative sentences, which reject that false opinion. Huther.
What doth it profit? The Article makes emphatic; what is the use, what profit does it bring? That is, all the blessing of the theocratic faith, ultimately also in Jesus as the Messiah, is lost if this faith does not lead to vital fruit. That faith itself is then not true: hence: if a man were to say, that he hath faith. is emphatic, so also Gataker, Stier, de Wette and al. Although de Wettes rendering if a man pretends, be probably too strong, the assertion of Huther, that the sequel does not give the lie to , is incorrect. This is certainly done conditionally in Jam 2:18 where it is maintained that the existence of faith cannot be proved without works. Only thus much may be admitted, that James allows the faith which is merely outward and traditional to pass as a kind of faith, on account of its objective truth he cannot call it false, but on account of its subjective untruth he calls it dead and the contrast of dead and living shows that he distinguishes faith from faith. Now the faith which he calls living needs no further complement; it is a unit as to its living energy, while the faith without works, lacks owing to the absence of works the demonstration of energy of life. If we say the dead body is without the soul, it does not follow that we think also: The living man consists of body and soul. Schneckenburger with reason sees something significant in the absence of the Article ( ). Huther rightly asserts that does not denote here nuda notitia or professio, because this idea is identical with real faith in the opinion of the speaker; but he is wrong in supposing that always denotes the same thing in the mind of James. For saying, that in one is different from in another, amounts to nothing and it is false to affirm that fiducia cannot be denied even to dead faith. Why then is the subject of this faith uniformly the ? [The distinction is manifestly between theoretic belief unaccompanied by the practice of good works and vital faith abounding in good works. Faith is the inward, works the outward. Works are the outward sign and pledge, the demonstration of faith within. The man dramatically introduced in the text has faith (Jam 2:19), but his faith is theoretic belief. There seems to be no necessity for making emphatic.M.].
But were to have no worksThat is, the works specifically belonging to and characteristic of faith. That James particularly refers to the works of brotherly love, is manifest from the sequel.
Faith surely cannot.The remarkable character of this proposition as contrasted with the doctrine that faith does save is variously gotten over. Some commentators emphasize the artice before : that faith, such a faith [Bede, fides illa, quam vos habere dicitisM.]. In reply, Wiesinger and Huther observe that the Article is used, because there is a resumption of the previous idea, as Jam 1:3 with reference to , and Jam 1:15 with reference to . But the resumption of the previous idea is sufficient to settle the point that the reference is here to such a faith which has no works. The demonstrative therefore is not contained in only, but in and one might translate, thus faith surely cannot save him. Huther thinks that is emphatic, him who thus conducts himself, faith cannot save; but this would make faith an abstract objectivity. The reference therefore is simply to the faith in question, and the explanations of Theile (false faith), Pott (faith only) and similar ones are epexegetical. Huther in his explication of returns to the definition the faith which has no works, whereas, in order to be consistent, he ought to say, the man who has no works.
Save him. relates not to the attainment of future salvation, as Huther maintains, but denotes, according to the idea of the New Testament the present, principial salvation of the redemption already experienced and passing through progressive stages of completion to ultimate salvation.
Jam 2:15-16. But if a brother or a sister.The following example in the opinion of Huther (and Wiesinger) explains the preceding proposition by explaining that compassion also without corresponding works is dead and useless. But the reference to dead love or even to dead compassion would be unheard of. The question in one example also is dead faith, which under certain circumstances hypocritically affects the appearance of love without however evincing the reality of its existence. The absence of the work is just the absence of love or compassion. The brother and the sister are as such fellow-believers (companions of the same faith). And this leads to take these personages also in a symbolical sense. For the duty of relieving the literally needy with food and raiment was already recognized in the Old Testament as a duty of man to man; how much more then under the sense of duty acknowledged in the Christian Church. James doubtless needed not to inculcate this duty on the believing dispersion, and if it was his intention, he could not limit its exercise to Christian brethren. But the case stood differently with regard to the relation of the Jewish Christian to his Gentile-Christian coreligionist or also to the Gentile-Christian Church. That they were not literally poor and naked does not affect the question, for on the one hand they were indebted to the Apostles, who were more merciful than the Judaists, for their spiritual prosperity, and on the other hand they would still appear as very poor to the Judaists; , as those wholly stripped of proper and respectable apparel, after having laid aside their vile raiment (see Jam 2:2; Huthers pressing of yields no gain), and destitute of daily food (the different senses in which is construed, amount to the same thing), i.e., destitute of positive familiarity with the word of God according to Judaistic ideas. The Jewish Christians, to be sure, had progressed so far as not to damn the poor believers (even as the Jews already affected friendliness towards the proselytes of the gate); they acknowledged the brotherhood in a general way and perchance would unctuously express that acknowledgment in the words Go in peace, wished them perhaps also all manner of good in the self-satisfying of their (the poor brethrens) Christian wants, but having gone to that stretch of liberality, would also dismiss them, without having any other dealings with them or entering with them into the communion of devoted care and love (just as nowadays the Confessionalists dismiss the Evangelicals with unctuous sour-sweet words). Be warmed! be filled! These words are surely not uttered optatively in the sense, May some one else help you (Hottinger, Grotius and al.), nor imperatively in a liberal sense (Huther), but connected with the valedictory salutation of peace they denote a cant-wish of blessing, may you succeed in getting warmed etc. The reproach of pauperism is at the same time clothed in hypocritically sparing terms, hence be ye warmed not at once be ye clothed (Laurentius and al.), but alluding to it and in like manner be ye filled in allusion to their hunger.The one who thus speaks represents the general tendency but points to the unctuous speakers who understand to couch the unsparing dismissal as much as possible in fair and sparing language. Instead of such conduct they were one and altogether to show love to the poor. But our example presupposes the case that they did not even give them necessaries.
What would that profit?See Jam 2:14. Such a benediction (wish-of-blessing) would purely have no value and the acknowledgment of brotherhood on which it is founded would accordingly be equally void, just as the faith on which it is founded. The whole demeanour would be unprofitable egentibus (Hottinger) and dicentibus (Semler); in general to the kingdom of God.
Jam 2:17. So also faith, if it have not.If it does not show the life-sign of animating works, which are intrinsically its property.
For itself. [i.e. in itself.M.]As it is dead as regards the brethren, so it is dead as regards itself. not pleonastic (Grotius), not fides sola (Knapp), but joined with indicative of being dead or rather of having died, whereby the life of faith and consequently the life of the believer himself is denied. And this being dead is not only the cause of this want of works (Olshausen) but also the consequence of the reaction of that want. It dies ever more and more of not being energizing. See Mat 18:23 etc.
The proof of faith by the works of faith or the believers justification before the consciousness of the Church, Jam 2:18-19.
Jam 2:18. But some one will say.Different explanations are given for the introduction of an objection by , although the sense of the passage especially with the reading is abundantly clear. The possession of faith without works may be asserted but not be proved, since the corresponding works constitute the proof of faith, while the faith may be proved by the right works. The works therefore are the exhibition, the evidence of faith. Difficulties have been found 1. In James introducing this proposition as the expression of another person and not as his own; 2. in his introducing it by . The second difficulty disappears with the first. James could not well take the place of the objector because it was remote from the mind of his readers to deny the genuineness of his faith; but many among them were inclined to deny it in the case of the Gentile Christians. Hence the sense is as follows: but some one will rise up against this dead faith and with it enter the lists in proving the genuineness of his faith by his works of faith. In this sense the passage has a grand prophetical character. The Gentile Christian world has proved by its works of faith that it had the true faith, but Ebionism with its want of consistency in Christian works of love that its orthodoxism was not a living faith. therefore is here not the formula of a dialectical objection, as in Rom 9:19; 1Co 15:35, but the introduction of an actual historical antithesis, That the speakers faith (Jam 2:14) is dead is primarily a mystery of an inward state of death, but there will come one who by the exhibition of the contrary will make manifest that death. James makes him express in a definite antithesis what he actually shall do, in order to elucidate the law of life that invisible faith cannot be seen without visible works, while the visible works enable us to see the invisible faith. Wiesinger therefore rightly maintains that the speaker sides with James. On the other hand the artificial explanation of Huther can only be accounted for by the embarrassment he experienced with respect to . But some might say in answer to what I have just stated, defending himself: thou (who hast not the works) hast faith and I, on the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works; my one-sided insisting upon works is not any more right than thy one-sided insisting upon faith. This, in the first place, would be no defence of the speaker (Jam 2:14), and secondly it is nowhere said that the speaker (Jam 2:18) has no faith; he rather wants to prove his faith by his works. Stier even maintains that the , who has the word, is a man of pharisaic tendencies who in the interest of work-righteousness impugns faith; but this is altogether beside the connection, for there is no reference whatsoever to pharisaic works. On the other wide-differing but otherwise unimportant explanations given of this passage compare Huther especially with reference to those of Pott, Kern, de Wette and Schneckenburger. It is proper to add that Huther himself farther on gives a tolerably correct paraphrase of this passage and is equally right in remarking that with the reading in Text. Rec. these words should be taken ironically.
Jam 2:19. Thou believest that God is one.The Apostle having shown in what precedes that the existence of faith cannot be proved without works, now proceeds to the proof that faith, even if granted in such a form, has a damnable effect, that is one issuing in fear and terror of God. Huther does not justly state the force of the Apostles thought in saying that James here shows the inadequateness of faith without works to salvation. For the example of the devils who tremble just in consequence of their manner of believing, not only along with their faith, nor even notwithstanding their faith, is not simply designed to intensify the negation that such a faith is without salvation. The condition of not being saved is connected with the state of being damned. The Apostle does not start with the concession that the objector has faith (Huther), but that his faith is worthless. Huther thinks it strange that James does not name that which is specifically Christian as the object of faith. On this account Calvin supposed that this whole section treats not of Christian faith (de fide) but only de vulgari dei notitia. De Wette holds that characterizes the faith as being merely theoretical, in which Wiesinger agrees with him and to which Huther objects without sufficient reason. Huther and al. consider that this article of faith is simply introduced by way of example and that just this article was selected because it distinguishes revealed religion from heathenism (Deu 6:4; Neh 9:6 etc.). But this suggests the additional remark that it was selected because the Jewish Christians and the Jews not only were particularly proud of this first article of their faith (Schneckenburger), but also were wont to contrast it with the distinctly Christian dogma of the Triune God and the Son of God.This discloses moreover the further consideration that it was their pride in this increasingly misunderstood article which kept them back as Jews from fully surrendering to Christ and as Jewish Christians from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith. The monarchism of the Jews which was opposed to the incarnation of the Son of God continued in the germinating monarchism of the Jewish Christians. In the judgment of James therefore the fruitlessness or worthlessness of that faith is connected with the fact that in the shape of orthodoxism it obstinately remains at a stand-still on a stage of faith which has been laid aside and that in this respect it is a heterodoxy which may become a heresy and ultimately even a devilish antichristianity. It was just by remaining at a standstill and by resistance offered to the completed revelation that monotheism originally so rich in vitality became dead deism. In a similar way the Greek article of faith has been established in opposition to Roman Catholic development, and the Roman Catholic article in opposition to evangelical faith.28 Where vital development is abhorred (perhorrescirt?) faith becomes false confidence in the abstract article. Wiesinger justly calls attention to the circumstance that this passage shows that this Epistle is far from being Judaizing and anti-Pauline.
Thou doest well.It is questionable whether we are to take these words ironically (Calvin, Theile, Wiesinger and many others), or literally (Grotius, de Wette and al). They cannot be purely ironical, because the article is truth; they cannot be purely laudatory, because the true article is falsely held; Huther therefore rightly observes that the ironical lies in the whole expression; that is, in the momentary appearance as if James in conceding to the objector to believe in such a manner were therewith also conceding to him the true faith. This irony says Wiesinger rises into sarcasm in the combination of . It may be doubted whether this conclusion is formally sarcastic. The sarcasm lies here in the naked fact itself. Formally it only flashes out in the splendid which connects the greatest seeming contradiction and which Huther rightly does not like to see wiped off (Theile: atqui etc.).
The devils.Although we must not think of demoniacs (Wetstein), nor of the demons in the demoniacs (Schneckenburger) they furnish the most intelligible historical proof of the otherwise more transcendental declaration. Huther thinks that the reference is to the demons or apostate spirits according to the view which makes the heathen deities demons (LXX. Deu 32:17 etc.; 1Co 10:20). But the Apostles saying is perfectly intelligible without such reference, which may easily lead here to confusion. For as far as the demons are the occasion of polytheism they impugn the Unity of God but as far as they are conscious that they are lying and that the One God will visit them in judgment, they just appear to acknowledge the pride of Judaism and the defeat of heathenism. Holding fast to this reference we ought to pass on to the thought that heathenism also in its deepest demon-background is not without a monotheistic consciousness, and it is just this which constitutes its misery. To give to this idea a more popular shape it would run thus: the demons which as you hold inhabit and constitute the heathen world, are all monotheists but for that very reason they shudder. But if we emphasize the heathen element, we weaken the marked emphasis of the demon element, and this is the reason why we have doubts concerning said reference. Nor do they shudder only, because they expect the judgment, their judgment is already involved in their relation to God. This shuddering . ( .) is more than trembling (Job 4:15), a horror with the hair standing on end.
The two examples of the proof of faith by works as a general example of the unity of living faith of Jews and Gentiles, Jam 2:20-26.
Jam 2:20. But wiliest thou to know (it)?These words denote the certainty with which the Apostle announces the convincing proof of the uselessness of faith without works from the Holy Scriptures, the source of all certainty.The before intensifies the censure conveyed in the address, thou empty (not as Baumgarten has it, simply unwise and shortsighted [stupid], but empty as to faith and spirtual strength) man, and which as applied to persons occurs only here in the New Testament (Huther). It is not perchance the fiction of an objector but the personification of a mode of thinking which is introduced as an actor, Jam 2:1 etc. and as a speaker in Jam 2:15. The spiritual emptiness of such a man corresponds to the spiritual emptiness or impotence and unproductiveness of his faith. The reading (advocated by Wiesinger against Huther) certainly deserves the preference also in respect of the sense because the Apostle passes from the idea of dead faith through the idea of unproductive faith to the idea of a faith lacking the specific effect of faith (). [Oecumenius: , .M.].
Jam 2:21. Was not Abraham our father.The first example contrasts the father of faith himself with the false orthodoxy-righteousness of Judaism, just as Paul in Romans 4 contrasts him with their work-righteousness, or more accurately with their pride in circumcision. Abraham, the highest theocratical authority, which they share with him.
When he offered Isaac, his son.In explaining this difficult passage we have to start with the preliminary statement that ( Sept. , ) generally denotes in both Testaments: to pronounce, declare, set one forth as, righteous in any forum of justice or judgment, whether in consequence of proved innocence or surrender at discretion, expiation or pardon; although there are passges in the Old Testament in which the sense to lead to righteousness, to make righteous predominates, Dan 12:3; Isa 53:11. The most important instances of the former kind of declaring righteous are the following passages: Luk 7:29 : and 1Ti 3:16; (cf. Exo 23:7; Deu 25:1; Pro 17:15; Isa 5:23; Mat 12:37; Rom 2:13); instances of the latter kind occur in Rom 4:5; Rom 3:26 etc. The comparison of these different passages shows that to the Old Testament with reference to man belongs especially the idea of pronouncing the innocent righteous conformably to his innocence, while to the New Testament belongs that of pronouncing the sinner righteous conformably to his faith. Mat 12:37 must be carefully distinguished because the last judgment shall be a judgment of the works of faith. But even the Old Testament knew already the imputation of the faith as righteousness, Gen 15:16. We may say therefore that James for the benefit of his readers adopts the language of the Old Testament in allotting to true faith the imputation of righteousness by the , but to the proof of true faith the . St. Paul, on the other hand, employs the two terms as identical (Rom 4:6 etc.; Jam 5:1), although he is well acquainted with the Old Testament meaning of as applied to a human forum or even to the last judgment (see 1Co 4:4-5). Huther, after enumerating the different interpretations of this passage (Calvin: proved righteous before men; Baumgarten: his justification has been ratified before men; Grotius: he was loved as a righteous man etc.), adds he has been declared righteous; but this is really saying nothing concerning our passage, for the question is, in which sense? The difference in the report is noteworthy. Gen 15:6 we read: Abram believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness, without any further mention of an outward declaration of God concerning it. Both to him and to the Scripture the thing is sure in virtue of the testimony of the Spirit. Very different is Gen 22:16, where the proof of Abrahams faith is followed by the the solemn declaration of the angel from heaven, By myself have I sworn etc. Has not this declaration become a manifest deposit to the house of Abraham and the theocratic posterity? And that this is a decisive element is also evident from the other proof. So also righteousness was imputed to Rahab, the harlot also, not only in the depth of her heart but along with the proof of her faith. She did also experience a in the congregation of God, Jos 6:25; Mat 1:5. The term consequently is used by James according to the Old Testament mode of expression in a New Testament deeper sense and denotes that God declares righteous in the theocratical forum before the theocratical congregation conceived as permanent. It is the Divine declaration of the proof of faith in and for the kingdom of God, while the of James or the of Paul describes an act, which transpires solely between God and the sinner in the forum of his consciousness.
Justified by works: .Although this Plural is selected with reference to the category in question, yet it must also be remembered that the singular work when he offered his son was the culminating point which comprehended all the trials of his faith. Huther justly finds this pronouncing righteous in Gen 22:16; but it was not solely contained in the giving of the promise on the ground of that which he had done; he had previously received less developed promises and moreover in connection with acts of well-doing. It was rather contained in the solemn declaration with which God in consequence of Abrahams proof of his faith now sealed to him His promise with an oath, whereby at the same time a seal was set to the consciousness of Abraham. If the distinction which Holy Scripture draws between the degree of justification and that of sealing, had been better observed, the key to the doctrine of James in its agreement with that of Paul would thereby have also been better preserved (see Jesus Sir 44:20).
On the altar.Offering is sacrificing as to its essential element; hence Luthers version when he sacrificed is not as wrong as Huther thinks; but the explanation when he was going to sacrifice is tautological, unless the term receive the doubtful interpretation of positive slaughtering.
Isaac, his son.Emphatically describing the greatness of the offering as in Gen 22:16.The example of Abraham, however, has a peculiar significance to the Jewish Christian readers of the Epistle. As Abraham obediently offered to the God of revelation his theocratic offspring with whom the promise seemed to be indissolubly connected, so were they also to learn to distinguish their natural national feelings from the promise of God and offer them for their entrance into the New Covenant.
Jam 2:22. Thou seest.We read the verse with the majority of commentators as an assertion and not as a question (de Wette, Lachmann and al.). And what then? Not, perchance, that the works were added to his faith, but that faith and works flow forth in one gush of the Spirit and doubly cover each other; faith was actively joined with his works as the foundation, the works were reactively the completion of his faith.
That faith was working together with Ms works.Most commentators perceive here the antithesis, neither faith was wanting nor the works (Bengel: quid utravis pars alteri conferat; similarly Erasmus etc. Wiesinger.). According to the opposite view the propositions are designed to demonstrate the necessity of works. Thou seest that faith was active in works and had to be completed by works (Estius: operosa fuit, non otiosa. Calvin). Huther, The second hemistich is not in antithesis with the former, but constitutes its complement: faith being active with its works, itself reached its completion. But James evidently does not wish to lay so one-sided an emphasis on the necessity of works; his object is rather to vindicate the unity of both, as is manifest from Jam 2:18; Jam 2:23. Primarily he demanded works as the proof of faith, he now demands them also with reference to the Jam 2:22 as the completion of faith. The first proposition therefore stands for the proof of faith, although not as demanding the necessity of faith which was self-evident to him and to his readers. certainly cannot mean faith was auxiliary in his doing as Huther rightly observes against Hofmann and Wiesinger; nor hardly, it was the of his works, it operated not by itself but with his works (Huther), which gives not a clear idea. Kern sought to avoid this dualism by taking as Dat. commod., it operated to the production of his works. joined with the verb may be construed as having additional force, i.e. along with, but also intensivo-synthetically, i.e. united to, joined with (not to mention that it may mean: quite, thoroughly, etc.) Mar 16:20 etc. We take the passage in the latter sense thus: Faith manifested itself operatively at one with the works. Faith aided in the completion of the work and the work aided in the completion of faith.
Faith was made complete. is taken by many as completed proof, that is declaratively (Calvin, Bengel etc.), against which rendering Huther with reason insists upon the expression, it was completed, not in the sense it had been imperfect but that it was consummated in the exercise. But here again we have to remind the reader of the significance of the term in this Epistle (cf. Jam 1:4; Jam 1:25; Jam 3:2; Jam 5:11). Abraham by his faith-offering attained typically and ideally the , which the Jewish Christians were to attain by the full proof of Christian love out of [as the ground and source ofM.] faith and with them all Israel was to attain it.
Jam 2:23. And [thus] the Scripture was fulfilled.That is the passage Gen 15:6 here cited from the Sept. (with the exception of for ) which gives a passive rendering to the active language of the original. So Paul quotes the LXX. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6. James, it is evident from this declaration, was fully cognizant of the predication of that passage concerning Abrahams righteousness of faith and was far from disputing it. But on that account, as Huther rightly maintains, we are unable to adopt the definition of which is given by the majority of commentators, viz.: then was confirmed, or that of Hofmann: then was proved that God had rightly estimated the faith of Abraham (Wiesinger, then it was shown (erwiesen) that the Scripture was right). The meaning of forbids such definitions. Moreover, strictly speaking this saying cannot be referred to the written declaration of Holy Scripture but to the Divine act on which that declaration is founded, i.e. the , or to the prophetical sense of believing Abraham himself. But, on the other hand, we cannot adopt the exposition of de Wette and Huther, then was realized, for that righteousness of faith was a reality from the very first. The fulfilling denotes throughout the completed, decided and manifested development of a seed of faith which until then was germ-like concealed, whether it be a prophecy or a type (cf. Mat 2:15; Mat 5:23 etc.; 1Ki 2:27 etc.). That righteousness of faith of Abraham reached its or in its proof and verification, as it was sealed by the now openly stated Divine testimony. The act of faith itself and the subsequent sealing in the life of individual believers answer to the Old Testament Abrahamic foundation and the New Testament completion. That proof and verification of faith was on its real side , while, on its ideal side viewed as the completion of the prophetical word of the Spirit on which the written word is founded, it was . And this was manifested in his being called the friend of God. Not literally but substantially he was honoured with that appellation from the beginning Gen 22:16, and afterwards also was referred to in the Old Testament as the beloved of God 1Ch 20:7; Isa 41:8. This honourable appellation has developed the epithet the friend of God among the Jews and the Mohammedans (Wolfs cur, and Theile.) [El–Khalil–Allah or, as he is more usually called, El–Khalil, simply the friend, is a title which has in Mussulman countries superseded altogether his own proper name. Stanleys Jewish Church p. 14. Abraham is the Zoroaster of the Semitic race; but he is more than Zoroaster, in proportion as his sense of the Divine was more spiritual, and more free from the philosophy of nature and the adoration of the visible world. Bunsen, Bibelwerk, II., 88. See also Max Mllers Essay on Semitic Monotheism in the London Times of April 14 and 15, 1860.M.]. In Gen 18:17 the 70 add the words to , for which Philo substitutes . Huther. Hofmann defines the expression the friend of God, by who loved God, while Huther disputes that definition and gives the opposite one whom God loved. But both entangle themselves in a false antithesis. The friend is at once loving and loved and indissolubly so. And although it remains a fixed fact that Abrahams love was the consequence of Gods love to him, it is also evident that Abrahams good conduct, that is his self-sacrificing love, is intended to be brought out. But he was not only made the friend of God (Grotius =factus est), but he was called and honoured as such. And this was the way in which he was for the kingdom of God. Wiesingers assertion is therefore incorrect that refers to righteousness before God and not (as Calov and al.) to righteousness before men. But this righteousness before men requires to be defined in the manner indicated above.
Jam 2:24. Ye see that by works a man is justified. Out of ( ) works.The preposition is not interrogative (Griesbach), nor imperative (Erasmus), but indicative (Luther). Recollecting that here as in Jam 2:21 does not refer to justification by faith before God, but to the proof of faith before the congregation or the forum of the kingdom of God (in the sense of being declared righteous to the world, cf. 1Ti 3:16), the seeming opposition of this passage to Rom 3:28 and al. is set aside. Per se therefore might be connected with thus not only by faith but by works a man is justified, but firstly this would not give a pure antithesis as in Jam 2:18, and secondly, the preposition Jam 2:26 could then not follow, therefore must be joined adjectively with in the sense of bare faith, faith without works (so Theophylact, Grotius, Wiesinger, Huther and al. cf. 1Co 12:31; 2Co 11:23 and other passages).
Jam 2:25. But likewise, Rahab, the harlot. indicates the contrast between the two examples, their similarity. The contrast comes out strongly in the fact that Rahab was a harlot. The Article denotes that she was the historically known personage without intensifying the idea which however must not be weakened by the exposition hospita (Lyranus) or idolatra although she was both in reality (Rosenmller). But the circumstance that she was a Gentile is implied. The supposition of de Wette and al. that this example was chosen with polemical reference to Heb 11:31, because there she is praised on account of her faith, Wiesinger rejects with the appropriate observation that there as here it is the work-proof of her faith which is rendered prominent, as indeed the whole chapter (Hebrews 11) lauds faith as the power of conduct well pleasing to God. Wiesinger (following Calvin) also brings out the real motive for the selection of this example. To the example of Abraham, who was the prototype of all true faith, is now added another as remote from it as possible, that of a woman, a Canaanite, a harlot. The Apostles motive, however, must be taken even more concretely. Doubtless Rahab stands here as the representative of Gentile Christians in their works of faith. Just as Abraham by the sacrifice of Isaac, from being a Jew, hedged in by his nationality, became the patriarch of the spiritual Israel, a pattern to the Jewish Christian readers of this Epistle, so the case of Rahab is an example drawn from the Old Testament of the ability of Gentiles becoming by means of their work of faith the spiritual companions of Abraham and his children. Now she was justified not only in that her life was spared (Jos 22:6; Jos 22:22 etc.) but in that she became a highly honoured mother in Israel, as tradition informs us (Mat 1:5).
When she received the messengers.One might always think that James selected the word instead of (Heb 11:31) in allusion to the circumstance that the Gentiles of his time were so ready to receive the messengers of the Gospel. Although the of the verb may not have the secondary meaning clam excipere, (Theile) still it suitably intensifies the idea. She hospitably received the messengers and sheltered them, she received them forthwith, as the Gentiles received the messengers of the Gospel rejected and persecuted by the Jews.
And sent them forth by another way.Cf. Jos 2:15. It is not simply that she let them go, but that she thrust them off with saving haste and effort, as it were by force. So Festus the Gentile sent Paul to Rome in order to deliver him from the persecutions of the Jews and so for a time the Roman rulers in general, but especially believing Gentiles protected the messengers of the Gospel from the fanaticism of the Jews. The way of the deliverance of the messengers, however, was not only another way, but an uncommon one ( [i.e. .M.]).
Jam 2:26. For as the body without spirit.The spirit can only describe the constant, inward vital principle (and in its actuality), which gives motion to the living body. Consequently not the soul as a quiescent substance, nor that which animates (Wiesinger), and still less the as halitus (Piscator and al.). The spirit in its actuality is the of the body, without which it is dead. By comparison therefore faith is dead without (corresponding) works. It is an unnatural condition for the body to exist without spirit; consequently the reference here is to a faith which has passed into an unnatural condition. James, therefore, cannot mean that works must be added to faith; he rather sees in the works (with the Article), the collective phenomenon, that form of life which renders visible the vitality of faith, its animating energy (although not absolutely love, as Theile maintains) or entelechy. The seeming inconcinnity of the figure, to which Huther calls attention, that while on the one hand, the body is visible and the spirit invisible, faith on the other is invisible and the works visible, disappears if it is remembered that the spirit also in virtue of its actuality effects the higher visibility of the body. Being dead and being alive is the decisive antithesis, in which, however, the separate members also are brought into comparison. James is therefore far from forming a dualistic conception of real faith, he rather takes it really as a productive power much as Aristotle does the idea, and with reference to public proof he will recognize it only in its expression by works which almost recalls Hegels idea that the true in the individual authenticates itself in its process of development as fact.
Jamess doctrine of faith in this chapter in relation to the doctrine in Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16, and al.We refer in the first place to the Introduction, to the foregoing exegesis, to our exposition in the History of the Apostolic Age, I., p. 171; and in the next place to Huther, p. 126, and the Supplement to his Commentary, p. 208. Huther, with reason enumerates three views. 1. James and Paul agree in thought but differ in expression. This was the prevalent view before the Reformation, and in modern times the view of Neander, Thiersch, Wiesinger, Huther, etc. 2. The doctrine of James contradicts that of Paul. So Luther, de Wette, Kern, Baur, Schwegler. 3. There is certainly a difference in doctrine of subordinate importance yet without prejudicing their higher unity. So Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Lechler, Weizscker (see the last supplement in Huther, also the controversy with Weiss and Weizscker, p. 130, 131). Ad 1. Theophylact and others. The are different in both instances, Paul mentions the opera legis, James the opera fidei. This is also right, as Huther correctly observes. Paul deals with the ergism of the Jews, James with their orthodoxism. Huther moreover urges with reason that Paul does not attribute justifying power to the opera fidei. A second distinction in the idea of was therefore necessary. This has been pointed out by Oecumenius, Neander and al.; viz. that James takes faith per se simply as the mere notitia, the considering things as true etc. It is evident that he knows such a kind of faith but it is equally certain that he does not acknowledge it as living faith; not any more than Paul, who was equally familiar with Jewish orthodoxy according to Romans 10, but insisted with equal firmness, that faith must work by love or authenticate itself by works (Gal 5:6). Wiesinger (with whom Huther agrees), however, is right in maintaining against Schmid, Olshausen, Neander and al., that it is one thing to say to become righteous by (out of) faith authenticated (proved) in works, and another to become righteous by works in which faith authenticates, itself. This brings us to the third and most important distinction, the different senses of . Here Wiesinger and Huther also go asunder. Wiesinger (in connection with Hofmann) maintains that man, having been justified by faith, becomes personally righteous by his works in which faith authenticates itself: that justification in relation to God becomes a justification according to a mans behaviour towards God. Huther, on the other hand, holds that by Paul describes that declaring righteous or free [i.e. from guilt and punishment, German FreisprechenM.] on the part of God which puts the believer into the new filial relation to God, whereas James understands by it that declaring righteous or free on the part of God in virtue of which the man regenerated into a child of God receives in the judgment . But the two views are not quite clear. In the first the idea of the forum is wanting, where the is to take place, in the second the forum of the last judgment is improperly anticipated. It is of course understood, that according to Paul also, men will be judged in the last day with reference to their fruits of faith (2Co 5:10), but in that judgment Abraham also has not yet stood, whereas on the other hand righteousness of faith and along with it, are acquired only in an ideal judgment. But between the first Divine forum in a repenting conscience and the last forum in the judgment of the world there lies as a middle forum the public attestation of the believer in the consciousness of the theocratic congregation; outwardly to the Church an authentication, inwardly to believers a sealing. By the selection of the term, therefore, James wished the Jewish Christians to understand that with the Church he could not acknowledge them as believers, if they were lacking the full consistency of Christian deeds.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Both according to James and Paul (Rom 1:16-17) the doctrine of the sinners justification before God is one of the principal doctrines of the Gospel. The question of the true Israelite What shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (Mat 19:16; Mar 10:17; Luk 10:25), rightly considered, is the most vital question for every sinner desirous of salvation. It is so much the more melancholy that the dispute concerning the doctrine of justification by faith (out of faith), or of justification by (out of) works has in every century of the Christian era given rise to so much misunderstanding and called forth so many attempts to show that James and Paul are irreconcilably contradicting one another. How little the doctrine of the one differs from that of the other, if we understand the meaning which each attaches to the terms faith, works and justify, has been sufficiently illustrated in the exegesis of this passage. See Exegetical and Critical.Considering this, we cannot but regard the well-known opinion of Luther on the epistola straminea, which is partly based on James doctrine of justification, as the fruit of an unfortunate misunderstanding. Nor do we find in these propositions of James any positive opposition to the doctrine of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. But we hold it to be very conceivable that Pauls doctrine of justification was either involuntarily misunderstood or designedly perverted into an excuse for the flesh by the readers of the Epistle of James and that he was on that account constrained powerfully to oppose those who degraded the doctrine of grace into a cloak of sin. He therefore contends not against Paul but against a one-sided Paulinism, which in some hands might easily turn into unchristian Antinomianism and an unholy spirit of emancipation. Both James and Paul are well entitled to a hearing and every view or consideration of the way of salvation, which silences the one at the expense of the other, is decidedly unfair. Pauls preaching is glad tidings to all who are conscious of the absolute impossibility of being saved by their own virtue and strength, and the exhortation of James is a wholesome corrective for all who are apt to forget what Paul himself did teach that true faith must work by love (Gal 5:6). Paul sets into prominent relief the great antithesis of grace and sin, James (as well as our Lord, Joh 13:17) that of knowing and doing.
2. It is of the utmost importance that while, on the one hand, justification and sanctification must be distinguished the one from the other, on the other hand the one must never be separated from the other. The true preaching of the Gospel involves the necessity of Christ in all His fulness being set forth both in us and for us. If justification and sanctification are confounded, or if the latter is made the foundation of the former we open the door to self-righteousness; if justification and sanctification are separated, we deliver an open passport to injustice. The true union of the for us and the in us requires that justification be put first, but that sanctification be neither put in the background nor in the foreground.
3. What James says concerning the faith of the devils (Jam 2:19) is important on several considerations 1. As affording proof of the existence of personal, self-conscious evil spirits. 2. As affording proof of their original goodness and communion with God, which consequently shuts out indirectly all reference to dualism in the question of the origin of moral evil. 3. As affording proof of the infinite misery of the fallen angels; to have a faith which yields no consolation but only excites terror and shuddering, must probably be the highest degree of misery. 4. As indicating the low and sad standpoint occupied by one who confesses the Gospel without the exhibition of love-working Christianity; his standpoint is not Christian but devilish.
The way of acquiring the favour and friendship of God in all great essential features was virtually the same under the Old Covenant as under the New. The example of Abraham, in particular (Gen 15:1-6), which is also used by Paul (Romans 4.) exhibits this unity of the way of salvation under both Testaments in the clearest manner.
5. The case of Rahab, the harlot, who is introduced as a pattern to the believers in Christ Jesus (cf. also Heb 11:31), affords a striking proof that God exalts the mean and regards the miserable and exhibits a lofty memorial of the spiritual emancipation and exaltation of woman by Christianity. It is wonderful that just the most fallen and disgraced women of the Old Testament are preferred to honour in the New. Do not even Thamar and Bathsheba shine in the genealogy of our Lord? Matthew 1.
6. Whatever is transitory is only a similitude. Nature the symbol of grace, the body permeated by the spirit the figure of living and active faith, but the cold corpse also is the representative of a merely outward form of spiritual life, from which life itself has vanished.
7. If James calls faith without works a dead faith, he surely cannot mean that the works, the outward and the visible render faith living and that they constitute the life of faith but he had to presume that true faith includes [carries within itself] life, the animating principle, from which the works must emanate, and that this must make itself known in the works. He considers the want of works as proof of the want of vital faith and therefore he calls such faith a dead faith. Neander.
8. Luther (in his Exposition of 2 Pet. Ed. Irmischer, Vol. LXX., p. 223 sq.) excellently says concerning the fruits of faith: although they belong to our neighbour, in order that they may redound to his benefit, yet does that fruit not fail because it makes faith stronger.It is therefore altogether a very different strength than bodily strength for it decreases and is consumed; but this spiritual strength, the more we exercise and practise it, the stronger it grows, and it decreases if it is not practised.
[Jam 2:14. On the error which James combats, compare the following passage from Tertullian (de Poenit 100:5): Some persons imagine that they have God if they receive Him in their heart and mind and do little for Him in act; and that therefore they may commit sin, without doing violence to faith and fear; or in other words that they may commit adulteries, and yet be chaste, and may poison their parents, and yet be pious! At the the same rate they who commit sin and yet are godly, may also be cast into hell and yet be pardoned! But such minds as these are offshoots from the root of hypocrisy and sworn friends of the evil one.
Jam 2:16. There is opus fidei, the work of faith; fides qu operatur, faith that worketh; that is St. Pauls faith (1Th 1:3; Gal 5:6), and faith that can show itself by working, that is St. Jamess faith (Jam 2:18). And without works it is but a dead faith, the carcase of faith; there is no spirit in it. No spirit, if no work; spectrum est, non spiritus: a flying shadow it is, a spirit it is not, if work it do not. Having wherewith to do good, if you do it not, talk not of faith, for you have not faith in you, if you have wherewith to show it and show it not. Andrewes.
Jam 2:20. Beveridge (on Art. 12 of good works): Though it be for our faith only, and not for our works that God accepts us, yet our works as well as faith are acceptable unto God, yea, and they necessarily spring out from a true and lively faith, so that it is as impossible there should be true faith without good works, as that there should be good works without true faith; for as without faith our works are bad, so without works our faith is dead. And therefore a true faith may be as evidently known by its works, as a tree is clearly discerned by its fruit [Article 12 of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and Prot. Episc. Church in the United States reads as follows: Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of Gods judgment: yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.M.]. If I see fruit growing upon a tree, I know what tree it is, upon which such fruit grows. And so if I see how a man lives, I know how he believes. If his faith be good, his works cannot but be good too; and if his works be bad, his faith cannot but be bad too; for wheresoever there is a justifying faith there are also good works, and wheresoever there are no good works there is no justifying faith. To this last statement Wordsworth adds the following judicious modification. Suppose the case of a person who has been baptized, and has a lively faith and earnest resolve to serve God, and that he is suddenly taken away from this life, without having time to show his faith by his works. Or suppose the case of an infant dying after baptism. Then Faith saves. No man can do good works without Faith; but faith without works saves a man, if God thinks it fit to remove him out of this life, without giving him time for working, and if God knows that he would have worked, if he had had time for working. Indeed in such a case Faith itself is work; according to our Lords saying, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him, whom He sent (Joh 6:28-29).
Jam 2:25. Wordsworth. Rahab received the spies, who were sent before Joshua, the type of Jesus, and who were types of the Apostles of Christ, and hearkened to their message and sent them forth in speed () by a cord, by another way (other than that by which they had come), viz. by the window, from which she tied the scarlet cord by which they were let down (Jos 2:15-18), and thus obtained deliverance for herself and family by her faith, when her city was destroyed. Thus she was an example very applicable to those whom St. James addressed, who, by receiving the Gospel preached by the Apostles, might escape the woes impending on Jerusalem, as she escaped those which fell upon Jericho (cf. Heb 11:31), and who would be overwhelmed in that destruction, if they neglected so great salvation.M.].
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The Christian utility-principle.Faith without works.A faith that cannot save us, cannot possibly be the true faith.Love the touchstone of faith.Pious works behind which lurks not Seldom hardness of heart.Those who unwittingly communicate to other their temporal goods prove thereby that they received of their God only little or nothing of spiritual goods.The contention of dead and living faith.Unfruitful monotheism.The faith of devils in its infinite diversity 1, from the faith of good angels and 2, from the faith of believing Christians.Abraham the true friend of God: 1. God calls and Abraham obeys, 2. God promises and Abraham confides, 3. God tries and Abraham stands fast.The friendship of God compared with the friendship of the world. What the friend of God shuns, enjoys and expects. Why is it just faith, provided it be living and active, which makes the sinner so well-pleasing to God? Answer: 1. Because of the honour it gives to God, 2. because of the struggle it costs us, 3. because of the fruit it bears for the benefit of others.Rahab, the harlot of Jericho a guide to the heavenly Jerusalem.What the sight of a corpse suggests to a believer of the Gospel.According to James also the sinner is justified not propter, sed per fidem.
On the Pericope. Commendation of a living faith; 1. The sense in which James exhorts us thereto, 2. The connection of his doctrine with the doctrine of the Gospel, and in particular with that of Paul. 3. The importance it will always have and has now. a. There are men who have neither faith nor works; b. others who have works without faith; c. others again who have faith without works; and d. many whose faith and works leave much to be wished for. For each one of these diseases and one-sidednesses the ever-repeated consideration of James doctrine is wholesome medicine.
Starke:To boast of faith without having it, is very common, Tit 1:16.Neither true faith nor true love consists in bare words, 1Jn 3:17-18.We usually refer the poor to the Providence of God and it is just this Providence that refers them to us, 1Ti 6:18.A rich man ought to rejoice in being Gods hand, whereby to do good to the poor;Pro 3:27-28.Saving faith is not either dead or living, but it is only and always living and this is properly true faith; whereas dead faith is properly not true but false faith. But apart from the article of justification both agree in this respect, that just as true and living faith consists of three parts, viz. knowledge, assent and trust, so false and dead faith consists of these three parts but its knowledge is only historical, its assent only human and its trust only carnal or a conceit of Gods grace drawn in carnal assurance, Mat 7:21-22; Luk 13:25.Works are not the life or soul of faith but only an infallible mark of the same, Heb 11:8; Heb 11:17.The devils believe and know in particular four articles of our faith, Mat 8:2; Mat 8:9. They know 1. that there is a God, 2. that there is a Christ, 3. that there will be a final judgment, 4. that they will then be tortured. But this knowledge does not minister to their peace and salvation, but to their alarm and damnation.
Hedinger:If true faith consists only in knowledge and outward assent, the devil also is a believer and consequently blessed, 1Jn 2:3-4.
Luther:Not fear and terror, but joy, peace and consolation in the conscience work true faith, Rom 5:1.
Quesnel:Even the devil is not an atheist; what then are we to think of those who boast that they believe nothing and are not afraid of anything? Psa 14:1.Some hope to be saved by a faith which does less to them than the faith of devils, Job 21:12-13.
Langii Op.:The emptier a vessel, the more does it sound and resound; just so the hypocrite who lacks faith, Psa 94:4.
Quesnel:Works live by faith as by the spirit which animates them, Rom 14:23.
Luther:Works do not make us righteous but cause us to be declared righteous, Luk 17:9-10.All the world has admired the offering of Abraham; what may not come to pass, since God has offered His own Son? Rom 5:8; Rom 8:32.Faith is the mother who gives birth to the virtues, as her children.
Starke:All true believers are the friends of God and this is the peculiar prerogative of believers of the New Testament, Joh 15:14-15.The faith of converted Jews and Gentiles is uniform, Act 15:19.The grace of God does not charge us with past transgressions, if we are converted, 1Ti 1:13.The weak faith of a Rahab must be as active as the most perfect faith of Abraham, Rom 4:19-20.
Langii Op.:This is the only right and safe way to seek righteousness, which enables us to stand before God, solely by faith in Christ out of His merit so that that faith be also actively shown by love, Php 3:9; Gal 5:6.
Heubner:Unfruitfulness betrays the ungenuineness of faith.Love never complains of want of ability; the stronger love, the greater the ability.Dead faith is no faith.
Augustine:Such faith is a palsied hand.The faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness, before it had brought forth works, but it was a living faith, in which the works lay as to the germ.Works per se are not the spirit, but the faith moving in the works, is spirit.
Von Gerlach:What James calls faith without works is properly speaking no faith at all; not any more than a love which deals only in pleasant words, is love (Jam 2:15).Paul opposes the antithesis of dead work-holiness, James the antithesis of a pharasaic pride in empty intellectual knowledge.Paul met the Pharisees with precisely the same argument, cf. Rom 2:6-11; Romans 13:27.Man is not justified by (out of) faith separable from works, not any more than fire (e. g. painted fire) separable from heat and light is able to warm and light us.
Luther:O, faith is a lively, busy active thing, so that it is impossible for it not to be ceaselessly working good! It does not ask either if good works are to be done, but before it asks, it has done them and is ever doing. But whoso doeth not such works, is an unbelieving man, gropes and looks out for faith and good works, and neither knows what is faith nor what are good works, but for all chatters and talks much of faith and good works. Faith is a living, well-weighed assurance of the grace of God, so sure, that he would a thousand times die for it, and such assurance and knowledge of Divine grace renders men glad, daring and merry before God and all creatures, which is the work of the Holy Ghost in faith. Hence man becomes without constraint ready and glad to serve everybody, to suffer many things to the praise of God and from love of God who has been so gracious to him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea as impossible as it is to separate burning and shining from fire.
Stier:James by no means affirms that works give life to, produce or create faith; for faith comes by the power of the word, entering into and received by us and by nothing else. But faith grows complete in works, that is the same as Pauls saying or rather the Lords saying to Paul, that the strength of God may be completed in weakness (2Co 12:9). The strength of faith, indwelling from the beginning and already received along with the first seizing of grace, becomes fully proved, verified and its operation completed. Thus our calling and election are made sure in the diligence of living and doing (2Pe 1:10). Thus Abrahams first call was made sure in his last works and the word concerning justification by (out of) faith already before accorded to him, was lawfully and actually confirmed as a truth.
Viedebandt:A faith which helps not our neighbour, neither helps ourselves, for it has not helped us to love.Before faith are the tears of Peter and after faith the following after of Paul.
Jakobi:A sacred author tells us of true faith that it is the firm confidence of things hoped for. But the faith of the devils is an assurance not of what they hope for, but of what they fear.
Porubszky:Dead faith cannot save. This is evident 1. from the being of blessedness, 2. from the nature of dead, 3. from the experience of daily life.Living faith justifies and saves (Reformation-Sermon). Cf. art. 20 of the Augsburg Confession.
Lisco:Faith and works.Operative faith justifies us before God.True Christian faith a sanctifying power of life.
[Jam 2:17. Hall:As that is a vain and idle charity, which bids a man be warm and filled, yet gives him nothing to feed or warm him with, so is that a vain and dead faith, which, professing an adherence to God, yet is severed from all good works and is void of charity.M.].
[Jam 2:21. Hammond:Abraham was the father of the faithful, the great example of faith and justification; but it was not upon his bare belief of Gods promise that he was justified, but upon that high act of obedience to God, in being ready to offer up his only son, in whom the promises were made to him.M.].
[Jam 2:23. Adam Clarke:As among friends everything is common, so God took Abraham into intimate communion with Himself, and poured out upon Him the choicest of His blessings; for as God can never be in want, because He possesses all things, so Abraham, His friend, could never be destitute, because God was his friend.M.].
[Jam 2:24. Horne:In this instance of the father of the faithful, as in a common centre, are the doctrines of both Apostles met: one says a man is justified by faith working; the other by working faith; and this is really and truly all the difference between them.M.].
[Jam 2:26. Bright:Justification then by faith, or according to the Christian doctrine as opposed to the law, must be that all men being sinners are justified, and particularly receive remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and everlasting salvation, from the free and undeserved goodness of God; upon the consideration of the perfect righteousness and the meritorious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and upon the condition or qualification of a pious temper of heart for the future, to obey the will of God, and consequently to do what is right and just in whatsoever way He is pleased to declare it, but particularly as it is declared by the Lord Jesus Christ; which same condition too we had never been able to perform without the assistance of the grace of God.M.].
[Taylor:Let a man believe all the revelations of God; if that belief ends in itself and goes no further, it is like physic taken to purge the stomach; if it do not work, it is so far from bringing health, that itself is a new sickness.M.].
[Epiphanius:Faith hath in it the image of godliness engraven and infidelity hath the character of wickedness and prevarication.M.].
[Salvianus:Hominem fideliter Christo credere est fidelem Deo esse, h. e. fideliter in Dei mandata servare.M.].
[Lactantius:Christianorum omnis religio sine scelere et macula vivere.M.].
[Taylor:There are but three things that make the integrity of Christian faith; believing the words of God, confidence in His goodness, and keeping His commandments.Believing is the least thing in a justifying faith; for faith is a conjugation of many ingredients, and faith is a covenant, and faith is a law, and faith is obedience, and faith is a work, and indeed it is a sincere cleaving to and closing with the terms of the Gospel in every instance, in every particular.M.].
[Compare also on Jam 2:23. John Howe, Friendship with God, 10 Sermons. Works, 8, 376.Jam 2:24. Taylor, Faith working by love. Sermons.Bull, Doctrina D. Jacobi de justification ex operibus explanatur et defenditur, Works, 3, 1.M.].
Footnotes:
[28]If Lange alludes to the filioque in the Nicene Creed it is only proper to remark that the position of the Greek Church is sustained by Oecumenical consent, while the insertion of the filioque in the Nicene Creed has never received the sanction of an Oecumenical Council.M.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We have in this Chapter, an interesting Statement, of the Conduct to be observed by the Lord’s People, towards the Lord’s Poor. And also, a blessed Account of the Works of Faith, as distinguished from a dead Faith, of a mere hearsay Knowledge!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. (2) For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; (3) And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: (4) Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? (5) Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? (6) But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (7) Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? (8) If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: (9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (13) For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
I have brought all these verses into one view, not for that they all refer to one, and the same subject; but to compress as much as possible, into a little compass. Very beautifully, as well as graciously, the Chapter opens, with calling upon the whole Church, of regenerated believers, as brethren of one family, to consider of relationship, and to have the same love, one for another. And to be sure, there cannot be an argument upon earth, more persuasive. And equally sure I am, that while a child of God, keeps in remembrance that tie, and feels the common equality, both in nature and grace; there will be no respect of Persons, more than the Lord himself hath in his providences appointed. In our Churches, however, made up as they are of nominal and real Christians; distinctions will be preserved by the former; and what, the Apostle here saith of partiality to the person in gay clothing, and neglect of the man in poor apparel, are but too visible. Indeed, had James been supposed to have been present, in our modern Churches, he could not have drawn the characters more truly. But I beg it may be observed, that this is chiefly, if not altogether, applicable to carnal worshippers. I should blush to have it said, if it could be said with truth, of any real and regenerated child of God, that he said to a brother in Christ, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.
Reader! do not hastily pass away from this very lovely description, which, by the pen of the Apostle, the Holy Ghost hath given of the Lord’s people. The words are put, in a way of question; but they decide the thing while asking of it, God hath chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. Not simply poor, in outward things; though for the most part, the Lord’s people are, every way poor, in body and in spirit; but spiritually poor in their own attainments; for the riches of faith, find larger scope for exercise, where the soul is always laying humble before God! Sweet is that scripture of the Lord, by the Prophet to this amount, Zep 3:12 .
I do not think it necessary to swell these pages of the Poor Man’s Commentary, with observations, on what is so plain as to need none. And everything, within the limits of those verses, is like the Prophet’s vision, he that runs may read it. One point just let me remark on what the Apostle hath said, of a single offence committed against the law, becoming a breach of all. The fact is undeniable. And it were much to be wished, that the world at large, would consider the justice, and equity of it; for it would tend, under the grace of God, to carry conviction, to every man’s heart, that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of the Lord; and, consequently, no flesh can be justified in the sight of God.
Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all. And for this plain reason. Because that one breach, as fully shews the contempt for the law giver, as the breach of all. The man could not have committed this one breach, before that he had first lost all reverence to the divine sanction. And, therefore, it is not on account of his obedience to God, that he doth not break all; but because the temptation to other breaches are wanting. If causes operated, with equal strength to break many, there would be no restraint in the fear of God, to keep back. And, therefore, all the world are found alike guilty before God; though all mankind, do not alike commit the same offences. The child of God, knows this, after regeneration hath passed upon him, in the workings and plague of his own heart. And it is to such only, Christ becomes exceedingly precious, who though they are kept by grace through faith, unto salvation; know, like Paul, that in them, that is in their flesh, dwelleth no good thing, Rom 7 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jas 2:1
The sermon was chiefly occupied with proving that God is no respecter of persons; a mark of indubitable condescension in the clergyman, the rank in society which he could claim for himself duly considered. But, unfortunately, the church was so constructed, that its area contained three platforms of position, actually of differing level; the loftiest, in the chancel, on the right hand of the pulpit, occupied by the gentry; the middle, opposite the pulpit, occupied by the tulip-beds of their servants; and the third, on the left of the pulpit, occupied by the common parishioners. Unfortunately too, by the perpetuation of some old custom, whose significance was not worn out, all on the left of the pulpit were expected, as often as they stood up to sing which was three times to turn their backs to the pulpit, and so face away from the chancel where the gentry stood.
George Macdonald, David Elginbrod (chap. XII.).
References. II. 1. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 2. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture James, p. 406. II. 1-13. R. W. Dale, The Epistle of James, p. 54.
Jas 2:2
‘I found my way to the church,’ [in Pont Sainte Maxence], says Stevenson in his Inland Voyage, ‘for there is always something to see about a church, whether living worshippers or dead men’s tombs; you find there the deadliest earnest, and the hollowest deceit.’
Jas 2:3
Whoever passes up Broadway finds his attention arrested by three fine structures Trinity Church, that of the Messiah, and Grace Church…. In the old world, the history of such edifices, though not without its shadow, had many bright lines. Mysterious orders, of which we know only that they were consecrated to brotherly love and the development of mind, produced the genius which animated the architecture; but the casting of the bells and suspending them in the tower was an act in which all orders of the community took part; for when those cathedrals were consecrated, it was for the use of all. Rich and poor knelt together upon their marble pavements, and the imperial altar welcomed the obscurest artisan. This grace our churches want the grace which belongs to all religions, but is peculiarly and solemnly enforced upon the followers of Jesus. The poor to whom He came to preach can have no share in the grace of Grace Church. In St. Peter’s, if only as an empty form, the soiled feet of travel-worn disciples are washed; but such feet can never intrude on the fane of the holy Trinity here in republican America, and the Messiah may be supposed still to give as excuse for delay, ‘The poor ye have always with you’. We must confess this circumstance is to us quite destructive of reverence and value for these buildings. We are told that, at the late consecration, the claims of the poor were eloquently urged; and that an effort is to be made, by giving a side chapel, to atone for the luxury which shuts them out from the reflection of sunshine through those brilliant windows. It is certainly better that they should be offered the crumbs from the rich man’s table than nothing at all, but it is surely not the way that Jesus would have taught to provide for the poor.
Margaret Fuller.
If anywhere democracy seems natural, it should be in the eyes of God; and yet, if Americans show anywhere social demarcations, it is in the province of religion. This is true, not only of different churches where the expense of membership is so unequal that in large cities rich and poor are farther apart on Sundays than on week-days, but it is true of the sects themselves.
Hugo Mnsterberg, The Americans, p. 500.
Jas 2:5
Is the last and most admirable invention of the human race only an improved muck-rake? Is this the ground on which Orientals and Occidentals meet? Did God direct us so to get our living, digging where we never planted and He would, perchance, reward us with lumps of gold?
Thoreau, Life Without Principle.
Compare also, for a comment on this verse, the twenty-ninth chapter of The Vicar of Wakefield. The very discipline of poverty makes the heart and spirit and body strong for love. It is the poor who know the intensity of human affection the poor and patient who have to labour and toil for that prize to the uttermost farthing which ransoms the simplest delight.
John Oliver Hobbes, in The Vineyard (ch. VI.).
‘We shall never do anything without the poor,’ wrote Vinet to a friend, when the Free Church of the Vaud Canton was being formed. ‘Nothing is great, nothing is strong, save what begins with the poor.’
Jas 2:6
All the darker and sterner aspect of the age which we have been viewing, its social revolt, its moral and religious awakening, the misery of the peasant, the protest of the Lollard, are painted with a terrible fidelity in the poem of William Langland…. His world is the world of the poor: he dwells on the poor man’s life, on his hunger and toil, his rough revelry and his despair, with the intensity of a man who has no outlook beyond it. The narrowness, the misery, the monotony of the life he paints reflect themselves in his verse.
Green, Short History of the English People, pp. 248, 249.
Jas 2:7
I dare not call myself a Christian. I have hardly met the man in all my life who deserved that name.
Max Mller.
It has been suggested that every man should be called a Christian who fulfils two conditions. The first is, that he believes the universe as a whole to be something rational and righteous something which has ever our approval and admiration. The second is, that he finds himself in so much sympathy with the life and character of Jesus, that he desires to consecrate his religious feelings and convictions by associating them with the name of Jesus. Of all the attempts to define the outer limits within which the word Christian may be applied, this is perhaps the most successful.
J. M. E. McTaggart, Studies in Hegelian Cosmology, p. 246.
Reference. II. 7. J. Halsey, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. p. 260.
Jas 2:8
To the plain man the most important feature of justice is that it consists in his practical recognition of the truth that another man’s equal good is equally important with his own.
Dr. Sophie Bryant, Studies in Character, p. 32.
The correlative to loving our neighbours as ourselves is hating ourselves as we hate our neighbours.
O. W. Holmes, The Professor at the Breakfast Table (XI.).
Jas 2:8
To hope or to fear for another is the sole thing which can give to humanity the fulfilled consciousness of its own being.
Eugnie de Guerin.
References. II. 8. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iv. p. 101. II. 8, 9. R. J. Campbell, City Temple Sermons, p. 92. II. 10. H. R. Heywood, Sermons and Addresses, p. 50. R. J. Campbell, City Temple Sermons, p. 245. Brooke Herford, Courage and Cheer, p. 16. II. 12. H. Bonner, Sermons and, Lectures, p. 52. J. Keble, Sermons for the Sundays After Trinity, p. 331.
Mercy and Judgment
Jas 2:13
They are both true; they are both great facts in human history and experience. Long ago a man said: ‘My song shall be of mercy and judgment’. Surely he was a great anthem maker who could bring them both into tune. He did it, and he was right.
I. Do not suppose that we can escape this matter of judgment by some metaphysical argument: man! the matter is in thee, in thy soul, in thy blood; why shirk it, why flinch from the fact? How many there are who want to escape the Church and all that the Church means by getting up some little bubbling frothy argument about abstractions and a species of pseudo-metaphysics. If they would but look right into the very centre of their own hearts they may see murder. That is one aspect of judgment self-torment. We have many fine speeches about the possibility of God pardoning the sinner. Do not talk about that; first talk about the sinner pardoning himself. That is the difficulty even after Divine pardon. God has pardoned us through the cross of His dear Son, He has looked at us through the crimson medium of Calvary, and He has said mayhap, My son, thy sins which are many are all forgiven thee. Yes, but, Thou Almighty One, I cannot forgive myself; I am glad with a kind of grim gladness that I have been forgiven away in the eternities, but I cannot forgive myself; I did the wrong deed, and Thou must qualify me, so to say, to forgive myself; I would accept heaven’s kind pardon, but I cannot forgive my own soul. How is that to be met? I want to feed some little child because I neglected my own, but I seem to make no progress in feeding the child, the very food seems to be lost upon it: can I not have just one full round hour with my own child that I might try to make up to it what I neglected to give? That would be a kind of pardon; I thank Thee for Thy great pardon, now come to me and give me that kind of grace which will enable me to do on my side what Thou hast done on Thine.
People want to know if there is a hell. Certainly. Where is it? In you; that is where it is; in me, preacher of the Word; like all other preachers, his very soul is steeped in holy Scripture, and yet hot hell is in the man. Woe betide the soul that puzzles itself with such frivolities as, Is heaven a state or is heaven a place? No earnest mind can ask such questions; they are outside the fiery bounds of mere frivolity and curiosity.
Sometimes certain sufferings can only be expressed in terms of duration. They are poor terms, in themselves they are empty little words, but if we pile them sufficiently together they enable the soul to express its most agonistic and self-tormenting emotion. Therefore we say, ‘The worm that dieth not’. I know it! ‘The fire that is not quenched.’ I feel it! Do not take me out to some valley near Jerusalem, and say it was a figure; take me into my own soul, where there are deeper valleys than there ever were in Jerusalem; I feel the gnawing of the worm undying, and I feel the torment that cannot be stilled but by the total Trinity Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
II. ‘Mercy rejoiceth against judgment.’ There are some persons who do not like to hear about judgment. They will never make any progress, and they are people not to be trusted; they are as Ephraim, a cake unturned; there is no reality of wisdom in such people; ‘Mercy rejoiceth against judgment’. Mercy says, I must follow all the sin and all the misery, and I must teach all these people to say, Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. I have a great message, quoth mercy, and I must be out and tell it to the sons of distress and the daughters of weeping misery. What is the message of mercy? Does it abolish the law? No, mercy says, I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Mercy faces judgment, mercy recognises judgment; mercy never says, Never mind the law, do not think about the law. That is not the voice of Gospel mercy. We are taken by mercy itself to Sinai, with all its rocks and rocky lines, and then taken away until we come into green slopes, even the slopes of Mount Zion. We must pass through both experiences, some in this degree, some in that. Sin is not the same thing to every soul.
III. Judgment is a matter within human limits which can be measured and satisfied. If it is a legal judgment, a man can bend his back and accept his punishment, and then stand up and challenge society to remind him of his expiated guilt. But there is another judgment that is not of the nature of social crime, but that spiritual judgment of the heart itself which is conducted in the sight of the living righteous God. Mercy is not mere sentiment; it is not a gush, it is a salvation. What does it save us from? That is a minor question, though a great one. What does it save us into? That is another interrogation, wide as heaven, lasting as duration. Have we sufficiently thought of the negative aspect of the gift of Christ? What is that negative aspect? It touches me to the quick; it is purely negative, but most suggestive and helpful as an initial idea. What is it? ‘That we might not perish.’ We can begin with that idea, it is initial, it will do to start with; it is only negative, but of great value. ‘He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish.’ That is a minus quantity, though it is important, Is there not a positive quantity? There is, and it follows immediately upon the very words that have been quoted ‘but have everlasting life’.
Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. IV. p. 243.
Jas 2:13
Rejoice against it in the face of it, that must mean. It is a fine figure, mercy looking full in the face of judgment, and not bating a particle of its joy.
Dr. John Ker’s Letters, p. 84.
References. II. 14-23. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture James, p. 416. II. 14-26. R. W. Dale, The Epistle of James, p. 67.
Jas 2:15-16
I seem to remember a poor old grateful kind of a creature, blinking, and looking up with his no eyes in the sun Is it possible that I could have steeled my purse against him?
Perhaps I had no small change.
Reader, do not be frightened at the hard words, imposition, imposture give and ask no questions.
Charles Lamb, on The Decay of Beggars.
References. II. 15-17. Expositor (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 224; ibid. (6th Series), vol. v. p. 297.
Jas 2:16
The fundamental error of France lies in her psychology. Fiance has always believed that to say a thing is the same as to do it, as though speech were action.
Amiel.
Jas 2:17
Nothing in mediaeval history is to me more strange and appalling than their general acceptance of these truths as mathematical certainties, as things laid alongside of their actual life, without ever touching or quickening their spiritual consciousness. I have seen something of this in a less repulsive form among the poor of our own day, belief and conscience running as in two parallel lines which never meet; also, amongst people of the last generation, a belief in revelation, and a respect for it, which is not vivifying, and yet is belief, if not faith.
Dora Greenwell, Two Friends, p. 84.
References. II. 17. J. Johns, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 324. II. 18. T. Arnold, The Interpretation of Scripture, p. 269. Expositor (7th Series), vol. v. p. 547. II. 18-26. T. Mann, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliv. p. 219.
Types of Unavailing Faith
Jas 2:19
I. The faith of devils is grounded in compulsion rather than in free moral choice. They believe in spite of themselves. Belief is thrust upon them, and for that very reason cannot influence character, or work towards moral ends. No faith can guide the life and mould the destiny unless it first enlist the will on its side. The scene in which the Pharisees and Sadducees came tempting our Lord, and desiring Him to show them a sign from heaven, still repeats itself, with slight changes. When we join ourselves to the company of the Sadducees, and seek irrefutable signs from heaven, murmuring that the methods by which Jesus presents God and immortality to us fall short of absolute proof, is it not clear that we are demanding a necessary and inevitable faith a faith from which all those moral qualities which go with the personal choice is excluded? In other words, that we desire a faith which is one and the same in its basis with the faith of devils, and have therefore no true idea of its proper function in the spiritual life? Such a faith, if enforced upon men in the present stage of their spiritual development, would not answer the purpose for which God has made this principle the key to our training and salvation. Room for the moral element must always be found in the faith, which saves into a pure and blessed life. The chief virtue of faith in God’s sight is that it enlists the will into its activities. The wish to believe is the high feature in our faith which distinguishes it from the bastard faith of devils.
II. Another note of futility in this faith of the devils is that it does not include the affections. This, of course, is implied in the statement that true faith must be free, for the highest love is spontaneous and unconstrained. If the faith is to effectually shape the life and character, it must command our human sympathies as well as secure the assent of the reason, and the processes are intertwined. When we go on to say this futile faith, so dramatically described by St. James, lacks every element of trust, it is but another form of declaring that love has no place in its exercise. Independence towering into arrogant impiety is the dominant trait of the diabolic character, as it is briefly hinted in the Scriptures.
III. The outward test of the insufficiency of a devil’s faith is that it lacks those holy and gracious works by which the saving efficacy of all belief is verified. The practical life is a self-recording mechanism by which we may read the quality of the forces which are working within us. The faith that does not melt the character and cast it into worthier moulds, has no place in the redemptive economies of our Lord and Saviour.
IV. St. James reminds us that this intellectual veneer of faith cannot disguise the malady of a condemned spirit. ‘The devils believe and tremble.’ Unless our belief has those elements in it which bring the whole life into conformity with the Divine, we must continue strangers to the deep, satisfying peace which is the heritage of saints.
Jas 2:19
There is an opinion which may be said simply to identify religion with orthodoxy, with the holding for true what is true. No doubt right doctrine is a very important matter, but does that make it religion? Put it to the religious consciousness, and the answer is, No. It is the belief ‘with the heart’ that is wanted; and where that is not, religion is not. Else even the very devils would be religious; for they, as we are told, go further even than is required of them, and add to orthodoxy the fear of God.
F. H. Bradley, Ethical Studies, p. 300.
The devils, we are told, believe and tremble. But it is hard to convince people that nothing short of this can be true Christian faith. So because they are sometimes terrified by the thought of God, they fancy they believe, though their hearts are far away from Him.
Guesses at Truth (2nd Series).
Superstition is the only religion of which base souls are capable.
Joubert.
Rousseau, with his offensive vanity and literary pride, had a curious respect for Christ With a good bit of the devil in him, he believed and trembled. But I believe that he believed that sentence in his vague and cloudy panegyric on Christ to be true: ‘If the son of Sophroniscus was a hero, the son of Mary was a God’. The ‘faith of devils’ lies latent in many a mind for an emergency. As one prayed when his ship was sinking, ‘O God, if there be a God, have mercy on my soul, if I have a soul’.
Dr. John Duncan, Colloquia Peripatetica, p. 140.
References. II. 19. Archbishop Magee, Sermons at St. Saviour’s, Bath, p. 218. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 26; ibid (6th Series), vol. i. p. 143.
Jas 2:20
An opinion, I should say, gains vividness rather from constant application to conduct than from habitual opposition.
Sir Leslie Stephen, on Toleration.
References. II. 20. J. H. Jellet, The Elder San, p. 227. II. 21-23. Bishop Bethell, Sermons, vol. i. p. 100.
Jas 2:22
Gordon was no ‘saint’ in the usual meaning which the world attaches to the name. He was utterly removed from the class of religious Church Militant who, as passing residents in some French or Italian city, are prone to hurl their hymns on the Sabbath morning at the heads of the native heretics; neither had he the smallest fellowship with another large class of persons who would divide religion into two parts the muscular and the Methodist, one half John Bull and the other John Knox. Absolutely without parallel in our modern life, Gordon stands out the foremost man of action of our time and nation, whose ruling principle was faith and good works. No gloomy faith, no exalted sense of self-confidence, no mocking of the belief of others, no separation of his sense of God from the everyday work to which his hand has to be put; but a faith which was a living, moving, genial reality with him, present always and everywhere, shining out in every act of his life.
Sir Wm. Butler, Life of General Gordon, p. 80.
God’s Friends
Jas 2:23
When and by whom was he so called? There are two passages in the Old Testament in which an analogous designation is applied to the patriarch, but probably the name was one in current use amongst the people, and expressed in a summary fashion the impression that had been made by the history of Abraham’s life. As many of us are aware, this name, ‘the Friend,’ has displaced the proper name, Abraham, on the lips of all Mohammedan people to this day; and the city of Hebron, where his corpse lies, is commonly known simply as ‘the Friend’. I wish to bring out two or three of the salient elements and characteristics of friendship as exercised on the human level, and to use these as a standard and test of our religion and relation to God.
I. Friends trust and love one another. Mutual confidence is the mortar which binds the stones in society together, into a building. (1) Unless I trust God I cannot be a friend of God’s. (2) Let us remember where the sweet reciprocation and interchange of love begins. ‘We love Him because He first loved us.’ It was an old fancy that, wherever a tree was struck by lightning, all its tremulous foliage turned in the direction from which the bolt had come. When the merciful flash of God’s great love strikes a heart, then all its tendrils turn to the source of the life-giving light, and we love back again, in sweet reverberation to the primal and original love.
II. Friends have frank, familial* intercourse with one another. (1) If we are friends and lovers of God, we shall delight in intercourse with Him. (2) If we are friends of God we shall have no secrets from Him.
(3) Tell God all, if you mean to be a friend of His.
(4) If we are God’s lovers, He will have no secrets from us.
III. Friends delight to meet each other’s wishes. (1) If we are God’s lovers and friends, we shall find nothing sweeter than bowing to His will and executing His commandments. (2) And God, the heavenly Friend, will do what we wish.
IV. Friends give gifts to each other. (1) If we are God’s lovers, God will give us Himself, in so far as we can receive Him; and all other gifts in so far as they are good and needful. (2) If we are God’s friends and lovers we shall give Him, in glad surrender, our whole selves.
V. Friends stand up for each other. (1) If we are God’s friends and lovers He will take up our cause. (2) If we are God’s friends and lovers we have to take up His cause.
A. Maclaren, Triumphant Certainties, p. 172.
References. II. 23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxiii. No. 1962. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture James, p. 421. II. 24. Bishop Bethell, Sermons, vol. i. p. 79. II. 25. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii. No. 1061. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 98.
Jas 2:26
I would treat of faith as it is actually found in the soul; and I say it is as little an isolated grace, as a man is a picture. It has a depth, a breadth, and a thickness; it has an inward life which is something over and above itself; it has a heart and blood and pulses and nerves, though not upon the surface. All these indeed are not spoken of, when we make mention of faith; nor are they painted on the canvas; but they are implied in the word, because they exist in the thing…. St. James, after warning his brethren against ‘holding the faith’ of Christ ‘in respect of persons,’ that is, in an unloving spirit, as the context shows, proceeds to say that it is ‘perfected by works,’ and that ‘without works’ it is ‘dead,’ as a body without the soul. That is, as the presence of the soul changes the nature of the dust of the earth, and makes it flesh and blood, giving it a life which otherwise it could not have, so love is the modelling and harmonising principle on which justifying faith depends, and in which it exists and acts.
Newman, Lectures on Justification, pp. 265, 266.
References. II. 26. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 335. R. W. Church, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 161. III. 1-6. R. W. Dale, The Epistle of James, p. 84. III. 1-13. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture James, p. 431.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
The Royal Law
Jam 2:1-9
We do not know what is meant by a man having on “a gold ring.” The translators have Englished this matter down to simplicity. The persons referred to had not on “a” gold ring, they had as many rings on each finger as the finger would carry. That is a very different statement; that, however, is the historical fact; the hands were all jewelled, hardly any portion of the hand could be seen. We do not know what is meant by a man having “long hair” in this country, or in Western civilisation; when it is rebuked in the New Testament it is a very different thing from anything we have ever seen, unless we have travelled in Eastern countries. It is precisely the same with this matter of the gold ring, which in its singularity is perfectly justifiable, and may be very beautiful. We are to understand, however, by the gold ring of the text, foolish, extravagant, ostentatious luxuriousness. We do not know what is meant by “goodly apparel”; the word is better rendered lower down, “gay clothing.” The reference is to people who were very fond of high colours, and who covered themselves with great glaring, staring, dazzling, blinding garments; no matter how the colours lay in relation to one another, provided there was plenty of colour, a man was satisfied. Now, says James, if a mountebank like that came into the church, the church would not be good enough for him. Some think the reference here is to great pagan authorities, coming to pay an occasional visit to the Christian synagogue, which, by the way, is the literal translation of the word “assembly” in the second verse, the only instance in which the term synagogue is associated with the Christian function in the New Testament, Some have thought that now and again a great Roman might look in, some huge and pompous local celebrity might deign to look in, to see how the Christians conducted themselves in worship; and James gave warning that the presence of such a person in the church may very likely excite undue attention, and elicit a deference which was neither rational nor pious. This, however, may not be the case; the reference may be to Christian classes, the one rich and the other poor, but all the classes being included within Christian or ecclesiastical lines: if so, the warning was all the more poignant and the danger all the more acute. Do not compare one man with another. It is not a question of stature against stature, and jewellery against jewellery: remember, says James, whose servants you are; you are the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory; if you lose sight of your Master, you will be making all kinds of mistakes about one another. He whose eye is filled with Christ never sees what kind of coat a man has on: it is the poor fool who has forgotten Christ that begins to look at the people with whom he has to associate. If we could see all the heaven that this poor little capacity can take in, we should see no pomp in palaces or in thrones. Caesar would attract none of our attention because we have been with the King of kings, with the Lord of lords; and this is precisely the Apostle’s argument: you are the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, the centre of all law, the focus of all magnificence and splendour: what have you to do with the coat of the self-idolator, with the jewellery of a man who clothes himself in shining stones of earth? or why should you be intimidated by any little majesty of a local and transient kind? or why should you be turned away as if through revulsion from the poorest human creature that sleeps without a pillow? No, James would rather say, If ye had in you the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, ye would say that this poor man more closely resembles the Son of God in his earthly relations than any other man. That would be Christian reasoning.
How difficult it is to keep the world in its right place! The great man would not allow the poor black negro to sit in his pew. He was argued with on the ground of philanthropy, but philanthropy had no effect upon his nature; he was argued with on the ground of advancing civilisation, things were now much larger and nobler than they used to be; he was argued with on the ground of the personal piety of the negro, he was represented as reverent, as really Christian in feeling and spiritual in aspiration; but all this was lost on the self-idolator: when, however, the self-idolator was told that the negro was worth a million dollars, he said, Introduce me, if you please. How difficult it is to keep the devil in his right place, and to keep the world within its right limits, and to keep ourselves really honest men. We shall get over all this little tawdry devotion by-and-by; our hope is in education, our hope is also partially in familiarity, so that people, becoming accustomed to these little lights or superficial glories, will in due time learn to value them at their right price, or to despise them all. What does it matter how much luggage a man carries through to the grave? Yet we admire the man who has a great deal of baggage. It is a kind of hotel standard: the landlord seeing the luggage carried upstairs is quite sure that his bill will be paid, or that luggage will never leave the roof until it is discharged. We are luggage-worshippers. All these fields of yours are but so much luggage; the rows of houses are but so much baggage; they but amount to such and such a quantity of impedimenta , that is all; they do not make you any better or any richer in heart, any wider in mind, any kinder or more Christian in soul. The question is, What are you, yourself? When you have lost your luggage, how stand ye? men, or not men? calm, noble, richer than ever, or perturbed, disquieted, humiliated, thrown down, and altogether disorganised? You are in reality what you are in your soul.
James begins to reason with the people, as he may well reason with all the generations following “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him.” God does not take the view of the case which you adopt. God looks at men, not at circumstances; God looks at the soul, not at the body; God sees the jewels of the mind, the gleaming of intelligence, the uplifting of aspiration, the outstruggling of the soul towards liberty and light and rest. A man is not necessarily a bad man because he has a great income: a man is not necessarily a good man because he has no income at all, and because he is so crippled that he can never earn his own daily bread, but has to be a pauper all the days of his life. Incapacity and piety are not interchangeable terms. The real moral and spiritual argument you find below all these incidental aspects and transitory relationships. If a man is trusting in his riches he is a pauper; if a man is living honestly, he never can be other than really rich. Unless we have a clear understanding of these terms, we shall never get at the meaning at all. We must not look upon “rich” as equal to money, “poverty” equal to piety; nothing of the kind: the whole question of character still remains to be looked into and to be determined.
What is the charge of James against the people to whom he is writing? He states it frankly in Jam 2:6 But ye have despised the poor despised them, not because they were ignorant, perverse, foolish, worldly, or stupid, but ye have despised the poor because they are poor: if these very same men had been the recipients of ten thousand a year, then you would have quoted their names, and you would have said that your gardens adjoined one another, and that you were on hobnobbing terms with my Lord Ten-thousand-a-year. There would have been no change in the men, they have not been to school, they have not learned several more languages, they have not purified themselves of low desires; they have simply laid a great income upon their ignorance, and you look at the revenue and not at the superstition. Are ye not partial, and do ye not indulge evil thoughts? and is not your whole intellectual and social system thrown out of gear by these seductive temptations? Nor let the poor man imagine that he is despised when he is not. The poor man is apt to be sensitive; and sensitiveness is often stupidity, it is most offensive to everybody who has to do with the poor man, or with the rich man either, when any man claims to be too sensitive. I do not understand that a man is necessarily of a very high quality of character simply because his pockets are empty; I can quite understand men believing themselves despised when no feeling of contempt whatever exists in relation to them. Poverty may be honest, and honesty is always independent. Honesty can always walk in the middle of the road; it may not be able to ride in a chariot, but honesty knows the way home and takes it straightly, and is thankful that it can at all events fall back upon an unaccusing conscience. He is wealthy who wants little; he is a rich man whose necessities are few; and he is a poor man who, being a millionaire at the bank, wants the next field. Greed is never contented, cupidity is never satisfied, avariciousness lays down its head upon a pillow of thorns.
“Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?” That was the case in the time of James, and has probably been the case in all generations. It is simply impossible for any poor man to get justice in England. He will get justice if he gets before the judges, but how to get there is the question. He is not strangled by the judges: the judges of England are to be spoken of in terms of veneration and religious gratitude; they do not care whether it is prince or peasant that stands before them, they will deal out justice according to the evidence that is submitted; we ought to be proud of the English bench; but the poor man cannot get to the bench, he cannot get through the bar; there are many gentlemen who take care that the poor man shall have a hard time of it, if he wants to lay his case before the court. Why not go and seek justice? you say to the poor man. He says, I cannot pay for it: I want it, I am dying because I cannot have my case clearly stated, but I have not the costs. Why not seek to be released from this burden? Because I cannot pay for the release. The judges will do you justice. Certainly, if I could see them they would, but I cannot get at them. Justice is too dear in this country. Justice is an article of commerce, and it is sold for gold in the sense in which I have just defined. Thank God, not in the higher sense. England has outlived that period of venality, and now the bench is spotless in its administration of justice. The rich man challenges the poor man to go to law, knowing very well that the poor man cannot follow in that pursuit. The great newspaper with its million pounds behind it, says, To the law! The poor man says, I would go to the law, but it would mean utter ruin to me before I could have my case fully laid before the proper tribunal. The Apostle’s argument is this, that life uncontrolled by moral and spiritual considerations is oppressive, overbearing, dictatorial. Wealth, spelling itself with an infinite W, demands to have its own way, to sit where it pleases, and to order the rest of the world about as menial servants: that is vulgar wealth; that is the new riches; not the real wealth, accompanied by learning, self-control, piety, Christian reverence, love of Christ. Blessed be God, it is possible for a man to be very rich, and yet to be very good. It is a great danger; he lives on a volcano, he would seem to invite the enemy; yet history and our own observation concur in testifying that it is possible to be wealthy and to be modest; possible to be socially great, and socially kind; possible to have much of this world, and to counterbalance it by infinitely more of heaven: blessed are they who can thus exemplify such a possibility.
“Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called?” Here the Apostle is evidently speaking of pagan rich people. To blaspheme means to hurt with the tongue, to prick, puncture, injure, poison with the tongue; to utter foul words, unjust words, hellish words. Do not these people hurt the Son of God with their unruly tongues? Are they not irreverent, are they not impious, are they not profane? Hear their language, it expresses a boastful spirit; if they were poor they would be close-mouthed, if they had nothing to eat you would never see their real character: wealth develops personality. A man who never suspected himself of being overbearing or tyrannical, will suddenly develop into an oppressor when he receives his wealth without a corresponding addition of moral quality, spiritual energy, and sense of dependence upon the living God.
“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.” A man is your neighbour, whatever his circumstances may be. If he be too rich to acknowledge you as a neighbour, you can do without him; if he be so poor that he will thank you for neighbourly offices, you need not make him feel his poverty by an injudicious bestowal of such offices. Neighbourliness is full of subtle quality, full of spiritual unction, and may be turned into a real blessing. A man is not your neighbour simply because he lives next door to you; he may live next door to you locally, and yet live many miles from you sympathetically: he is your neighbour who understands you, who trusts you, who comes to you in his hour of need, and who quietly and hopefully tells you that he would be thankful for a hand stronger than his own put out to assist him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. You will be imposed upon. I do not really care much for people who have never been imposed upon. They impose upon themselves. They seek to impose upon God, and they succeed. They eat bread to which they are not entitled; they drink water which they have practically stolen. Deceived! why, Jesus was once imposed upon by nine men all at once. There were ten men who came to him and told him what they wanted, and he granted their request; and no sooner did they get what they wanted, than off went nine, and they have never been heard of since. One man came back, and had the good sense to fall down and worship the Son of God. What, have the nine never been heard of since? how mistaken the suggestion, how absurd the proposition! Why, they are here, they are everywhere, we cannot get rid of them. We know them to be of the nine, although they never confess it. There lives no man in gospel lands who is not a debtor to Christ; there lives no man under the sun that is not a debtor to the Cross of Calvary.
How then, is all this difficulty to be handled? By not handling it at all. We get wrong when we become economists, managers, machine-minders. Whenever we turn Christianity into a machine or an organisation, we do it injury. Christianity is a spirit, it is a quality of the heart: if we have in us the obedient spirit, carrying out the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” there need be no handling in an economic sense, there need be no showy patronage of the poor, as who should say, Look at me: here is a man with the poorest clothing on, and I will walk with him, as it were arm-in-arm, down the whole length of the church: behold me. That man is not kind to the poor; he does not understand the poor; he is not an ornament in the sanctuary, he is an ostentatious idiot. He only does Christ’s will who so does it that he is not seen of men in the doing of it. How is the spirit? how is it with our hearts? Do we really love the Saviour? are we crucified with Christ? are we partakers of the miracle which he alone, as the priest of the universe, works out? If so, we shall do all things almost unconsciously. The garden never says, I am giving you great wafts of fragrance to-day, am I not kind? The garden never says a word about the odours which it throws upon the winds. If we be in Christ Jesus, rooted and grounded in him, sharers of his grace, guests at his table of sacrifice and priesthood, our life will emit its frankincense, our hands will distribute the myrrh of the gospel, and our whole action will be modest, beautiful, simple, beneficent. This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working.
Prayer
How shall we thank thee, thou God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for all thy loving kindness and thy tender mercy, when they are without measure or bound? Our poor song is strained, our praise is without effect, our thanksgiving fails for the infinite occasion: who shall praise thee adequately, or set forth thy glory in words that are enough? Behold, there is none who hath harp, or instrument of music, or voice, to praise the Lord with sufficiency of praise. Yet thou wilt accept our song, feeble though it be; thou knowest what our hearts would do if they could: sometimes we feel as if life were too small for us, as if it needed enlargement, because of our slumbering faculty, which, if awakened by the breath of the Lord, would need all space for the utterance of its song. Thou art verily good unto us. Every man has his own blessing, every home its own light, every life its own song. Thou hast left none unblessed; on every flower there is one trembling drop of dew. We accept all thy gifts as pledges of still greater bestowment: what shall we see when we receive our sight? what shall strike the vision of the soul when delivered from the limitations of the flesh? These are mysteries we may not penetrate, but they are so hallowed and tender and condescending that they lure us on an onward, heavenward course, and we are filled with delight because of the assurance that every cloud shall be transfigured into glory, and all things now difficult and bewildering shall be made part of the great harmony of thy movement. What we need is patience, the power to wait, the energy that can stand still, the resoluteness which can express itself in repose. But this is the gift of Christ; the world has no such treasure to bestow. Bless us with thy peace, thou Son of God, and we shall be quiet under all circumstances; yea, though the earth be removed and the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea, we shall linger with religious leisure by the stream which maketh glad the city of God. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
III
THE FAITH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
Jas 2:1-26
The second chapter of James is a discussion of one theme. It is concerning the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. James attempts no definition, either abstract or theological. But in an intensely practical way he shows the distinction between the true and the false faith in so many particulars that the chapter is a perfect mine of religious wealth. First, the true faith must be held without respect to persons. A man wants to know whether he has faith in Jesus Christ or not, and James gives him the practical side of it. Good and true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ must be without respect of persons. The man who has faith in Jesus must not, in the exercise of that faith, make a discrimination between people of high degree and low degree, between rich and poor people.
There is one plane of humanity and one plan of salvation, just as the eagle had to swoop down and fly into the door of the ark over whose portals the snail crawled.
There was not any top place for the eagle to come in. All who stand upon one plane of humanity are to be favored with absolute impartiality, and as Paul puts it, “In Christ there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian, Greek nor Jew.” In other words, all distinctions based on race, nationality, tribe, property, wealth everything of that kind is lost sight of in the exercise of true faith in Jesus.
He gives some reasons why there must be no discrimination in the exercise of faith in favor of the rich as against the poor: “You observe that it is from the poor that God calls those who are richest in the faith, and that it is the rich that oppress you, and that if you make discrimination in favor of the rich, and you do that in the church when you meet, you dishonor the poor.” This is the first test of faith. It must be without respect to persons.
Second, it must fulfil the royal law, i.e., the words of the King of law: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Paul says that love is the fulfilling of the law. James calls the law to love your neighbor as yourself the royal commandment the king of all the commandments. Who first wrote, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”? Who originated that? The third test of faith is that it must be held without respect of commandments. This faith in Jesus Christ cannot go to God’s commandments and pick out some of them and say, “I like these; I will keep them,” and to others and say, “I do not like these; I will not keep them.” He goes on to show the unity and solidarity of the law, and in that way proving that one must not have faith with respect to commandments; that the law is a unit; it is a solid thing, and that if a man is guilty of one thing he is guilty of all. A rope is no stronger than its weakest part, and a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Suppose a man has stolen $500, and when he is brought into court he says, “I have not killed anybody.” The fact that he had not killed anybody does not save him from any other part of the law. Therefore, James says that they must hold their faith without any respect to commandments. In a sermon on this subject I ventured to quote Samuel Butler, an old English poet, who tells of those who Compound for sins they are inclin’d to, By damning those they have no mind to. Many people lay to themselves an unction of complacency by talking about the sins of other people: “Just look at that murderer, or that thief,” while they may, though innocent of those particular offenses, be guilty of others just as bad.
A fair illustration of this is what I call “The New England Conscience.” I call attention to some points upon which the New England conscience acted very strangely. Nearly all the writers from New England write about the purity of the New England conscience. It has always been a strange conscience to me. That conscience said, “For you to persecute us is sin. It is all right for us to persecute you.” That conscience said, “The sin of the Southern slavery will not let us sleep, but our own sectional sins put us to sleep.” That conscience said, “It was an awful thing for South Carolina to threaten only to nullify a Federal law, but it was patriotism for us to nullify many times, actually, a Federal law.” That New England conscience says, “It is a sin for you people in England to persecute us, but if we whip Roger Williams and burn a few witches that is not sin.” That conscience said, “Southern secession is treason, but it is patriotism for us to originate and teach the doctrine of secession as the best thing for ourselves.” That conscience said, “It was treason for Beauregard to train his guns upon the Federal flag floating over Fort Sumter,” and at the same time it canonized John Brown for pulling down the Federal flag. That conscience said, “It was a sin for the South to disrupt the Constitution, ” while they themselves said, “The Constitution was a covenant with death and a league with hell.” That conscience pilloried Gen. Early for burning one town, but it glorified Sheridan for burning all the homes in the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman for burning a section seventy miles wide from Atlanta to Savannah. That conscience said that it was a great sin for Federal soldiers to be ill treated in the Civil War, but it was not pained at all at the ill treatment of the Southern soldiers. I doubt not that there are Southern sins of a like nature, for which we condemn Northern people.
James says that when one exercises faith he must exercise it without respect to commandments. He must not discriminate. One man says, “I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, but I don’t see any use in being baptized and joining the church.” In other words, he says, “It is true that baptism means immersion, but why take a damp road to heaven, seeing that a few drops of water are just as efficacious as the ocean?” A soul that trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ will say, like Paul, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” And then say, “Whereupon, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.” The word of Jesus Christ will be sufficient, and that is what James has to say upon that point.
Then he goes to the next point when he says that this faith must be fruit-bearing. A man may say, “I will show you my faith without my works.” James says, “I show you my faith by my works.” It must be evidenced to all by work. If a thing has life there must be some sign of that life: “Faith without works is barren.” “Faith apart from works is dead.” That is what James says. You may have a faith, but just as sure as it never works it is not worth a snap of the finger. Then he gives an illustration in which he says, “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?”
But the reader makes a great mistake if he supposes that James’s teaching upon this subject is different from the teachings of the other New Testament writers, our Lord, for ‘instance, or Paul, who is sometimes held up in opposition to James. Our Lord says, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not, shall be like a man who built his house upon the sand. When the storm came . . . that house fell, and great was the fall thereof,” and it was our Lord who said, “If ye love me keep my commandments,” and, “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you,” and it was Paul who said, “It is true, by grace ye are saved through faith and that not of yourselves. But ye are created unto good works.” Then, in the letter to Titus he says, “When the kindness and mercy of heaven to man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.” And he goes right on to say this, that it is the grace of God that bringeth salvation; that we should live soberly and godly in this present world.
Both Christ and Paul agree with James that faith must evidence itself in good works. There never would have been any controversy at all if James had not used the word “justify” there in a peculiar sense, just like the word “temptation.” “Justify” may be a legal, forensic term, a term of the court. We are justified by faith. That is the acquittal of God. But our Lord uses the word “justify” in quite a different sense. He says, “By your words shall you be justified and by your words shall ye be condemned.” So that James has in mind when he discusses justification by works, a thought that was not in the mind of Paul. Paul takes the case of a sinner and is trying to ascertain how that lost sinner can be declared just before God, and he says that it is through faith and apart from works. James takes a Christian, not a sinner, and shows how that Christian’s works justify the Christian’s profession. Just as our Lord said, “The publicans and harlots justified God.” That does not mean that they acquitted God, but they vindicated God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
James uses a second illustration in the case of Abraham, who was justified by faith and received salvation, according to Gen 15 . That is when he was converted. It is true in a certain sense that he believed in God, but he was never a converted man until we find him in Gen 15 , that remarkable chapter that introduces so many words. There it is said that Abraham believed, and it is the first time that we come to the word. He believed Jehovah, and when he believed he was converted. Forty years after that, this believer, Abraham, did what God would have him to do in the case of Isaac, and the works justified him. Justified him in what sense? Not in a legal sense, but justified him in the sense of vindicating the profession of faith which he made. They did not make a sinner into a Christian, but justified the profession of the Christian.
I have never yet known a commentator nor a public speaker to give any evidence that he had noticed even this point that James now makes. He says that when forty years after Abraham’s conversion he did what God told him to do, that then was fulfilled the scripture, which said, “And he believed on Jehovah and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” Every time afterward ‘in his life that he obeyed God as a Christian he fulfilled the scripture which speaks of his conversion. In other words, it was the verification, “filled full,” or “fulfilled.” He says, bearing upon what was said forty years before, that it was imputed unto him for righteousness.
Many years ago Dr. J. B. Link was the editor of The Texas Baptist Herald , and he wrote an essay for critical examination, taking this position: “The sinner is justified by faith; the Christian is justified by works.” You see the position. I wrote a reply to the article at the time, conceding that a part of the ‘idea in his mind was correct. A Christian makes a profession. That Christian is a servant of Jesus Christ; his fidelity to Christ must be attested. If he is faithful, he is declared righteous in his fidelity. In that secondary sense works justify, not in the sense of justifying a sinner in order to that sinner’s becoming a Christian.
Precisely the same thing comes up in the case of Rahab. Her faith saved her. That saving faith was evidenced by works, corresponding to the profession, and these works justified the avowal of her faith, as in that passage in Timothy where Paul says Christ was justified by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit vindicated Christ, who claimed to be the Son of God. It seems somewhat curious to me that James and Paul, the author of the letter to the Hebrews, both of them selected Rahab, the harlot, i.e., who had been a harlot. The reason that she was selected is that she became an ancestress of the Lord, just like Ruth, the Gentile; just like Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah, and afterward the real wife of David. All of these were the mothers, in the ancestral sense, of Jesus.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the theme of Jas 2 ?
2. What the marks of true faith?
3. What the reasons for not discriminating faith in favor of the rich against the poor?
4. What is the “royal law,” and why so called?
5. Who originated it?
6. What is meant by the unity, or solidarity, of the law, and how does James show it?
7. What English poet is quoted here? Compound for sins they are inclined to, By damning those they have no mind to.
8. What modern discriminations are made in the commandments of Jesus?
9. What was Paul’s attitude on this point?
10. What is meant by a dead faith?
11. What James’s illustration of this kind of faith?
12. What the teaching of Jesus on this point?
13. What the teaching of Paul on the same point?
14. What one word used by James caused the controversy about his letter?
15. What its meaning as used by James? by Paul?
16. Illustrate.
17. Why was Rahab selected by James and Paul as an example of faith?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
Ver. 1. The Lord of glory ] Or, “Have not the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c. Faith is a glorious grace indeed.
With respect of persons ] i.e. Of their outward quality or conditions, as rich or poor, of this side or that, &c. Zanchy relates about a certain Frenchman, a friend of his, and a constant hearer of Calvin at Geneva, that being solicited by him to hear Viret, an excellent preacher, who preached at the same time that Calvin did, he answered, If St Paul himself should preach here at the same hour with Calvin, Ego, relicto Paulo, audirem Calvinum, I would not leave Calvin to hear Paul. This is not only partiality, but anthropolatry a or man worship, saith he. Grynaeus reports a speech of George, duke of Saxony: Although I am not ignorant, saith he, that there are various errors and abuses crept into the Church, Nolo tamen amplecti Evangelium quod Lutherus annunciat, yet I will none of that gospel reformation that Luther preacheth. (Lect. in Hag.) Compertum est, it is for certain, saith Erasmus, that many things are condemned as heretical in Luther’s writings, that in Austin’s and Bernard’s books are approved for sound and pious passages. (Erasm. Epist. ad Card. Mogunt.)
a Man worship; the giving of divine honours to a human being. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 13 .] THE SIN OF RESPECT OF PERSONS: as the first of a series of reproofs for errors in practice which spring out of the mention of the : cf. ch. Jam 1:25 and Jas 2:12 . The Apostle begins, as is his wont, with strong blame of the sin: then illustrates it, Jas 2:2-4 ; then gives the ground of its sinfulness, Jas 2:5-11 , and concludes, Jas 2:12-13 , with a reference again to the law of liberty.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1 4 .] The warning, and its practical ground .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1 .] My brethren, do not ( is not, as Schneckenburger, al., interrogative, but imperative, as ch. Jas 1:16 ; Jas 3:1 . The interrogative with may not always require a negative answer, but it always implies a doubt as to the fact questioned: ‘Surely. not ?’ e. g. : “Surely this cannot be the Christ?” Joh 4:29 ; ; “Surely he will not do more signs?” Joh 7:31 ; &c. See Winer, 57. 3, b. And this clearly cannot be the case here) in respectings of persons ( , ‘in,’ i. e. in the practice of, in the midst of: see on below. The subst. is plur., to point out the various kinds and occasions of the fault. The fault itself, as here intended, is easily explained by the context, where an example is taken of one kind of it. Theile says well that it is, “iniquitas singulos Christianos non virtute sua christians, sed fortuna qualitatibusque externis metiendi atque secundum hanc normam alios aliis prferendi.” Notice, that . is put first, as carrying the weight of the dehortation, following, as matter of course and existing fact) hold ( has been taken wrongly: e. g. by Grot., “detinere velut captivam et inefficacem,” = in the saying of St. Paul in Rom 1:18 , : by Pott, as , , , as Rom 1:28 , explaining it “religiosis partibus nimium studere,” which however this construction would hardly bear. is simply to have or to hold, as ever in St. James, cf. ch. Jas 1:4 ; Jas 3:14 ; and see reff.) the faith (not merely ‘faith in,’ but the faith of , thus setting before them more forcibly the utter inconsistency of such respect of persons with the service of Christ) of our Lord Jesus Christ , ( the Lord ) of glory (such I believe, with most Commentators, to be the construction of , though it is somewhat harsh and unusual. Others have been proposed, but all of them are more objectionable still: e. g. by Erasm. (“Nolite facere discrimen personarum juxta rerum mundanarum stimationem”), and Calvin (“ex opinione”), as if it were or – : by Bengel (“Est appositio, ut ipse Christus dicatur , gloria, cf. Luk 2:32 ; Isa 40:5 ; Eph 1:17 ; 1Pe 4:14 ;” none of which places justify the idea, seeing that in the two former a genitive follows , and the two latter rather support the common view): by Laurentius, who unites with (“Christus glori = Christus gloriosus”): finally by Huther, who would join with (differing however from Grot. who doing this had made dependent on it, , and from Gataker and Hottinger, who also doing it, make it = ), making it a gen. of the object, and . . . . a gen. of the subject the faith, resting on our Lord Jesus Christ, in the (future) glory, i. e. , Rom 8:18 . And, he adds, this belief in the glory which shall be revealed is the more naturally mentioned here, because of the contrast between it and the passing glory of this world’s pomp. Exactly: but that contrast is just as vivid on the common hypothesis. This last, complicated and harsh as it is, seems to me the only admissible one of all these interpretations. But it is surely far better, either to govern by , as a second genitive, or to regard it as the epithetal genitive which so constantly follows the mention of the divine Name, as and the like. Both these are abundantly justified: see reff. Huther’s objection to the first, that the full name entirely completes the idea, and forbids another genitive following, is not decisive: just for the same reason that the full Name is given, viz. to make the contrast more solemn and striking, is the additional title given, to increase still further that solemnity. It is to be again noticed, how expressly St. James grounds Christian practice on the faith of Christ, in all its fulness. The just spoken of is here taken up and enlarged on; but its root and ground is , and that, ).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Jas 2:1-13 take up again the subject of the rich and poor which was commenced in Jas 1:9-11 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Jas 2:1 . : the imperative, which is also found in all the versions, seems more natural and more in accordance with the style of the Epistle than the interrogative form adopted by WH. : the plural form is due to Semitic usage, like in Joh 1:13 ; cf. Rom 2:11 ; Eph 6:9 ; Col 3:25 . : the mention of the “faith of Christ” is brought in in a way which shows that this was a matter with which the readers were well acquainted. The phrase must evidently mean the new religion which Christ gave to the world, i.e. , the Christian faith. : the intensely Jewish character of this Epistle makes it reasonably certain that the familiar Jewish conception of the Shekinah is what the writer is here referring to. The Shekinah (from the root “to dwell”) denoted the visible presence of God dwelling among men. There are several references to it in the N.T. other than in this passage, Mat 9:7 ; Luk 2:9 ; Act 7:2 ; Rom 9:4 ; cf. Heb 9:5 ; so, too, in the Targums, e.g. , in Targ. Onkelos to Num 6:25 ff. the “face (in the sense of appearance or presence) of the Lord” is spoken of as the Shekinah . A more materialistic conception is found in the Talmud, where the Shekinah appears in its relationship with men as one person dealing with another; e.g. , in Sola , 3 b , it is said that before Israel sinned the Shekinah dwelt with every man severally, but that after they sinned it was taken away; cf. Sota , 17 a , where it is said: “Man and wife, if they be deserving, have the Shekinah between them”; so, too, Pirqe Aboth. , iii. 3: “Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradyon [he lived in the second century, A.D.] said, Two that sit together and are occupied in words of Torah have the Shekinah among them” ( cf. Mat 18:20 ); see further Oesterley and Box, Op. cit. , pp. 191 194. The Shekinah was thus used by Jews as an indirect expression in place of God, the localised presence of the Deity. “In the identification of the Shekinah and cognate conceptions with the incarnate Christ, ‘a use is made of these ideas,’ as Dalman says, ‘which is at variance with their primary application’. It marks a specifically Christian development, though the way had certainly been prepared by hypostatising tendencies” (Box, in Hastings’ DC [55] ., ii. 622 a ). That Christ was often identified with the Divine Shekinah may be seen from the examples given by Friedlnder, Patristische und Talmudische Studien , pp. 62 ff. If our interpretation of here is correct, it will follow, in the first place, that the meaning of the phrase is free from ambiguity, viz. , “ Have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Shekinah ” (literally “the glory”); this is precisely the same thought that is contained in the words, “ who being the effulgence of his glory (Heb 1:2-3 ). And, in the second place, this rendering shows that the words are an expression of the Divinity of our Lord; cf. Bengel’s note: “ : est appositio, ut ipse Christus dicatur ”. [Since writing the above the present writer finds that Mayor, p. 78, refers to Mr. Bassett’s comment on this verse, where the same interpretation is given, together with a number of O.T. quotations; it seems scarcely possible to doubt that this interpretation is the correct one.]
[55]CG Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1907 1908)
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
James Chapter 2
Our chapter opens with the distinct confession of Christ; so that we are in advance of the pious but general ground taken before, which, though quite compatible, to say the least, with faith in Him, does not expressly put His name forward, beyond the mention of it that was made in Jas 1:1 . We shall see that there is good reason for this new step when it is duly weighed.
“My brethren, do not with respectings of persons have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory” (ver. 1).
The tendency was strong to sever faith from practice, and this quite as much among Jewish professors, this chapter shows, as among Greeks. It is the levity and selfishness of human nature. But the preceding chapter took a distinct and positive step in asserting the blessedness of enduring trial; and yet more, that of His own will God the Father begot the believers by the word of truth. This is incomparably more than holding sound views. It is not orthodoxy alone but a communicated “divine nature” as 2Pe 1:4 expressly calls it, and as 1 John throughout teaches with fulness and precision.
Here the warning is against the inconsistency of spirit and ways. The case first specified is “in respectings of persons.” For it might occur in many forms and in various degrees. But allowance in any shape is not to be indulged, as being an affront to “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,” emphasised as it is here too, by speaking of “the glory” that belongs to Himself.
No soul that believes in Christ can be ignorant of the death-blow He in His entire practice gives to such feelings or conduct. Mary of whom He deigned to be born was a Jewish maiden in the humblest position; so was Joseph the carpenter, His legal father through whose descent He derived His title to the throne of David and Solomon; and this was essential as a perfect claim to Messiahship. For Mary, daughter of Heli, was descended from David’s son Nathan who gave no such right. Again, when born, He was laid “in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” So He grew, advancing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man. One lovely episode excepted, He abides in entire obscurity, going down and dwelling with Mary and Joseph, in subjection to them and in despised Nazareth; yet was He King of kings and Lord of lords.
When His public service called Him to speak out, what so uncompromising! “Blessed ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach and cast out your name as wicked for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap [for joy]; for, behold, your reward is great in the heavens, for in the same manner did their fathers to the prophets. But woe to you the rich! for ye have received your consolation; woe to you that are filled now! for ye shall hunger. Woe, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe, when all men speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luk 6:20 Luk 6:26 ).
To a similar effect might one transcribe our Lord’s habitual teaching; and His ways were in unwavering accord with it. He and He alone, when asked, “Who art thou?” could truly answer, “Absolutely (in the principle of My being) that which I also speak to you” (Joh 8:25 ). His speech and His conduct – Himself – exactly tallied. He was in every way the truth: not a word to recall, nor a way to question. All was genuine – this always in Him Who was the Holy, the True, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.
And what shall one say of that mighty work of His which in depth exceeded all that was possible even throughout His days here below? Happily we have the Holy Spirit to pronounce unerringly. He, “subsisting in the form of God, counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking a bondman’s form, becoming in likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross” (Phi 2:6-8 ). “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 be rich” (2Co 8:9 ).
Such is “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory.” Can any considerations, can any words, rise up to the simple overwhelming strength of what God thus tells us of Him? Has He not said (Luk 9:23 , Luk 9:26 ), “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me?” and “whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in his own glory, and of the Father, and of the holy angels?” Again, has He not laid down, “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee? But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed, because they have it not to recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just” (Luk 14:12-14 ). What more withering of the world’s glory than “what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (Luk 16:15 )? Do we truly believe it? And where was respect of persons then in His sighs? It never had a moment’s place; nor should it have with us, who believe in Him. His glory may well and for ever eclipse every rival – that of the world especially which crucified Him.
Respect of persons is the instinct of self, and the reflex of the world; but it denies Christ in practice, and the reality of that intimate relationship which grace has formed between all that are His. The inspired writer singles out a particular case which he had probably witnessed, though put here hypothetically.
“For if there come into your meeting (lit. synagogue) a man gold-ringed in splendid clothing, and there come in also a poor one in vile clothing; and ye look upon him that weareth the splendid clothing, and say, Sit thou here well (or, in a good place); and ye say to the poor one, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool, did you not make a difference among yourselves and become judges of evil thoughts” (vers 2-4)?
One can easily understand “synagogue” used by the writer to those addressed, not literally, but as applied by a ready transition to a Christian company. It is therefore here rendered “meeting” as perhaps the nearest analogue. No one could be surprised at so worldly a spirit in a literal synagogue; it was a grief if it passed to a Christian congregation. What was less congruous with Christ than a gold-ringed man in splendid clothing? Never was He bedizened save in the bitter mockery of those about to crucify Him. Yet could He have called in a moment all the wealth and grandeur of the world around Him, had it been seasonable either for Himself or for those that represent Him here below. On high He is crowned with glory and honour, as they will be at His coming. But faith recognises the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich. Now, however, is the time to follow Him on earth, indifferent to all that flesh counts desirable, and counting all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord.
Suffering for righteousness’ sake, yet more for Christ’s sake, ought to be precious in our eyes as Christians; and we might appropriately honour such as have won a good degree in any spiritual way. But to slight one for the garb that bespeaks his penury, and to honour another because of his gorgeous raiment attesting his wealth, is a two-fold contradiction of Christ. Even the law taught far higher principles than those that the Jews had fallen into, and that govern the Gentiles who know not God. For in the days of law it was touching to read the solicitude of God for the poor and afflicted, and the earnestness with which He urges on His people to consider them. But how much more deeply His compassion was shown in Him Who was His image! And forgetfulness of His example was serious in the eyes of James for those who owe all to His grace, Himself the Lord of glory.
Not that the scripture warrants the spirit of disrespect to the noble or the exalted. Render, says the apostle Paul, to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour; even as every soul is called to be subject to the higher authorities, being set up by God in His providence, a terror not to a good work but to an evil one. Thus is the Christian relation to the powers that be in the outside world. But love is due to one another among all who bear the Lord’s name, and tender compassion to such as are in danger of snare through their trials and poverty. Contempt to the poor Christian is as far from the mind that was in Christ as can be conceived.
Hence we see, before this uncomely offence is touched, how this Epistle in the very first chapter exhorted brethren to count it all joy when they fell into varied temptations; which to unbelievers are nothing but sorrow and disappointment to be got rid of by all means possible. Hence the brother of low degree was to glory in his elevation, and the rich in his humiliation, because as the flower of grass he was to pass away. More than this he who endures temptation (he declares from God) is blessed; for it is not only that grace works moral profit now, but, having here been proved, he shall receive the crown of life promised of the Lord to those that love Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him, as assuredly as if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. The cross of Christ is correlative to heavenly glory; and so here His glory precedes this rebuke to the worldly spirit that despised the poor and cringed to the rich, unworthy anywhere, most of all where those showed it who professed the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory.
Dr. Whitby and others labour to explain this of judicial assemblies which the Jews held in their synagogues; and they infer the probability that this was transferred by the converted Israelites to their meetings. This of course reduces the rebuke to partiality in case of trials between a poor man and a rich, instead of seeing that we have here a great principle universally applicable, and all the more necessary when ease and wealth and luxury began to flow in among professing Christians. So too Doddridge follows Beza in his lowering of ver. 4 (“judices male ratiocinantes”), as he also makes the opening words to mean, “and distinguish not in yourselves” according to the different characters of these two men, but only regard their outward appearance, “you even become judges who reason ill.” What is really intended is an evil moral state, out of all sympathy with our Lord, in making a difference among themselves, and becoming judges of evil thoughts, i.e., characterised by having evil thoughts, instead of weighing and feeling as in the light of God and His love by faith. It was a worldly mind.
Nor is it only that fawning on rich persons, even when believers are gathered together, is inconsistent with faith in Him Who in His grace became poor though Lord of glory. It is opposed to the law, and still more to the gospel and Christianity. It denies in effect relationship with Him as a secondary thing to the circumstances of the day and the lowest distinction in the world; and it is as far as possible from God’s mind, as His word shows and Christ impressively interpreted and livingly endorsed it. “The poor have the gospel preached to them.” What were they that received it in His eyes? To the pungent contrast already given we have an earnest appeal added.
“Hear, my beloved brethren; did not God choose the poor as to the world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those that love Him? But ye dishonoured the poor [man]. Do not the rich oppress you, and they drag you before tribunals? Do not they blaspheme the worthy name that was called on you” (vers. 5-7)?
Attention is drawn first to the plain and characteristic fact everywhere manifest in the church that not only is the gospel preached to the poor, but that the poor are those who as a class are chosen by God. So the apostle strongly set before the ease-loving intellectual Corinthians who liked to be on good terms with the world to the Lord’s dishonour and their own loss and danger. How little they had read aright the word of the cross which is to those that perish foolishness, but to the saved God’s power! For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the intelligence of the intelligent. Here it is the still more debased assumption of the rich. But in any case the foolishness of God, as they count Christ crucified, is wiser than men, and the weakness of God in the same cross is stronger than men. “For behold your calling, brethren, that [there are] not many wise according to flesh, not many mighty, not many high born. But God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame the wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the strong things; and the ignoble things of the world and the despised God chose, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are; so that no flesh should boast before God” (1Co 1:26-29 ).
The humble estate of the poor is by grace made their decided advantage when they are called. For there is no bondage more imperious than that which “society” imposes on its votaries, nothing more at issue with the Lord of all Who judged it root and branch by being outside it all and ignoring its pretensions, and pursuing His path of holy goodness to all in unswerving obedience. This the poor believer sees, rich in faith, and escapes the will of his class to rise in the world by religious means as by every other way. His insight may not be profound or extensive, but he accepts with joy the gospel which elevates him spiritually, and he seeks no other now, looking onward confidently for the kingdom not of this world, which He, Whose it is, promised to those that love Him.
The poor “of this world” of Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Auth. V. supposes a text which extant MSS. do not warrant, unless it be the exaggerated rendering of the article, without the demonstrative pronoun. This “of the world” has considerable support of both uncials and cursives, as well as ancient versions, etc., and is the text of Griesbach, Matthaei (both edd.) and Scholz. They were probably misled by the Vulgate, followed by Wiclif who preceded them, and by the Rhemish that came after them, “in this world,” which has one cursive (29) to this effect with the venerable Bede. “In the world” has the support of three junior MSS. (27, 43, 64). The true reading adopted by the latest critics is that of the most ancient and best uncials, though neglected by the ancient versions save the later or Philoxenian Syriac. It is , and appears to be the dative of reference, i.e. poor in respect of, or as to, the world – a not uncommon usage.
It may be remarked that “rich in faith” is the simple contrast by grace with their lowly circumstances here below, and qualifies them as a class without any question of different measure of comparison individually. Faith made them all rich if they had nothing otherwise; and faith as well as love would honour them accordingly now, as God surely will and before the universe in due time. Christ gave their confidence in Him, and love to Him. His promise encourages and strengthens them along the road.
In open opposition is the haughty contempt which wealth naturally engenders. How strange and deplorable that the rich as a class should be of any account in Christian eyes? What is “the poor” man (whether in the case described in vers. 2-4 or in any other) but dishonoured by their unbelieving self-complacency? More unjust and selfish still is their attitude and habit. “Do not the rich oppress you? and [is it not] they [that] drag you into courts of justice? Do not they blaspheme the excellent name that was called on you?” As a class, and so it is our Epistle speaks, they were hostile to the name of the Lord, which was everything to the poor that believed and confessed Him; as they were heartless toward themselves whose poverty exposed them to all manner of evil surmise and detraction, and so to persecution.
In riches the enemy has a ready means of keeping up the spirit of the world against Christ and His poor. But what is here aimed at is the guilty tendency on the part of any Christian, and especially the poor, to honour “the unrighteous mammon,” and those who have nothing else to boast. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. Scripture is dead against coveting their goods, or yet more wronging themselves. Neither this Epistle nor any other countenances levelling. Faith gives the only exultation of value in the spiritual realm; and this the church surely is, or it is worse than nothing, even salt that has lost its savour, and proper neither for land nor for dung. He that hath ears to hear let him hear.
It is characteristic of this Epistle to employ the expression “royal law”; nor is it the only peculiar phrase that fell to it with striking propriety. We have already “the perfect law of liberty” in Jas 1:25 , and we have “law of liberty” again in Jas 2:12 .
“If however ye fulfil law royal according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors” (vers. 8, 9).
This is admirable. The feeble saints of the circumcision, most of them poor, had so forgotten early fervour of faith, as to cringe before the wealthy, and this even in their assemblies if a rich man entered therein. Yet were they not rich in faith, the poorest of them? Were they not heirs of the kingdom which He who chose them promised to those that love Him? What inconsistency to give themselves the air of valuing a little money, of closing the eye of faith to their own hopes of glory, though the least recollection of the Lord of glory dispelled those natural thoughts and brought back the promise which detects the false glitter of the world as it is.
The third book of Moses had from early days asserted that great moral principle as far as Israel were concerned; but where was the heart to prize it? where the nature capable of carrying it out unswervingly? Certainly it is not in the mind of the flesh, which is enmity against God and is no better really for man. “Love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.” Nothing more true or trenchant. The fulness and the manifestation of it is in Christ sent into the world that we might live through Him. This we cannot do till we receive Him from God, believing on His name. Then we live, and live to God; for he that believeth on Him hath life eternal. There is no other way. “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the witness that God gave of his Son. And this is the witness that God gave us life eternal, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
The believer then alone has this life, and loves according to Christ, Who, when challenged gave the first place to loving God, but also pressed in the next place loving one’s neighbour. Here in this world of need and misery even the law-teacher had not obeyed it, and asked, Who is my neighbour? To the Lord it was all plain enough. He came in love to seek and save the lost at all cost to Himself. Now that He is on high, His love is active in His own, and in them only. For as the apostle shows in Rom 8 those that are in Christ walk according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh which is lawless and selfish, the very opposite of love or of any other good. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus it is that freed the believer from the law of sin and death. Sin is no longer a law, the power of death was broken by Christ risen from among the dead; and He is our life. Such is one reason (ver. 2) why there is no condemnation for those in Christ. God cannot condemn that life which is now ours in Him. But then what of our evil nature, the flesh? The second (ver. 3) meets this. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin (i.e. as a sin-offering) condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law, its righteous import, might be fulfilled in us who walk not after flesh but after Spirit. For it is only the believer who has the new life and the efficacy of Christ’s death in annulling his evil nature that walks according to the Spirit, loving God supremely and loving man so as to suffer or even die for his good.
It is not that James brings out what was left for the apostle of uncircumcision. But he does characterise this grand moral claim of God as regards the neighbour as a “royal law.” Before it respect to persons is sentenced to death. The command to love one’s neighbour towers above any transient or artificial distinctions among men. Who or what are the rich to wish it set aside in their favour? And what mean any rich in faith among the poor by ignoring it? It is a royal law, says our Epistle. Those who fix the eyes of their heart on our Lord Jesus, will not fail to fulfil it. It were a sad descent to look away from Him in glory, as He is, to the gold-ringed man of wealth. Even Jacob before the Lord Jesus came did better when brought into the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. He was not dazzled, any more than he petitioned for his family. But “Jacob blessed Pharaoh.” “And without all contradiction,” says Heb 7:7 , “the less is blessed of the better.” May the poorest of the saints be strengthened to cherish undimmed the consciousness of his blessedness and the hope of the glory where the Lord is, and whither he himself is bound!
Respect of persons is a violation of love and a transgression of the law that insists on love, as is added in the verse that follows. If a believer be poor, there is no ground in this why he should pander to worldliness, despise his poor brethren, puff up the wealthy, and dishonour the Lord of glory Who has shown us the clear contrary. “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 be rich” (2Co 8:9 ). “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” Weigh Phi 2:5-9 . As our Epistle declares, to have respect of persons is to work sin and to be convicted by the law as transgressors; as the Epistle says, Love worketh no ill to the neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.
There is hardly a fact more characteristic of the natural man than condemning another for the evil to which one is not addicted, while extenuating one’s own sins by every excuse possible as a peccadillo. Truly man is not only fallen, but his nature is utterly unjust, and God is in none of his thoughts. One may plead the universal failure of mankind, and the inconsistency of the faithful. But Christ puts all such apologies to the rout, and shows us Man on earth in Whom was no sin and no guile in His mouth, now in glory, the Lord of glory. He, not Adam, nor Israel, is the standard here below as well as in heaven. Who can stand beside Him as He was, or be with Him as He is?
Here, however, it is the law which is used to crush self-righteousness; and the law, being of God, cannot but be inflexible and resents all the evasions of men. “For whoever shall keep the law as a whole but shall offend in one [point] is become guilty of all. For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. And if thou commit not adultery but killest, thou art become a transgressor of law. So speak, and so act, as about to be judged by a law of liberty”(vers. 10-12). Were there true obedience, one claim of God would be as binding as another, violence as hateful to us as corruption. To offend in one point violates God’s authority and brings us under the guilt of breaking all. The appeal reminds us of the apostle’s reasoning in Rom 2:17-29 , where the Jew is convicted of folly in resting on law and boasting in God and teaching others as babes while failing to teach himself, and dishonouring God by the transgression of the law in which he professedly gloried. All attempt for sinful man (and a Jew made no difference) to acquire righteousness by the law, and stand on any such ground before God, is but fatal ignorance of self as well as of God. By deeds of law shall no flesh be justified in His sight.
On the other hand the believer in the Lord Jesus is begotten by His word of truth. It is not only an operation on conscience and heart, but a new nature is imparted, which is of God, as indeed those who thus believe are declared to be born of God, and His children. As the life of the Spirit is by the word of truth, so it is formed, and nourished, developed and exercised in that word, which has for him who is thus begotten a character of holy freedom in entire contrast with the action of the law on the natural man. In this case it is an instrument of bondage, because the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good; whereas the mind of the flesh, the natural man, is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be; only self-will is the law of its being. The law therefore, when truly applied, discovers to the sinner his essential alienation and can give no quarter but condemn and kill. It is no better in those born of God than in any other, as the latter half of Rom 7 elaborately shows. Flesh does not change into spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh.
But as the word was used in God’s will to beget the believer by the impartation of a nature akin to Himself and His word, so it remains valid and intended for the need and admonition, refreshment, direction, and strengthening of the new life all through. This it is which is called a “law of liberty.” Its authority was recognized by the soul in hearing Christ’s word and passing from death unto life. Then ensued repentance toward God as truly as faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ: self was judged as evil, grace and truth in Christ became most welcome. Then the word which communicated the knowledge of such a blessing is valued and confided in, to guide the soul through the mazes of a world departed from, and to lay bare the devices of the enemy to ensnare along the way. Light divine surrounds one’s going. It is accordingly a “law of liberty” which we love; as indeed we now know the God Who gave it us first and last as our best and truest Friend, proved and manifested in the Lord Jesus.
It is of much interest to observe how the apostle Paul shows in Rom 8:3 , Rom 8:4 the way in which he contrasts with the law that worketh wrath, and slew him who sought thus to establish his standing, what he calls “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ,” which was characterised by emancipation, not bondage, and issued in a life of obedience pleasing to God. Each inspired writer has his points of difference; both agree in testifying to a similar blessed result.
Men easily satisfy themselves before a God who no longer manifests Himself visibly, Who does not act now as when the law ruled, or government was displayed in immediate rewards and punishments. And the error of men is apt to be so much the greater when they regard the gospel as introducing a mitigation of legal severity. They fancy that a little sin here and there, now and then, will meet with mild dealing, so that there is no need of over-righteousness. The circumstances of those addressed in this Epistle would naturally expose souls to this snare, which is itself laid bare and torn to pieces in the verses already before us. No notion was more derogatory to His authority Who had spoken at Sinai, none more subversive of the law itself, which is necessarily inflexible. If broken in a single point, righteousness under it is gone, and the honour of the whole is compromised. If infraction in one respect were tolerated, licence would go on to expect more and more, till perhaps every point but one was surrendered, if indeed even one on such a principle could escape the encroaching will of man. But all such tolerance is unknown to the law, which demands nothing less than absolute, uncompromising, subjection.
Is it argued then that the condition of man under it, no matter what his privileges and helps, is and must be hopeless? The answer is that so it is assuredly, because man is a sinner. Evil is there since the fall in his very nature, a law in his members, warring in opposition to what is holy and just and good. The apostle Paul goes to the root, and shows that death to the old man is the sole divine deliverance, amelioration of ourselves gradual or sudden being alike human and vain, the nostrums of theological empiricism, and not the remedy proclaimed to faith in God’s word. Again, were it simply our death, it would be unavailable for us here below, and the blessed fruit would only be after death when we should be with Christ; and thus the victory that God intends now through our Lord Jesus would be shorn of a great part of its lustre and power. But it is not so. The death and resurrection of Christ gives far more now than most Christians believe, to their own loss. For it is not only that He died for us – for our sins, which are therefore blotted out and forgiven – He died also to sin, He Himself wholly without it. He knew no sin; yet God made Him sin for us; and we who believe are associated with Him in that death of complete deliverance from sin in principle, root and not fruits merely, as the apostle so elaborately discusses in Rom 5:12 ; Rom 8 . Our very baptism signifies, not only that we washed our sins away, but that we died to sin and are justified from sin as well as sins. Hence we are called to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Our Epistle does not penetrate to such depths nor rise to such heights, as it was given to the great apostle of the uncircumcision, minister of the church no less than of the gospel, as he designates himself in Col 1 . But it is no less inspired of God, no less necessary to man, in order to test mere profession where it most abounded and was most dangerous, to maintain the true character of that law which must be a ministry of death and condemnation to the guilty, and to insist on “a law of liberty” which exactly suits the new nature of those whom God in His purpose or will begot by the word of truth. The law was not accompanied by the rainbow, the beautiful sign of divine mercy in the covenant with creation (Gen 9 ), after Noah began the post-diluvian world with the burnt-offering, the sign of Christ’s sacrifice. Lightning and thunder, unearthly trumpet, and God’s voice more terrible than all to sinful man, inaugurated the law. It is Christ here below Who first shows us the law of liberty in all its fulness and perfection.
This portion closes with the next two verses: “So speak and so act as about to be judged by a law of liberty; for the judgment [is] merciless to him that showed no mercy. Mercy glorieth over judgment” (vers. 12, 13). James as ever was led of the Spirit to press in practice the manifestation of God’s will on those that have or say they have, the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; and he resents, as we ought, the shame which a lax and spurious profession puts on the Lord “of glory.” Can any appeal be more wholesome now as then? They are indeed to be pitied as well as blamed who think it beneath scripture; and it is to be feared, that, even if at bottom true believers, they find the edge of the sword, as James wields it, too sharp for their ways. Otherwise it seems incomprehensible that they should not welcome his words as of great and permanent value for themselves as for others.
Nor is it true that the Epistle is absorbed in the outward conduct. Speaking and doing are its exhortation as covering a very large part of our practical life; but it is carefully defined that both were to be of such a sort as was suited to those that are to be determined by a law of liberty: a principle of the inner man, and inscrutable to such as, having no faith, have no new life from God and no knowledge of His grace. As mercy is the spring of all we profess as God’s children, God is indignant at its absence in those that by grace claim kindred with Himself. They surely, of all mankind, are responsible to delight in mercy and to manifest it in word and deed, as having to do and to be judged by a law, not of bondage, but, of liberty. For God is not mocked but sanctified in those that come nigh Him, as all do who are begotten of Him; and He will be glorified in the solemn judgment of those that set Him at nought. As we here read, “for the judgment [is] merciless to him that showed no mercy.” Is not this as it should be?
Say not in a depreciatory way, It is a sentiment suited to James the Just. Read on, and learn that God gives us much more through him: “Mercy glorieth over judgment.” Are not we who believe witnesses of it? Was not our Lord Jesus the proof of it, so exhaustively that there is no need, no room, for more? For all the vessels of mercy derive it through Him. Mercy is God’s habitual and congenial work; judgment is His strange work, yet most righteous, against those who, having the utmost need, despise His mercy and most of all in the Lord of glory. Yet He has shown and proved it in its richest resources and its most affecting form, emptying Himself, yea, the true God humbling Himself, to save His ungodly enemies. But how blessed for those that believe! Beyond doubt “mercy glorieth over judgment” in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. But are not we who bear His name responsible to have it bright within us, that our practical conversation may be filled with it and governed by it?
Thus the spirit of grace has been upheld, and a law of liberty which accompanies it, in contrast with a judicial spirit which avails itself of the law of bondage and ought to be as alien from an object of mercy as it displeases God. How solemn the warning of merciless judgment to him that showed no mercy! How sweet the assurance that mercy glories over judgment! Life, liberty, and grace go together for blessing.
Thence the transition is simple and intelligible to the snare of setting up a bare creed. Israelites were above all exposed to this danger; so that the dealing with such a case is peculiarly appropriate to this Epistle. In judgment they had been used to a brotherhood after the flesh, as the seed of Abraham. When professors of Christ, they were liable to regard their new brotherhood as founded on no more than their common recognition of the Lord of glory. But it as plain in fact as it is in scripture that such a recognition of Him might be no more than intellectual, having no root of divine life because it sprang from no work of conscience through the Holy Spirit’s application of the truth in revealing Christ. For we are not brought to know God save through our wants and guilt, not as students of science, but as poor sinners in need of His mercy in Christ. A mental profession of faith was of no more value than the schools of differing thought, under different names as leaders to which Greek vanity was ever prone. It was even more fatal and in itself “natural,” as their contentious zeal was “carnal,” for so the apostle made the distinction.
“What [is] the profit my brethren, if one say he have faith, but have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or a sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one from among you say to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but ye give them not the things needful for the body, what [is] the profit? So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in (or by) itself” (vers. 14-17).
When the apostle Paul declared the gospel, he insisted on faith in Jesus Christ as justifying, apart from works of law; because it is God’s righteousness, not man’s, unto all, and upon all that believe, Jew and Greek being lost sinners. It is a question of being justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Now, for our Epistle, it is the quite different question of a practical life in accord with Christian profession. Indeed Paul insists on this moral reality in Rom 2 as strenuously as James does here. It is a worthless faith which does not produce fruit of righteousness that is by Jesus Christ unto God’s glory and praise. The scripture before us does not answer the question how a sinner is to be cleansed before God, but what conduct befits those that have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To this end of necessary consistency are the questions. What is the profit for a man to profess faith and have no works as its witness? Can faith save him? This is illustrated by the heartlessness of dismissing a naked and hungry brother or sister with the words, Be warmed and filled, without any corresponding gift to help them. Does Christ own a faith that does not work through love? Here again we may observe how the apostle Paul’s words in Gal 5:6 energetically express the practical aim of James. The tongue may be active, the heart cold, the walk selfish as before; but are these the ways of a nature begotten to the Father of lights by truth’s word? Are such unreal talkers a kind of first-fruits of His own creatures?
There is no need, however, to give the Greek article with Wakefield the force of “this,” nor with Bede and the Revisers the emphasis of “that,” nor yet the more legitimate possessive sense of “his.” Faith is entitled, even apart from previous mention, to the article in Greek as an ideal object, the thing faith, or as we in English say “faith,” as much as if it expressed the different sense of “the faith” required in many scriptures. The context can alone decide in which shade it is employed. Hence also we may observe that in ver. 17 scarce any person thinks of translating the same words, , save as “faith”; and rightly so, for it is still used in the same general sense. This is not at all invalidated by the anarthrous form in ver. 14, where the insertion of the article would be improper. For in such cases the accusative is complementary to the transitive verb, and expresses the character of the action that resulted, unless it be intended to denote that which through some reason becomes a specific object before the mind; both of which cases may be seen again in ver. 18.
The principle is stated concisely in ver. 17: “faith, if it have no works, is dead in itself.” If it were divinely given (Eph 2:8 : Phi 1:29 ), it would manifest its mighty and gracious effects. For Christ is its object, and His love above all thought of man, but influential beyond anything in us or around us to raise the soul accordingly. He is not only an example that powerfully acts on all He loves and loving Him, but a motive and a source, to form the affections and the walk of His own here below. It is easy for those who are no better than James describes in their human faith to decry its energy where the Holy Spirit has wrought livingly. In fact they know nothing of its divine reality. Their faith is dead in itself; and any works so wrought are no less intrinsically dead.
We have now another saying in order to bring out the reality, as we had in vers. 14 and 16. In the First Epistle of John we may see the contrast pursued more deeply. “But some one will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith apart from works, and out of (or, by) my works I will show thee my faith Thou believest that God is one, thou doest well: the demons also believe and shudder (vers. 18, 19).
The fact in the spiritual realm, which lies under the question here discussed, we have seen to be laid down with the utmost simplicity and clearness in chap. 1: 18. It is the possession of a new life, which is given to all who are begotten by the word of truth. No intellectual process can amount to such a boon, though a spiritual understanding never in operation before accompanies it, as there are also new affections proper to it. We can readily apprehend how unpalatable such teaching must be to those that were attached to the ancient system of ritual and law for a nation chosen as a whole, as well as to the still wider snare of crying up human powers, with no adequate sense of God or His kingdom on the one hand, or of man’s sin and ruin on the other. It was therefore urgently requisite that all should learn on divine authority that in christianity a mere action however powerful on a man’s faculties is altogether short of the truth. For there is communication of a life in Christ which he never possessed before, as well as the Holy Spirit thenceforward dwelling in him in power, the gift of God’s grace; so that he might know the things of God and the revealed objects, as the old nature was capable of knowing the things of man and of the old creation subjected to him.
This new nature, attaching to the family of God, and of course to every member of it, involves with such a relationship the responsibility of a corresponding walk as well as inward communion with the source and giver of its blessedness. It was the allotted and appropriate work of James to charge home this all-important truth and its practical consequences on those he addresses, and indirectly but none the less really on all that have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here he is resisting an abuse easily understood, and as dangerous as evil. He censures and repudiates a mere doctrinal scheme without life, and hence destitute of the works which attest a new nature from God. John, who was given to set forth the glory of Christ’s person beyond all others of the inspired, shows us life in Christ which the believer even now has, and the gift of the Spirit, the other Advocate. But here the same truth of the divine nature whereof we become partakers is no less truly revealed, the basis of all works acceptable to God, of all godly practice in word, deed, or feeling.
“But some will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:” a supposition that divorces what God joins inseparably, an evident fighting against His word and nature, as also His will. For had he not affirmed in the Spirit, that God, the Father of lights, of His purpose begat us by the word of truth? To be doers of the word, not hearers only who are not so begotten, is our consistent and blessed place, a perfect law of liberty in which we by grace continue because our new nature loves Him and His word. Those who sever work from faith have no living association with God and simply deceive themselves.
Hence the refutation in the next words: – “Show me thy faith apart from works, and out of my works I will show thee my faith.” It is an answer in both its parts conclusive. Faith is as it were the soul, and needs works as its body to be shown. To “show” faith separate from works is therefore an impossibility. He who believes by the Holy Spirit shows his faith by his works, as the rebuker rejoins.
This very word “show,” as it falls in with the great aim of the Epistle is the key to the difficulty, which from of old till now so many uninstructed and unestablished souls have found in comparing the teaching of Paul and of James.
Inasmuch as both were inspired, there can be no ground for it. The appearance is due solely to the ignorance of unbelief. The one is occupied with the root, with what is “before God” (Rom 4:2 ); the other, with the fruit, and therefore “show me” before men. Both agree that, where faith is divinely given and souls are begotten by the word of truth, good works are the fruit and the outward witness of faith. There is nothing in fact to reconcile, because there is no real variance. The one insists that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law; the other, that he who claims to have faith is bound to show it by his works. In the one, the question is how a sinner can be justified by grace; in the other, what God looks for from him who professes faith.
But the refutation goes farther. “Thou believest that God is one; thou believest well: the demons also believe and shudder.” It was well to own the unity of God, and wicked to hold a multiplicity of gods, which were no better than demons. Even these were not so insensible as those who boasted of their faith but had no works corresponding to show. For the demons shudder, as we see in the Synoptic Gospels. The mere professor of faith may not have as much feeling, though God’s word solemnly warns that such as he have no inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and God.
The allusion to the demons is a powerful illustration of the point in hand. None believe more decidedly than they; none anticipate their doom more surely or keenly. But such faith has no link with a new nature from God, nor does it issue in works that please Him. The demons ere subject to the evil will of their chief, the devil. Man alas! plays his part in a way most offensive to God, boasting of a faith with even less feeling than the demons, and without the works testifying to a life received from Him. There is nothing to “show,” as there ought to be and must be if the gospel were accepted as it is truly, not men’s but God’s word, which is also energetic in those that believe.
“But art thou willing to learn, O vain man, that faith apart from works is dead (or, idle)? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when (or, in that) he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (vers. 20, 21).
As to the difference of reading in the first of these verses, the great majority of MSS. gives “dead”; but the witness for “idle” is, ancient and excellent. The shade is but slight, the substantial sense remains as before. Only there was here as elsewhere the danger of assimilation, for the chapter ends with the conclusion that faith apart from works is “dead.” If “idle” were the true text in ver. 20, the language of ver. 26 would not be a repetition but a striking and effective climax. Hence Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, with Westcott and Hort, prefer it.
Then we are confronted with an appeal to Abraham’s case, always of the greatest weight with his descendants, and in the present instance an overwhelming disproof of the evil that is combated, “Was not Abraham our father justified by (or, out of) works when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”
It is the more decisive, because the work of Abraham here adduced had nothing in common with the benevolent or philanthropic works which men mean by “good,” and boast of as sure to weigh with God. To be willing to slay his son Isaac, on the contrary, this class of men would consider atrocious in Abraham, and only worthy of Moloch as they blasphemously add. They do not believe that God ever put Abraham to such a test, and become more and more bold in treating it as the Syrian legend of a barbarous age and of a heathen superstition.
Our Epistle, and it is not alone in this (for the Epistle to the Hebrews, wholly distinct as it is in character, is emphatically in accord), cites it as a deed of the highest moral excellence, and proving Abraham to be justified by works. It was characteristically an act contrary to every instinct of a father. It was enhanced by the fact that Isaac was “thine only son, whom thou lovest,” as God said in putting Abraham to this extreme proof. There was, on the face of the demand, the apparent frustration of those blessed hopes of blessing, long promised by God, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,” to say nothing of making of him a great nation, and making his name great. How could this be if Isaac must now die, and this so unaccountably by his father’s hand, as an offering to the God Who had wrought wondrously in giving him, and now strangely required his sacrifice? Doubtless God could give another son, and by Sarah if it so pleased Him; but this would not meet the case. For had not God said in calling his wife not Sarai but Sarah (Gen 17 ) that the son of her, to make her mother of nations and of kings of peoples, would be this very Isaac, with whom He would establish His covenant for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him? There in fact it was Abraham’s faith rested. He laughed, we may say, at impossibilities, in contrast with Sarah’s laughter incredulous at first. The real impossibility was for God to lie. He was sure therefore that if Isaac had now to die, God would raise him up from the dead in order to make the promise good. Abraham’s faith was now, not as before, that God would give him a son of Sarah, but that He could not fail to raise this son from the death now required, in order to fulfil all He had promised. Never such a trial of faith; never such a triumph by grace.
Long before this event, if late in Abraham’s fruitful course, it is written that he believed in Jehovah, and He counted it to him for righteousness (Gen 15:16 ). This is the most express acknowledgment of him as justified by faith. And scripture uses it beyond controversy in this way and to this end, as in Rom 4 . But in Gen 22 , as referred to in our Epistle, we behold the believing man “showing” his works and thereby justified. Nor can any thing be more certain than that Abraham’s work in offering Isaac his son on the altar derived all its value from his faith in God’s call; so much so that without this it would have been heinously evil.
But the reasoning goes farther, and the weight of Abraham’s example is urged yet more in a way as telling as simple. So did our Lord Himself when here below in divine wisdom and grace dealing with the Jews; so did the great apostle of the Gentiles repeatedly and in the power of the Spirit.
“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and he was called Friend of God. Ye see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only” (vers. 23, 24).
It is a striking arrangement that the offering up of Isaac is introduced before the statement of Abraham’s believing God. This departure from the order of fact and of the inspired history was of course not only intentional, but essential to the question in hand. For it is asked in the first place if Abraham our father was not justified when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar.
Greater trial than such a demand never was laid by God on a believing father. For many years had passed after the promise to make of him a great nation, to bless him, and to bless in him all the families of the earth (Gen 12 ). This was ere long enlarged by defining the land or visible scene of the blessing with a promise also of his seed made as the dust of the earth beyond number (Gen 13 ). Later on, when there appeared to the childless man no possessor of his house but Eliezer of Damascus, Jehovah assured him that one to come forth from his own bowels should be his heir, and that as the stars (for He bade him look up) should his seed be. And he believed Jehovah, Who counted it to him for righteousness. Long years after this was the son born, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And not a few years elapsed during which Isaac grew up, the object not only of the tenderest love but of hopes far deeper and higher than filled any other heart on earth. God then proved Abraham. It was not to resign him in death, as many a father has sorrowfully known. It was not to have another son as a substitute for Isaac. For, in the bitter trial of Ishmael sent away with his bondwoman mother, Abraham knew from God that in Isaac should his seed be called. In him only was the line of promise. Yet God, in no way softening the blow, “after these things” said, “Take now thy son, thine only one, Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of” (Gen 22:2 ).
What! God, the true God, the God of grace, lay such a claim on His Friend – the demand on such a father of such a son, the surely and solely expected channel of blessing so immense and hopes so glorious! And not this only, but in a way so unexpected and so terrible, as a burnt offering to Himself, and from his father’s hand as the slaughterer! Yes, it was a trial beyond example, heightened by all that nature could feel, by the very faith that received the word of Jehovah so implicitly, and by the hope so fed by promise, and matured by experience of divine mercy beyond all he dared to ask when interceding. It was just to prove the faith unqualified which His grace had given to Abraham, and this not in word only but in deed and truth. Truly it was faith perfected by works. This could not be deduced from Gen 15 . It was manifest to the highest degree in Gen 22 . And hence we see the ground which requires that this should take here the first place.
But it is carefully added, “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” as the earlier chapter has. For this was the joint result of a faith proved to be of God. The works had nothing in common with those activities of benevolence which fill the horizon of man and are the boast of such as make the creature all, but God nothing. Here it was one who looked death in the face and in a form incomparably harder to bear than if he had been called to die for his son, – to smite with the knife at God’s word his only and well-beloved son on whose life hung the promises of blessing for all mankind! It was not only to trust God for his own character who would seem the worst of murderers, but for raising from the dead him who must live again to make good the promised blessings for Israel and for man.
Yet, however differently applied at the last, it was the same divinely-given faith on which God at the first had pronounced. “The scripture was fulfilled.” No wonder he was called God’s Friend. So Jehovah treated him in Gen 18 when He disclosed His secret intentions. “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing?” So Jehovah treated him when drawing out his heart there in intercession. Hence in due time the pious king of Judah (2Ch 20:7 ) and the prophet friend of another pious king (Isa 41:8 ) called Abraham Jehovah’s friend.
But it was a work that man would never have thought of, a work deriving all its virtue from absolute trust in the God Who demanded what He alone was entitled to ask, as He alone could have availed by resurrection power to conciliate it with His love, His truth, His character, and His purposes, turning it too, spite of appearances, to such experimental blessing as Abraham had never yet enjoyed, and to like blessing for the family of faith in their turn. We see from such a case how far Abraham was from a bare faith of the mind, when justified out of his works, and not out of the empty assent there denounced. How could it justify any one? Surely we may here apply the Lord’s word, Wisdom is justified of all her children.
Another example is cited from the O.T. in support of faith not bare but working by love, so needful to impress on the Jewish mind. Rahab’s case is in its circumstances as different as can be conceived from that of the father of the faithful; for it is a woman a Gentile, of the accursed race, and of previously bad character; yet after believing she entered the line of great David, and hence became an ancestor of David’s greater Son. It was, therefore, no less pertinent and powerful.
“And likewise was not also Rahab the harlot justified by (out of) works, in that she received the messengers and sent [them] out another way?” (ver. 25).
Apart from faith the work of Rahab was no better than Abraham’s trial. If done without God as the object and spring and authority, both were not only of no value but abominable. Viewed humanly, one was willing to kill his own son and heir, the other to betray her king and country to their destroyers. As faith wholly changed the character of their respective acts, so those acts proved the divine principle and the living power of their faith. This has been pointed out in the former instance. Wherein did it consist in the latter?
Rahab believed the two men to be the messengers of Jehovah’s people. “I know,” said she, “that Jehovah hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you.” How did she know this? Not a city was taken in Canaan, not an inch of its territory was annexed, not even a blow had yet been struck. Jordan ran its barrier against Israel on the other side, and it was at that time overflowing all its banks. How did Rahab know what neither king nor people of Jericho knew? It was by faith. “For we have heard [and faith comes by hearing] how Jehovah dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond Jordan, to Sihon and to Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. We heard and our hearts melted, and there remained no more spirit in any man because of you; for Jehovah your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath” (Jos 2 ).
The rest of the inhabitants had heard no less than Rahab; but the word of the report did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those that heard. It reached Rahab’s conscience, and she bowed to God in the face of every natural reason and feeling. She rightly judged the folly and the sin and the ruin of fighting against the God who had delivered His people from the power of Egypt, and crushed irretrievably their Amorite foes. His purpose to give Israel Canaan was notorious; and therefore she hid the two spies as the representatives of the people to whom God gave the land by promise and oath: two immutable things in which it was impossible that God should lie. Her faith lay thereon. Could any anchor be more secure or firm?
Yet Rahab did not despair for herself or others; she counted on mercy in Jehovah’s name, as true faith does. “And now, I pray you, swear to me by Jehovah, since I have dealt kindly with you, that ye will also deal kindly with my father’s house, and give me a sure sign, that ye will save alive my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our souls from death.” The sign was given as solemnly as it was kept. As she received the messengers in faith, she sent them out by another way in the same faith.
Thus Rahab’s faith, was self-evidently fruitful. She had swamped all patriotism in her fear of Jehovah. As she believed in the bond that attached Him to His people, she looked, and not in vain, that assuredly as He should destroy Jericho, He would rescue her and hers. In spite of her habits hitherto impure, notwithstanding her unscrupulous readiness to deceive and baffle where her heart was engaged, faith was energetically at work; and the heart-knowing God bore her witness. “And likewise was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?”
For her it was no barren acquiescence that Jehovah was the God of Israel. It was the living active faith that He would work on their behalf in Canaan as in Egypt, in the wilderness, and in the borders of the promised land. Hence she acted in a faith which issued in works exactly and highly suited to His purpose for His people. Unbelief might suggest failure for herself as well as for them. But her faith overcame all fears and rose above all difficulties. It was easy to conceive hitches, and to apprehend the indignant and cruel destruction which must follow their discovery of her treason. But her faith was simple and strong in what Jehovah was to His people; and it expressed itself not in words only but in deeds which she well knew exposed her naturally to the most suffering and ignominious death. Her faith laid hold of the sound principle that the highest of all rights is that God should have His rights. Therefore she dreaded not the wrath of king or people, gave to the wind her fears, and endured, as seeing Him Who is invisible. Was not she too justified by works?
The witnesses of faith and works here adduced are the most powerful that the O.T. affords; and from it this Epistle in God’s wisdom cites them as the weightiest and most conclusive for the purpose. Those of Israel who had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ were as responsible as all others to manifest righteousness practically. It was the more relevant to press the godly walk which becomes faith, because, being brought out of a system of letter, they needed to be especially cautioned against relapse into what they had left behind. If they lived in the Spirit, they should the more seek to walk in the Spirit. For so is the will of God that with well-doing we may put to silence the ignorance of senseless men, as well as guard against our own tendencies. But there was more still in the cases before us; for even where works are most insisted on as evidence and proof of divine reality, these works owe all their value to the faith which gave them being. Without faith they would have been detestable, instead of being as they are the most solid testimony to their faith in God at all cost.
“For as the body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (ver. 26).
In ver. 17 it was said that faith, if it have not works, is “dead by itself”; in ver. 20 faith without works is “barren”; here at the end of the discussion faith without works is pronounced absolutely “dead,” and so it surely is. Where the manifestation of living reality is sought, what can be more offensive than a dead body? Emphatically it is so under the gospel, where the Lord Himself declares that He who believes has life eternal. To lack holy vitality is fatal. It is not to have the Son of God, Who is the sole spring of all that glorifies God. For what else is the believer left here below but to walk and serve and suffer and worship, while waiting for the Lord? For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God before prepared that we should walk in them.
Even in writing to the Thessalonian saints, recently brought to God from heathenism, the apostle remembers without ceasing their work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope. With them the gospel was not in word only but also in power. The very world outside was telling the effect of the truth shown in their turning to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to await His Son from the heavens, Whom He raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath. Israelitish confessors yet more required to be warned against a lifeless formalism. And here this is fully given.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
James
FAITH IN HIS NAME
Jam 2:1 .
THE rarity of the mention of Jesus in this Epistle must strike every attentive reader; but the character of the references that are made is equally noticeable, and puts beyond doubt that, whatever is the explanation of their fewness, lower thoughts of Jesus, or less devotion to Him than belonged to the other New Testament writers, are not the explanation. James mentions Christ unmistakably only three times The first occasion is in his introductory salutation, where, like the other New Testament writers, he describes himself as the slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ’; thus linking the two names in closest union, and proffering unlimited obedience to his Master. The second ease is that of my text, in which our Lord is set forth by this solemn designation, and is declared to be the object of faith. The last is in an exhortation to patience in view of the coming of the Lord, to be our Judge.
So James, like Peter and Paul and John, looked to Jesus, who was probably the brother of James by birth, as being the Lord, whom it was no blasphemy nor idolatry to name in the same breath as God, and to whom the same absolute obedience was to be rendered; who was to be the object of men’s unlimited trust, and who was to come again to be our Judge.
Here we have, in this remarkable utterance, four distinct designations of that Saviour, a constellation of glories gathered together; and I wish now, in a few remarks, to isolate, and gaze at the several stars – ‘the faith of our Lord – Jesus – Christ – the Lord of glory.’
I. Christian faith is faith in Jesus.
We often forget that that name was common, wholly undistinguished, and borne by very many of our Lord’s contemporaries. It had been borne by the great soldier whom we know as Joshua; and we know that it was the name of one at least of the disciples of our Master. Its disuse after Him, both by Jew and Christian, is easily intelligible. But though He bore it with special reference to His work of saving His people from their sins, He shared it, as He shared manhood, with many another of the sons of Abraham. Of course, Jesus is the name that is usually employed in the Gospels. But when we turn to the Epistles, we find that it is Comparatively rare for it to stand alone, and that in almost all the instances of its employment by itself, it brings with it the special note of pointing attention to the manhood of our Lord Jesus. Let me just gather together one or two instances which may help to elucidate this matter.
Who does not feel, for example, that when we read ‘let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith,’ the fact of our brother Man having trodden the same path, and being the pattern for our patience and perseverance, is tenderly laid upon our hearts? Again, when we read of sympathy as being felt to us by the great High Priest who can be ‘touched with a feeling of our infirmities, even Jesus,’ I think we cannot but recognise that His humanity is pressed upon our thoughts, as securing to us that we have not only the pity of a God, but the compassion of a Man, who knows by experience the bitterness of our sorrows.
In like manner we read sometimes that ‘Jesus died for us,’ sometimes that ‘Christ died for us’; and, though the two forms of the statement present the same fact, they present it, so to speak, from a different angle of vision, and suggest to us different thoughts. When Paul, for example, says to us, ‘If we believe that Jesus died and rose again,’ we cannot but feel that he is pressing on us the thought of the true manhood of that Saviour who, in His death, as in His resurrection, is the Forerunner of them that believe upon Him, and whose death will be the more peaceful, and their rising .the more certain, because He, who, ‘forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood likewise took part of the same,’ has thereby destroyed death, and delivered them from its bondage. Nor, with loss emphasis, and strengthening triumphant force, do we read that this same Jesus, the Man who bore our nature in its fulness and is kindred to us in flesh and spirit, has risen from the dead, hath ascended up on high, and is the Forerunner, who for us, by virtue of His humanity, hem entered in thither. Surely the most insensitive ear must catch the music, and the deep significance of the word which says, ‘We see not yet all things put under him i.e., man, but we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour.’
So, then, Christian faith first lays hold of that manhood, realises the suffering and death as those of a true humanity, recognises that He bore in His nature ‘all the ills that flesh is heir to,’ and that His human life is a brother’s pattern for ours; that, He having died, death hath no more terrors for, or dominion over, us, and that whither the Man Jesus has gone, we sinful men need never fear to enter, nor doubt that we shall enter, too.
If our faith lays hold on Jesus the Man, we shall be delivered from the misery of wasting our earthly affections on creatures that may be false, that may change, that must be feeble, and will surely die. If our faith lays hold on the Man Jesus, all the treasures of the human love, trust, and obedience, that are so often squandered, and return as pain on our deceived and wounded hearts, will find their sure, sweet, stable object in Him. Human love is sometimes false and fickle, always feeble and frail; human wisdom has its limits, and human perfection its flaws; but the Man Jesus is the perfect, the all-sufficient and unchangeable object for all the love, the trust, and the obedience that the human heart can pour out before Him.
II. Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ.
The earliest Christian confession, the simplest and, sufficient creed, was, Jesus is the Christ. What do we mean by that? We mean, first and plainly, that He is the realisation of the dim figure which arose, majestic and enigmatical, through the mists of a partial revelation. We mean that He is, as the word signifies etymologically, ‘anointed’ with the Divine Spirit, for the discharge of all the offices which, in old days, were filled by men who were fitted and designated for them by outward unction – prophet, priest, and king. We mean that He is the substance of which ancient ritual was the shadow. We mean that He is the goal to which all that former partial unveiling of the mind and will of God steadfastly pointed. This, and nothing less, is the meaning of the declaration that Jesus is the Christ; and that belief is the distinguishing mark of the faith which this Hebrew of the Hebrews, writing to Hebrews, declares to be the Christian faith.
Now I know, and ‘I am thankful to know, that there are many men who earnestly and reverently admire and obey Jesus, but think that they have nothing to do with these old Hebrew ideas of a Christ. It is not for me to decide which individual is His follower, and which is not; but this I say, that the primitive Christian confession was precisely that Jesus was the Christ, and that I, for my part, know no reason why the terms of the confession should be altered. Ah, these old Jewish ideas are not, as one great man has called them, ‘Hebrew old clothes’; and I venture to assert that they are not to be discarded without woefully marring the completeness of Christian faith. The faith in Jesus must pass into faith in Christ; for it is the office described in that name, which gives all its virtue to the manhood. Glance back for a moment to those instances which I have already quoted of the use of the name suggesting simple humanity, and note how all of them require to be associated with this other thought of the function of Christ, and His special designation by the anointing of God, in order that their full value may be made manifest.
For instance, ‘Jesus died.’ Yes, that is a fact of history. The Man was crucified. What is that to me more than any other martyrdom and its story, unless it derives its significance from the clear understanding of who it was that died upon the Cross? So we can understand that significant selection of terms, when the same Apostle, whose utterances I have already Been quoting in the former part of this sermon, varies the name, and says, ‘This is the gospel which I declared unto you, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.’
Again, suppose we think of the example of Jesus as the perfect realised ideal of human life. That may become, and I think often does become, as impotent and as paralysing as any other specimen without flaw, that can be conceived of or presented to man. But if we listen to the teaching that says to us, ‘Christ died for us, leaving us an example that we should follow His steps,’ then the ideal is not like a cold statue that looks down repellent even in its beauty, but is a living person who reaches a hand down to us to lift us to His own level, and will put His spirit within us, that, as the Master is, so may also the servants be.
Again, if we confine ourselves to the belief that the Man named Jesus has risen again, and has been exalted to glory, then, as a matter of fact, the faith in His Resurrection and Ascension will not long co-exist with the rejection of anything beyond simple humanity in His person. If, however, that faith could last, then He might be conceived of as filling a solitary throne, and there might be no victory over death for the rest of us in His triumph. But when we can ring out as the Apostle did, ‘Now is Christ risen from the dead,’ then we can also say, ‘and is become the first-fruits of them that slept.’
So, brethren, lift your faith in Jesus, and let it be sublimed into faith in Christ. ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ The answer is – may we all from our hearts and from our minds make it! – ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: III. Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.
Now, I take it that that name is here used neither in its lowest sense as a mere designation of politeness, as we employ ‘sir,’ nor in its highest sense in which, referred to Jesus Christ, it is not unfrequently used in the New Testament as being equivalent to the ‘Jehovah’ of the Old; but that it is employed in a middle sense as expressive of dignity and sovereignty.
Jesus is Lord. Our brother, a Man, is King of the universe. The new thing in Christ’s return to ‘the glory which He had with the Father before the world was’ is that He took the manhood with Him into indissoluble union with the divinity, and that a man is Lord. So you and I can cherish that wonderful hope: ‘I will give to him that overcometh to sit with Me on My throne.’ Nor need we ever fear but that all things concerning ourselves and our dear ones, and the Church and the world, will be ordered aright; for the hand that sways the universe is the hand that was many a time laid in blessing upon the sick and the maimed, and that gathered little children to His bosom.
Christ is Lord. That is to say, supreme dominion is based on suffering. Because the vesture that He wears is dipped in blood, therefore there is written upon it, ‘King of kings, and Lord of lords.’ The Cross has become the throne. There is the basis of all true rule, and there is the assurance that His dominion is an everlasting dominion. So our faith is to rise from earth, and, like the dying martyr, to see the Son of Man at the right hand of the majesty of the heavens.
IV. Lastly, Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ, ‘the Lord of glory.’
Now, the last words of my text have given great trouble to commentators. A great many explanations, with which I need not trouble you, have been suggested with regard to them. One old explanation has been comparatively neglected; and yet it seems to me to be the true one. ‘The Lord’ is a supplement which ekes out a meaning, but, as I think, obscures the meaning. Suppose we strike it out and read straight on. What do we get? ‘The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.’
And is that not intelligible? Remember to whom James was writing – Jews. Did not every Jew know what the Shekinah was, the light that used to shine between the Cherubim, as the manifest symbol of the divine presence, but which had long been absent from, the Temple? And when James falls back upon that familiar Hebrew expression, and recalls the vanished lustre that lay upon the mercy-seat, surely he would be understood by his Hebrew readers, and should be understood by us, as saying no more and no other than another of the New Testament writers has said with reference to the same symbolical manifestation – namely, ‘The Word became flesh tabernacled among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as the only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ James’s sentence runs On precisely the same lines as other sentences of the New Testament, For instance, the Apostle Paul, in one place, speaks of ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, our hope.’ And this statement is constructed in exactly the same fashion, with the last name put in opposition to the others, ‘The Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.’
Now, what does that mean? This – that the true presence of God, that the true lustrous emanation from, and manifestation of, the abysmal brightness, is in Jesus Christ, ‘the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His person.’ For the central blaze of God’s glory is God’s love, and that rises to its highest degree in the name and mission of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Men conceive of the glory of the divine nature as lying in the attributes which separate it most widely from our impotent, limited, changeable, and fleeting being. God conceives of His highest glory as being in that love, of which the love of earth is kindred spark; and whatever else there may be of majestic and magnificent in Him, the heart of the Divinity is a heart of love.
Brethren, if we would see God, our faith must grasp the Man, the Christ, the Lord, and, as climax of all names – the Incarnate God, the Eternal Word, who has come among us to reveal to us men the glory of the Lord.
So, brethren, let us make sure that the fleshy tables of our hearts are not like the mouldering stones that antiquarians dig up on some historical site, bearing has obliterated inscriptions and ‘fragmentary names of mighty kings of long ago, but bearing the many-syllabled Name written firm, clear, legible, complete upon them, as on some granite block from the stonecutter’s chisel. Let us, whilst we cling with human love to the Man ‘that was born in Bethlehem, discern the Christ that was prophesied from of old, to whom all altars point, of whom all prophets spoke, who was the theme end of all the earlier Revelation. Let us crown Him Lord of All in our own hearts, and let us, beholding in Him the glory of the Father, He in His Light until we are changed into the same image. Be sure that your faith is a fullorbed faith; grasp all the many sides of the Name that is above every name. And let us, like the apostles of old, rejoice if we are counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name. Let us go forth into life for the sake of the Name, and, whatsoever we do in word or deed, let us do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jas 2:1-7
1My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?
Jas 2:1 “My brethren” See notes at Jas 1:2; Jas 1:9.
“do not hold” This is a present active imperative with a negative particle which usually means to stop an act that is already in process. The Williams translation has “stop trying to maintain. . .” This implies that the people acting this way were misguided believers.
NASB, NJB”your faith”
NKJV”the faith”
NRSV”really believe”
TEV”as believers”
This is not “faith” in the sense of doctrine, as in Act 6:7; Act 13:8; Act 14:22; Gal 1:23; Gal 3:23; Gal 6:10; Php 1:27; Jud 1:3; Jud 1:20, but personal trust in Christ (objective genitive).
“in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” This genitive phrase is literally “of the glory” and is in apposition to the genitive phrase literally “of the Lord.” This is a title for deity in the Bible (cf. Psa 29:1-9; Act 7:2; Eph 1:17). The rabbis used the term “Shekinah glory” to speak of YHWH dwelling with Israel (cf. Exo 16:10; 2Ch 7:1-3).
Here the phrase describes Jesus (cf. Luk 2:32; Joh 1:14; Joh 17:5; 1Co 2:8; Heb 1:3). Notice that Jesus is called (1) Messiah (Christ in Greek); (2) Lord (Greek translation of YHWH using the meaning of the substituted term Adonai); and (3) “of glory” (unique title for YHWH). These titles are a literary technique of attributing the divine characteristics of YHWH to Jesus of Nazareth.
SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (DOXA)
“Lord” The term Kurios only appears once in this context, not twice as in the RSV, NKJV, TEV, and NJB translations.
NASB”with an attitude of personal favoritism”
NKJV”with partiality”
NRSV”with your acts of favoritism”
TEV”you must never treat people in different ways according to their outward appearance”
NJB”do not let class distinctions enter”
This reflects an OT idiom, “to lift the face.” God does not show partiality (cf. Deu 10:17) nor should Israel’s judges (cf. Lev 19:15; Deu 1:17; Deu 16:19; Deu 24:17). The NT counterpoint of God’s impartiality is found in Act 10:34; Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; and 1Pe 1:17. Believers must be careful of worldly distinctions. They must also be impartial. God (in Christ), has torn down every barrier that humans have raised to their fellow man: rich-poor; Jew-Gentile; slave-free; and men-women (cf. 1Co 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).
Grammatically, Jas 2:1 is either a statement or a question which expects a “no” answer (NRSV). Most translations make it a statement (NASB, NKJV, TEV, NJB, NIV).
SPECIAL TOPIC: RACISM
SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN THE BIBLE
Jas 2:2 “if” This is a third class conditional which refers to potential action. This refers to (1) hypothetical wealthy visitors coming to a Jewish, Christian worship meeting or (2) a synagogue-like Christian court setting.
“your assembly” This is literally “synagogue,” which means “to bring together.” The use of this uniquely Jewish term (found only here in the NT) reflects (1) the early date of the letter when Christians and Jews were still worshiping together (cf. Heb 10:25) or (2) the early Jewish Christians’ worship services patterned after a synagogue structure. The presence of “seats of honor” and “footstool” in the Jewish Synagogue (cf. Mat 23:6) seems to confirm this interpretation (cf. Jas 2:3). I think the assembly described is not a worship setting but a Christian court similar to those held in the synagogue (cf. Mar 13:9; Luk 21:12). If so, the two visitors (litigants) are part of a legal proceeding. This may explain (1) why they do not know where to sit and (2) the reference to “drag you into court” in Jas 2:6 (cf. Lev 19:15).
“gold ring” This was a sign of wealth; often in the Greco-Roman culture several rings were worn on each hand.
NASB, NRSV”poor man in dirty clothes”
NKJV”a poor man in filthy clothes”
TEV”a man in ragged clothes”
NJB”a poor man. . .in shabby clothes”
This implies not only poverty, but a beggar, the cultural opposite of the finely dressed man.
Jas 2:4 “have you not made distinctions among yourselves” Jas 2:4-5 are questions which expect a “yes” answer. Believers were and are guilty of showing distinctions and favoritism (much like the church in Corinth, i.e., chapter 11). “Distinctions” is a compound word of dia (through) with krina (judge).
Jas 2:5 “Listen” This is an aorist active imperative which expresses urgency. Remember James’ emphasis is on the word of God!
“my beloved brethren” See notes at Jas 1:2; Jas 1:9.
“did not God choose the poor of this world” “Choose” is an aorist middle indicative (cf. Eph 1:4). We get the English word “elect” from this Greek term. Notice how election is linked with a certain socio-economic group, not a national group (i.e., Israel, Romans 9) nor individuals. God’s ways are so different from the world (i.e., Isa 55:6-13).. Reversals are typical (in Scripture).
“Of this world” is literally “in this world” used in the sense of this world’s goods. The irony is that God has chosen to bless the poor and socially ostracized. God has chosen them and made them rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, but the local worship leaders were favoring the wealthy and powerful. These were the very ones who were persecuting the early believers. The gospel being preached to the poor was a sign of the New Age (cf. Isaiah 61 ff; Mat 11:5; Luk 1:51-53; Luk 4:18; Luk 7:22).
The poor have always felt ostracized from “official” religion, but they were wonderfully accepted and embraced by Jesus. The poor gladly accepted Christ, while the rich tended to trust in their own resources (cf. Mat 19:23-26). This is not to imply that every poor person is saved, but they surely are welcome to come to Jesus. Most of the early church were from the poorer classes of society.
“heirs” See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: BELIEVERS’ INHERITANCE
“the kingdom” This is a key phrase in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus’ first and last sermons, and most of His parables, dealt with this topic.
The phrase relates to the eschatological (end-time) thrust of Jesus’ teachings (followed by James). This “already, but not yet” theological paradox relates to the Jewish concept of two ages (see Special Topic at Jas 5:2-3), the current evil age and the righteous age to come, which will be inaugurated by the Spirit through the Messiah. The Jews expected only one coming of a Spirit-empowered military leader (like the Judges in the OT). The two comings of Jesus caused an overlapping of the two ages. The Kingdom of God has broken into human history with the incarnation at Bethlehem. However, Jesus came the first time not as the military conqueror of Revelation 19, but as the Suffering Servant (cf. Isaiah 53) and the humble leader (cf. Zec 9:9).
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE KINGDOM OF GOD
“which He promised to those who love Him” See note at Jas 1:12.
Jas 2:6 “But you” This is an emphatic contrast (much like Heb 6:9) to what God has done for the poor, powerless, and ostracized of Jas 2:5.
“the rich” The rich are characterized as (1) oppressing you; (2) dragging you to court; and (3) blaspheming the name by which you are called. Can these be wealthy believers? I think not! See note at Jas 2:2.
Jas 2:7
NASB”blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called”
NKJV”blaspheme that noble name by which you are called”
NRSV”blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you”
TEV”who speak evil of that good name which has been given to you”
NJB”who insult the honorable name which has been pronounced over you”
This is literally “called upon you.” Culturally this could refer to
1. a patriarchal family blessing (cf. Gen 48:16)
2. a way to designate YHWH’s people (cf. 2Ch 7:14; Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19; Amo 9:12 [quoted in Act 15:17])
3. a wife taking her husband’s name (cf. Isa 4:1)
4. a slave becoming a permanent property of another
5. a baptismal formula (cf. Mat 28:19; Act 2:21; Act 2:38)
6. an Old Testament title for the covenantal people of God (cf. Deu 28:10; 2Ch 6:33; 2Ch 7:14)
7. the title “Christian” (little Christs), first given in derision to believers at Antioch of Syria (cf. Act 11:26).
In context #5 fits best.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
have = hold.
faith. App-150.
Lord. App-98.
Jesus Christ. App-98. XI
glory. Compare 1Co 2:8. Seep. 1511.
with. App-104.
respect of persons. Greek. prosopolepsia. See Rom 2:11.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
1-13.] THE SIN OF RESPECT OF PERSONS: as the first of a series of reproofs for errors in practice which spring out of the mention of the : cf. ch. Jam 1:25 and Jam 2:12. The Apostle begins, as is his wont, with strong blame of the sin: then illustrates it, Jam 2:2-4; then gives the ground of its sinfulness, Jam 2:5-11, and concludes, Jam 2:12-13, with a reference again to the law of liberty.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Chapter 2
Now my brothers, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons ( Jas 2:1 ).
This is so difficult. It is so easy for us to fall in the trap of respecting persons. It’s just I don’t know a part of our whole social structure, I guess, is that of respecting certain persons above others. You’ve got to be careful that we don’t fall into that trap.
So often a person will introduce himself, “Well I am Dr. So.” Doctor, oh my, we respect the person. We shouldn’t be a respecter of persons. God isn’t. “God is no respecter of persons,” the Bible says ( Act 10:34 ). We shouldn’t be.
If there comes into your assembly a man with a gold ring, fancy clothes, there comes also a man in with rags that smell; And you have respect to him that is wearing the fancy clothing, and you say to him, Oh, sit here in this good place; and you say to the poor man, Stand over there in the corner, or sit under my footstool: Are you not then partial in yourselves, and you’ve become the judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hasn’t God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to them that love him? But you’ve despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, draw you before the courts? Don’t they blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called ( Jas 2:1-7 )?
You’ve been called Christians. So be careful on this business of respecting a person just because he is rich. Or sort of snubbing a person because he is poor. Now let’s be honest. We are far more apt to stop along the road and help a person with a flat tire who’s driving a Mercedes than we are someone driving a Volkswagen bug. I mean, you see someone out there you know and in distress. “Oh my, you know, I’ll be glad to help him because who knows, maybe they’ll you know offer me five bucks you know for giving them a hand.” But you’ve been there. That’s respect of persons. Something we shouldn’t be guilty of.
Interesting God has chosen the poor of this world as far as worldly good but rich in faith. God measures riches on a far different standard than do we. We’re on the gold standard; used to be. We’re on no standard now. Used to be gold notes. In effect, they said the government owes you twenty dollars worth of gold. Then we went to silver notes; the government owes you twenty dollars worth of silver. Now they’re federal notes. They’re not backed by anything so it means the government owes you nothing. It’s true. They’re not backed by anything. Just paper. But gold is not the standard of heaven. Asphalt up there; they pave the streets with the stuff.
God looks at the heart of a man and He sees the faith and the trust that is there in Him. And God says, Oh that’s a rich man. He loves me. He trusts me. God looks at some of the named people in the world who lived in the Four Hundred Club and God says, “Oh, what poor riches. They have nothing.” Now we should look at people as God. We shouldn’t have respect for wealthy people but we should be just as concerned to help the poor. In fact, most concerned to help the poor. The rich don’t really need help so much. It’s the poor that need our help, our attention. God help us. I’m guilty here. God help me.
Now if you fulfil the royal law ( Jas 2:8 )
I love this, the royal law. What is the royal law?
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ( Jas 2:8 ),
That’s the royal law. I like the title for it. If you fulfill that royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
you do well ( Jas 2:8 ):
Now really, that’s where that young ruler sort of failed, isn’t it, who came to Jesus, fell at His feet and said, “Good Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus said, Keep the commandments. Which ones? Oh, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness. Oh Lord, I kept all these from the time I was a kid. But what I, what do I lack yet? Well if you will be perfect, keep the royal law, go sell everything you have and distribute it to the poor. You’ll have great riches in heaven.” Keep the royal law; Love your neighbor as yourself; hard to do, isn’t it? Awfully hard to do. Loving my neighbor as I love myself. But if you keep that, you do well.
But if you have respect of persons, you’re actually committing sin, and you’re convicted of the law as a transgressor. Convinced of the law ( Jas 2:9 ).
It is pointing its finger of accusation against you.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet violate in one point, you’re guilty, guilty of all. For the law says, Don’t commit adultery, but it also says, Do not kill. Now if you don’t commit adultery, but yet you kill somebody, you’re guilty of violating the law ( Jas 2:10-11 ).
You’re a violator. Doesn’t matter which one of the commandments you violated. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Oh, I’ve never done that. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Whoops. But you violate one point; you’re guilty of all. You’re guilty of breaking the law and it really doesn’t matter which of the commandments you’ve broken. You’re guilty of having broken the law. If you keep the entire law let yet you break one of the commandments, then you’re just as guilty as if you’ve broken all of them. You are guilty of being a lawbreaker.
So speak, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that has showed no mercy ( Jas 2:12-13 );
Think about that for a moment. Jesus said, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” ( Mat 5:7 ). We are also told, “And whatever measure you meted out, it’s going to be measured to you in judgment. Judge not, lest you be judged. For whatever mete you measure, that’s the standard by which you’re going to be judged” ( Mat 7:1 , Mat 7:2 ). Now I don’t like that. I want one standard for me and another standard for you.
But I if I stand in judgment against you, and if I begin to point a guilty finger at you and say, Boy, you’re really terrible, look what you did and all. What you did you may not have known was wrong. But I do because I’m judging you for it. And that means that’s the standard by which I’m going to be judged.
Interesting, all you have to do is just change the picture a little bit and put in different faces and oh, it’s horrible. Terrible. “How could they do such a thing?” Wait a minute. That’s me. I’ve done that.
David had all these beautiful wives. Walking on his roof one day, he saw a gal next door taking a bath. Lusted, desired her. Sent his servants over with a message, the king would like to see you. Committed adultery with her. A few weeks later he gets a note: Dear David, I’m pregnant. Bathsheba.
So David sends a message to his general to send her husband home on furlough. Her husband comes home. David says, “Well how’s everything going? How’s the battle?” “Oh fine.” “Well, you know, go home and spend the night with your wife. Talk to you in the morning.” He didn’t go home. He slept on David’s porch. In the morning the servant said, “Hey, he didn’t go home last night. He slept right here on the porch.” And David called him in and said, “What’s the matter with you, man? Got a beautiful wife there, you ought to you know go home and spend the night with her you know. Enjoy your wife. What’s your problem?” And the guy says, “Well,” he said, “I was thinking of all my buddies. They’re out there in the fox holes and it wouldn’t be fair for me to go in and enjoy an evening with my wife while those guys are out there in the trenches. That wouldn’t be very honorable.”
So David got him all soused. Told the servants, Keep his wine cup full. So the guy was drunk. Figure he’d stagger home; spend the night with his wife. And instead he staggered to David’s porch, went to sleep again. In the morning, the servant said, “He spent the night here.” The Bible says, “He that seeks to cover his sins shall not prosper” ( Pro 28:13 ). David tried to cover his sins. Very dastardly way. He sent secret orders with this man back to Joab, the general. It said, “Put him in the front of the battle. When things get tough, withdraw the support from him.”
And so Joab did as David commanded and he was killed in battle. Got the report. Killed in battle. David took Bathsheba as his wife. Figured he could cover his tracks. The child was born. David looked like he was a very magnanimous person. Here her husband was killed in battle and now David takes her as one of his wives to raise the child. Isn’t that wonderful? No, it isn’t.
Nathan the prophet came to David. David thought nobody knew. He’d covered it pretty well. Nathan came to him and said, “David, a man in your kingdom, very wealthy man; he had more than he could ever spend. Tremendous herds, sheep, he lived next door to an extremely poor man who had as his sole possession one little ewe lamb that he loved greatly. In fact, it was sort of a pet. He slept with it at night. Slept in the house and it ate at the guy’s table. And the rich man had company. And he ordered his servants to go next door and by force to take the ewe lamb from this man and kill it in order that he might give it to his company. He might feed his company.” And David got angry and he said to Nathan, “That man will be surely put to death.” David said. Nathan said, “David, you’re the man. You’ve had all these wives. Here’s your neighbor. You take away. You’re the man, David.”
You see, if we show no mercy we will be shown no mercy. Whatever measure we meted out, it’s going to be measured to us again. That’s why it’s so dangerous to put yourself in the position of a judge. Judging other people’s actions. “I can’t understand why they would do something like that. That’s horrible for them to do that, you know.” Watch out now. You’re setting a standard by which you’re going to be judged. “Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy”( Mat 5:7 ). He who doesn’t show mercy, he who judges without mercy will be shown no mercy.
but true mercy rejoices against judgment. Now what does it profit, my brethren, though a man says he has faith, and doesn’t have works? can faith save him ( Jas 2:12-14 )?
Now at this point many people see James and Paul in conflict in teaching. I don’t. Paul teaches that salvation is through faith, faith alone. “By grace are you saved through faith; not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship” ( Eph 2:8-10 ).
Then what does James say, Can faith save him? The answer is yes, faith can save him. A true faith. But make sure you have a true faith. For if you have a true faith, it will be manifested by the works. In other words, to just say you have faith doesn’t cut it. Saying it isn’t enough.
I’ve had people come to me and say, “Oh, I have all the faith in the world.” Baloney! Nobody has all the faith in the world. And saying it doesn’t make it so. If you believe certain things to be so, then your life is going to be lived accordingly. And so your life testifies of your faith or your beliefs. And to say that you believe in God and that God is supreme and that God is first in your life, then it will follow that there will be certain evidence that will verify that fact that you have declared to be so. And by the works that you do your faith will be proved or proclaimed. And to say that you have faith and not have any works that correspond is totally wrong. You’ve deceived yourself. You aren’t really walking in faith. If you are truly walking in faith, your works are going to be manifesting that truth.
So “what does it profit if a man says he has faith, and he doesn’t have works? can that kind of faith save him?” No, it can’t.
If a brother or sister is naked, or is destitute of daily food, And you say to them, [Oh] Depart in peace, be warmed and filled; but yet you don’t give them any clothes or any food; what good are your words ( Jas 2:15-16 )?
They can’t make him warm. They can’t fill his stomach.
Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, if you try to stand alone. Yes, a man may say, You have faith, and I have works: but you show me your faith without your works, I will show you my faith by my works ( Jas 2:17-18 ).
So it isn’t just the declaration. It’s the declaration that has something behind it. The proof behind it is the works that I do. Now the works don’t save me. They only prove that I have saving faith. And if I don’t have works that are corresponding to what I am declaring, then I do not have saving faith, just the declaration, the verbal affirmation isn’t enough and it won’t do it.
Now a lot of people made mistakes; going forward and saying the sinner’s prayer and then going away and living the same kind of life doing the same kind of thing. They say, “Oh yeah, I was saved. I went forward and I said the sinner’s prayer.” No, no, the sinner’s prayer isn’t going to save you. It is a living faith in Jesus Christ that brings about actual changes in your life and the proof is in the works; the proof of your faith. Your works have to be in accordance, in harmony with what you are declaring to be true.
You believe that there is one God; [Ah] you do well: the devils believe the same thing, and they tremble ( Jas 2:19 ).
“Oh, I believe in God.” Big deal. Who doesn’t, except some fool? The Bible says the fool is the one that says there is no God. So you say you believe in God, it only proves one thing, you’re not a fool. But it doesn’t save you. The devils believe in God, they probably believe more firmly in Him than you do. They said to Jesus, “We know who you are, you’re the Holy One of God” ( Mar 1:24 ). So you say, “Oh I believe Jesus is the holy One of God.” So what? Have you submitted your life to His lordship? Are you doing His works? Are you obeying His commands?
You see, not all who say, Lord, Lord, are going to enter the kingdom of heaven. So you say, “Oh Lord, Oh the Lord, Oh the Lord,” yea, yea, but saying is not going to do it. Jesus said, “not all who say, Lord, Lord, are going to enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of the Father” ( Mat 7:21 ). James is telling you the very same thing. It isn’t saying I have faith, it is demonstrating the faith because of the works of my life are in harmony with what I am declaring that I believe.
If I believe that there was a bomb planted in this room, set to detonate in two minutes, and I’d stand up here and calmly proclaim to you, “You know, huge bomb in this room going to detonate in two minutes and blow this whole place to smithereens.” Terrible of people to do that, isn’t it? Can’t imagine the mind of a person that would plant such a bomb. Why would they want to destroy us? You’d say, “Ah, you don’t really believe there’s a bomb here.” Why? Because my works don’t correspond with what I’m declaring that I believe. But if I go running out of the door and say, “Get out of there, you know. Bomb’s going to blow up in two minutes,” you know, then you’re more apt to believe that at least I believe what I’m telling you because now my actions are corresponding with what I am declaring that I believe to be so.
Now the same is true. You say, “Well I believe in God and I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and all.” Well, do your actions correspond? Do your actions really show that Jesus is the Lord of your life? Is that demonstrated by the works that you do? That’s what James is saying. Don’t just say it. Don’t rest in just words, beautiful words. But let’s see the actions that demonstrate that you truly believe what you’re saying.
Will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead ( Jas 2:20 )?
It isn’t really alive. It isn’t a living faith. It isn’t a saving faith.
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ( Jas 2:21 )?
You see, his works corresponded with his faith. He believed God. He believed that through Isaac God was going to raise up a nation because God has promised that. Through Isaac shall thy seed be called. Now his very offering up of Isaac was proof of his strong belief in the word of God. Believing that God would if necessary raise Isaac from the dead to keep His promise. And so his faith was in keeping or his works were in keeping with his faith.
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works ( Jas 2:22 ),
They were working together. His faith produced the works as faith will also produce the corresponding works in our life.
and by works was faith made perfect ( Jas 2:22 )?
Not a question mark. In the Greek there is no question mark there. It’s just the declaration, “by works his faith was made complete.” His faith was proved.
And the scripture was fulfilled which said, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only ( Jas 2:23-24 ).
The works being the proof of the faith.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also ( Jas 2:25-26 ).
When your spirit leaves your body, your body is dead. The body without the spirit, dead. So faith, if it doesn’t have corresponding works, is not a true faith. It’s dead. It does nothing for you. It cannot save you. Dead faith can save no one. It’s a living faith and a living Lord and that living faith can be demonstrated by the actions of my life that are in harmony and corresponding with what I declare to be true and what I declare I believe to be true. There has to be the corresponding works for faith to be alive.
Therefore, let us examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, the true faith that saves. Not just the verbalizing of the Apostle’s Creed. I believe but the actions of my life being in harmony with it.
Father, help us that we might indeed be doers of the word and not hearers only. That we might not just affirm a belief but may we demonstrate that belief by the attitudes and actions of our lives. Lord, help us not to be deceived. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
May the Lord bless you and guide you as you go this week. As you face the many temptations, may the Lord give you strength and may you walk and live after the Spirit. And may you respond after the Spirit. In the temptation may you not yield to the flesh and react after the flesh. May your life be pleasing unto God, as our actions come into harmony with our declarations of what we believe. May we show it in the works that we do. In Jesus’ name. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Jam 2:1. , my brethren) The equality of Christians, as indicated by the name of brethren, is the basis of this admonition.-) The phrases, , and , Rom 1:28, are similar.-, receivings of persons) The one (manner of receiving) has reference to the rich who are strangers to the faith; the other, which is widely different, has reference to the poor who are Christians.- , faith) in which the poor abound.- , of glory) The pronoun our seems to show, that this (of glory) does not depend upon the word Lord. It is therefore put in apposition, so that Christ Himself is called , the Glory. Comp. Luk 2:32; Isa 40:5; Eph 1:17; 1Pe 4:14. The Glory is Christ Himself. Thus James both declares Him to be the Son of God, and publishes His resurrection from the dead, as it becomes an apostle. Christ is Glory; and therefore faith in Him is glorious, and the faithful are glorious. This glory of the faithful is far above all worldly honour; no respecter of persons acknowledges it.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Jas 2:1-4
SECTION 4
Jas 2:1-13
RESPECT OF PERSONS
Jas 2:1-4
1 My brethren,-With this warm and friendly phrase, characteristic of James, a new theme begins. This brotherly address was the manner in which the writer often began a fresh topic. (Jas 1:19; Jas 2:5-6; Jas 3:1; Jas 5:7.) Inasmuch as it was his intention to rebuke the brethren to whom he wrote for serious and repeated infractions of the law of love, it was fitting that this subdivision should thus begin. For the significance of the word “brethren,” the implications involved in its use, and the lessons applicable to us today therein, see the comments on Jas 1:2.
hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.—“The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (ten pistin tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou) is not, of course, the faith which Christ exercises; it is the whole of the Christian religion, represented under the phrase, “the faith,” where a vital part thereof it made to stand for, and represent, the whole of it. James is saying here, “My brethren, do not hold to Christianity and at the same time show partiality and special concern for those who are rich or highly favored of the world.” It is, in effect, to say: Don’t try to be a Christian and a hypocrite at the same time! The disposition which prompts one disciple of the Lord to entertain and exhibit favoritism for another, on external grounds, and because of worldly considerations, is wholly foreign to the spirit of Christianity, and a violent perversion of genuine religion. Christ is identified in the passage as “the Lord of glory,” not without much significance in the connection in which it appears. Its meaning is much the same as “the glorious Lord,” and was doubtless introduced to show that in spite of, and despite the poverty and extreme humiliation to which he was subjected while on earth, his is now a position of great glory, a glory which he offers to his humble disciples, and grounded in Christian character, not on fame or worldly possessions.
This “faith” Christians are not to hold “with respect of persons.” “Hold not,” is me echete, present active imperative of echo, with the negative; i.e., quit having the habit of holding the faith in such fashion. It will be observed that here, and often elsewhere in the Epistle, the writer repeatedly returns to his theme that it is impossible for one properly to approach God in worship if the heart is not right, or if the conduct is corrupt. Though James is filled with injunctions the design of which was to impress his readers with the necessity of practical religion, ever emphasized is the fact that such will result in a blessing only when purity of heart and life characterize the worshipper.
“With respect of persons,” is from en prosopolepsiais, compounded from the nouns prosopon (which means face, countenance), and lempsia, derived from lambano, to receive, thus, literally, to receive face! As used here, it signifies to show regard for the external circumstances of another, and to exhibit favoritism on the ground of rank, wealth, social position, worldly attainment and fame. It is this disposition which James condemns, and which our Lord so sharply rebuked while on earth. (Luk 20:21.) Partiality, based on worldly or material considerations, is so far removed from the true spirit of Christ, that for any of the disciples to exhibit such is a violent perversion of the Christian religion. For other instances of the word, see Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25. God does not show respect of persons, and neither may we. It was this which impressed Peter in the incident of the great sheet: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.” (Act 10:34.)
Having seen that all are equal before God, and that it is sinful to show respect of persons from worldly considerations, inasmuch as every disciple is entitled to the same privileges in Christ (Gal 3:26-29), it is an extension of this beyond proper bounds to imply that there are no differences obtaining between men. We are taught, in the New Testament to “honor the king” (1Pe 2:13), and to pray for those in high places (1Ti 2:2).
Elders, deacons, aged men and women, dignitaries, men of great faith and courage, are often singled out, in the Scriptures, and declared to be worthy of special regard for their works of faith, their labors of love, and patience in hope they exhibit. (1Ti 5:17; 1Ti 3:13; 1Ti 5:1-3; Hebrews 11 :lff; 2Pe 2:10-11.) What is taught is that there is no place for worldly acclaim in Christianity, and that all such reverence in public worship is unseemly and sinful. Inasmuch as God is no respecter of persons, neither should we be.
2 For if there come into your synagogue—“Synagogue,” (sunaagogen), from sun, with, and ago, to gather, thus, literally, to assemble with, meant, in the apostolic age, (a) a congregation assembled; (b) the place where the assembly took place. It seems quite obvious, from the context, that it is the first of these meetings-a congregation assembled-which is intended here. If to us today it appears strange that a Christian writer, addressing Christians regarding conduct in a Christian assembly should, nevertheless, refer to the event under a Jewish appellation, let it be remembered that the religious background of the writer and the people to whom he wrote was wholly Jewish; that these impressions lingered for a long time; that the Jewish influence was strongly felt and exhibited throughout the apostolic age; and that terms were of necessity used which would convey as fully as possible to Jewish people the mind and message of the Spirit through James.
a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing,—Occasionally a man of means would visit the assemblies of the saints and, as has ever been characteristic of many people, the disposition to fawn upon such, and to show them special honors, was a temptation to which men in every age have been subjected, and to which they sometimes yielded. The phrase, “a man with a gold ring,” is, in the Greek Testament, aner chrusodaktuli-0s, literally, a gold ringed man! This indicates that such a one would be possessed of many rings, and would wear them in ostentatious fashion. An ancient writer mentions one man who wore six rings on each finger, day and night, and did not remove them when he bathed. The historians record that Hannibal, after a great battle in which his forces were successful, sent three bushels of gold rings from the fingers of Roman knights killed in the conflict as a trophy to Carthage. Moreover, the man in the mind of the writer, in addition to the grand display of rings which he wore, was arrayed “in fine clothing,” (en estheti lampria, brilliant, gaily colored garments), which attracted much attention from those less endowed.
and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing ;—This poor man, in the illustration, was much worse off than we ordinarily mean by the adjective poor today. The word is ptochos, a beggar (Mat 19:21), one dependent on the charity of others for his very livelihood, not simply one with but little of this world’s goods, yet with a sufficiency for living. His apparel, in sharp contrast with that of the richly bedecked man described above is described as “vile clothing,” (en rnparai estheta, squalid, cheap, perhaps dirty). Though their economic status is as different as day and night, and though, in social rank, they are as far apart as the poles, they are both in church, and there stand equal before God who respects not the persons of men.
3 and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing,—How characteristic of men so to do, and what common human weakness is here evidenced! “Ye have regard for,” is epiblepsete de epi, aorist active subjunctive of epibelpo, to gaze with favor upon, and thus to be impressed, as in this instance, with the dazzling gold ornaments, and the brilliant display of clothing worn by the affluent man.
and say, Sit thou here in a good placc;—(Su kathou hode kalos), “You (emphatic) sit here in a good place”; i.e., a place of honor and prestige. The most coveted place in a synagogue, to a Jew, was near the end of the building, facing Jerusalem, and where the ark in which the sacred roll of the law was kept. In the illustration which James uses, of course based upon actual observance, the visitor is escorted to the most favored place in the building and with great deference there seated.
and ye say to the poor man, stand thou there, or sit under my footstool;—There is thinly veiled contempt in the words of the usher to the poor man, and no regard whatsoever shown for his comfort. He is not invited to sit in the usual places at all; he is rudely told to stand ; he is not escorted to any place ; but coldly instructed to find his own; with a contemptuous wave of the hand, the usher says, in effect, “Stand there, or sit, if you must, under my footstool, the place where I rest my feet.” For a visitor to be required to stand, while the regular attendants sat was extreme discourtesy; and it was little better to be permitted, grudgingly, to sit under the stall where the people usually placed their feet. It was James’ intention to show, in this striking contrast, the difference people are disposed to make between the rich and the poor, and to condemn such. In view of this, what must our Lord think of that attitude of mind and heart which often prompts people, themselves alleged suppliants before the throne of grace and in need of much mercy, to array themselves in the most ostentatious garments possible, and to parade down the aisles of New Testament church buildings preening like peacocks to the admiration of some and the envy of others?
4 do ye not make distinctions among yourselves,—The phrases “do ye not make distinctions,” and “among yourselves,” both have marginal readings, in the American Standard Version of the Scriptures, thus indicating a difference in view among the translators as to the preferred rendering. For, “do you not make distinctions,” there is the footnote, “are ye not divided,” and for “among yourselves,” the footnote reads, “in your own mind.” Where the footnotes placed in the text, the passage would read, “Are ye not divided in your own mind .. .. ” The verb, “make distinctions,” is, in the Greek text, diekrithete, first aorist passive indicative of diakrino, to separate; and, the construction of the sentence is such that an affirmative answer was expected from the question raised. The verb is translated “doubteth,” in James I:6, and in similar fashion in Act 10:20, and Rom 14:23.
There is, therefore, two possible interpretations, depending on whether the translation in the text, or in the footnotes, is followed. If the first, the meaning is, “Do you not recognize differences among you based upon material considerations? Is it not true that you fawn upon the rich, when they enter your assemblies, and do you not treat with contempt the poor?” If the second, the meaning is, “When you show partiality, on the basis of economic standing or other material and worldly considerations, were you not exhibiting doubt (disbelief) in the teaching of our Lord who straitly forbade all such in his teaching?” In view of the fact that the word translated “distinctions” is used uniformly to express doubt, in the New Testament, it would appear that the second of these interpretations is the more probable one. The phrase which follows, “and become judges of evil thoughts,” supports this view. The conduct of those to whom James wrote (the verb indicates that they were practicing the things which he condemned here) was such that they were wavering between what the Lord taught regarding fame, riches, social standing, and the like, and the temptation to show special favors to those well circumstanced. To use one of James’ phrases, they were men of two minds; i.e., “double-minded.” (Jas 1:8.)
and become judges with evil thoughts?—These people had, by their exhibition of favoritism toward the rich, resulting from the wavering of their faith, become “judges with evil thoughts.” The word “judges,” is from dialogismon, from dialogismos, reasoning. The word is a legal term ; and, as here used, describes the litigation which resulted from the conflicting views which they felt, producing the doubt earlier mentioned. The conflict which existed in their minds, between what they knew the Lord taught regarding the rich and riches, and their desire to show preferential regard for such made them a court of conflict! These conflicts were as pronounced as would be the opposing views of lawyers arguing a case in court.
From this section we learn that it was evidently quite unusual for a rich man to visit an assembly of the saints. The appearance of such a man was so exceptional that when it occurred considerable excitement prevailed, prompting the brethren to exercise themselves unduly in assigning to him the most honorable seat possible. Such a disposition was highly displeasing to God with whom there is no respect of persons. In his sight, all men are equal in privilege and promise; and with him, one soul is a precious as another. It is evil to show honor to any man simply because he wears better clothing, lives in a more pretentious house, or has a bigger bank account. What prompts people to show special regard for the rich? Usually the motive is a selfish one. There is lurking in the back of the mind the idea that some day it may be necessary to ask favors of the rich, and it is therefore expedient to flatter them. Why bother with the poor? They can never do anything for us, anyway. Ah, how many sins stem from simple selfishness !
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Proceeding, James dealt with the effect of faith on conduct. It makes it impossible to show any respect of persons on the ground of the possession of worldly wealth. To show such respect shows that the faith of Jesus Christ is not held. In His eyes wealth or poverty is nothing. The corrective, therefore, for such failure is to be found in the exercise of a faith like that of Christ, which, seeing God, respects men, and gives them the place of honor according to their relationship to Him.
In this connection is found one of the strongest passages in the whole of the letter, revealing the value of faith, and its utter uselessness where it fails to express itself in works. A faith that does not issue in conduct harmonizing with its profession cannot save, is dead in itself, and is barren. The interrelationship between faith and works is illustrated in the cases of Abraham and Rahab, the one the father of the faithful, and the other a woman outside the covenant. In each case faith was the vital principle, but it was demonstrated to be such by the works which it wrought. A faith which does not express itself in conduct is as dead as a body from which the spirit has departed.
The closing declaration summarizes all the section, and is, indeed, the central truth of the whole epistle. Faith will produce action true to the word which it professes to believe. If there be contradictory action, there is therefore no true faith. What man believes he actually does. Therefore true conduct is ever the outcome of true faith.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
CHAPTER 2
1-7. To court the rich and neglect the poorin the house of worship reverses real values.
In 2:1-7 the thought of the supreme importance of conduct, stated in 1:26-27, is further illustrated by an instance from a situation of common occurrence. With this instance the writer connects his reply to two excuses or pretexts (vv. 8-13, 14-26), which are perversions of true religion, and in so doing he is led to enter upon broader discussions. Ch. 2 is more original and less a repetition of current Jewish ideas than any other part of the epistle.
1. , marking transition to a new topic, cf. 1:19, 2:14, 3:1, 5:7, and see note on 1:2.
with acts of partiality. (found also Rom 2:11, Eph 6:9, Col 3:25, Polyc. Phil. 6), together with the cognate words (Jam 2:9), (Act 10:34), (ecclesiastical writers), (1Pe 1:17, Clem. Rom 1:3, Barn. 4:12), is a compound formed from the LXX translation of the O. T. phrase , , Lev 19:15, Psa 82:2, etc. (For an analogous compound, cf. , Act 7:41). These words were of course used only among persons acquainted with the Greek O. T., that is, Jews and Christians.
This group of expressions has had a history not unlike that of English favour, favouritism, etc., and, having often had originally an innocent sense, came in the O. T. to mean respect of persons in the sense of improper partiality. The early uses related chiefly to partiality on the part of a judge. In later use any kind of improper partiality might be meant, whether judicial favouritism or, as here, selfish truckling to the powerful. For the meaning of the Hebrew expression, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, s. v. , p. 916; cf. Lightfoot on Gal 2:6, and, for some similar O. T. expressions, Mayor on Jam 2:1.
The plural denotes the several manifestations of favouritism; cf. Winer, 27, 3; Hadley-Allen, 636; cf. 2Co 12:20, Gal 5:20, 1Pe 4:3.
denotes the state, or condition, in which the act is done; here the acts with which the action of the main verb is accompanied. Cf. 2Pe 3:11 , Col 3:22 , Jam 1:21 .
Warnings against contempt of the poor are common in the O. T., cf. Lev 19:15, Pro 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, etc.
. Not interrogative (R.V. mg., WH.), but imperative (A.V., R.V. text), as is better suited to the gnomic style of the epistle (cf. 1:2, 22, 3:1, 4:11, etc.), and to the following context.
The question Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord? would express doubt whether a faith accompanied by this fault is true faith in Jesus Christ at all.
But this makes a weak and unnatural opening to the paragraph, is too subtle and indirect for so straightforward a writer, and does not suit so well the transition to the following sentence with . This writer (e. g. in vv. 5, 6, 7) uses the question-form rather in argument than in exhortation. Note, too, the directness with which his other paragraphs open, e. g. 1:2, 5, 3:1, 5:7. Moreover, such a surprisingly drastic denial that the readers were Christian believers would require a clearer form of statement.
. Cf. 2:14, 18, 3:14, Mat 17:20, Mat 21:21, Mar 11:22, Luk 17:6, Act 14:9, Rom 14:22, 1Ti 1:19, Phm 1:5. is used in its natural sense, with reference to having an inner quality. This is a Greek usage, see L. and S. s. v. A. I. 8. Cf. , 2Ti 4:7, Rev 14:12. For the whole phrase, cf. Herm. Mand. v, 2:3 .
. The subjective faith, not the later idea of a body of doctrine to be believed; so throughout this epistle, 1:3, 6, 2:5, 14-26, 5:15. Faith in Jesus Christ is the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian. See A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament2, 1896.
. Objective genitive, cf. Mar 11:22, Gal 2:16; Hermas, Sim. vi, 1:2, etc.
The view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube, 1891, and James Drummond, Epistle to the Galatians, 1893, p. 91, that these genitives after are subjective, not objective, is unnatural, and seems disproved by both Mar 11:22 and Gal 2:16. See Sanday on Rom 3:22. Hort paraphrases: the faith which comes from Him and depends on Him, but this is unnecessary.
. Glory is the majesty and brightness of light in which God dwells, and which belongs also to the Messiah; see Sanday on Rom 3:23, G. B. Gray, art. Glory, in HDB; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900.
The interpretation now most commonly given for this difficult expression is probably right. is genitive of characteristic (cf. Luk 16:8, Luk 18:6, Heb 9:5 ), limiting the whole preceding phrase , i. e. our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. The expression is a not altogether happy expansion of (1Co 2:8), cf. , Psa 29:3, Act 7:2, , Eph 1:17. By its solemnity the writer may intend to emphasise the inconsistency between the great privilege of Christian faith and this petty discrimination between rich and poor.
No convincing objection can be made to this interpretation, although there is no complete parallel to it. Among the other interpretations the following deserve mention:
(1) , partiality arising from your own opinion, or partiality arising from external glory (admiratio hominum secundum externum splendorem, Michaelis). But the separation of the words is too great, and the meaning glory for in this context too obvious, to permit this interpretation, and it is now held by no one.
(2) , faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (Pesh.), or Christ-given faith in the glory (i. e. the glory which we are to receive, Rom 8:18), or the glorious faith in Christ. But the last two of these are forced, and the first involves too strange an order of words to be acceptable, in spite of such partial analogies as Act 4:33, 1Th 2:13. Cf. Buttmann, 151, III; Winer, 61, 4; for many illustrations of hyperbaton from LXX and secular authors, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 768 ff.
(3) Various interpretations separate off some part of the phrase , which is then connected with , and the two together taken as in apposition with the rest of the phrase. The least objectionable of these is perhaps that of Ewald, our Lord, Jesus Christ of glory; but this division is unnecessary, and it seems impossible that the writer should not have meant to keep together the whole of the familiar designation.
(4) A.V. and R.V. supply , and translate the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory. There are abundant parallels for this latter phrase, but none for such a singular omission.
(5) Bengel, Mayor, Hort, WH. mg., and others take as in apposition to the preceding and as referring to Christ (perhaps as the Shekinah) under the title of the Glory. But the evidence that this is a possible use of (see the full note of Mayor3, pp. 79 ff., cf. Luk 2:31, Eph 1:17, Tit 2:13, Heb 1:3) is inadequate.
(6) Spitta and Massebieau think the words an interpolation by the Christian editor. This would leave the expression the Lord of glory, referring, as in Enoch, to God. Beyschlags answer to this, that an interpolator would not have broken the phrase , is not quite satisfactory, since the natural words to follow are . But the interpolation is not sufficiently obvious to justify itself apart from the general theory to which it belongs. See the long note in Mayor.
2. explains the warning by pointing out that respect of persons is easily recognisable as sin. introduces ., v. 4.
, cf. 1Co 14:23-25.
means meeting, and it is not necessary here to distinguish between the meeting as an occasion and as an assembled body of persons. It is the proper word for a Jewish religious meeting, but is occasionally used, chiefly by writers having some Jewish or Syrian connection, for a Christian meeting; cf. Herm. Mand. xi, 9 ; Ign. Polyc. 4:2; Iren. Hr. iv, 31:1, 2; Epiph. Hr. xxx, 18 [the Ebionites] , . The Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialect used a single word [] as well for synagogue as for church. In view of this wide-spread occasional use, no trustworthy inference as to the place of writing of the epistle, still less any conclusion as to its Jewish-Christian authorship, or as to the nationality of the persons addressed, can be drawn from the occurrence of this word here.
The material is fully collected and well discussed by Zahn, Einleitung, i, 4, note 1; Harnack in his long note on Hermas, Mand. xi, 9; Schrer, GJV, ii, 27, notes 11 and 12.
The meaning place of meeting, meeting-house, natural if this were a Jewish synagogue, is wholly unlikely for a Christian writing. The only parallel to be adduced would be the inscription (from a locality not far from Damascus) , () () ()() () , (), , Le Bas-Waddington, Inscript. grecques et lat. iii, no. 2558. The date is a.d. 318-319.
, cf. Luk 15:22, also Gen 38:18, Gen 38:25, 41:42, Isa 3:21; and see note in Mayor3, p. 83, and Ring, in EB, HDB, and Dictt. Antt. for details of the custom of wearing rings.
For similar description of a rich gentleman, cf. Epictet. i, 22:18 , Seneca, Nat. qust. vii, 31 exornamus anulis digitos, in omni articulo gemmam disponimus.
is found only here, but is correctly formed, cf. in the same sense, , , etc.
, cf. Luk 23:11.
The term seems here to refer to elegant and luxurious, fine, clothes (cf. Rev 18:14), but it can also be used of freshness or cleanness (Rev 15:6) without reference to costliness, and sometimes (Act 10:30) appears to mean shining. Its natural opposite in all these senses is , dirty, shabby, as below, cf. Philo, De Joseph. 20, . Mayor gives other instructive references. See also Lex.. s. vv. and .
For the same construction as vv. 2, 3, cf. vv. 15-16.
3. , look, i. e. with favour, have regard. has this sense also in Luk 1:48, Luk 9:38, apparently through the influence of the LXX usage; cf. 1Sa 1:11, 1Sa 9:16, Psa 25:16, Psa 69:16, Job 3:3, Judith 13:4, etc. The development of this sense in an appropriate context is a natural one; but in classical usage only Aristotle, Eth. Nic. iv, 2, p. 1120, is cited.
. Doubtless the speaker is one of the dignitaries of the congregation, cf. .
. This form of the imperative (for the more literary ), found uniformly in O. T. and N. T., was doubtless in ordinary colloquial use, as is attested by its occurrence in comic writers of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c. and in post-classical usage. See Lex. s. v. and Winer-Schmiedel, 14, 3, note 3.
. Usually explained as meaning in a good seat, comfortably. But the usage does not fully justify this (see Mayors citations), and some polite idiom in the sense of please, pray, is to be suspected. In various Greek liturgies the ministers direction to the worshipping congregation, , presents the same difficulty and suggests the same explanation. See F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western, vol. i, Oxford, 1896, pp. 43, 49, 383, 471. The Syrian liturgies sometimes merely carry this over, Stmen kals, but also render by, Stand we all fairly, ibid. pp. 72, 74, 104. On the Jewish custom of distinguished places in the synagogue, cf. Mat 23:6, Mar 12:39, Luk 11:43, Luk 20:46, and see Synagogue, in EB and HDB
A noteworthy commentary on these verses is offered by a passage found in various ancient books of church order. Its oldest form is perhaps that in the Ethiopic Statutes of the Apostles (ed. Horner, 1904, pp. 195 f.): And if any other man or woman comes in lay dress [i. e. in fine clothes], either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place (for them) the lover of brothers or of sisters, having risen, will leave place for them.
And if a poor man or woman either of the district or of the (other) districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be respecting the person of man but of God.
See also the Syriac Didascalia apostolorum, 12; Apostolic Constitutions, ii, 58; E. v. d. Goltz, Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlicher Gemeindeordnungen, in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuss. Akademie, 1906, pp. 141-157. There is no sufficient indication that the passage is dependent on James.
, in contrast to .
] B ff.
] sah.
] A 33 minn Cyr vg Jer Aug syrhcl.
] C2KLP minn boh syrpesh.
] C*.
The reading of B ff makes the rough words an invitation to stand or to take a poor seat. So the Sahidic, which thus on the whole supports B ff. The readings of A al and al seem to be different emendations, both due to the wish to make explicit and so to create a better parallelism. But since the indefinite does not in itself imply any disrespect to the visitor, the effect is to lessen rather than intensify the rudeness of , and the product is a weaker text than that of B ff (sah). The text of B ff is thus on both external (see p. 85) and internal grounds to be preferred.
, i. e. in a humble place. This is a sorry alternative to standing. Cf. Deu 33:3 , at thy feet, Luk 8:35, Luk 10:39, Act 22:3 .
These persons who come into the meeting are visitors, who may be won for the church, and the treatment of them at this critical moment reveals the real feeling of the members toward the relative worth of the different classes in society. The visitors seem clearly distinguished from the members of the congregation; and nothing indicates, or suggests, that they are members of sister churches. They are undoubtedly outsiders, whether Jews or Gentiles.
] B3 P 33 minn have emendation to the easier .
4. ] Omitted by B ff minn. The repetition of – might suggest either the insertion or the omission of the word in transcription. The attestation and the greater intrinsic vigour of the sense speak for the omission.
KLP minn read , the being added to indicate the apodosis.
. Ye have wavered, doubted, i. e. practically, by your unsuitable conduct, departed from and denied the faith of v. 1, and thus fallen under the condemnation pronounced in 1:6-8 against the . Cf. 1:6 and note, 3:17 ; and, for the mode of argument, 1:8 , 4:8 , .
Of the various meanings proposed for this one, which is common in the N. T. although not attested in secular Greek, yields in the present context the best sense, being especially recommended by the allusion to the waverer of 1:6. Cf. Mat 21:21, Mar 11:23, Rom 14:23, Jam 1:6, and the kindred sense hesitate in Act 10:20, Rom 4:20.
Other interpretations which have been given are classified as follows by Huther, whose elaborate note, as reproduced with additions by Beyschlag, pp. 103 f., should be consulted for the history of the exegesis.
= (1) separare;
(2) discrimen facere;
(3) judicare;
(4) dubitare (hesitate).
Under each of these senses several interpretations are possible according as the verb is taken as an affirmation or a question, and under several of them a choice between an active and passive meaning is possible. Most of the interpretations are too remote from the natural suggestion of the context, or any natural meaning of the verb, to be worth considering, and none suits on the whole so well as the interpretation given above.
The renderings of A.V., Are ye not then partial? and R.V. mg., Do ye not make distinctions? are based on (2), the verb being given an active sense. This corresponds to the view of Grotius and others, and is perhaps not impossible, even with the passive aorist, but at best it would be unusual, it runs counter to all N. T. usage, and it gives an inherently weak and tautologous sense. To R.V. text, Are ye not divided? no objection from the ordinary meaning of the verb can be brought, but it is less idiomatic and pointed than the rendering waver.
means judges; it cannot mean approvers (as Wetstein takes it).
, judges with evil thoughts, gen. of quality. Evidently, like , this describes in language already familiar an admittedly wrong attitude. There is a play on words in , , which cannot be imitated in English, and which goes far to account for the introduction of into a context to which the idea of judging in any proper sense is foreign. That is the characteristic sin of the bad judge may also have had its influence. The sentence must be taken to mean: You have passed judgments (i. e. on rich or poor) prompted by unworthy motives.
For , cf. Mat 15:19, Mar 7:21, and Psa 56:5. (like ) is in Biblical usage a general word which includes purpose as well as deliberation. See Lightfoot on Php 2:14; Hatch, Essays, p. 8.
5-7. The poor are the elect heirs of God, whereas the rich are your persecutors.
These verses are intended to reinforce the exhortation of v. 1 by pointing out how peculiarly heinous in the readers case is partiality in favour of the rich.
5. , as in diatribes, cf. Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, p. 32, with foot-notes.
, inserted here for emphasis, cf. 1:16, 3:12.
. Election is a Jewish idea, cf. e. g. Deu 4:37, Ps. Sol. 9:9; see Sanday, Romans, pp. 244 f. 248 ff.
, the poor by the standard of the world, is dative of reference, or interest, cf. Act 7:20 , 2Co 10:4, see Hadley-Allen, 771; Winer, 31, 4, a. Cf. 1Ti 6:17 f., on which Schttgen quotes , Baba bathra 8, 2; , ibid. 4, 1.
Others (Weiss, etc.) take as naming the possession which the poor lack. But the poor lack not the world but the worlds goods.
The election of the poor to privileges is not here said to be due to any merit of their poverty, but, in fact, poverty and election coincide. This does not deny that an occasional rich man may have become a Christian, nor affirm that all the poor have been chosen, cf. 1Co 1:26-28, Mat 19:23-26.
] BAC.
] minn.
] min1.
] A2C2KLP minn.
] minnpauc.
om min1.
The reading of the older uncials easily accounts for all the others.
, rich in the sphere of faith, in the domain where faith is the chief good; i. e. rich when judged by Gods standards. Cf. Luk 12:21, 1Co 1:5, 1Ti 1:2, 1Ti 6:18, Eph 2:4; and rabbinical rich in the law (i. e. learned), Wajjikra r. 33 on Pro 29:13 (Wetstein), Tanchuma 34, 3 (Schttgen on 1Ti 6:17).
The contrast of poor and rich in different spheres is a natural one. See quotations in Mayor3, p. 86, and Spitta, p. 63; cf. Rev 2:9, Test. XII Patr. Gad 7:6.
Other modes of analysis of the meaning of do not affect the general sense of the phrase, but they seem less adapted to the context. Thus:
(1) rich by reason of faith;
(2) rich in having an abundance of faith, cf. Eph 2:4, 1Co 1:5, 1Ti 6:18. This unduly limits the range of the riches.
.
This expression corresponds to Mat 25:34, 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:10, 1Co 6:15:50 ( ), Gal 5:21, as well as to in Mat 19:29, Mat 25:34, Mar 10:17, Luk 10:25, Luk 18:18 (cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 102-104; E. Tr. pp. 125-127.
Heirs are persons who are appointed to receive the inheritance. The kingdom is here thought of as still future (as is shown by ). The kingdom is not further described, nor does James use the term again, and it is possible to say of the term here only that it denotes the great blessing which God offers to his chosen, being thus practically equivalent to salvation. Cf. Mat 5:3, Mat 5:10, Luk 12:31 f.
See Westcotts note on Heb 6:12 for the history of the use of the term .
] AC read [].
. On the expression, cf. 2Ti 4:18, Ep. ad Diogn. 10.
Cf. 1:12, ., with note. Life and the kingdom are practically identical.
does not refer to any one specific occasion, and hence is better translated has promised. Cf. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, 46, 52. The promise was implicit in the very conception of the kingdom.
6. , dishonoured, i. e. by your truckling to the rich. On , cf. Pro 14:21 , 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, Act 5:41.
A.V. despised is a possible translation (cf. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Otium norv. iii .2), 1899, p. 236, for good examples), but the context (v. 3) makes the R.V. dishonoured preferable.
, generic. Mayor well recalls 1Co 11:22 for another case of dishonour to the poor in early Christian life.
, oppress, cf. Wisd. 2:10, Amo 8:4, Jer 7:6, Eze 18:12.
For examples of such oppression, cf. Jam 5:4, Jam 5:6, and references in Spitta, p. 64, notes 9, 10, and 11; also Lucian, Nec. 20. . .
, Is it not they who, etc. Similarly, v. 7. On in nominative as personal pronoun with no intensive force, cf. Lex. s. v. , II, 2.
, so Act 16:19, of dragging into court, cf. Luk 12:58 , Act 8:3 (), Act 17:6; a usual meaning, see Lex.
This does not seem to refer to religious persecution, which was at least as likely to proceed from the side of the poor as of the rich, but to other oppression, with legal action, arising from the ordinary working of social forces in an oriental community and having to do with wages, debts, rents, and the like.
Many think, indeed, of religious persecution (as Act 6:12). But this is not naturally suggested by (instead of which we should in that case expect , cf. Mat 5:10, Luk 21:12, Act 7:52, Gal 1:13). Nor is it made necessary by , which seems to refer to a different act of hostility and is properly so punctuated by WH.
, before judgment-seats, into courts, cf. Sus. 49. On established courts throughout Palestine, see EB, Government, 30, 31; Schrer, GJV, 23, II.
7. . Blasphemy is injurious speech, especially irreverent allusion to God and sacred things.
For blasphemy from the Christian point of view, i. e. against Christ, cf. Act 13:45, Act 13:18:6, Act 13:26:11, 1Ti 1:13, 1Co 12:3, Justin, Dial. 117 () , Pliny, Ep. x, 97.5; Polyc. Mart. 9:3 . Cf. Hermas, Sim. ix, 19.1 (of apostates). On blasphemy against God by the rich among the Jews, cf. Enoch 5:4, 94:8 f. and other passages collected by Spitta, p. 65.
It is not natural to take this of those who profess to know God but by their works deny him (Mayor), cf. Tit 1:16; Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4.Rom 2:24 (Isa 52:5) , and the cognate passages, 2Pe 2:2, 1Ti 6:1, Clem. Rom 1:1, Rom 1:2 Clem. Rom_13, etc., are all of a different tenor, although the language is similar; the verb is there in the passive, and the blasphemy comes from the discredit which is thrown upon the Christian religion by the faults of those who profess it.
.
This means the name of Christ, to whom his followers belong, cf. 1Pe 4:14-16. Cf. 2Sa 12:28, Amo 9:12, Isa 4:1, Isa 4:2 Macc. 8:15 , 4 Ezr 10:22 et nomen quod nominatum est super nos profanatum est, etc. For more references, see Mayor3, p. 88, Spitta, p. 65. In all these passages the reference is to Israel, dedicated to God by receiving his name. This idea was naturally transferred to the Christians, with a reference in their case to the name of Christ. Cf. Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4, , and other cases of the use of in Hermas, Sim. viii, ix, and xi, given in Heitmller, Im Namen Jesu, 1903, p. 92. The phrase does not necessarily refer to baptism, nor to any definite name (e. g. ) by which Christians were known. See Harnacks note on Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4.
6-7. It is very evident that the rich here are not Christians. Those who maintain the opposite are driven to give to the meaning rejected above. The rich are plainly neighbours who do not belong to the conventicle but may sometimes condescend to visit it.
No word, however, hints that the two classes do not worship the same God, and the whole tone of the passage seems to imply a less complete departure from the dominant religion of the community than would have been the case in Rome or any heathen city. If the whole surrounding population were heathen, the argument would have to be differently turned. Contrast the tone of Php 2:15 ff., Eph 4:17-19, Col 3:7, 1Co 6:1-9.
A settled and quiet state of things is indicated, in which the normal relations of the different classes of society prevail. The sense of missionary duty is not prominent.
The situation is thus that of a sect of some sort living in a community whose more powerful members, though worshipping the same God as the sect, do not belong to it.
8-11. The law of Love is no excuse for respect of persons. The cancelling of one precept by another is not permissible, for the whole law must be kept. The royal law is therefore not a license to violate other parts of the law.
These verses are a reply to a supposed excuse, viz. that the Christian is required by the law of love to ones neighbour to attend to the rich man. This excuse by the pretext of love is parallel to the excuse by the pretext of faith, vv. 14-26. Cf. also 1:13, 26. Like Mat 5:17 ff., this passage is opposing a wrong and self-indulgent use of the principle that the law of love covers the whole law.
8. , if now, if indeed. The particle , besides its common adversative force, but, nevertheless (so Pro 5:4, Pro 5:16:25, 26, Pro 5:22:9, 26:12, Joh 4:27, Joh 4:7:13, Joh 4:12:42, Joh 4:20:5, Joh 4:21:4, 2Ti 2:19), has a confirmative meaning, as a strengthened , hardly to be translated. In such cases it indicates an implied contrast, which appears in the present instance in the correlative of v. 9. Cf. Jud 1:8, and see Khner-Gerth, Grammatik der griech. Sprache3, 503, 3, g.
, the royal law. means the Law of God, as known to the readers through the Christian interpretation of the O. T. The article is probably omitted because is treated as a quasi-proper noun, as in 2:11, 12, 4:11; cf. , Jam 1:22, Jam 1:23.
Most take the royal law to be identical with the (legum regina) quoted immediately. But is not used in the sense of (cf. Mat 22:36 ), and it is therefore better to take as a decorative epithet describing the law as a whole, of which the following precept is a part. The expression . implies, indeed, that the perfect observance of this precept covers the observance of the whole law, as in Mar 12:31, Rom 13:8, Gal 5:14, cf. Lev 19:18, Joh 15:12.
It is thus not necessary to make an unnatural distinction between here and in v. 9.
, i. e. supreme. Cf. Philo, De justitia, 4 , De congress. erud. grat. 10; 4 Macc. 14:2. The term either goes back to the tradition that kings are supreme sovereigns, or else is drawn from the use of to mean the Roman emperor.
At the same time there may be here an allusion to the Stoic conception of the wise as kings, parallel to the lurking allusion in 1:25 to the conception of the wise as alone free. The Law of Christians is alone fit for kings. Cf. the similar application of the word in Clem. Al. Strom. 6, 18, p. 825; 7, 12, p. 876, and the other passages quoted by Mayor3, p. 90; also 1Pe 2:9. See Knowlings good note, p. 49, Zahn, Einleitung, 1, 6, note 1, and for the Stoic paradox the references in Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, 1, p. 256, note 5.
As in 1:25, so here, the attribute of the law is decorative and suggestive only; it is not meant specifically to distinguish the true law from some other inferior one.
The interpretation of as given by the King (God or Christ) has nothing to recommend it. Equally little has Calvins ingenious reference to the kings highway, plana scilicet, recta, et quabilis.
, i. e. passage of Scripture (Lev 19:18); cf. Mar 12:10, Joh 19:24, Lightfoot on Gal 3:22.
. Properly neighbour, in LXX for Hebrew , friend, fellow countryman, or other person generally, and so, under the influence of the teaching of Jesus (Luk 10:25-37), equivalent to (cf. especially Rom 13:8, Rom 13:10, 15:2).
9. , cf. 1:20 and note. Such conduct is sin, directly forbidden by the law, and hence cannot be excused as a fulfilment of the royal law.
. Cf. Lev 19:15 , , Deu 1:17, Deu 16:19.
10. , with omitted. Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, 307, Blass-Debrunner, 380.
] BC minn ff vg boh.
] KLP minnpler ff vg boh.
] A minn.
] 33.
] minn, cf. v. 8.
The future is probably an emendation called out by the absence of .
The same thing has happened to , for which KLP minnpler have . The synonyms, and the conflation in 33, are interesting.
, in sense of sin, Rom 11:11, Jam 3:2, cf. Deu 7:25. See M. Aur. Anton. vii, 22 , Maximus Tyr. Diss. 26 ;
, in one point, neuter, since is not used of single precepts.
. is neuter, and the genitive, as in classical Greek, denotes the crime. This is a rhetorical, way of saying that he is a transgressor of the law as a whole ( , v. 11), not of all the precepts in it.
For similar emphasis on the several individual precepts which make up the law, cf. Mat 5:19, and especially Test. XII Patr. Aser 2:5-10 (Charless translation): Another stealeth, doeth unjustly, plundereth, defraudeth, and withal pitieth the poor: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. He who defraudeth his neighbour provoketh God, and sweareth falsely against the Most High, and yet pitieth the poor: the Lord who commandeth the law he setteth at nought and provoketh, and yet he refresheth the poor. He defileth the soul and maketh gay the body; he killeth many, and pitieth a few: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Another committeth adultery and fornication, and abstaineth from meats, and when he fatteth he doeth evil, and by the power of his wealth overwhelmeth many; and notwithstanding his excessive wickedness he doeth the commandments: this, too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Such men are hares; for they are half clean, but in very deed are unclean. For God in the tables of the commandments hath thus declared.
The roots of this verse evidently lie in rabbinical modes of emphasising the importance of certain special precepts and of every precept. Thus Shemoth rabba 25 fin., The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts; Shabbath, 70, 2, If he do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all severally. Schttgen and Wetstein give many sayings of similar tenor from rabbinical writings of various dates.
Augustine, Ep. 167 ad Hier., draws a comparison with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices. The Stoic doctrine is that virtue is an indivisible whole, a man is either virtuous or vicious. The wise (or virtuous) is free from fault, the foolish (or vicious) does no right act; hence . The character of every act depends on the controlling inner purpose and disposition. See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, i, pp., 251-263, with abundant references. This doctrine has plainly nothing to do with that of James.
11. . Exo 20:13, Exo 20:15, Deu 5:17 f.. This order, in which the seventh commandment is mentioned before the sixth, is perhaps due to the order found in the LXX (Cod. B, not AF) of Exo_20. So Luk 18:20, Rom 13:9, Philo, De decal. 12, 24, 32, De spec. leg. iii, 2; but not so Mat 5:21, Mat 5:27.
C minnpauci syrhcl arm have conformed the text to the usual order by putting murder first. In the following sentence this is done by minnpauci arm.
. follows the regular N. T. usage in present simple conditions. Cf. Buttmann, 148; Burton, 469; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 170 f.; Winer, 55, 2, c (where it is said that makes the negative emphatic). Here, since the negative belongs only to a part of the protasis () and not to the rest (), is in any case necessary.
12-13. General exhortation to remember the Judgment, which is the sanction of the law; together with special inculcation of the precept of mercy, violated by their respect of persons.
12. , , cf. 1:19, 23-25, 26, a section which seems to be in mind in this summarising exhortation.
The collocation is very common, e. g. Test. XII Patr. Gad 6:1, cf. Act 1:1, Act 7:22 (and commentaries), 1Jn 3:18, and Lex. s. v. , 3.
, under the law of liberty. Cf. 1:25; here indicates the state or condition in which one does or suffers something; see Lex. s. v. , A. I. 2; cf. e. g. Rom 2:12 .
13. introduces the reason why the sin of respect of persons will be punished with special severity. It involves a breach of the law of mercy, and that has as its consequence unmerciful punishment.
. Found only here for the usual , , but regularly formed from the noun ; see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
L minnpermu read .
On the thought, cf. Mat 5:7, Mat 6:14, Mat 7:1, Mat 18:23-35, Psa 18:25, Psa 18:26, Ecclus. 28:2 ff., Test. XII Patr. Zab. 5 and 8. Jer. Baba q. viii, 10, Every time that thou art merciful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not merciful, God will not show mercy to thee, Rosh hash. 17 a, To whom is sin pardoned? to him who forgives injury.
, mercy boasts over (or against)judgment. is human mercy shown in practise, is Gods condemnatory judgment, cf. Jam 5:12, Joh 5:24. This gives the converse of the previous sentence. As the unmerciful will meet with no mercy, so a record of mercy will prevent condemnation. Cf. 5:20 and Ecclus. 3:30, 40:17, Tob. 4:9-11. The doctrine (and need) of Gods forgiving mercy is here assumed in regular Jewish fashion.
On the great importance ascribed to mercy as a virtue in Jewish thought, see Bousset, Religion des Judentums2, pp. 162 f.
The contrast of Gods opposing attributes of mercy and justice does not seem to be in mind here. The contrast of and is a natural one, and is found in both Greek and Jewish sources, cf. Diog. Laert. ii, 3:9, references to Bereshith r. in Wetstein, and the references in Spitta, p. 70, note 6.
is found elsewhere only in Jam 3:14, Rom 11:18, Zec 10:12, Jer_50[27]11 , 50[27]38. It does not occur in secular writers. 1Co 15:55 well illustrates the meaning of this word.
] B (-)K minnpler ff m vg Aug boh.
] A 33 minnpauc.
] C2 syrpesh.
is insufficiently attested and is probably due to an error. is the harder reading, but the group A 33 points to an emendation.
] CKL minn read . Since the accusative yields no sense, this must have been understood as , attested by Ps.-Herodian, Epimerismoi, ed. Boissonade, 1819, p. 235, and not found elsewhere.
14-26. Neither does the possession of Faith give any license to dispense with good works
This touches another case of substitution of a sham for the reality; cf. 1:22-25, 26 f. 2:8 f.. As an excuse, faith is worth no more than love.
The fundamental idea of a warning against sham is common enough to all moralists. The special interest here is that James makes his contrast not between, e. g., sayings and doings, but between two terms important in Christian thought, viz., faith and works, and that in the course of his argument he uses other theological terms and reveals an acquaintance with many diverse theological conceptions and modes of thought.
14. Faith, if it does not lead to good works, is impotent to save
, cf. v. 16, 1Co 15:32, and ( ) Ecclus. 20:30, 41:14, Job 21:15. is found in LXX only once (Job 15:3). Cf. (or , or ) (note absence of the article, as here), Philo, De poster. Cain. 24, Quod deus immut. 33, De agric. 30; Teles (ed. Hense), p. 27 ; was a common expression in the vivacious style of the moral diatribe. See Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, p. 33.
] BC* 102; cf. v. 16 (sine , BC*), 1Co 15:32 (sine , DFG).
] AC2KL minnfere omn, probably emendation.
. Marks a new paragraph, cf. 2:1, etc.
. Introduced without the article as a new idea; cf. , 5:15, and 1:3, 4, 15.
Cf. 1:3, 6, 2:1, 5, 14-27, 5:15. Faith (cf. especially 2:1) is here assumed to be the fundamental attitude of the Christian adherent, which makes him a Christian. No ground exists for thinking that this assumption was, or could be, doubted by any one. All Christians (cf. , believers, Act 16:1, 2Co 6:15, 1Ti 5:16) have faith, and James uses the term, without any attempt at the formation of an exact psychological concept of the contents of faith, merely as the ordinary term familiar to all for a well-known inner state. The cases of the demons, Abraham, and Rahab all present an analogy to Christian faith which, while inadequate, is yet valuable for argument-the more so that Abraham and Rahab were recognised on all hands to have been justified.
, say, in presenting his claim to be approved of men and of God. Son 1:13 , cf. 2:8. This word is not to be too much emphasised, as if it meant pretend, and as if doubt were seriously thrown on the mans actual possession of faith. The inadequate and empty faith which produces no works may be hardly worthy of the name, but it is not necessarily a deliberate hypocrisy.
The contrast is not between saying () and doing (), as it was in 1:22 between hearing and doing; it is rather between mere adherence to Christianity and conduct, or between church-membership and life ( , ).
, cf. 1:25.
seems here a recognised term for good deeds. Cf. Mat 5:16, Mat 23:3, Rom 2:6, Joh 3:20, Tit 1:16, etc., etc., where means conduct, which is made up of an infinite number of separate . For the use of the word in moral relations, cf. Pro 24:12 , Psa 62:12, Apoc. Bar. 51:7 saved by their works, 4 Ezra 7:35, Pirke Aboth, iii, 14; iv, 15, and many other passages referred to by Spitta, pp. 72-76.
On the expression , , cf. 4 Ezra 7:77, Ezr 8:32, 13:23 even such as have works and faith toward the Almighty, Apoc. Bar. 14:12 (the righteous) have with them a store of works preserved in treasuries.
The here do not appear as specifically ; the word merely denotes conduct as contrasted with faith. This contrast cannot be original with this writer (cf. 4 Ezr 9:7, 13:23).
The contrast of faith and works will appear wherever faith is held to be the fundamental characteristic of the true members of the religious community, while at the same time a body of laws regulating conduct is set forth as binding. It is inevitable that by some, whether in practise or in theory, the essential underlying unity of the two absolute requirements will be overlooked and one or the other regarded as sufficient. This will always call out protests like that of James, who represents the sound and sensible view that not one only but both of these requirements must be maintained.
In the discussions of the Apostle Paul the contrast is the same in terms, but its real meaning is different and peculiar. Pauls lofty repudiation of works has nothing but the name in common with the attitude of those who shelter their deficiencies of conduct under the excuse of having faith. Pauls contrast was a novel one, viz. between the works of an old and abandoned system and the faith of a newly adopted one. His teaching was really intended to convey a doctrine of forgiveness.
Our author, on the other hand, with nothing either of Pauls subtlety or of his mystical insight into the act of faith and glorification of faiths contents, is led to draw the more usual contrast between the faith and works which are both deemed necessary under the same system. Hence, while faith is the same thing with both-an objective fact of the Christian life, the works of which they speak are different-in one case the conduct required by the Jewish law, in the other that demanded by Christian ethics. That the two in part coincided does not make them the same. One was an old and abandoned failure, impotent to secure the salvation which it was believed to promise, the other was the system of conduct springing from and accompanying a new life.
But this distinction, while it makes plain that James is not controverting what Paul meant, yet does not insure the full agreement of James and Paul, for Paul, although he would have heartily admitted the inadequacy of a faith which does not show itself in works, would never have admitted that justification comes . James has simply not learned to use Pauls theology, and betrays not the slightest comprehension of the thought of Paul about faith and the works of the Law.
The contrast between reliance on membership in the religious community and on conduct is as old as Amos and the Hebrew prophets, and comes out in the words of John the Baptist, and of Jesus in the Synoptics and John. All that James adds to these is the term faith, to denote the essential element in the membership, and then an elaborate discussion in which the terms and instances of later Jewish theology are freely employed.
The use (see below) of the same formula which Paul seems to have created indicates that Paul had preceded James, but it is plain that James had made no study of Pauls epistles, and these formulas may have come to his knowledge without his having read Pauls writings, which, we must remember, the Book of Acts does not even mention. See Introduction, supra, pp. 35 f.
; cf. 1:21 (and note) 4:12, 5:15, 20.
This question is presented as if it admitted of but one answer, and that a self-evident one.
15-17. Illustration from the emptiness of words of charity as a substitute for deeds
This is not, like the closely similar verses, 2:2 f., a concrete instance of Jamess contention, but a little parable; for another parable to the same purport, cf: 2:26. The illustration is abruptly introduced, as in 3:11, 12.
The comparison has itself a moral significance, and the same thought is found in other literature, e.g. Plautus, Epid. 116 f. nam quid te igitur rettulit beneficum esse oratione si ad rem auxilium emortuomst?
15. ] B 33 69 minn ff m.
] ACKL minnpler vg syrpesh. hel.
] sah.
, naked, in the sense of insufficiently clad; cf. Job 22:6 stripped the naked of their clothing, Isa 20:2, Isa 20:3, 58:7, Joh 21:7 (without the ), Mat 25:36 ff., Act 19:16; see references in L. and S.
The plural after singular subjects connected by is in accord with the occasional usage of good Greek writers. See Hadley-Allen, 608; Blass-Debrunner, 135. Buttmann and Blass ascribe the plural here to the fact that the two nouns are of different genders, but this is not the case in all the examples from secular Greek.
, food for the day, the days supply of food.
The word is not in the O. T., but this whole phrase is found in Diod. iii, 32; Dion. Hal. viii, 41; Aristides, xlix, ed. Dindorf, p. 537. It is an expression natural to secular Greek, and used here, much like the English daily bread, to describe the poor persons need as urgent; cf. Philo, In Flacc. 17 , Ps.-Plutarch, An vitios. p. 499 C Other extracts may be found in Mayor3, p. 97, and Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, 1899, pp. 236 f.
16. , good bye, a Jewish expression; cf. Act 16:36, Mar 5:34, Luk 7:50, Jdg 18:6, 1Sa 1:17, 1Sa 1:20:42, 2Sa 15:9; cf. J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, Berlin, 1914, p. 34.
. The context requires that these be taken as passive; and, indeed, in order to say warm and feed yourselves it would be necessary in the late usage of the N. T. to use the active with a reflexive pronoun, , ; cf. e. g. 1:22 . Cf. Blass-Debrunner, 310.
That was commonly used of the effect of warm clothes is shown by Job 31:20, Hag 1:6, but also by Plut. Qust. conviv. vi, 6, p. 691 D, and a curious passage (quoted by Wetstein) in which Galen (De vir. medic. simpl. ii) criticises the common neglect of writers to observe the distinction between that which warms and that which merely keeps off the cold.
, plural after , which is treated as a kind of collective. See Hadley-Allen, 609 a; Krger, 58, 4, A. 5.
, the necessaries of life. Not elsewhere in the N. T.; occasionally in LXX, but with no corresponding Hebrew word.
] sine tov BC*; cf. v. 14.
17. , making the application of the parable, cf. Luk 15:10, Luk 17:10.
, cf. vv. 18, 20, 26 [] .
Faith is said to have works, perhaps in the sense of attendance or companionship (Lex.. s. v. I, 2, c).
, cf. v. 26. The two things which are opposed are not faith and works (as with Paul) but a living faith and a dead faith. The dead faith is also called (v. 20); cf. 1:26 . It is not denied that faith can exist without works, but it is the wrong kind of faith.
On the figurative use of for inactive and useless, Rom 6:11, Rom 7:8, Heb 6:1; Heb 9:14, cf. Epict. Diss. iii, 23:28 (sc. a conviction of sin) , .
, in itself (R.V.), strengthens , inwardly dead; not merely hindered from activity, but defective in its own power to act; see 2 Macc. 13:13, Act 28:16, Rom 14:22, and secular references in Lex. s. v.
, II, 1, e, cf. Gen 30:40, Gen 43:31.
Of the various renderings proposed the only other one deserving mention is that of Grotius and others, who give it this meaning of by itself, alone (ff sola), but interpret, faith without works is dead, being alone. This involves a tautology, and in strictness would require the addition of the participle .
18. A possible rejoinder in behalf of the censured persons, and its refutation.
Supposed bringer of excuses: One has pre-eminently faith, another has pre-eminently works.
James: A live faith and works do not exist separately.
. An objection or defense suggested, as in 1:13, 2:8-11. For the half-dialogue form, cf. Rom 9:19, Rom 9:11:19, 1Co 15:35 , 4 Macc. 2:24, Ep. Barn. 9:6, and innumerable passages in the Greek moralists. See Introduction, supra, p. 12.
The future here denotes a merely supposable case (Lat. dicat), Winer, 40, b, p. 280; Buttmann, 139, 18; Viteau, Grec du N. T., Le verbe, 43. Cf. Heb 11:32.
In reply to the censure upon those who rely on faith and neglect conduct, it is here suggested that one person has faith (cf. 1Co 12:9 ), another works, doubtless not in either case with perfect exclusiveness but in pre-eminent degree. This is a defense which suggests antinomianism, but includes a curious tolerance. While obviously weak-a weaker position, indeed, than downright antinomianism-it has a certain plausibility, and very likely fairly expresses the underlying unformulated philosophy of not a few persons.
The objectors words are contained in one sentence; then James replies with . This sentence is evidently from the point of view of vv. 14-17, and is intended flatly and comprehensively to deny that faith and works are separate gifts, like, for instance, prophecy and healing., . The pronouns do not refer to James and the objector, but are equivalent to , , one, another, and are merely a more picturesque mode of indicating two imaginary persons. Very much the same is true of thou and I in the second half of the verse, where James has no idea of emphasising his own superior uprightness.
cannot be made to refer to James (1) because James is contending not for faith but for works, and (2) because Jamess personality has up to this point been so little prominent (the first person has been only used in the conventional address ), that some clear indication of such a direct contrast between him and the objector would be expected, at least instead of .
For a similar usage cf. the quotation from Bion in a fragment of the Cynic Teles (ed. Hense2, pp. 5 f., from Stobus, Anthol. iii, 1, 98 [Mein. v, 67]), , . , , (sc. ), , , , .
Teles (c. 230 b.c.), quoting his predecessor Bion, is urging that every man must play the part that Fortune assigns him, and says: If, then, you are a second-class actor, dont envy the rle of the first-class player. If you do, you will commit blunders. You are a ruler, I am a subject (says [Bion]); you have many under you, I, as a tutor, but this one; and you grow prosperous and give generously, while I cheerfully receive from you without fawning or degrading myself or complaining.
It is to be noted that in the first sentence from Teles is the man with the inferior actors part, while in the rest of the passage is the more prosperous man, in contrast to the speaker, who modestly presents himself as the representative of lesser worldly fortune. This is not unlike the way in which James (see below) fails to preserve strictly the rles of his fragmentary dialogue.
On the ideal second person in Greek (equivalent to ), see Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, ix, 1900, p. 41, with many examples.
. To be taken as an affirmation not a question. and are manifestly parallel. means , or, at least, with a minimum of . is with a minimum of .
, show, prove, demonstrate, cf. Jam 3:13. Here begins the reply addressed to the objector. James replies, first, by a challenge to the objector to produce a case of faith standing by itself without accompanying works. This challenge rests on the assumption that such a dead faith is really no faith at all. James, however, does not pursue that aspect of the matter, but proceeds, secondly ( ), with the converse of the first challenge, in the form of an offer to show that any case of works supposed to stand by themselves without underlying faith is merely deceptive and really implies a co-existent faith.
On the form of expression, by challenge and offer, cf. Theoph. Ad Autol. i, 2 , Epictet. i, 6.43 and other references in Bultmann, p. 33.
]BACP minn ff vg boh sah syrpesh. hel arm.
] KL minnlonge plu. An unfortunate conformation to the following clause, which spoils the sense.
It is interesting that in the English A.V. the influence of the Vulgate (sine) led to the rendering without, which is not a correct translation of the Received Greek Text, which reads .
] CKL minnpler add , doubtless part of the same emendation which produced .
. From the very existence of righteous conduct the fact of faith can be demonstrated, for without faith I could not do the works. Note the elegant construction of this sentence in which the chiastic order -, – well corresponds to the natural emphasis.
] B minn.
] ACKL minn vg. A weakening conformation to order of preceding .
] ff vg syrhcl omit , by a conformation to their text of the preceding clause.
3] BC 33 minn ff.
] AKLR minnpler vg boh sah syrpesh. hel. Conformation to .
The interpretations of this difficult verse are very numerous and for the most part highly subtle and unsatisfactory. The interpretation presented above, which was given by Pott in Koppes Novum Testamentum3, 1816, and by H. Bouman, Commentarius perpetuus in Jacobi epistolam, Utrecht, 1865, differs from others in taking and in the defense as referring merely to two representatives of different types of religion, not to the writer of the epistle and the objector himself. Thereby one of the chief difficulties of the exegesis is overcome, namely, the difficulty that and in the objection (v. 18 a) do not suit well the corresponding , , and , , in the retort of James (v. 18 b). With any other mode of interpretation it seems impossible to gain a satisfactory sense from the passage.
The interpretations are divided into two main groups, according as is taken (1) as interposing a reply in defense of the tendency censured in vv. 14-17, or (2) as introducing the reinforcement of an ally who adds his word in the same contention as that of James.
I. as an objector.
This interpretation (which I adopt) finds its support chiefly in the argument used above, that this is the only natural meaning of the phrase in such a context. Under this view the words introduced by will not extend beyond , v. 18 a, for . is evidently spoken in the interest of Jamess main contention. As to how the words (18 a) can express an objection, and what that objection is, opinions have been various. The first and most obvious difficulty in this view has always been that the objector seems to declare that James has faith, while the objector himself has works. That would reverse their respective parts, and the difficulty has been met in three ways.
1. Since the objection is quoted by James, is taken as if from Jamess point of view and as if referring to James: But someone will say, Thou (i. e. the representative of the class just censured) hast faith, while I (James) have works. This is taken either (a) as a defense of the class censured, on the ground that several types of religion are alike admissible, or (b) as an attack upon James, who is declared to have only works (which are inferior to faith), whereas the person attacked has faith, the superior quality (so Weiss). To this, under either form, (a) or (b), James replies that faith cannot exist alone.
Both these explanations are exposed to the fatal difficulty that the objection of the defender is given in direct discourse (as, e. g., in 2:3) so that cannot possibly refer to James; the interpretation of Weiss is exposed to the further, equally fatal, objection that it is impossible to suppose that James could have introduced, in the mouth of a supposititious defender, such an insulting personal attack on himself. The rhetorical device of the objectors defense is very characteristic of Greek popular moral exhortation of this period, and is always adopted solely in order to state vividly a possible point of view, in itself not wholly unreasonable, but liable to the crushing rejoinder with which the author follows it. It must be assumed as intended to aid, not to hinder, the development of the main contention. To withdraw the readers mind from the main subject by raising the question of the authors own character and principles would be a strangely inept turn. Moreover, for Weisss view the precise bearing of the attack (through the supposed inferiority of works to faith) would have to be more clearly expressed. James nowhere lays himself open to the accusation that he thinks works can exist without faith.
2. A second way of meeting the difficulty is that of von Soden, WH. mg., and others, who take as a question, by which doubt is expressed of Jamess possession of faith; thus:
James: Faith without works is dead.
Opponent: Hast thou any faith?
James: I have works. Show me thy faith without works, and I will prove that I have faith.
Apart from the fact that this interpretation gives the passage too much the character of personal debate, with an argumentum ad hominem, to suit the style proper to general hortatory moral writing, this theory fails because it does violence to the Greek. For (a), in order to call in question Jamess faith, the opponent would have had to say ; (cf. e.g. v. 14). The present form of the question would be wholly weak and unnatural. (b) The theory neglects the obvious parallelism of , , in which the presence of and the lack of any sufficient introduction to the second part make it impossible to assume that we have a question and answer.
3. (a) In despair of any other solution, Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 11887, p. 874; 21902, ii, p. 547; E. Y. Hincks (Journal of Bibl. Literature, xviii, 1899, pp. 199-201), Baljon, Katholieke Brieven, 1904, p. 42, have declared the text corrupt, and propose to read against all Mss. (except the Latin Codex Corbeiensis [ff], the reading of which is admittedly a secondary correction) .
The meaning will then be, as in the explanation defended above, an appeal by the opponent to the equal value of various religious gifts, faith and works both being good in their own way. In the text as reconstructed each gift will be assigned to the right person, faith to the opponent, works to James.
But (1) this reconstruction of the text is too violent a procedure to be acceptable so long as any other explanation can be found, and (2) the resulting text is unsatisfactory. For Jamess own character and principles have not been in question, and to represent the defender as here drawing a sharp contrast specifically between James and himself is to make the words amount to an attack on James. Thus this solution is exposed to the same objections as that of Weiss already discussed.
(b) Of the same violent sort is the suggestion of Spitta, followed by Hollmann, that the objection originally introduced by has fallen out, so that originally constituted the first words of Jamess rejoinder.
But such a rejoinder, in which the writer declares that he possesses these highly prized works, would be very unnatural, to say nothing of the fact that James would not have admitted voluntarily and gratuitously that his own faith required proof. And Spittas attempt to reconstruct the objection introduced by is weak (Aus dem Fehlen gewisser Werke knne nicht geschlossen werden, der Glaube sei nicht lebendig, und die Werke, auf welche Jakobus poche, knnten den Mangel der nicht ersetzen, p. 79).
Hollmanns attempt is equally unconvincing: Allein da wird jemand sagen: [Was ntzen Werke ohne Glauben? Ich aber habe Glauben!] Du hast Glauben und ich habe Werke? Zeige mir deinen Glauben (in J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T. ii, 1908, p. 10).
4. The interpretation defended above is not open to any of these objections.
II. as an ally.
The unsatisfactoriness of the more usual of the interpretations above described has led a second group of interpreters to take the sentence introduced by as coming not from an opponent but from a third party, who is an ally of James. The sentence is then taken to be merely the introduction, establishing a basis for argument, while . contains the real gist of the utterance of : Nay, someone will say, Thou (the person censured by James) hast, or art supposed to have, faith, while I (the ally of James now speaking) really have works; in fact thy faith (since it cannot be demonstrated by works) is not only dead but practically non-existent, while my recognized works prove that I have faith as well.
Where the quotation from the imaginary ally stops is less easy to determine, and that is not very important, since in most forms of this theory the point of view of the ally and of James are identical. Some make it stop with v. 18, others carry the interjected remarks on to the end of v. 23. This latter view has the great disadvantage of separating the example of Abraham from the parallel instance of Rahab.
1. Under the more common form of this view (De Wette, Beyschlag, Mayor) the interrupting is thought of as another Christian; is taken as like immo vero (cf. Joh 16:2, Php 1:18, Luk 12:7, Luk 16:21); is given the meaning thou pretendest to have faith, a pretense which is shown to be false in the sentence .
But the natural sense of is too clear to permit here this meaning of ; and it is not justifiable to make equivalent to . Further, the introduction of an ally, representing the same point of view, is wholly uncalled for, and cannot be accounted for on the ground either of modesty (Mayor) or of dramatic vividness (Beyschlag). It would have to be made more obvious by the context. James cannot thus boast of works, nor has he occasion to defend himself against any charge of lack of faith. This interpretation, although widely held, cannot be accepted.
2. A more plausible form of this theory, or rather an important advance upon it, is the interpretation of Zahn (Einleitung, i, 4, note 4), based upon the view of Hofmann and Stier. Zahn accepts the view that is a kind of ally, but finds that the only ally that would suit the conditions is an unbelieving Jew, whose supposed words run through v. 19: Nay, if you maintain your practices, some Jew will say, Thou, as a Christian, hast thy faith, and I, as a Jew, my works; but thy conduct gives the lie to thy professions of faith, whereas my conduct shows that I have all the faith a man needs. Thy vaunted faith is no more than that of the demons. This is concrete and has advantages over most other interpretations. But the difficulty remains that is more naturally taken as introducing not a reinforcement of Jamess position, but an objection or defense of those censured. Further, in the general style of this epistle (which is not a true letter addressed to a definite body of readers) such a reference to Jewish Christian argument would have to be made more explicit and clear. And, finally, there is no evidence that faith and works were ever the accepted party cries of Jews and Christians. On the contrary, faith characterised the Jew, and not but and were what he claimed as his distinction, cf. Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5, Php 3:3. And the content of faith, as indicated in v. 19, is a monotheism which Jew and Christian shared. If faith, as such, were here thought of as that which distinguishes Christian from Jew, v. 19 could not possibly have been written.
Similar is the view of E. Haupt (Studien und Kritiken, vol. lvi, 1883, p. 187), who substitutes a non-christian moralist for the Pharisaic Jew. This is open to the same objections as Zahns view, and to the additional one that, especially in Palestine, the defender of mere morality seems less appropriate in such a tract than the polemical Jew.
For criticism of various views, besides the commentaries see Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie2, 1911, ii, p. 374, note 2.
19-26. Argument from the instances of the demons and of Abraham and Rahab.
(a) v. 19. Faith by itself can be exerted by demons.
(b) vv. 20-24. In Abrahams case, faith had to be completed by works in order to secure justification.
(c) v. 25. Likewise Rahab was justified by works.
(d) v. 26. Thus faith without works is dead.
19. Faith (even the supreme faith in One God) can be exerted by demons, who are not thereby saved.
James, after refuting the excuse of the objector, proceeds with his main argument. The point made in v. 19 is in support of the original proposition of vv. 14, 17, that faith without works is dead; v. 19 is thus an argument parallel to that of vv. 15-16.
. Perhaps better taken as affirmation than (Tdf. WH.) as question.
.
This, the existence and unity of God, is doubtless thought of as the chief element in faith, but it is going too far to represent it as including the whole of Jamess conception of faith. Cf. the emphasis on monotheism (with reference to Christ added) in 1Co 8:4, 1Co 8:6, Eph 4:6, 1Th 1:8.
The emphasis on monotheism as the prime article of the Jewish creed is to be seen in the Shema (Deu 6:4), Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (cf. Mar 12:29), and may be illustrated from Philo, De opif. mundi, 61; De nobilitate, 5; Leg. ad Gaium, 16. See Bousset, Religion des Judentums, ch. 15.
That a strong perception of the fundamental and distinctive significance of monotheism passed over into the early church may be illustrated from Hermas, Mand. i, ; it was not peculiar to Jewish Christians. Cf. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, Buch ii, Kap. 9.
] BC ( ) minn3 ff Priscill.
] A min1 vg.
] KL minnpler.
Some other minor variations in a few minuscules are due to the omission of the article before . The Latin versions are:
ff quia unus deus;
Priscillian quia unus deus est;
vg quoniam unus est deus.
The text of KL has probably put first in order to give it a more emphatic position. As between the other two readings, that of B is less conventional (see Mayors note, p. 100), hence more likely to be original. The parallel 4:12 probably exhibits the same tendency, for there also the reading of B (with P, which is here lacking) is probably right as against an emender who inserted the article.
, cf. v. 8, . This is good as far as it goes, perhaps said with a slight touch of irony, as in Mar 7:9.
. The evil spirits whose presence and power is so often referred to in the Gospels; cf. 3:15.
This is better than to think of the gods of the heathen, whom nothing here suggests.
. For illustration of this, cf. Mat 8:29, Mar 1:24.
, shudder in terror. This word properly means bristle up, cf. Latin horreo, horresco.
The shuddering awe of demons and others before the majesty of God was a current idea, cf. Dan 7:15, Or. Man. 4, Jos. B. J. v, 10.3; Justin Martyr, Dial. 49, (cf. Dial. 30 and 121), Test. Abrah., Rec. A, 16; Xen. Cyr. iv, 2.15; the Orphic fragment (nos. 238, 239) found in Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 14, p. 724 P. ; and passages quoted by Hort, ad loc.
Here the thought is of a fear which stands in contrast to the peace of salvation. A faith which brings forth only this result is barren. Cf. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 42 f., E. Tr. p. 288.
20-24. The argument from reason of v. 19 is followed by an argument from Scripture. In the great case of Abraham faith and works co-operated to secure justification.
20. . Introducing this new argument: Do you desire a proof? Like the similar Rom 13:3 (see Lietzmann, ad loc. in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1906), this can be taken as an affirmative sentence with little difference of meaning.
. This address to a single person corresponds with v. 14, v. 19, and v. 22. In v. 24 the writer falls out of the singular into the more natural but less forcible and pungent plural, perhaps because he is there giving a summary statement in conclusion. Direct address in the singular, and in harsh tone, is characteristic of the diatribe, so , , , , , infelix, miser, stulte; cf. Bultmann, p. 14.
means empty, i. e. deficient, and is used here much like fool; cf. the Aramaic , Mat 5:22, also Pauls , thou fool, 1Co 15:36, and , Rom 2:1, Rom 9:20. See Trench, Synonyms, xlix, and Mayor3, p. 102. It is used as a common term of disparagement in obvious senses in Hermas, Mand. xi, passim. The strong expression is called out by Jamess abhorrence of this sham faith.
The view of Hilgenfeld and others, that the Apostle Paul is meant as the hardly needs to be referred to.
, ineffective, barren (R.V.), unprofitable, unproductive of salvation, cf. Mat 12:36, 2Pe 1:8, Wisd. 14:5 (with Grimms note); this sense is common in classical Greek, where is connected with such words as , , , , , . Cf. , vv. 17, 26, in much the same sense.
There is possibly a little play on words here, between and (from -).
] BC* minn ff sah.
] AC2KLR minnpler boh syrpesh. hcl. Conformation to v. 26.
21. . Cf. Mat 3:9, Rom 4:1, Rom 4:4 Macc. 16:20, 17:6 (Codd. V, and better reading), Pirke Aboth, v, 4:9, etc. On Abraham as the supreme example of faith, see EB and JE, art. Abraham, Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 154-164.
The use of this phrase suggests that the writer was a Jew, but is not wholly conclusive, for the Christians held themselves to be the spiritual children of Abraham (cf. Gal 3:7, Rom 4:16 f.). Cf. 1Co 10:1, Clem. Rom. 31:2, which were addressed to readers not of Jewish extraction.
. Used here as a familiar and current term substantially equivalent to , v. 14.
means pronounce righteous, acquit (e.g. Exo 23:7), and hence is used of God with reference to the great assize on the day of judgment. Like , however (cf. Act 2:47, 1Co 1:21) the word was used by anticipation, as it is here in James, to refer to the present establishment of a claim to (or acceptance of the gift of) such acquittal (e.g. Luk 18:14, Rom 8:30). The meaning of the word in Pauls use does not differ from that which he found already current, although his theological doctrine of justification, which he set forth with the aid of the word, was highly original. Nor does the meaning in the present verse depart at all from the ordinary. The justification here referred to is not anything said by God in Genesis, but is the fulfilment of the promises there recorded. See Lex. s. v. ; HDB, Justification; Sanday, Romans, pp. 28-31.
For an account of many attempts to give a different meaning to , see Beyschlag, pp. 132 f.
.
Cf. Rom_4, especially v. 2, , ., Rom 3:20, Rom 3:28, Gal 2:16 . The contention of James corresponds to the usual Jewish view and to a somewhat superficial common sense.
Note how in Rom 4:1, as here, the case of Abraham is brought in as the great test case to which the readers minds are likely spontaneously to turn and to which the opponent will appeal. In each case the writer has to argue against the established idea of his readers, Paul against the Jew, James against the Christian who is using the justification of Abraham as a cloak for iniquity. Hence the abruptness of the opening in both cases.
., Gen 22:2, Gen 22:9.
This was an , and is here presented as the ground of Abrahams justification. See note on , v. 23.
That Abraham was justified and saved was of course recognised by all; that his justification depended not merely on the initial act of faith, but also on his confirmatory manifestation of this faith under trial is the contention of James. This, he thinks, becomes clear so soon as reference is made to the great incident of the sacrifice of Isaac, whereby (Gen 22:1) the vital reality of Abrahams faith was tested, and on which followed (Gen 22:15-18) a renewal of the promise. Abrahams failure to sustain this test would have shown his faith weak and doubtless have prevented his justification; thus the inference from the great representative case of Abraham to the situation of the readers themselves was unavoidable.
At the same time Jamess real contention in vv. 20-22 is not so much of the necessity of works as of the inseparability of vital faith and works. Not merely are works needed in order to perfect faith, but faith likewise aids works. This is all said in reply to the suggestion in v. 18 that faith and works are separable functions of the Christian life.
In this connection note the singular, , v. 22, and contrast, v. 24, .
The article with has reference to the well-known altar of the story (cf. Gen 22:9).
, in the sense of offer (as a religious act), appears to be foreign to secular Greek (which uses ), and due to the LXX, where it is common, mainly as a translation for , less often for . In the LXX is mainly used for . See Westcotts note on Heb 7:27.
, likewise, in the sense of altar, is not found in secular Greek writers; see Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 453-461.
22. . The force of probably runs through vv. 22 and 23.
. The existence and efficiency of Abrahams faith (which has not previously been mentioned) is assumed, but alone it is declared not to have been adequate to secure justification.
.
] *A ff read . The weight of ff is here diminished by the fact that it also renders (for which there is no Greek variant) by the present tense confirmatur.
Faith helped works, and works completed faith, sc. toward the end of justification, as v. 21 indicates. In this general statement the mutual relation of faith and works is made plain-the two are inseparable in a properly conducted life (cf. v. 18 b). It is thus hardly true to say that the whole emphasis here rests on . Bengel: duo commata quorum in priore si illud, fides, in altero operibus cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipietur, qua exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat.
The change of tense (, ) is due to the differing nature of the two words (linear and punctiliar, cf. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 108 f.).
, dat. of advantage.
is a common enough Greek word, but is found in the LXX only in 1 Ezr 7:2; Ezr 7:1 Macc. 12:1, and in the N. T. only Mar 16:20, Rom 8:28, 1Co 16:16, 2Co 6:1. It means cooperate with, assist, help. The E.V. wrought with is misleading, because it tends to put too much emphasis on wrought and not enough on with.
Grimm (Lex.. s. v. ) interprets: Faith (was not inactive, but by coworking) caused Abraham to produce works, and this view is held by many. V. 18 does, indeed, suggest that James had reached this conception of the relation of faith and works as source and product, but it is not expressed in v. 22, nor is it directly implied there. The persistent attempts to find it in v. 22 are ultimately due to Protestant commentators interest in the doctrine of the supremacy of faith. Not the power of vital faith to produce works, but the inseparability of faith and works is Jamess contention throughout this passage. The argument is directed against those who would excuse lack of works by appealing to their faith; faith alone, it is declared, is ineffective for securing salvation.
That is used in conscious contrast to (-) is commonly affirmed, but this interpretation spoils the sense. James does not mean that Abrahams faith, being accompanied by (-) works, was effective (-), but that faith and works co-operated.
, was perfected, not as if previously, before the works, it had been an imperfect kind of faith, but meaning that it was completed (almost supplemented), and so enabled to do its proper work. If, when the test came, the faith had not been matched by works, then it would have been proved to be an incomplete faith. The works showed that the faith had always been of the right kind, and so completed it.
Schneckenburger and many others take the opposite view, fides theoretica imperfecta est donec accedat praxis; but these plain peoples faith was no such theologians theory. Huther and Beyschlag think of faith as perfected, in the sense of growing strong by exercise in works, but this is not exactly the writers thought here. Calvin and others try to give to the unlikely sense was shown to be perfect. Others urge that the process was the complete development of what faith really was. The difficulties which the commentators find are due partly to dogmatic prepossession, partly to their error in supposing that James was a subtle theologian who did not write his practical maxims and swift popular arguments until he had thought out the exact definitions, psychological distinctions, and profound and elusive relations involved in the subject.
23 . introduces the result of .
, viz. Gen 15:6, quoted accurately from the LXX, except that all but two of the chief Mss. have for .
Pauls quotation in Rom 4:3 has , but so do Philo, De mut. nom. 33; Clem. Rom 10:6; Justin Martyr, Dial. 92, so that the agreement need not be significant for the relation of James to Paul. See Hatch, Essays, p. 156, where the evidence is given in full.
The passage Gen 15:6 ( .) is taken as a prophecy. As such, it was really fulfilled by Abrahams conduct set forth in Gen_22. And so, by the addition of conduct (whereby his faith was manifested) his faith was perfected, the Scripture promise that he should be justified was fulfilled, and he was called Gods friend. The same passage of Genesis is also used by Paul (Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6) as proof of his doctrine of justification by faith; James, as if in reply, points out that what he has been saying in v. 21 shows that works had to come in and perfect this faith in order to bring about the desired end of justification.
.
In Gen 15:6 the object of Abrahams faith is that God will fulfil the promise just given and grant him an heir. In 1 Macc. 2:52, , (Codd. ), Gen 15:6 is alluded to, and the signal exhibition of this faith in the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen_22, note 22:1) appears to be in mind. So here in James the sacrifice of Abraham is the act which manifests the faith, cf. Gen 22:16-18; and this seems to follow the ordinary Jewish understanding of the matter. In other passages of the N. T. the case is various. Rom 4:17 ff. refers to the belief of Gods promise of a son; Heb 11:8 ff. to the faith shown by Abrahams departure for an unknown country; Heb 11:9 to his residence in Canaan; Heb 11:17 ff. to the sacrifice of Isaac. Clem. Rom. 31 connects the sacrifice of Isaac with Abrahams righteousness and faith; Gen 15:6 is quoted, but the precise nature of Abrahams faith is not indicated.
. From Gen 15:6.
The same expression is found (of Phinehas) in Psa 106:30, Psa 106:31; cf. Gen 15:6 (with Skinners note), Deu 24:13, it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord, thy God, Deu 6:25, Pro 27:14. It means that God accounted the act (here an act of faith) to be righteous, i. e. righteous in special and distinguished measure. The developed use of to denote the possession of Gods approval on the whole, and not merely with reference to a single act, necessarily enlarged the meaning of the expression, which in the N. T. is treated as equivalent to .
The name of God is avoided in the LXX translation by recasting the sentence and using the passive voice for the active verb of the Hebrew (see Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 183 ff., Eng. transl., pp. 224-226). Similarly in Psa 106:30 f., Psa 106:1 Macc. 2:52.
.
This sentence, which is not to be included as a part of , is parallel to , In this fact (i. e. ) the promise implied in was fulfilled. The reward was greater than in the case of the justification and salvation of ordinary men.
Friend of God, i. e. beloved by God, appears to have been a designation commonly applied to Abraham. So Isa 41:8 ( , Aq. , Sym. ); Philo, De sobr. 11, M. p. 401 (where in quoting Gen 18:17 is substituted for ), Jubilees 19:9, 30:20, Test. Abraham, passim. The same idea is expressed in different language in 2Ch 20:7 (), Dan. 3:35, Dan 3:4 Ezra 3:14, Philo, De Abrahamo, 19 (), and Abrahams love to God is emphasised in Pirke Aboth, v, 4. Among modern Arabs the common designation of Abraham is the friend of God, el khalil Allah, or el khalil (cf. Koran, sura iv, 124), and the name is even given to Hebron, his burial-place; cf. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, 1885, p. 269.
In view of this evidence it can only be said that Clem. Rom 10:1 (, ), 17:2, Tertullian, Adv. Judos 2, unde Abraham amicus dei deputatus ? do not furnish proof of the dependence of Clement of Rome and Tertullian on James. In Iren. iv, 16:2, ipse Abraham sine circumcisione et sine observatione sabbatorum, credidit deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus dei vocatus est, the similar combination of Gen 15:6 and this sentence is probably a mere coincidence. See Introduction, pp. 87, 90 f.
It seems more likely that James writes here with the title already commonly applied to Abraham in mind than that he uses as merely equivalent to , as many (e. g. Spitta, pp. 82 f.) hold. Yet the repeated use in the Book of Jubilees (chs. 19, 30) of the expression written down as a friend of God, in the sense of having been granted salvation, and the connection in one instance (ch. 30) of this expression with the phrase, it became righteousness to them, gives some plausibility to such a view. In any case and relate to the same act of God, whether the former is a mere equivalent of the latter or has a larger meaning.
But to assume that James was thinking of the heavenly tablets when he wrote is gratuitous. Jewish thought knew of other ways by which God could give a name besides inscribing it in a book.
24 , direct address in plural, as everywhere in the epistle except vv. 18-23, cf. 4 Macc. 12:4, Clem. Rom 12:8.
KL minnpler add .
, i. e. without the aid and co-operation (cf. v. 22) of works. This is a formal and conclusive reply to the question of v. 14.
It is not to be inferred that James held to a justification by works without faith. Such a misunderstanding is so abhorrent to his doctrine of the inseparability of faith and works that it does not occur to him to guard himself against it. And the idea itself would have been foreign to Jewish as well as to Christian thought. The fate of the heathen does not come into the question.
25 An additional argument from Scripture: Rahabs justification came from works.
, so Jos 6:17, Jos 6:23, Jos 6:25; cf. Jos 2:1-21, Jos 2:6:17, 22-25, Heb 11:31, Mat 1:5, Clem. Rom_12.
Older writers tried to soften the reference by taking in some unnatural sense, as cook, landlady (here following Jewish guidance), or idolater; but the literal sense is the only possible one; see Lightfoots note on Clem. Rom_12.
In Jewish midrash of various ages Rahab was the subject of much interest. She was believed to have become a sincere proselyte, to have married Joshua, and to have been the ancestress of many priests and prophets, including Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Her faith as implied in Jos 2:11 was deemed notably complete, and was said to have evoked the express recognition of God himself; and she, with certain other proselyte women, was called the pious. See JE, Rahab. This evidence of special Jewish attention to Rahab, although the actual rabbinical passages are some of them late, fully justifies the assumption that the references to Rahab in Hebrews and Clement of Rome are independent of this verse in James; cf. Introduction, pp. 22, 87. It is noteworthy that none of the words used to describe Rahabs conduct are the same in Hebrews and in James. Clement of Rome may, of course, here as elsewhere, be dependent on Hebrews.
. The works consisted in the friendly reception () and aid in escaping () given to the spies, as described in Jos_2. The faith to which an opponent might have pointed (cf. Heb 11:31, Clem. Rom_12) is displayed in Rahabs words, Jos 2:9-11, especially v. 11 (so Cod. A) .
The choice of Abraham and Rahab as examples here is probably to be explained by observing that the one was the accepted and natural representative of faith and justification, while the other is an extreme case, where, if anywhere, Jamess argument might seem to fail. Notice , and a certain emphasis on , even though a harlot. These two instances thus cover the whole wide range of possibilities. This is better than the view, long ago suggested, that the mention of Rahab, a proselyte from the Gentiles, shows that the epistle was addressed to Christian communities containing Gentiles as well as Jews (Zahn, Einleitung, 4, Eng. transl. 1, p. 91).
] CKmgL minn ff boh syrpesh. hcl read , cf. Heb 11:31.
, sent out, with no thought of any violence of action, cf. Mat 9:38, Mat 12:35, Luk 6:42, Luk 10:35.
26 Concluding statement
. The deadness of faith without works is illustrated from a dead body. With works absent, faith is no more alive than is a body without the .
The comparison is sometimes said to halt, because, whereas the death of the body is caused by the departure of the spirit, the deadness of faith is not caused, but only recognised, by its failure to produce works; and it is suggested that faith, as the source of activity, could better be compared with the spirit, and works with the body. But to the mind of James faith and works co-operate to secure justification, and by works faith is kept alive. So the body and the spirit co-operate to secure continued life, and by the spirit the body is kept alive. When v. 22 is given its true meaning, the parallel is seen to be better than is often thought.
] B syrpesh arm omit. ff renders autem.
. This is most naturally taken of the vital principle by which the body is animated.
A less probable interpretation takes as meaning breath, which the body is thought of as producing. This makes a more complete parallel to the relation of faith and the works which it ought to produce, but is forced. Cf. Psa 104:29, Tob. 3:6; Q. Curtius Rufus, x, 19 illud scire debetis militarem sine duce turbam corpus esse sine spiritu.
Mayor J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, 1892, 21897, 31910.
Winer G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Thayers translation, 21873.
Hadley-Allen J. Hadley, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges, revised by F. D. Allen, 1884.
L. and S. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 71883.
HDB J. Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1898-1902.
Buttmann A. Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Thayers translation, 1876.
Heisen H. Heisen, Novae hypotheses interpretandae epistolae Jacobi, Bremen, 1739.
Zahn, Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 31906-1907.
Schrer, E. Schrer, Geschichte des jdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 41901-1909.
EB Encyclopdia Biblica, 1899-1903.
Lex. J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1886.
Hatch, Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889.
Bultmann R. Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, xiii), 1910.
Burton, E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 41900.
Blass-Debrunner A. Debrunner, Friedrich Blass Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte vilig neugearbeitete Auflage, 1913.
J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol I. Prolegomena, 1906, 31908.
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 21902.
Krger K. W. Krger, Griechische Sprachlehre fr Schulen, 41861-1862.
Pott D. J. Pott, in Novum Testamentum Grce, editio Koppiana, Gttingen, 31816.
Zahn Theodor Zahn
Trench, R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 121894.
JE The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906.
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
Avoid Servility to the Rich
Jam 2:1-13
This sin of making distinctions in Gods house is as rife today as ever; and wherever it is practiced the divine Spirit departs. Gods love is impartial, so far as outward appearances might affect it; and in His Church the only real differences must be those of humility, purity and righteousness.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, whether they be rich in this worlds goods or not. But it is easier for a poor man to be rich in faith and an heir of the Kingdom, because he can give more of his attention to the things of the Spirit.
The law of love must be supreme with us; and we must love our fellows, whatever their position or property, as ourselves, for Christs sake. If we fail in this, we show that we have never entered into the heart of the Christian faith. A man may observe all the laws of health; but if he inhale one whiff of poison he may die; so we may be outwardly obedient to the entire Decalogue, but delinquency in love will invalidate everything.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter Two – A Manifested Faith
This chapter readily divides into two sections: first, (Jam 2:1-13), and second, (Jam 2:14-26). In both parts James stresses the importance of reality in ones attitude toward God and His Word. Recognizing the fact that many of those, whom he addresses as belonging by nature to the twelve tribes of Israel, had trusted, in days gone by, in obedience to the law given at Sinai as a ground of acceptance with God, James probes the consciences of such, in what we might think of as a roundabout way, in order to show them the folly of ever professing to obtain a righteousness of their own through legal observances. In the second part of this chapter he exposes the error of supposing that a mere recognition of the truthfulness of the great outstanding facts of Christianity is a faith that saves. He who has received Christ in reality will manifest his faith by his works.
Let us note then how adroitly this inspired writer reveals the hidden evil of the natural heart.
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seat? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment (Jam 2:1-13).
Nothing more clearly indicates the selfishness of the human heart than the way in which we are inclined today (to use a colloquial term) to the wealthy and cultured, while neglecting or ignoring the poor and ignorant. Against this tendency James speaks out vigorously. It is hateful when found in the world and by those who make no Christian or other religious profession at all. It is far more despicable when seen in the sphere where men and women come together presumably to worship God. In such gatherings there should be no place either for such vulgar favoritism of the rich or contempt for the indigent.
To profess faith in the One who, although the Lord of Glory, became on earth so poor that He had no place to lay His head, and yet to have respect of persons in this way, is most inconsistent. All are alike precious to Him, but the poor are in a very special sense the objects of His love and care.
The word rendered assembly in ver. 2 (Jam 2:2) is really synagogue. Those to whom James wrote were not, as we have noticed already, separated from the synagogues of the Jews, but still met with their brethren in these centers where Moses was read and where instruction was given in the Scriptures, as we are told in Act 15:21, where this same James was the speaker.
As we read what is here written we can see with the minds eye the worshipers and adherents gathered in the synagogue. Suddenly there is a commotion as the opening door reveals the portly form of a distinguished and wealthy merchant, arrayed in costly garb and wearing a gold ring on his finger. Immediately there is a move in his direction by an attendant, or possibly one of the officials, who ostentatiously conducts the newcomer to a choice pew into which he is ushered with every evidence of respect and appreciation, as though he were actually doing the assembly a favor by attending the service. Again the door is opened and there appears a timid-looking man of the poorest laboring class, who looks diffidently about for a place where he will be hidden from observation and yet be able to hear the prayers and the reading of the Scriptures. At first no one makes a move to accommodate him; then finally someone offers him a foot- stool or a rear seat, which is accepted with becoming humility on the part of the poverty-stricken brother. Surely God would be displeased at such behavior! It would be a perfect revelation of the state of the hearts of those in attendance. Such partiality would show that the thoughts of those so behaving were evil in that they despised the poor and honored the well-to-do.
Yet all were alike precious to God, and He has chosen the poor of this world, made wealthy by faith, as heirs of His kingdom in which all who love Him shall have part. To despise these was to dishonor Him who recognized them as His own children.
How often had the rich and opulent led in opposition to the gospel and in oppressing those in less fortunate circumstances, even dragging them before the courts in order to defraud them of what was lawfully theirs. These who trusted in their wealth and gloried in their power and influence were often blasphemers of that worthy name by which believers in Christ are called.
Jesus declared the second great commandment is Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. James designates this the royal law. It sums up mans responsibility to his neighbor. He who fulfils it will love all men and look with contempt on none. Therefore, to have respect to persons, preferring one above another, is to violate the letter and spirit of this sacred precept, and so to commit sin and be convicted of the law as a transgressor.
For such an one to pretend to be righteous before God was sheer folly. The law was violated already and so he had no title to expect blessing on the ground of legal obedience. It is not necessary to break every commandment of the law in order to stand condemned as a criminal in the sight of God. To offend in one point is to be guilty of all. The slightest infringement of the law indicates the self-will and insubjection of the heart. Suspend a man over a precipice by a chain of ten links; how many of these need to snap to plunge him into the abyss below? The breaking of the weakest link shatters the chain, and the man falls to his doom.
The same law which forbade adultery, prohibited murder. One need not be guilty of both to be under judgment. To violate either command marked one out as a transgressor of the law. How hopeless then the efforts of anyone to be justified on the ground of his own obedience!
But that law, so terrible to the sinner, is a law of liberty to the regenerated one, because it commands the very behavior in which the one born of God finds his joy and delight. Let the Christian then be careful that he does not act inconsistently with his profession, for he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy. Under the divine government men reap as they sow; and with what judgment they judge others, they are judged themselves, but mercy rejoiceth against judgment. It is not the desire of God to deal harshly with anyone. He is ever ready to forgive and bless where sin is recognized and confessed. As objects of such mercy ourselves we are called upon to show mercy and compassion to others, no matter how lowly their condition may be.
This leads naturally to insistence on the importance of a faith that is manifested by good works, and with this the rest of the chapter deals.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without die spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (Jam 2:14-26).
It seems to be a tendency inherent in most of us to go to extremes in matters of doctrine. This is true in regard to the question of our salvation as well as in other things. Some insist that we are saved by character; that only as we do good works and consistently obey the law of God can we be justified. At the other extreme are those who rest solely upon an historical faith for their acceptance with the Lord, ignoring the need of that inner change which the Saviour described as a new birth, and which is evidenced by a life of practical righteousness.
The Holy Spirit used the Apostle Paul in a special way to show the fallacy of the first of these views. He insists that justification before God is never by the deeds of the law but by faith in Christ. James deals with the second error, and makes it plain that the faith that saves is a faith that works, and (that no one is justified before God who is not justified practically before men. What profit, he asks, if a man says he has faith and his behavior belies his profession? Is this the kind of faith that saves?
He supposes a case where one of Christs own is bereft of clothing and proper nourishment. Looking upon him in his distress one speaks comforting but useless words, saying, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, but gives him nothing either in the way of food or clothing to alleviate his needy condition. What profit is there in mere words unaccompanied by deeds of mercy?
In the same way he undertakes to show that faith that is divorced from works is dead, being alone. There is no work of grace in the heart where there are no acts of grace in the life. It was Robertson of Brighton who said, No man is justified by faith, unless faith has made him just. For faith supposes a living link between the soul and God.
James pictures two men; one says to the other, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works-something which cannot be done-and I will show thee my faith by my works-the only way one can prove to another that his faith is genuine.
To believe the great facts of revelation is not enough: there must be personal commitment of the soul to Christ. Mere monotheism (belief in one God) is not saving faith. The demons believe that God is one, and shudder as they contemplate the day when they must face Him in the final judgment of the wicked dead and of fallen angels. Such belief has no saving value. Again he repeats the statement, Faith without works is dead. He then cites two Old Testament illustrations to confirm his thesis. First, take the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful. What does Scripture teach concerning him? It shows us that he was justified by works when, in obedience to the command of God, he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar.
But Paul tells us plainly in Rom 4:2, If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Is there not contra- diction here? Was not Luther right in declaring that this letter of James was not true, inspired Scripture but just an epistle of straw? Luther and many others failed to note those words, not before God. How was Abraham justified before God? James and Paul agree that it was when Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. But when he went to Mount Moriah and there by faith offered his son upon the altar (Heb 11:17-19), he was justified by works before men, as he made manifest the reality of his profession of confidence in God and His Word.
Thus, says James, the scripture (found in Gen 15:6) came to fulfilment in the demonstration of that faith Abraham had so long ago. Remember some forty years elapsed between the patriarchs justification by faith before God and his justification by works before men. We may see in this how true it is that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. In other words, as Paul also tells us, faith worketh by love; otherwise it is not real faith at all.
In Heb 11:31 we are told, By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she received the spies with peace. James says, Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and sent them out another way? Her faith in the God of Israel caused her to do all she could for the protection of His servants, and secured for her the place of a wife and mother in Israel, bringing her right into the ancestral line of our Lord Jesus Christ (Mat 1:5). It was faith alone that gave value to the works of either Abraham or Rahab. In one case we see a father about to sacrifice his son, in the other a woman betraying her country! Had there not been confidence in the living God both acts would have exposed their perpetrators to severe condemnation.
The conclusion is clear in Jam 2:26, As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Death is the separation of the spirit, the real man, from the body, the temporary tabernacle, even as the preacher tells us in Ecc 12:7, Then shalt the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. That lifeless clay is no more dead than a faith that is not manifested by works of righteousness and deeds of piety.
Were we to lose this second chapter of James we would lose much indeed. We need just such clear, practical instruction to save us from antinomianism and false confidence.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Jam 2:12
The Law of Liberty.
Take these two words, “the law of liberty”-liberty and law. They stand over against one another. Our first conception of them is as contradictory. The history of human life, we say, is a history of their struggle. They are foes. Law is the restraint of liberty. Liberty is the abrogation, the getting rid, of law. Each, so far as it is absolute, implies the absence of the other. But the expression of the text suggests another thought, that by the highest standards there is no contradiction, but rather a harmony and unity between the two; that there is some high point in which they unite; that really the highest law is liberty, the highest liberty is law; that there is such a thing as a law of liberty.
I. First, what do we mean by liberty, the oldest, dearest, vaguest, of the words of man? I hold it to mean simply the genuine ability of a living creature to manifest its whole nature, to do and be itself most unrestrainedly. Now between this idea and our ordinary thought of law there must, of course, be an inherent contradiction. The ordinary laws of social and national life are special provisions made for the very purpose of restricting the very natures and characters of their subjects. National law does not aim at the development of individual character, but at the preservation of great general interests by the repression of the characteristic tendencies of individuals. We hear the word “law,” and it has this repressive sound. We hear the noise of grating prison doors, of heavy keys groaning in their locks. We see the lines of chains or the lines of soldiers that bind the individual’s freedom for some other individual’s or for society’s advantage. Law is constraint as yet, and is the foe of liberty.
II. The law of constraint is that which grows out of man’s outward relations with God; the law of liberty is that which issues from the tendencies of a man’s own nature inwardly filled with God. That is the difference. Just so soon as a man gets into such a condition that every freedom sets towards duty, then evidently he will need no law except that freedom, and all duty will be reached and done. You see then what a fundamental and thorough thing the law of liberty must be. All laws of constraint are useless unless they are preparatory to, and can pass into, laws of liberty. This doctrine of the law of liberty makes clear the whole order and process of Christian conversion. Laws of constraint begin conversion at the outside, and work in; laws of liberty begin their conversion at the inside, and work out.
III. The whole truth of the law of liberty starts with the truth that goodness is just as controlling and supreme a power as badness. Virtue is as despotic over the life she really sways as vice can be over her miserable subjects. Here is where we make our mistake. We see the great dark form of viciousness holding her slaves down at their work, wearing their life away with the unceasing labour of iniquity; but I should not know how to believe in anything if I did not think that there was a force in liberty to make men work as they can never work in slavery. There is one large presentation of the fact of sin which always speaks of it as a bondage, a constraint, and consequently of holiness as freedom or liberation; but I believe there is no more splendidly despotic power anywhere than that with which the new life in a man sets him inevitably to do righteous and godly things. If there is one thing on earth which is certain, which is past all doubt, past all the power of mortal hindrance or perversion, it is the assurance with which the good man goes into goodness and does good things, ruled by the liberty of his higher life. Oh for such a liberty in us! Look at Christ, and see it in perfection. His was the freest life man ever lived. Nothing could ever bind Him. He walked across old Jewish traditions, and they snapped like cobwebs; He acted out the Divinity that was in Him up to the noblest ideal of liberty. But was there no compulsion in His working? Hear Him: “I must be about My Father’s business.” Was it no compulsion that drove Him those endless journeys, foot-sore and heart-sore, through His ungrateful land? “I must work today.” What slave of sin was ever driven to his wickedness as Christ was to His holiness? What force ever drove a selfish man into his indulgence with half the irresistibility that drove the Saviour to the cross? Who does not dream for himself of a freedom as complete and as inspiring as the Lord’s? Who does not pray that he too may be ruled by such a sweet despotic law of liberty?
Phillips Brooks, The Candle of the Lord, p. 183.
References: Jam 2:12.-R. Gregory, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 305; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 343; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, Part II., p. 331. Jam 2:14-17.-T. Hammond, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 378. Jam 2:15.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1061,
Jam 2:18
I. Nothing is more evident than that the whole passage now before us is directed against the language in the Epistle to the Romans, as that language was misinterpreted by the wickedness of fanaticism; and that it does not in the slightest degree interfere with it as taken according to the meaning of the writer. The words, “Show me thy faith without thy works,” are intended to allude to St. Paul’s words that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Taking faith in the sense in which it has often been used since-that is, “correct opinion”-and taking the words, “without the deeds of the law,” with nothing further to explain them, and we have at once that most wicked doctrine which St. James condemns, namely, that if a man’s opinions about God be right, he need care nothing for his affections and conduct, whereas St Paul was not speaking of any such belief as was no more than opinion. He did not say that “He who believes in one God is justified,” but “He who believes in Jesus Christ is justified,” nor, again, did he mean by believing in Jesus Christ believing in such facts about Him as the heathens believed-namely, that there had been such a man crucified in Judaea under Pontius Pilate-but he meant “whosoever believed that Jesus Christ died for his sins “-a thing that never was believed really by any one who did not care for his sins beforehand, and can be really believed by no man without its making him care for his sins a great deal more than he ever cared before.
II. All, then, that St. James says in this passage is that correct opinions will save no man, or, to use the term “faith,” not in St. Paul’s sense of it, but in the unhappy sense which others have too often attached to it, that a sound faith in religious matters will alone save no man. From the language of two great Apostles, we may surely derive an important lesson, not to make one another offenders for a word. We should not condemn our brother for using words which an apostle has used before him, as he, like the Apostle, may mean no more by them than this, that Christ’s people are those only in whom the Spirit of Christ abides.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 269.
Jam 2:19
Atheism.
I. For the vast majority of mankind, two phenomena have been in all ages, and I believe will be to the end of time, the all-sufficient proof that there is one God. One is the universe; the other is the conscience: one is the starry heaven above; the other is the moral law within. To every good man a true conscience not only tells of a God above us, but is a god within us. It is the categoric imperative which says to a man direct from heaven, “ought” and “must.”
II. For nations there can be no morality if they know not God. In a brief tormented existence, ungoverned by any laws save their own appetites, the character of a world deprived of a holy ideal may be summed up in two words: heartless cruelty; unfathomable corruption. I say that any nation which denies God becomes by an invariable law a degraded nation at last, and any age which denies God sinks in great measure into an abominable age. If atheism continues for a time to kindle its dim torches at the fount of life, those torches soon die out in smouldering flames. A nation may walk for a short time in the dubious twilight left on the western hill-tops when the sun is set; but the twilight soon rushes down into the deep, dark night when God is denied, when faith is quenched, when prayer has ceased. It is never long in a nation before the holy warfare of ideas is abandoned for the base conflict of interest, never long before hatred and envy usurp the place of charity, and lust takes the place of honourable love. When once Christianity is dead, the world will be twice dead, a wandering star for which is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
F. W. Farrar, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 177.
Reference: Jam 2:24.-F. W. Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 58.
Jam 2:26
Justification by Faith.
I. Justification by faith is in fact a doctrine belonging of necessity to all true religion, and not to the Christian religion only. Men speak sometimes as if the Gospel had introduced a method of salvation which is not the completion and perfection of all that went before, but a method utterly opposed to it, as though Abraham and the patriarchs entered heaven by a quite different door from St. Paul and the members of the Christian Church. But the New Testament teaches differently. St. Paul entirely repudiates the notion of his having made void the law by the doctrine of faith; he shows that the principle which justified Abraham was identical with that which he preaches as the principle of Christian justification, a conclusion which is confirmed by the Old Testament expression that “Abraham believed God, and it” (that is, his faith) “was counted unto him for righteousness.” If I wanted independent confirmation of St. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, I would seek it in the confession of any man whose spiritual consciousness was ever so slightly awakened, and who sought, on his knees before God, some communication of the Divine life; and I am sure that the earnestness with which such a man would implore help from above would sufficiently show that no works of man can establish that union with God which is the life of the human soul.
II. When St. Paul wrote with so much earnestness, it was not faith itself for which he was contending so much as for faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as opposed to faith shown in any other way. Who shall say that he put faith before works? He never made the comparison at all. He simply pointed to Christ as the way to the Father, and therefore to union with Christ, or faith in Him, as the only conceivable means of bringing forth fruit to the praise and glory of God.
Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 198.
References: Jam 3:1-18.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 188. Jam 3:2.-J. Keble, Sermons for Christmas and Epiphany, p. 483; J. H. Thom, Laws of Life, vol. i., p. 266; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 301. Jam 3:4.-F. Wagstaff, Ibid., vol. xxii., p. 170. Jam 3:5.-J. F. Haynes, Ibid., vol. xviii., p. 54; Ibid., vol. ii., p. 182; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 173. Jam 3:8.-D. Burns, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 101; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 51.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
II. THE ROYAL LAW: FAITH AND WORKS
CHAPTER 2
1. The faith of Christ with respect to persons (Jam 2:1-5)
2. The royal law (Jam 2:6-13)
3. Faith must be manifested by works (Jam 2:14-26)
Jam 2:1-5
Here we have the synagogue mentioned, sufficient evidence that these Jewish believers were still gathering together in the Jewish fashion, and were not an ecclesia, an assembly, gathered out. The Epistle to the Hebrews, written many years after the Epistle of James, exhorted them to leave the camp behind and go outside of it (Heb 13:13). Now in the synagogue among unbelieving Jews the rich man with his gold ring and fine clothing was accorded all honor, received the foremost place, while the poor man was told to stand up. (The same spirit prevails in many churches too, with their pew rents, sometimes auctioned off to the highest bidder, while the poor are not welcomed in such aristocratic surroundings.) Such a practice is not according to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, who Him self became poor so that by His poverty we might be rich. Faith, so prominent in the opening chapter of this Epistle, is here again insisted upon. Their action, even, in so small a matter as preference of the rich and influential, was not according to that faith, which worketh by love. Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?
Jam 2:6-13
They had despised the poor, who were believers and walked in faith, while the rich oppressed them and dragged them before the judgment-seats. These of course were not believers, but mere professors, which again shows the mixed conditions of their gatherings. Furthermore, these rich people with their shameful behavior had blasphemed that worthy Name by which they were called, the name of the Lord of glory. This respect of persons was a sin against the royal law: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself If ye have respect to persons ye commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. If it is the matter of keeping the law, it must be kept in every detail and the entire law for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. They were in their consciences still under the law, not having fully seen the law of liberty which is the perfect law, flowing as we have learned from the first chapter, from the new nature guided by the Holy Spirit, producing the walk in the Spirit, thus fulfilling the righteousness of the law. James, therefore, appeals to the Ten Commandments as a witness to arouse their consciences. Then he mentions once more the law of liberty. So speak ye, and so do, as they that be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment shall be without mercy to him that hath shown no mercy. Mercy rejoiceth over judgment. The perfect law of liberty produces mercy in the believer, but where no mercy is shown, no mercy can be expected, but judgment. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Mat 7:2).
Jam 2:14-26
This section of the Epistle has produced much perplexity in the minds of some and led to a great deal of controversy. As it is well known, Dr. Martin Luther, thinking that James tried to answer and contradict Pauls statement in Romans, called James an Epistle of straw. Others also hold that James corrects the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, the one being the inspired statement unfolding the gospel of grace, the other the defense of that gospel. But how could James answer either Epistle when they were not at all in existence, but written years later? When Paul wrote Romans and Galatians he knew James Epistle. But did Paul try to correct James argument? Not by any means. Both James and Paul wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any thought of correcting a mistake impeaches the inerrancy of the Word of God.
There is no difficulty at all connected with this passage. The Holy Spirit through James shows that true faith which justifies before God must be evidenced by works. What should it Profit, my brethren, though a man say that he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save? What kind of faith does he mean? It is a faith which assents to certain dogmas, consisting in a mental, intellectual assent, but it is not the living faith. A living faith manifests itself in works. That is what James insists upon. In their synagogue were those who professed to believe, but they did not show by their actions that they had the faith given by God; they only said that they had faith; works, as the proof of true faith were absent. If a brother or a sister be naked (the fatherless and widows of the closing verse of the previous chapter), and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? The answer to this question is, it certainly profits nothing. Such a behavior shows that the professed faith is dead. So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself The quality of faith is defined in the nineteenth verse. Thou believest there is one God–that which the Jew boasts Of, that he believes in one God, and not like the heathen in many gods–thou doest well; the demons also believe and tremble. Demons who also believe are still demons; so a man may believe and still be the natural man, live and act as such. The seal of true faith is works.
This the Holy Spirit now illustrates through the case of Abraham and Rahab, so different from each other, the one the Father of the faithful, the other the harlot of Jericho. The works of both bear witness to the character of true faith which produced them. In the case of Abraham he offered up his only son. Of Abraham it was said he believed God. That he acted as he did, in unquestioning and unhesitating obedience, was the proof that he believed God. What he did was the seal put on his faith, by which he was justified before God. Rahab also believed, and her faith was demonstrated when she received the spies, hid them and associated herself with the people of God, while she separated herself from her own people. Thus faith was seen as a perfect faith, as the true faith, by works. This is what the Holy Spirit teaches through James. In Romans justification before God is taught, which is by faith only. James does not say that our works justify us before God; such are not needed before an omniscient God, for He sees the faith of the heart, which man does not see. It is in exercise with regard to Him, by trust in His Word, in Himself, by receiving His testimony in spite of everything within and without–this true faith God sees and knows. But when our fellow-men ask, show me, then that faith shows itself by works. It is our justification before man. The argument is concluded by the terse comparison: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the Lord of glory the Glory, i.e. in the sense of Heb 1:3 as taking the place of the shekinah.
with respect In the presence of Christ the Glory, earthly distinctions disappear.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the faith: Act 20:21, Act 24:24, Col 1:4, 1Ti 1:19, Tit 1:1, 2Pe 1:1, Rev 14:12
the Lord: Psa 24:7-10, 1Co 2:8, Tit 2:13, Heb 1:3
with: Jam 2:3, Jam 2:9, Jam 3:17, Lev 19:15, Deu 1:17, Deu 16:19, 2Ch 19:7, Pro 24:23, Pro 28:21, Mat 22:16, Rom 1:11, 1Ti 5:21, Jud 1:16
Reciprocal: 2Ch 26:18 – neither shall it be Psa 15:4 – a vile Psa 49:2 – General Hag 2:9 – glory Mat 23:6 – General Luk 14:12 – when Joh 4:1 – the Lord Joh 5:44 – and Joh 7:24 – General Joh 21:7 – It is 2Co 5:16 – know we no Eph 1:17 – the Father
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THESE EARLY JEWISH Christians were far too much controlled by the ordinary thoughts of the world, and as a consequence of being spotted by the world, they despised the poor. They should have been controlled by the faith of the Lord Jesus, and not by the standards and customs of the world. Though he was the Lord of Glory yet He ever stooped to the poor and the fatherless. Poverty and need may be incompatible with human glory, but they are quite compatible with Divine glory.
As a consequence when some rich Jew pompously entered their assembly or synagogue-this latter is the right word-attired in all his finery, he was met with servile attention, as much by the Christians as by the non-Christians apparently. When a poor man entered he was unceremoniously put in an obscure place. Quite natural of course according to the way of the world; but quite foreign this to the faith of Christ. They might constitute themselves judges of men in this way, but they only thereby proved themselves to be judges of evil thoughts or judges having evil reasonings.
In verses Jam 2:5-7 James recalls to his brethren what the situation really was. The rich Jews were in the main the proud opposers of Christ and His people, blasphemers of His worthy name. Gods choice had in the main fallen on the poor; and with this agree the words of the Apostle to the Gentiles, in 1Co 1:26-31. These chosen poor ones-true Christians-were rich in faith and heirs of the coming kingdom. When servile attention was paid to the proud blasphemers and persecutors, because they were rich, and contempt was meted out to the followers of
Christ because they were poor it only proved the blindness and folly of those who so acted. They viewed both rich and poor with the worlds superficial gaze, and not with the penetrating eye if faith.
Notice that the Kingdom is said to be promised to them that love Him. Most of those to whom James wrote would have stoutly contended that the kingdom was promised to the Jew nationally, and that in an exclusive way. This was now seen to be a mistake. It is promised to lovers of God, and that whether Jew or Gentile, as we find in Pauls writings.
Notice also the expression, that worthy name by the which ye are called. The rich Jew blasphemed it but God pronounces it a worthy Name. By it they were called-this seems to indicate that, when James wrote, the name Christian had travelled from Antioch where first it was coined (Act 11:26) to Jerusalem. The poor were the objects of persecution not so much because they were poor, as because they were identified with Christ, and He was the object of the worlds hatred.
This having respect of persons is not only contrary to the faith of Christ, but even to the law itself which bids us love our neighbours as ourselves. This is called in verse Jam 2:8 the royal or kingly law. It sums up in one word that which must be observed by every king who would reign righteously and govern according to God. To have respect of persons is to break that law and stand convicted as a transgressor.
If we stand before God on the ground of law-keeping and are convicted in one point of law-breaking, what is the effect?
Nothing could be more sweeping than the statement made in verse Jam 2:10, and at first sight some of us might be inclined to question the rightness of it. We have to remember however that the law is treated as a whole, one and indivisible. An errand boy, carrying a basket of bottles, may slip and break one bottle in his fall, and his employer cannot with any justice accuse him of breaking all of them, for every bottle is separate and distinct from each of the others. If however the lad were carrying the basket suspended from his shoulder by a chain, and in falling he also broke one link of the chain, his master could rightly tell him that he had broken the chain. If in addition he indulged in rough horseplay with other boys, and hurling a stone misdirected it through a large shop window, it is rightly spoken of as a broken window.
It is thus with the law. The chain may have many links yet it is one chain. The window may comprise many square feet of glass yet it is one pane. The law has many commandments yet it is one law. One commandment may be carefully observed as verse Jam 2:11 says, indeed many commandments may be kept, yet if one commandment is broken the law is transgressed.
If that be so then must we all plead guilty, and we might begin to enquire if then after all we are to stand before God and be judged by Him on the basis of the law of Moses? To this question James replies in verse 12. We stand before God and shall be judged on the basis of the law of liberty-an expression which means the revelation of Gods will which has reached us in Christ, as we saw when considering verse Jam 2:25 of the previous chapter. We shall have to answer as being in the much fuller light which Christianity brings. Being in the light of the supreme manifestation of Gods mercy in Christ we are responsible to show mercy ourselves. This thought brings us back to the matter with which the paragraph started. Their treatment of the poor man in vile raiment had not been according to the mercy displayed in the Gospel. They set themselves up as judges of evil thoughts, but, lo! they would find themselves under judgment.
A serious position indeed! Are we in a similar position? We shall have to answer to God as in the light of Gospel mercy and as under the law of liberty, even as they.
Notice that the last phrase of verse Jam 2:13 is not, Mercy rejoiceth against justice, but, against judgment. Divine mercy goes hand in hand with righteousness, and thereby it triumphs against the judgment that otherwise had been our due.
The change of subject that we find in verse Jam 2:14 may strike us as rather abrupt but it really flows quite naturally from the profound insight which James had by the Spirit into the foolish workings of the human heart. He began the chapter by saying, My brethren have not… faith. They might wish to rebut his assertion by saying, Oh, yes! we have. We have the faith of the Lord Jesus as much as you. Is there any certain test which will enable us to check these contrary assertions and discover where the truth lies?
There certainly is. It lies in the fact that true faith is a living thing which manifests its life in works. Thereby it may be distinguished from that dead kind of faith which consists only in the acceptance of facts, without the heart being brought under the power of them. We may profess that we accept the teaching of Christ, but unless that which we believe controls our actions we cannot be said to really have the faith of Christ. Hence the latter part of this second chapter is of immense importance.
It must be carefully noted that the works, upon which James so strenuously insists in these verses are the works of faith. Having noted this we shall do well to turn at once to Rom 3:1-31; Rom 4:1-25, and also to Gal 3:1-29, where the Apostle Paul so convincingly demonstrates that our justification is by faith and is not of works. These works however which Paul so completely eliminates are the works of the law.
A great many people have supposed that there is a clash and a contradiction between the two Apostles on this matter, but it is not so. The distinction we have just pointed out largely helps to remove the difficulty that is felt. Both speak of works, but there is an immense difference between the works of the law and the works of faith.
The works of the law, of which Paul speaks, are works done in obedience to the demand of the law of Moses, by which, it is hoped, a righteousness may be wrought that will pass in the presence of God. This do, and thou shalt live, said the law, and the works are done in the hope of thereby obtaining the life-life upon earth-that is proffered. No one of us ever did obtain this abiding earthly life by law-keeping, since as James has just told us we became wholly guilty directly we had transgressed in one point. Hence we all lie by nature under the death sentence, and the works of the law are dead works, though done in the effort to obtainable.
The works of faith, of which James speaks are those which spring out of a living faith as its direct expression and result. They are as much a proof of faiths vitality as flowers and fruit prove the vitality and also the nature of a tree. If no such works are forthcoming then our faith is proclaimed as dead, being alone.
Is there any contradiction between these two sets of statements? By no means. They are indeed entirely complementary the one to the other, and our view of the matter is not complete without both. Works done for justification are rigorously excluded. Works flowing from the faith that justifies are strenuously insisted on, and that not only by James but by Paul also; for in writing to Titus he says, These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. (Tit 3:8). The works that are to be maintained are those done by they which have believed; that is, they are the works of faith.
The above considerations do not entirely remove the difficulty for there remain certain verbal contradictions, such as, We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28), and in our passage, Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Again we read, If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God (Rom 4:2), and in our passage, Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Some puzzled reader may wish to ask us if we can extricate ourselves from the contradictory conclusions that in the distant past Abraham both was and was not justified by works; and further that in the present a man is justified by faith without works, and also by works and not by faith alone?
We should reply that there is really no difficulty from which to extricate ourselves. We have but to remark that in James the whole point is that which is valid before man, as verse Jam 2:18 of our chapter shows. A man has the right to demand that we display our faith in our works, thus justifying ourselves and our faith before him. In Romans the whole point is that which is valid before God. The very words, before God, occur in Rom 4:2, as we have seen. Our faith is quite apparent to His all-seeing eye. He does not have to wait for the display of the works that are the fruit of faith, in order to be assured that the faith really exists.
In the world of men however works are a necessity, for in no other way can we be assured that faith exists of a living sort. The illustrations of verses Jam 2:14-16 are quite conclusive. We may profess faith in Gods care for His people in temporal things, but except our faith in that care leads us to a readiness to be the channel through which it may flow, our faith is of no profit to the needy brother or sister; nor indeed to ourselves. Our faith as to that particular point is dead and consequently inoperative, as verse Jam 2:17 tells us, and we must not be surprised if it is challenged by others.
A man may come up to you and say, Well, you say that you believe but you produce no visible evidence of your faith, kindly therefore produce your faith itself for my inspection. What could you do? Obviously, nothing! You might go on reiterating, I have faith. I have faith. But of what use would that be? Your confusion would be increased if he should further say, At all events I have been doing such-and-such a thing, and such-and-such, which clearly evidence that I personally do believe, though I am not in the habit of talking about my faith.
So far the Apostle has urged these very practical considerations upon us in connection with matters of every day life in the world, but they stand equally true in connection with matters of doctrine, matters connected with the whole faith of the Gospel. In verse Jam 2:19 the very fundamental point of faith in the existence of the one true God is raised. Oh, yes, we each exclaim, I believe in Him! That is good; but such faith if real is bound to affect us. We shall at least tremble, for even demons, who know right well that He exists and hate Him, go as far as that. The multitudes, who in a languid way accept the idea of His existence and yet are utterly unmoved by it, have a faith which is dead.
What! someone may remark, Is such a thing as trembling counted as a work? It certainly is. And this leads us to remark that James speaks simply of works, and not of good works. The point is not that every true believer must do a number of kindly and charitable actions-though it is of course good and right for him so to do-but that his works are bound to be such as shall display his faith in action if men are to see that his faith is real. This is an important point: let us all make sure that we seize it.
As an illustration, let us suppose that you go to visit a sick friend. You enquire for his health when he at once assures you that he is perfectly certain to get well. As he does not seem particularly cheerful about it, you ask what has given him this assurance-upon what his faith rests? In reply he tells you he has some wonderful medicine, as to which he has read hundreds of flattering testimonials; and he points you to a large bottle of medicine standing on the mantelpiece. You notice that the bottle is quite full, so you ask him how long he has been taking the stuff, when he surprises you by saying that he has not taken any! Would you not say, My friend, you cannot really believe that this medicine will cure you without fail, otherwise you would have begun to take it?
You would be even more surprised however if in response to this he calmly remarked, Oh, but my faith in it is very real, as may be seen by the fact that I have just sent 5 to help our local charities. What has that to do with it? you would exclaim. Your gift seems to show that you have a kindly heart, and that you believe in local charities, but it proves nothing as to your belief in the medicine. Start taking the medicine: that will demonstrate that you believe in it!
Here is a rich man who, when requested, will draw out his cheque-book and sign away large sums for charitable services. There is a poor woman who is astonishingly kind and helpful to her equally humble neighbours. What do their works show? Their faith in Christ? Not with any certainty. True it may be that their kindly spirit is the result of their having been converted, but on the other hand it may only spring from a desire for notoriety or for the approbation of their fellows. But suppose they both begin to display great interest in the Word of God, together with a hearty obedience to its directions, and a real affection for all the people of God. Now we can safely draw the deduction that they really do believe in Christ, for that is the only root from which springs such fruit as this.
Two cases are cited in verses Jam 2:21-25-Abraham and Rahab. Contrasts they are in almost every respect. The one, the father of the Jews, an honoured servant of God. The other, a Gentile, a poor woman of dishonourable calling. Yet they both illustrate this matter. Both had faith, and both had works-the works exactly appropriate to the particular faith they possessed, and which consequently showed it to others.
Abrahams case is particularly instructive since Paul also cites him in Rom 4:1-25 to establish his side of this great question; referring to that which happened under cover of the quiet and starry night, when God made His great promise and Abraham accepted it in simple faith. James refers to the same chapter (Gen 15:1-21) in our 23rd verse; but he cites it as being fulfilled years after when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar, as recorded in Gen 22:1-24. The offering of Isaac was the work by which Abraham showed forth the faith that had long been in his heart.
Many a critic is inclined to object to the offering of Isaac and to denounce it as unworthy of being called a good work. That is because they are entirely blind to the point we have just been endeavouring to make. When Abraham believed God on that starry night, he believed that He was going to raise up a living child from dead parents. How could he have so believed except he had believed that God was able to raise the dead to life? And what did his offering of Isaac show? It showed that he really did believe in God, just in that way. He offered him accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead (Heb 11:19). His work showed forth his faith in the most precise and exact way.
With Rahab it was just the same. She received the spies from Joshua and sent them out another way. Again our critic is far from pleased. He denounces her action. It was unpatriotic! It was treason! She told lies! Well, poor thing! she was but a depraved member of an accursed race, groping her way towards the light. Her actions can easily be criticised, yet they had this supreme merit-they clearly demonstrated that she had lost faith in the filthy gods of her native land and had begun to believe in the might and mercy of the God of Israel. Now this was exactly the point, for the faith she professed to the spies was, I know that the Lord hath given you the land… for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath (Jos 2:9-11). Did she believe this? She did, for her works showed it. She risked her own neck to identify herself with the people who had JEHOVAH as their God.
Is not all this very wholesome and important truth? It is indeed. It is reported that Luther was betrayed into speaking of James with contempt, and referring to his Epistle as the Epistle of straw. If so, the great Reformer was mistaken, and did not grasp the real force of these passages. If we have grasped their force we shall certainly confess it to be more like an Epistle of iron. There is a sledge-hammer directness about James hardly equalled by any other New Testament writer.
The sum of the matter we have been considering is this-that, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. We may talk of our faith in Christ, or of our faith in this, that and the other detail of Christian truth; but unless our faith expresses itself in appropriate works it is DEAD! That is a sledge-hammer hit! Let us allow it to exert its full effect in our consciences.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Jas 2:1. Have is from ECHO which requires two full pages in Thayer’s lexicon for definitions. The specific meaning of it in any given passage must therefore be determined by the way it is used. In this verse the writer discusses the subject of proper treatment for others and hence it means they are not to hold or exercise the faith as stated. Respect of persons comes from one Greek word that means “partiality.” The faith is used as a term for the whole system of religious practice under Christ. Therefore the verse means they should not show partiality in the exercises that pertain to the public assembly. (See verse 4.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jas 2:1. My brethren. The connection appears to be: As the true service of God consists in active benevolence, exercised especially toward the poor and afflicted, St. James takes occasion to reprove his readers for a practice which was in direct contradiction to this, namely, showing partiality to the rich, and despising the poor.
have not, or hold not, the faiththe profession of Christianity, or the belief in Jesus as the true Messiah. Do not hold it in such a manner, as that respect of persons should constitute a part of it.
of our Lord Jesus Christ: of Him who, although rich, yet for our sakes became poor, in whom there is neither rich nor poor, and with whom there is no respect of persons.
the Lord of glory. The words the Lord are in italics, and not in the original; all that is in the Greek are the words of glory. Accordingly, different meanings have been attached to this phrase. Some construe it with respect of person, and translate it according to your estimate or opinion; thus Calvin: Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons, on account of esteem; that is, placing a false and unchristian value on riches. Others attach it to Christ: the faith of our Lord Jesus, the Christ, or the Messiah, of glory. Others consider it as governed by faith, but give different meanings: the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; or faith in the glory or exaltation of Christ; or the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in the glory, namely, in that glory which is reserved for the saints. Others suppose that glory is a personal appellation of Christ: our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory, equivalent to the Shechinah of the Jewish Church. This is certainly the simplest reading; but there is no proof from the New Testament that such an epithet was applied to our Lord. Our version, by supplying the words the Lord from the former clause, is the least objectionable: the Lord of glory. The clause is inserted to show the vanity of earthly riches, as contrasted with the glory of Christ.
with respect of persons: a caution against showing undue preference to any on account of external circumstances. The word in the Greek is in the plural, as St. James had several instances of such respect of persons in view. We must, however, beware of perverting this maxim. We must show due respect where respect is due: as St. Paul says, Render to all their due, honour to whom honour is due (Rom 13:7). There is a respect due to a man in office on account of his official character. Servants must honour their masters, and subjects their rulers; but we are not called to honour a man merely on account of his wealth. And in spiritual matters all are equal. In the house of God, the rich and the poor meet on the same footing of equality. The same exhortations are addressed to both; and the vices of the rich must be rebuked with the same sharpness as the vices of the poor.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Division 2. (Jam 2:1-13.)
“Against such there is no law.”
We have now what is very characteristic of the epistle, according to what we have seen as to it. It is addressed to those still under the law -not assuredly as seeking by it life or righteousness, (for they would be no Christians who did that,) but still bound by it, as people say still, as a rule of life; only carrying this further as Jews, than men would now carry it, -although there is a teaching, reviving even in the present day, in which it is contended that, after all, the Christian Jew is still a Jew, and that he is right to cleave, as such, to the ordinances given to his fathers. This is the state of things which we find amongst those addressed in the epistle, to whom as yet the word to go outside the camp had not come. Thus, as we said in Acts, they would persuade the apostle of the Gentiles himself to go with those among them who were under a vow in such a way as to show that he himself walked orderly and kept the law. At the same time we have to remember, in what is before us here, that the “righteousness of the law,” all its moral perfection, “is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;” and that against the fruits of the Spirit there is no law. This is as far as the teachings of the apostle here go. He is kept by the divine wisdom of inspiration from anything that would seem yet to bind the law upon those who were, as we have seen, in conscience under it. He appeals simply to its witness, and condemns even by it such as did not manifest a Christian conduct. It is indeed faith that the apostle is really insisting on all the way through, but faith “worketh by love,” and “love is the fulfilling of the law;” so that it is easy to convict by it that in which faith does not work. That is what we shall find is done here.
1. This faith is fixed upon one blessed Person in whom God has revealed a glory so far beyond any other, that, in respect of it, there is no glory at all. James presses how this must of necessity influence one in matters which may be considered of the smallest importance. The poor place given in a synagogue to a poor man (the apostle, as has already been noticed, uses a Jewish term) may exemplify this. One cannot hold the faith with regard to the Lord of glory unobscured where there is respect of persons after this manner. If one finds glory in the gold ring and the fine clothing of one, and promoting him to a good place while banishing to another the poor man with his vile raiment, is not this, asks the apostle, to make a difference among themselves and to become judges with evil thoughts? Alas, how many Christians today may fail to see the point of the apostle. Are there not, then, these differences, and is there not such a thing as place amongst men, which is in the meantime to be respected, even though we know it is not going to last eternally? Nevertheless, it is plain what is said here, and the apostle emphasizes it. Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor as to this world?” Are they not the very people amongst whom Christians are, for the most part, found? Are they not those most ready to lay hold of the true riches, as “heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him”? We see in how practical a way Christianity would manifest itself in those times of its first freshness, and yet even already was not that first freshness tending somewhat to fade?
2. But, as a matter of fact, the case that the apostle is putting is not hypothetical. He has to urge upon those he is addressing that they have “despised” the poor. One would judge that this state of things must already have been becoming common, or he would hardly speak of it in this way to the many whom he was addressing: “But ye have despised the poor,” he says. And this was all the worse in view of the notorious oppression on the part of the rich, for whom that which was the blessed grace of Christianity was but a mere “strait gate.” “How hardly,” asks the Lord Himself, “shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”* But thus the edge that it had for their consciences only roused them to violence. “Do not the rich oppress you and drag you before the judgment-seats? Do they not blaspheme that excellent name by which ye are called?” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” was the royal law according to Scripture. In the second table it is plain that it was, in fact, supreme, that which gave the spirit of all the rest. This respect of persons, therefore, was a sin against the law also, for it was the neighbor as the neighbor that it required one to love; and here, it is plain, no earthly distinctions could be of force. If, then, they had respect of persons, they committed sin, and were convicted by the law itself as transgressors. And it was in vain to plead the keeping of other points; they were but questions of detail. If a man were to yield true obedience, it would have to be entire obedience, and a man was a transgressor, therefore, if he violated any one point. It would not do to say, “I am no adulterer,” if a man killed his neighbor; and the law was, in fact, now, according to the new covenant which had come in for Christians, if not for the nation, a law of liberty. “I will write my laws,” says the Lord, “upon their hearts.” A law written upon the heart becomes the nature of the man in whom this takes place, so that there is no slavery in obedience, but delight. And by this law of liberty, plainly, Christians then were to be judged; that is to say, it was to be expected from them that they would answer to the character implied in it; and the lack of mercy shown would necessarily bring down judgment upon the one who showed no mercy; but “mercy glorieth over judgment;” yet they were, in fact, judging the poor man for his poverty.
{*In an apostate world the child of God will find himself identified more with its sorrows than its joys, with adversity rather than prosperity. This has been seen just previously in the “pure religion.” Here we are reminded that God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith, while the rich have “received” their “consolation.” Our blessed Lord was Himself poor, and His associations were largely with the lowly. In the Gospel of Luke we have frequent words as to the dangers of wealth -the rich fool in Luk 12:1-59, the rich man and Lazarus in Luk 16:1-31, and the young ruler in Luk 18:1-43. All this refers, of course, to
mere possession of riches. We can thank God for all exceptions where wealth did not blind the eyes. But the general principle remains -one to be heeded especially in these days of money-getting and money-worship. -S.R.}
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
RESPECT OF PERSONS; FAITH AND WORKS
We next have some admonition concerning respect of persons, or the relation of the rich and the poor (Jam 2:1; Jam 2:13). This would seem to be connected with the trials of the poor mentioned in chapter 1. It not infrequently happens that the people who complain of the abundance of the rich, are the most obsequious in their conduct, as if they expected something from them as a result. Perhaps it was so here. Or it may be, that this instruction laps on more closely to what had been said about pure religion, visiting the fatherless and widows, and keeping ones self unspotted from the world (Jam 1:27).
Respect of persons was incompatible with these things. Note that the Revised Version translates have of Jam 2:1 by hold These two things could not be held at once and the same time. What instance is given of holding it (Jam 2:2-3)? Of what wrong would they be guilty in such a case (Jam 2:4)? What kind of judges would such partiality show them to be (same verse)? What would demonstrate the unwisdom as well as unkindness of partiality (Jam 2:5)? What would show their meanness of spirit (Jam 2:6)? Their disloyalty to their Savior (Jam 2:7)? On what principle should they exercise themselves toward rich and poor alike (Jam 2:8)? How were they in danger of violating this principle (Jam 2:9)? What fundamental truth about sin is enunciated in this connection (Jam 2:10-11)?
INSTRUCTION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAITH AND WORKS (Jam 2:14-26)
If the subject of respect of persons grew out of the declaration about pure religion at the close of chapter 1, there is reason to believe the same of the present subject.
Before considering the verses, it may be well to remark on a criticism sometimes made that James is here contradicting Paul. The latter insists upon faith without works, while the former insists upon works with faith. But there is no contradiction, because Paul is laying down the principle of salvation, while James is showing the working of that principle in the life. Paul as well as James insists upon a faith that brings forth fruit, and was himself a fine example of it. The epistle of James was written at an early period, before Pauls epistles were generally known and before the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), which may account for this treatment of the subject of faith from a different standpoint to that made necessary by the admission of Gentiles into the church.
Observe the change the Revised Version makes in the last clause of Jam 2:14. Can that faith save him? Faith saves, James declared, but not the kind of faith which produces no fruit. Not dead faith, but living faith. What illustrations of a fruitless faith are in Jam 2:16-17 What illustrations of a fruitful faith are given in Jam 2:21-25. Read carefully Jam 2:22, which teaches that Abrahams faith was simply shown to be faith, a perfected thing by his obedience to God. So our faith in Christ can hardly be called a saving faith if it works no change in our lives and produces no results.
QUESTIONS
1. What two things are discoursed of in this lesson?
2. What presumably, led the writer to speak of the first?
3. What seems more likely from the context, that Assembly (Jam 2:2) means a plan of worship or a lawcourt?
4. What indicates that James is not contradicting Paul in regard to justification by faith?
5. What is the test of saving faith?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
For the better understanding of these words, let us consider. 1. What the apostle doth not; 2. What he doth condemn. 3. What is here not condemned, namely,
1. The paying of civil respect to all persons, according to their character, and a different respect to persons, according to their different qualities: honour is to be given to whom honour is due, and the rich are entitled to respect; and that they receive it from us, is no ways displeasing unto God.
2. Much less does our apostle here speak against honouring magistrates, or paying respect to our ecclesiastical or civil rulers and governors in their courts or judicature: civility, yea, Christianity, calls for outward respect and reverence to them that are above us, especially if in authority over us.
But positively, that which is here condemned, 1. In general, is partiality in our respect to persons in religious matters, for in the things of God all are equal: the rich and the poor stand upon the same terms of advantage; external relations and differences bear no weight at the gospel-beam; therefore, to disesteem any of the poor members of Christ, as such, is to disesteem and undervalue Christ himself. Holiness in not less lovely to him because clothed with rags, nor unholiness less loathsome because it goes in a gay coat with a gold ring. Wickedness is abominable to Christ, and ought to be so to us, though it sits upon a throne, and holiness shines in his eye, (and may it in ours also,) though it lies upon a dunghill.
2. That which seems here to be condemned in particular, is the accepting of persons in judgment, upon the account of outward advantages, proceeding not according to the merits of the cause, in their ecclesiastical and civil judicatures, but according to external respects. Our apostle would by no means have them pay a deference to a rich man in judgment because of his riches, or gay attire; nor to pass over the poor saints in their assemblies, for want of the gold ring, and goodly apparel, seeing their faith clothed them with a greater and a more valuable glory, which renders them more honourable than any riches or gay clothing could do.
And mark the apostle’s vehement expostulation, which carries with it the force of a severe reprehension; Are you not partial, and become judges of evil thoughts? As if he had said, “Are ye not condemned in yourselves, and convinced in your own consciences that you do evil? Are ye not become judges of evil thoughts; that is, do you not pass judgment from your evil thoughts, in thinking the rich worthy of respect in judgment for his gorgeous attire, and outward greatness, and the poor fit to be despised for his outward meanness? Is not this an evil, a very evil thought in you, to think him the best man that weareth the best clothes, and him a vile person that is in vile apparel?
From the whole learn, 1. That men are very prone to honour worldly greatness in general, yea, to give too great a preference to it, even in matters of judgment. Man is very often swayed in judgment by the power, pomp, and splendour of men; we are apt to think that they that are worth most are most worthy: thus men, good men, may mis-judge of men; but thus to accept the persons of men, either in spiritual or civil judgment, is a provoking sin.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Christianity Eliminates Partiality
Remember that Jesus studied with a ruler of the Jews ( Joh 3:1-36 ); a Samaritan adulteress ( Joh 4:1-54 ); and taught both the despised tax collectors and sinners ( Luk 15:1-2 ). He commanded his followers to preach the gospel to every creature ( Mar 16:15-16 ). The true disciple of the Lord will be concerned about the souls of all. He will also make every effort to treat each in a loving manner. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus said, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” ( Mat 7:12 ).
The gold-ringed man, as Woods says the Greek means, likely wore his rings in a way which would cause others to take notice. Likewise, his clothes were brightly colored so they would cause people to look. In contrast, the poor man wore cheap, perhaps dirty, clothes. The Christians James addressed had been directing the rich man to the place of honor. The poor man was told to stand or lay under the usher’s footstool. In such a practice, they were actually being double-minded. They showed special favor to one over the other, which was against the Lord’s teachings, yet claimed to follow the Lord. Thus, they were showing that they still judged men by the evil standard of the world ( Jas 2:2-4 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Jas 2:1-4. My brethren The equality of Christians intimated by this name is the ground of the admonition; have That is, hold; not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory Of which glory all who believe in him partake; with respect of persons So as to give undue preference to any on account of their external circumstances; honour none merely for being rich, despise none merely for being poor. Remember that the relation in which the meanest of your fellow-Christians stands to Him who is the Son of God, ought to recommend them to your regard and esteem. For if there come unto your assembly Convened either for religious worship, or for deciding civil differences; a man with a gold ring Or, having his fingers adorned with gold rings, as may be rendered. For, as the learned Albert hath observed, those who valued themselves upon the richness and luxury of their dress, were accustomed to deck their fingers with a considerable number of costly and valuable rings, frequently wearing several upon one finger. And a poor man in vile (, in sordid, or dirty) raiment, and ye have respect Ye show an undue regard to the former, and put a visible slight on the latter, without considering what may be the real character of the one or the other. Are ye not partial in yourselves Or, as may be rendered, ye distinguish not in yourselves, according to the different characters of these two men, to which of them the most respect is due, to the poor or to the rich; but only regard their outward appearance, and are become judges of evil thoughts Or evil-reasoning judges, as the original words may be translated. You reason ill, and so judge wrong; for fine apparel is no proof of worth in him that wears it.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
James Chapter 2
The apostle now enters on the subject of those who professed to believe that Jesus was Christ the Lord. Before, in chapter 1, he had spoken of the new nature in connection with God: here the profession of faith in Christ is brought to the same touchstone-the reality of the fruits produced by it in contrast with this world. All these principles-the value of the name of Jesus, the essence of the law as Christ presented it, and the law of liberty-are brought forward to test the reality of their professed faith, or to convince the professor that he did not possess it. Two things are reprobated: having respect to the outward appearance of persons; and the absence of good works as a proof of the sincerity of the profession.
First, then, he blames respect for outward appearance of persons. They profess faith in the Lord Jesus, and yet hold with the spirit of the world! He replies that God has chosen the poor, making them rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. These professors had despised them; these rich men blasphemed the name of Christ and persecuted Christians.
In the second place he appeals to the practical summary of the law, of which Jesus had spoken-the royal law. They broke the law itself in favouring the rich. Now the law did not allow of any infraction whatsoever of its commands, because the authority of the legislator was concerned. In despising the poor, they were assuredly not loving their neighbor as themselves.
In the third place they ought to walk as those whose responsibility was measured by the law of liberty, in which-possessing a nature which tasted and loved that which was of God-they were set free from all that was contrary to Him; so that they could not excuse themselves if they admitted principles which were not those of God Himself. This introduction of the divine nature leads the apostle on to speak of the mercy by which God glorifies Himself. The man who shews no mercy will find himself the object of the judgment which he has loved.
The second part of the chapter is connected with this; for he begins his discourse on works, as proofs of faith, by speaking of this mercy which answers to the nature and character of God, of which , as born of Him, the true Christian is made a partaker. The profession of having faith without this life-the existence of which is proved by works-can profit no one. This is plain enough. I say the profession of having faith, because the epistle say it: If a man say he hath faith. This is the key to this part of the epistle. He says it: where is the proof of it? Works are the proof; and it is in this way that the apostle uses them. A man says he hath faith. It is not a thing that we can see. I say therefore with reason, Shew it me. This is the evidence of faith which is required for man-it is only by its fruits that we make it evident to men; for the faith itself cannot be seen. But if I produce these fruits, then assuredly I have the root, without which there could not be the fruits. Thus faith does not shew itself to others, nor can I recognise it, without works; but works, the fruit of faith, prove the existence of faith.
That which follows shews that he is speaking of the profession of a doctrine, true perhaps in itself-of certain truths being confessed; for it is a real faith looked at-certainty of knowledge and conviction-which devils have in the unity of the Godhead. They do not doubt it; but there is no link at all between their heart and God by means of a new nature-far indeed from it.
But the apostle confirms this, by the case of men in whom the opposition to the divine nature is not so apparent. Faith, the recognition of the truth with respect to Christ, is dead without works; that is , such a faith as produces none is dead.
We see (ver 16) that the faith of which the apostle speaks is a profession devoid of reality; verse 16 shews that it may be an unfeigned certainty that the thing is true: but the life begotten by the word, so that a relationship is formed between the soul and God, is entirely wanting. Because this takes place through the word, it is faith; being begotten of God we have a new life. This life acts, that is to say, faith acts, according to the relationship with God, by works which flow naturally from it, and which bear testimony to the faith that produced them.
From verse 20 to the end he presents a fresh proof of his thesis, founded on the last principle that I have mentioned. Now these proofs have nothing at all to do with the fruits of a kindly nature (for there are such), appertaining to us as creatures-but not to that life which has for its source the word of God, by which He begets us. The fruits of which the apostle speaks, bear testimony by their very character to the faith that produced them. Abraham offered up his son; Rahab received the messengers of Israel, associating herself with the people of God when everything was against them, and separating herself from her own people by faith. All sacrificed for God, all given up for His people before they had gained one victory, and while the world was in full power, such were the fruits of faith. One referred to God; and believed Him in the most absolute way, against all that is in nature of on which nature can count; the other owned Gods people, when all was against them; but neither was the fruit of an amiable nature or natural good, such as men call good works. One was a father going to put his son to death, the other a bad woman betraying her country. Certainly the scripture was fulfilled which said that Abraham believed God. How could he have acted as he did, if he had not believed Him? Works put a seal on his faith: and faith without works is but like the body without the soul, and outward form devoid of the life that animates it. Faith acts in the works (without it the works are a nullity, they are not those of the new life), and the works complete the faith which acts in them; for in spite of trial, and in the trial, faith is in activity. Works of law have no part in it. The outward law which exacts, is not a life which produces (apart from this divine nature)s these holy and loving dispositions which, having God and His people for their object, value nothing else.
James, remark, never says that works justify us before God; for God can see the faith without its works. He knows that life is there. It is in exercise with regard to Him, towards Him, by trust in His word, in Himself, by receiving His testimony in spite of everything within and without. This God sees and knows. But when our fellow-creatures are in question, when it must be said shew me, then faith, life, shews itself in works.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
ARGUMENT 7
PARTIALITY
1. The Holy Ghost here condemns the wicked sin of partiality, called respect of persons. How natural is it for us to think that God can be glorified more through the instrumentality of the rich than the poor, the learned than the illiterate, the noble than the ignoble. For this conclusion we fail to fully apprehend the power of God. Aunt Amanda Smith, born and reared in Negro slavery, ignorant of the alphabet, toiling at the washtub in a basement hovel in New York, is gloriously sanctified by some street preachers. Filled with the Spirit, as the years roll on she becomes the sensation of the Continent, preaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. She crosses the ocean and preaches to the magnates of the British Empire in Europe and Asia. She goes to Africa and stirs the Dark Continent, preaching to the sable sons and daughters of her native land; thus girdling the globe with her thrilling testimonies to full salvation, and her flaming appeals to flee the wrath to come. Will not her crown outshine that of every bishop except Taylor?
2. For if a golden ringed man in shining apparel may come into your synagogue, and a poor man may also enter in soiled clothing.
3, 4. Are ye not condemned within yourselves, and have you not become the judges of evil reasonings, i.e., having evil reasonings. This simple description of the partiality shown to the rich, noble, cultured and well dressed people entering our congregations, with simultaneous neglect and depreciation of poor people, dressed in untidy, soiled and perhaps ragged apparel, is universally prevalent at the present day, with few exceptions, outside of the holiness movement. Yet we here see Gods withering condemnation of all such proceedings.
5. … Hath God not chosen the poor in the world, rich in faith, truly heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him with divine love? Agapee, which means divine love, is none other than the divine nature imparted to the human spirit by the Holy Ghost in regeneration (Rom 5:5), and synonymous with the spiritual kingdom. Hence the kingdom here referred to as the glorious reward of Gods people, poor in this world, but rich in faith, is none other than the millennium, in which the glorified Savior will rule the world through the instrumentality of His transfigured saints.
6, 7. It is a significant fact that the saints of God in all ages, as a rule, have been poor in the things of this world, while the rich have invariably led the way in the bloody persecutions, which in bygone ages have martyred two hundred millions of Gods people.
8. If you truly perfect the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor with divine love as thyself, you do well. Your neighbor is every human being on the globe, without regard to race, color, nationality or religion. This commandment of the royal law can not be satisfied with human love, as the word used with the Holy Ghost is agapee, divine love, to which the unregenerated are total strangers, and must so remain till the Holy Spirit pours out the divine agapee into the heart, which always consummates regeneration.
9. But if you have respect unto persons you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. This verse is a withering condemnation of all partiality shown to different classes of people. What a powerful argument is this against the inbred sin of partiality, for which there is no final and effectual remedy but entire sanctification.
10. For whosoever may keep the whole law and fail in one item, has become guilty of all. Here is tacit allusion to this occult and universally prevalent sin of partiality. The breachy animal need not elope every panel of the fence, in order to become a transgressor. If he jump the fence in one place, he is in your field, and as truly a transgressor as if he had leaped over every panel encompassing your field. When you commit a single overt act of known sin, you are out of the Lords kingdom, over on Satans common and a transgressor of the law.
11. This verse is illustrative of the preceding.
12. When you stand before the great white throne you will be judged by the law of liberty. What is this law of liberty? The soul fully and completely sanctified, and thus saved from every inclination to violate the law, is as free as if there were no law. Hence this is the only final qualification for the judgment bar.
13. For judgment is without mercy to him that doeth no mercy: mercy boasteth over judgment, i.e., condemnation. Mercy is the twin sister of divine love which is the fulfilling of the law. Rom 13:10. James elaborates with iron logic this powerful argument of thirteen verses against the inbred sin of partiality, i.e., respect of persons, whose only possible remedy is entire sanctification. This sin is so prevalent nowadays as to be passed by among all classes almost unnoticed, yet James assures us that the guilty party will be held responsible for the whole decalogue. The grand achievement of grace is to prepare us for glory. This great and prevalent sin, i.e., respect of persons, is utterly incompatible with the heavenly state, whose crowning glory is perfect love for every creature in all the celestial universe. Hence this subtle, clandestine and serpentine sin of partiality must be totally and eternally eradicated.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Jas 2:1. Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. See Jas 1:1. The whole of this chapter turns on charity, which is the excellence of pure religion. In the eyes of the omnipresent Being we are all but worms of the dust; and at the throne of grace the prince and the beggar bow in equal rank, and with equal piety and hope. The Lord of glory sheds a lustre on all his members, brightening the countenance far above that of rings and gems.
Jas 2:5. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. Christ was sent to preach the gospel to the poor, to bind up the broken-hearted, and to comfort all that mourn. Mat 11:5. Luk 4:18. The apostle also appeals to the Corinthian church, whether it were not obvious that the more numerous converts were from among persons of this description; and to the present day they constitute a large majority of the believing world. 1Co 1:26-29. There is in this respect a correspondence between the servants and their blessed Lord, who had not where to lay his head. Not only are they the more numerous class of christians, but many among them are the most distinguished for piety, rich in faith, as well as heirs of the kingdom.
Jas 2:14. What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works. St. Paul has said, that a man is justified by faith. St. James here affirms, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. The question then is, how these seemingly contradictory assertions may be fairly reconciled. In order to this we are to consider the following things.
That as these Epistles were written to different persons, so the occasion and subject of them were also different. St. Paul had to do with those who thought to be justified partly by faith in Christ, and partly by their own works, or the works of the law: and therefore his design, in excluding works from justification, was only to deny the sufficiency of the works of the jewish law, or those that were thought meritorious, as being wrought by our own strength. In asserting therefore, in opposition to such works, that we are justified by faith, he meant no more than that we are justified in an evangelical way. In affirming more particularly, that we are justified by faith, he intended a practical belief, including evangelical obedience. St. James wrote to those who confessed the free justification of a sinner through faith in Christ, but who nevertheless did not duly consider that a true lively and justifying faith necessarily brings forth the fruit of righteousness. He therefore proves that where these fruits of faith are wanting, true faith itself is wanting; and that all ungodly and carnal professors of Christ have but a dead faith, which in no respect is able to help or save them; by works meaning no more than evangelical obedience, in opposition to a naked and empty faith. St. Pauls aim and drift is to prove affirmatively, that true faith unites us to Christ, and thereby saves us. The design of St. James is negatively to prove that a dead unfruitful faith, which is but a bare image of true believing, cannot profit a man. Moreover, they do not speak of justification in the same meaning of the word, but in a different sense.
The justification which St. Paul ascribes to faith without works, means absolution from sins which were committed before believing in Christ; and the not having those sins imputed, but being admitted to peace and favour with God, upon entrance into covenant with him by baptism. This cannot possibly be owing to their good works, because, till interested in Christ, and assisted by his grace, men can have no such works to owe it to. But the justification spoken of by St. James is that other, whereby the scriptures signify the full and final justification of good men, in their last great account, as is evident from the whole tenour of his argument in this place.
But supposing there had been any disagreement in this matter (as indeed there is not) it is most reasonable to follow St. Jamess explanation of it, not only because his expressions are so clear and positive as not to be justly liable to any ambiguity, seeing he wrote this sometime after St. Paul wrote the other; and consequently, as he was perfectly instructed by the divine author of both, so he was capable of explaining the true meaning of the other inspired apostle, and to confute those false principles which some men had built upon the mistake of it. And the rather still, because this epistle, in the opinion of several of the ancients, as well as of learned moderns (as were likewise the first epistle of St. John, the second of St. Peter, and that of St. Jude) was written partly to rectify the mistakes which some had fallen into, through their misunderstanding some of St. Pauls writings.
Jas 2:26. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James speaks here in the language of the Nazarene christians, many of whom had belonged to the pharisees; but he does not say more in favour of works than Paul. The loose state of oriental morals rendered strong words necessary. Faith is the first to save, to give life and love to the soul, that works may follow. There is no discord between Paul and James; an expletive in most sentences relieves the whole.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jas 2:1-13. This paragraph on Servility suits exhortation of Jews incomparably better than that of Christians, among whom not many rich were found for generations. The scene of Jas 2:2 is the synagogue, best taken in its literal sense; and acts of oppression towards the congregation of Gods poor are familiar to readers of the OT. Give up, he pleads, trying to combine with acts of servility the belief in the Lord of Glory. On the theory sketched in the introduction, the name Jesus Christ was added in the margin by an early reader: as the various efforts of translators and commentators show, the words made the sentence almost impossible Gr. when taken into the text. The worshipper in shabby clothesthe adjective corresponds to the noun rendered baseness in Jas 1:21is contrasted with the gold-ringed man in brilliant clothes (shining white, it would seem): for him there is no room except on the floor. He who can thus judge men by externals comes under the condemnation of Jas 1:6, for doubt there and divided here are the same word. Piety cannot recognise the guinea stamponly the image and superscription of God: they are judges of corrupt decisions if on such lines they distinguish man and man.
Jas 2:5 comes directly from the first Beatitude, though Jewish readers might think of OT parallels like those in Psa 72:4; Psa 72:12; Psa 74:19; Psa 74:21. Mere paupers in the worlds eyes, these are heirs according to promise of their Fathers Kingdom. Chose is the word that gives the adjective rendered elect; cf. Eph 4:4, Rom 8:33, etc. The promise, in the thought of James, was made in Luk 22:29 f.: his Jewish readers might think of Deu 7:9; Deu 30:20, etc. He goes on to show that they have little reason indeed for favouring the rich as such: they were so quick to drag poor men into court, for debt especially (cf. Mat 18:30, Luk 12:58 f.). These rich men need not be Christians, or even Jews: the point is that the pious suffered especially from the rich (cf. Jas 5:1-6), which makes servility to the rich as such specially foolish. If the poor believers here are Jews, the glorious name named upon you will come from Amo 9:12the text quoted by James in Act 15:17and Deu 28:10, etc.In Jas 2:8 we are reminded again how petty are little caste distinctions in the presence of a King. The Roman Emperor was called King in Gr. (cf. Act 17:7), which makes Imperial the best rendering of the adjective here. The Second Commandment (Lev 19:18), like unto the First (Mat 22:39), was detached even by the Jews; cf. Luk 10:27 for the place which Jesus gave it: His work was to transform the conception of neighbour. The illustration of the solidarity of the Law seems to us almost an anticlimaxsurely murder is worse even than adultery! But Jas 4:2 may show that human life was cheap in the (Jewish?) community addressed; and it would be very characteristic of Jews to lay great stress on their superiority to the Gentile world in the matter of purity. A Christian student of Mat 5:22 would say that the germ of murder was even more easily planted than that of adultery. The Law of Liberty, so far from involving antinomian license, pronounces judgement without mercy on those who show no mercyit is the principle of Mat 18:35. For the merciful man there is no condemnation (Mat 5:7).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
The first 13 verses of this chapter form a second division of the book, dealing with the faith of Christ as being above all personal considerations, perfectly true and impartial. To mix the faith of Christ therefore with a partial respect for persons, is a matter here strongly reproved. For Christ is Lord of glory, and we answerable directly to Him, not to mere men, wealthy or otherwise.
Verse 2 shows that Jewish believers were at that time still connected with the synagogue, for the word translated “assembly” is correctly given in the margin as “synagogue.” Apparent dignity and wealth in the world always gives one preferential treatment; but it must not be so among those who know the Lord Jesus Christ. It is still a test for us today as to what we should do if one manifestly wealthy and another evidently poor entered a meeting. Would we be as considerate of the one as of the other? And is it so in our daily relationships with men?
If it is true that we show any preference to one above another, then we are solemnly asked, are we not in ourselves partial, and become judges with evil thoughts? If a judge does not judge righteously, then it is inescapable that his thoughts are evil.
And James calls our serious attention to the fact that God has chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith. It is of course not that God discriminates against the rich; for His Gospel is impartially declared to all. However, it is the poor who receive it, while the rich generally see no need of it. Consequently it is the poor who are blessed by it. And God honors the riches of their faith: they become heirs of the kingdom, for they love Him. How vastly more important is faith and love than all the wealth of the world!
But he charges them with despising the poor: he does not of course imply that every individual was guilty of this, but it was too prevalent a matter. Let them consider: rich men were very often their oppressors, by whom they themselves had suffered. Indeed, men can often strongly criticize the rich for their greed, but not to their faces: in fact the same men will show favoritism to the rich above the poor!
The rich too are more free in their despite against the worthy Name of the Lord Jesus: among the Jews this was clearly seen. Can these be preferred above the more lowly poor?
Verse 8 designates as “the royal law” the Scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This summarizes the last six of the ten commandments: the first four would no doubt be priestly in character, rather than royal, for they are toward God. Royal character however is that which bears testimony toward men. And genuine love for neighbors will seek their greatest good: it is impartial, and concerned for the purest blessing of its object. If it is merely my rich neighbor I love, this is not proper love at all: I expose my selfish motives. Respect of persons is both sin and transgression of the law, which Jews highly regarded.
For even one point of this kind, of disobedience to law, rendered one guilty of breaking the entire law. The law is one, though of course expressed in ten commandments: if one link of a chain is broken, then the chain is broken. It is the same God who forbids both adultery and murder; and though one is not guilty of one of these, yet if guilty of the other, he is guilty of disobedience to the same God: he has transgressed the law.
Verse 12 then exhorts that, whether in speaking or in acting, we should do so as expecting to be judged by the law of liberty. Ch.1:25 has used this expression, which is in contrast to the law of Moses, which was a law of bondage. The law of liberty is rather the ruling principle of a new nature as begotten by the word of God. Indeed, Christ Himself is the perfect exemplification of this nature, and thus its standard is of that a spontaneous, wholehearted, willing obedience.
Mercy toward others was a precious characteristic of this life in the Person of Christ: His spirit was far from that of legality; but one who shows no mercy can only expect judgment without mercy. This is true even in men’s judgments one of another. “And mercy glories over judgment.” (New Trans.) Mercy has a precious nobility about it that, when possible to be shown, is superior to judgment. Even God does not judge before He has exhausted every avenue by which He may righteously show mercy. If this is so, what of ourselves, who are not only given no position whatever of judges, but have been the recipients of the infinitely marvelous mercy of God, though totally unworthy of any such thing?
Verse 14 begins another division of the book, in which it is insisted that faith is manifested by works. Faith is not by any means belittled, but its reality is questionable if it is not accompanied by fruitful works. If a man says he has faith, this is of no value apart from consistent works. That kind of faith will not save him from the many pitfalls by which hypocrites are snared.
The type of works that are the result of faith are clearly shown to us in this last half of Ch.2. Works of mercy are only normal and indeed elementary, as verses 15 and 16 show. Even unbelievers often recognize some responsibility to relieve those who suffer poverty and hunger. Should I then tell suffering believers that I have faith that they will be provided for, while myself giving them nothing? In these very things my faith is to be proven. If good works do not accompany it, then such faith is dead: it bears no fruit: it is alone, solitary, isolated from reality.
One may blandly say that he has faith, and another has works, as though these were merely differing gifts given of God. But it is a false and sinful premise. One cannot show his faith without works, but James says, “I will show thee my faith by my works.” Certainly, God can see the reality of a man’s faith; but men can see this only in a person’s works. Before God one is justified by faith exclusively, without works (Rom 4:1-25 :l-5); but he cannot show others his faith except by his works.
Verse 19 illustrates the emptiness of a so-called faith that merely gives assent to facts. This means nothing in itself if it produces no proper results. Demons admit there is one God, but they tremble in prospect of certain judgment. Jews and Mohammedans believe there is one God, but they find no salvation in this fact. That kind of faith, having no works to substantiate it, is dead, for it produces nothing.
We have seen in vs.15 and 16 that faith produces works of mercy toward others. Now in verses 21-23 we see produced in Abraham works of obedience to God. In Rahab (v.25) works of sanctification as to the world, are the fruit of her faith.
As to Abraham, long before he offered Isaac, God counted his faith as righteousness. (Gen.l5:6) He was then justified before God by faith alone. But later, for every eye interested, he was justified by works, when he willingly offered Isaac, his beloved son. Only by real, active faith could he have done this; what he did added nothing to his it proved it. If God had not commanded this, the offering of his son would have been gross wickedness, but he trusted God’s word, though it was contrary to every right natural feeling. Faith wrought with his works, and by his works faith was seen in mature fruition.
Interestingly, verse 23 speaks of this as fulfilling the previous Scripture as to Abraham’s being reckoned righteous because of his faith. God was proven to be right in regard to Abraham’s faith, for the later experience proved it. Precious indeed it is that he is called “the friend of God,” because his actions showed him to have total confidence in God’s faithfulness.
In receiving the spies, Rahab would be in the world’s eyes guilty of treachery, but she recognized the far higher authority of the God of Israel, and acted by faith in Him, Faith’s reality is seen in her protecting the spies; though her lying to the city officials shows the weakness of her faith. God used all of this, though we know not what miracle God might have wrought for her, had her faith been more bold.
V.26 declares what death is: the body without the spirit is dead, left helpless, useless, repelling, not extinct, but devoid of the power that once animated it: it is left alone. Such is the case of the so-called faith that has no works to accompany it.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 1
Have not the faith, &c.; that is, in your religious observances and duties, do not make distinctions among your Christian brethren on account of differences of worldly station.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
3 The Christian Life The Proof Of Faith
(James 2)
One great purpose of the Epistle is to press the practical Christian life and thus preserve the believer from severing faith from practice. In the first chapter the practical life of godliness, developed in a new nature, has been set before us. In the second chapter this practical life of godliness is brought forward as the proof of genuine faith.
The life of faith must ever be in striking contrast with the life of the world; it is, moreover, characterised by works of faith. These, then, are the two themes of chapter two: firstly, to warn those who profess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ against being conformed to this world (verses 1-13); secondly, to warn against the mere profession of faith without the works that are the outcome of faith (verses 14-26).
1. The incompatibility of the life of faith with the life of the world
(Vv. 1-3). In the main, the world estimates men, not according to their moral worth, but by their social position and outward adorning. Those who have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, are not thus to judge of one another. The man of the world will pay respect to the well-born man with riches and social position; but faith puts us in touch with the Lord of glory. In His presence all men, however high in worldly position, become very small.
(V. 4). Believers are warned against making these worldly distinctions among themselves, and thus entertaining evil thoughts by judging according to the flesh, and thinking contemptuously of a poor man because of his poverty, or adulatingly of a rich man because of his wealth.
(Vv. 5-7). A contrast is then drawn between the way God acts and the way of many who profess to be believers. God hath chosen those who are poor in this world but rich in faith. Though poor in this world, they are heirs to the riches of the coming kingdom promised to those who love God. The great religious profession of the day is thus put to the test. How does it regard the world? How does it treat believers? Above all, what value does it set upon the Name of Christ? Alas! the great profession is exposed in all its emptiness, inasmuch as it respects the rich, despises the poor, oppresses the believer and blasphemes the worthy Name of Christ.
(Vv. 8-9). The apostle is writing to those who, while making a profession of Christianity, were zealous of the law (Act 21:20). How then does their profession of Christianity stand in relation to the essence of the law – the royal law – as presented by Christ? Christendom today has placed itself under law and therefore can in like manner be tested by law. The royal law is the law of love. The Lord could say that to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind is the first and great commandment, and, He added, the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. To love God and to love one’s neighbour is to fulfil the whole law. It would be impossible to break any other laws if these two laws were kept. The law of love is the royal law that governs every other law. To fulfil this law is to do well. The professed believer who has respect of persons is obviously not loving his neighbour as himself. On the contrary, he thinks more of his rich neighbour than of his poor brother. He is thus convicted of being a transgressor.
(Vv. 10, 11) It would be useless to plead that all the other laws have been kept if this one is broken. To offend in one point is to be guilty of all, even as the snapping of one link in a chain means that the weight suspended by it falls to the ground.
(Vv. 12, 13). If we profess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have a nature that delights to do what God wishes us to do. This indeed is liberty. It follows then that our speech and actions should be in consistency with this law of liberty.
God delights to shew mercy. If we profess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and show no mercy, we are not acting according to the dictates of the new nature which delights to exercise mercy rather than judgment. To fail in mercy may bring upon us the governmental chastisement of God.
2. The reality of faith proved by the works of faith
(V. 14). What a man says is tested by what he does. A man may say he has faith, but merely saying he has faith will not profit unless accompanied by works which prove the reality of his faith.
(Vv. 15-17). No one would imagine that it would be the slightest good merely to say to a needy person, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, and yet do nothing to meet the need. The words, however fair, would be of no profit unless accompanied by deeds. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
(V. 18). Faith works, then, are the proof of faith before men. We cannot see faith; therefore to prove the existence of faith we need something for sight. One may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works. He says, as it were, You boast in your faith and are indifferent to works; but if you have faith show it to me; and how can you show me your faith without works? I can show you my faith by works.
(Vv. 19, 20). The Jew believed that God is one. This is right; the devils also believe this and their belief makes them tremble, but it does not put them in relationship with God. So a man may believe what is true as to God, and yet have no faith in God. Faith is the outcome of a new nature that trusts in God and proves its existence by its works. The man then that says he has faith and yet is without works is a vain man and his faith merely a dead profession. Such is the condition of the vast profession of Christendom in which truths are assented to and works are done, but without the faith that brings the soul into personal touch with Christ.
(V. 21). The apostle brings forward two cases from the Old Testament to show, firstly, that faith which has God for its object produces works and, secondly, that the works faith produces have a distinct character. They are faith works, and not simply good works, as men speak.
The apostle first refers to Abraham and shows that he was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar. By this work he proved that he had such absolute faith in God that he believed God could act in a way contrary to anything ever experienced in the history of man.
(V. 22). Here, then, we see not only works but that faith wrought with his works. It is evident, then, that while the apostle speaks of works proving our faith, he refers, not simply to good works such as kindly nature can produce, but only such works as faith can produce. They are faith works; and by such works faith is made perfect. If, on the one hand, the apostle insists upon works as the test of faith before men, on the other hand, he insists upon faith as the test of the works.
(V. 23). Thus, in a practical way, the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God. He very blessedly proved his trust in God, with the result that God owned him and confided in him, calling him the friend of God.
(V. 24). It is thus made plain that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. It is, however, equally clear that the apostle is not speaking of justification before God, through atonement for sins, but of justification visible to men. The apostle Paul speaks of justification before God, and then says, If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God (Rom 4:2). James is speaking of justification before men and asks, Was not Abraham our father justified by works? As a result he was called the friend of God, and this was surely something in which he could glory.
(Vv. 25, 26). In the history of Rahab we see another striking illustration of faith works. She was a woman of bad character, and did that which men would condemn as a betrayal of her country. Yet her act proved that she had such faith in God that, in spite of all appearance to the contrary, she recognised that the Israelites were the favoured of God, and that Jericho was doomed.
Both cases prove that the mere profession of faith is not enough. There must be reality as proved by faith works. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
In both cases the works prove the existence of faith in God, but they do so because of their special character. In neither case are they works of which the natural man could approve. Abraham is about to slay his son, and Rahab to transfer her allegiance to God, and, as man would conclude, to betray her country. These are not good works as men speak. The practical life of the Christian is, indeed, to be marked by good works, as the apostle has already shown by exhorting believers to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction. But the works that prove faith are so contrary to nature that, apart from faith, they would be condemned by every right-minded man. Thus, under the indication of God’s will and in submission to it, the faith produces special works, and the works prove the faith.
In the course of the chapter the profession of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is tested by enquiring:
How does it stand in relation to the poor (verses 1-6);
How does it treat believers (verse 6);
How does it treat the worthy name of Christ (verse 7);
How does it stand in reference to the royal law (verses 8-11);
How does it stand in reference to the law of liberty (verses 12, 13); and finally
How does it stand in relation to works (verses 14-26)?
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
Mr. D’s Notes on James
Jam 2:1-4
Constable calls this section “hypocritical religiosity.” Sounds about right to me as well.
2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons.
The Net Bible translates this as follows: “My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” Other modern translations read along this line as well.
The thought of respect of persons seems to be an added thought in the newer translations, though the thought is similar. If you are a person of faith do not have prejudice. Wow what a comment for our day as well as the American past. Let’s think about prejudice among Christians for a moment.
In Politics: Christian liberals use rhetoric that is fit for the most worldly of persons when talking about conservative Christians as well as conservative lost. This, if not prejudice, is something that will certainly foster prejudice. In my mind they practice what they decry only they use divisive caustic rhetoric with their speech.
We expect this type of rhetoric from the lost, like a recent comment on the news. Ted Kennedy, not a Christian in my estimation by life or tongue, spoke of the COMING Supreme Court judge nominee – none had been made and his rhetoric had already reached the divisive caustic level when he demanded that Bush was going to abuse his power if he nominated anyone but someone that was okay with Kennedy. “Abuse of power” to nominate someone he wants to nominate – a right and requirement of the presidency – not an abuse of power, but quite plain to see is Kennedy’s own abuse of power and position in using such terminology for his own political gain.
To speak of the racial prejudice in the church one only has to look at the congregation make up in most churches. Are there any blacks in white churches; are there any whites in black churches? I’d guess the later is a better percentage than the former, and true, a lot of this can be worship preference as well as doctrinal differences, but I have seen blacks in white churches that are separated from the masses or held forth as if trophies of the churchs acceptance of all people.
In our checkered past as a nation we saw the church at the forefront of both sides, there were some churches teaching that segregation was Biblical while others that taught that it was not, both believing themselves the more correct and Biblical.
In the more to the point prejudice there is the social ladder status that James will soon get to, or there is the financial status which is often tied to the social. The poor of the church keep to themselves because they feel inferior to the rich and the rich allow this to continue because they have a hint of the idea that this is true.
I have met some Christians that were from financially secure to rich, which were as common as the poor of their church, even though their homes were quite different. We met a couple in the Midwest years ago that seemed as run of the mill as anyone else in the church. They invited us to dinner after church at their home. When we pulled into the drive we were impressed with the house as it was a little larger than we had expected. That was the front – when we entered the home we found that it was huge and very well appointed. They were just as common in their home, nothing of an air about them. They lived their money well.
As the meal went forward, we were talking about a problem that an organization was having with the tax people in the state. He asked me a lot of questions about the problem and then gave me a slip of paper and told me to have the organization contact him. It turned out that he was head of the state tax department that was giving the people problems.
One phone call on Monday and the problem was dealt with. He was well to do, powerful and yet quite unassuming in his character and manner. What an example of the believers attitude and life in the church whether rich or poor, whether powerful or powerless, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Believers seem to have developed another area of prejudice. In the area of education we see in many churches and organizations a bias toward or against certain types of education, against certain schools, or certain doctrinal positions. The bias often leads to hurtful comments and rhetoric which are not needed nor called for.
There are some that believe that the educational system is rotten and corrupt and that Christians should have nothing to do with it. Others feel that the Christian educational system is the best and the lower levels of Christian education are just that – low. Both look up or down their respective noses at each other while filling their own egos with rhetoric fit for the world.
Personally there are times, especially when I am writing that I feel both systems fail their students. I barely passed freshman English in high school and the education I received in Bible college/seminary was quite lacking in the same area. I have struggled with spelling and grammar for many years. I go over my material many times and try and get the spelling/ grammar right. My theology went through several grammar checkers (which had about the same level of efficiency as my own mind) and still I find errors.
I must admit that all of this reading, rereading, grammar checking etc. has given me a greater knowledge of the language, but still I am quite lacking. Our Christian educational system should hold the student to a proper standard so that the education given is truly a proper education. Guess I’m a little prejudiced aren’t I?
When teaching I attempted to hold students to a decent standard, but it was not well received. Students balked and complained because they were required to do some work. Some just rejected the thought and scraped by as they could with little effort – to them the system worked, they did not.
There was one particular class that I could not get the students to do the work in, so ultimately I made the requirement that if they did not turn in their assignments by the specified deadline they would receive a zero. Several decided they didn’t need the credit so opted for the zeros and failed the class. This was not popular. After I resigned, I was called by the school asking why they had failed. I told the caller and before he was finished it sounded like the students were going to get a passing grade for the class. That is a real education – cry in your milk and someone will feel sorry for you and give into your little tantrum. Guess I might be very prejudice – no, just frustrated with a system that promises an education and settles for something less at times.
There is a real doctrinal prejudice as well. I frequent internet discussion boards and find the rhetoric there quite like the political end of the spectrum. Many have “THE TRUTH” while others can’t possibly have the truth because the truth holders have it. The condescension and arrogance spill forth like a tsunami at times. Nothing said is thought out, nor is it ever based on good logic or the Bible – it couldn’t possibly because it does not agree with what they hold as truth.
There is a very serious application to this type of prejudice. I find that many people are unable to find churches to attend because, unless they agree 100 percent with the pastors position, they are treated as lesser people – they do not hold to the truth which pastor holds to, thus I cannot associate with them. The same is true, not only of doctrine, but also of music. If a person likes contemporary music and they are in leadership positions, they seldom allow nor condone any other type of music. The hymn lover is already labeled divisive and against change and thus worthless in the church.
In years past I have had doctrinal differences as well as differences of opinion in music and method, yet all knew that there were differences and the differences did not become divisive. We worked together in the other multitude of areas and furthered the Lord’s work greatly. Today, many believers are unchurched due to these problems.
One of the churches where I felt the Lord used me most was a church that had a wide difference in the membership. There was acceptance of one another as a brother or sister and the work of the Lord went forth. Some were doing their thing while others were doing their thing. Separately they were doing as the Lord was leading them. No differences that were cause for problem, just differences that didn’t matter.
If we have the same faith, we have the same ultimate goal – reaching the lost for God and worshiping Him. The church today is so splintered that even these two most basic items are often lost in the divisiveness and power brokering in the assembly.
James continues with an illustration of what he is speaking about. The putting of one above another based on dress.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
2:1 My {1} brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of {a} glory, with respect of persons.
(1) The first: charity which proceeds from a true faith, cannot exist with the respecting of people: which he proves plainly by using the example of those who, while having reproach or disdain for the poor, honour the rich.
(a) For if we knew what Christ’s glory is, and esteemed it as we should, there would not be the respecting of people that there is.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
A. The Problem of Favoritism 2:1-13
James’ previous reference to hypocritical religiosity (Jas 1:26-27) seems to have led him to deal with one form of this problem that existed among Christian Jews of his day. It is still with us today. It is the problem of inconsistent love for other people that manifests itself in how we treat them. James wrote this chapter to exhort his readers to deal with this very basic inconsistency in their lives and so progress toward spiritual maturity.
"The connection of this warning against social discrimination with the previous ch. 1 seems fairly obvious. Truckling to the rich and apathy or worse toward the poor are two sides of the same base coin rejected by the touchstone of Jas 1:27 and of Jas 2:8." [Note: Adamson, p. 102.]
"He [the believer] must show courtesy to all, compassion for all, and consistency to all. Equity, love, and fidelity are the vital ingredients." [Note: Blue, p. 824.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. The negative command 2:1
James came right to the point; we know exactly what his concern was. Personal favoritism is hardly a glorious characteristic, and it is inconsistent for a Christian who worships the glorious Lord Jesus Christ to practice it (cf. Mat 22:16 Act 10:34). All earthly distinctions disappear in the presence of our glorious Lord. It was especially appropriate for James to address his readers as "my brethren" here since he proceeded to encourage them to practice brotherly kindness. Such behavior would be glorious, in harmony with their "glorious Lord Jesus Christ."
". . . a Christian is (or should be) the last person to be impressed by the sham glory of social status." [Note: Adamson, p. 104.]
It may be helpful to distinguish partiality or favoritism (Gr. prosopolepsia; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; cf. Act 10:34) from some of its synonyms. One definition of prosopolepsia is as follows.
It is "the fault of one who when called on to requite or to give judgment has respect to the outward circumstances of men and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is rich, high-born, or powerful, to another who is destitute of such gifts." [Note: A Greek-English . . ., s.v. "prosopolepsia," p. 551.]
Partiality implies an inclination to favor a person or thing because of strong fondness or attachment. We say that an orchestra conductor, for example, has a partiality for the works of a particular composer. Treating people with partiality may spring from predilection, or from prejudice, or from bias. Predilection implies a preconceived liking formed as a result of one’s background, temperament, etc., that inclines one to a particular preference. We might say a certain person has a predilection for murder mysteries. Prejudice implies a preconceived and unreasonable judgment or opinion, usually an unfavorable one, marked by suspicion, fear, intolerance, or hatred. We might say racial prejudice incited a certain lynch mob. Bias implies a mental leaning in favor of or against someone or something without passing judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of the preference. One might say someone has a bias toward the color blue. James was dealing primarily with partiality.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 10
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES-THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP.
Jam 2:1-4
As has been stated already, in a previous chapter, one of Luthers main objections to this Epistle is that it does not “preach and urge Christ.” “It teaches Christian people, and yet does not once notice the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ. The writer names Christ a few times; but he teaches nothing of Him, but speaks of general faith in God.”
This indictment has been more fully drawn out by a modern writer. “The authors standpoint is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas are cast in a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but twice, {Jam 1:1; Jam 2:1} and His atonement is scarcely touched. We see little more than the threshold of the new system. It is the teaching of a Christian Jew, rather than of one who had reached a true apprehension of the essence of Christs religion. The doctrinal development is imperfect. It is only necessary to read the entire Epistle to perceive the truth of these remarks. In warning his readers against transgression of the law by partiality to individuals, the author adduces Jewish rather than Christian motives. {Jam 2:8-13} The greater part of the third chapter, respecting the government of the tongue, is of the same character, in which Christs example is not once alluded to, the illustrations being taken from objects in nature. The warning against uncharitable judgment does not refer to Christ, or to God, who puts His Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law. {Jam 4:10-12} He who judges his neighbor judges the law. The exhortation to feel and act under constant remembrance of the dependence of our life on God belongs to the same category. {Jam 4:13-17} He that knows good without doing it is earnestly admonished to practice virtue and to avoid self-sufficiency, without reference to motives connected with redemption. Job and the Prophets are quoted as examples of patience, not Christ; and the efficacy of prayer is proved by the instance of Elias, without allusion to the Redeemers promise. {Jam 5:17} The Epistle is wound up after the same Jewish fashion, though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, who gave Himself a Sacrifice for sin, presented itself naturally.”
All this may be admitted, without at all consenting to the conclusion which is drawn from it. Several other considerations must be taken into account before we can form a satisfactory opinion respecting the whole case. Few things are more misleading, in the interpretation of Scripture, than the insisting upon one set of facts and texts, and passing over all that is to be found on the other side. In this manner the most opposite views may be equally proved from Scripture: Universalism and the eschatology of Calvin. Pelagianism and Fatalism, Papalism and Presbyterianism.
First, both logically and chronologically the teaching of St. James precedes that of St. Paul and of St. John. To call it “retrograde” when compared with either of them is to call a child retrograde when compared with a man. St. Paul had to feed his converts with milk before he fed them with meat, and the whole of the congregations addressed by St. James in this letter must have been at a comparatively early stage of development. In some respects even the Mother Church of Jerusalem, from which his letter was written, did not get beyond these early stages. Before it had done so the center of Christendom had moved from Jerusalem to Antioch; and to Jerusalem it never returned. It was useless to build a structure of doctrine before a foundation of morality had been laid. Advent must come before Christmas, and Lent before Easter. The manifold significance of the great truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection would not be well appreciated by those who were neglecting some of the plainest principles of the moral law; and to appeal to the sanctions which every Jew from his childhood had been accustomed to regard as final was probably in the long-run more convincing than to remind these converts of the additional sanctions which they had admitted when they entered the Christian Church. Moreover, there are passages in the Epistle which seem to show that St. James at times looks aside to address Jews who are not Christians at all, and it may be that even when He addresses Christian converts he deliberately prefers arguments which would weigh with Jew and Christian alike to those which would appeal to the latter only. Like St. Paul himself, he was willing to become to the Jews a Jew, that he might win the Jews. Besides which, we must allow something for the bias of his own mind. To his death he remained in many respects, not only a saintly shepherd of the Christian Church, but also a Hebrew of Hebrews. He is the last Jewish prophet as well as the first Christian bishop, a Hebrew Rabbi inside the Church; and even if the condition of his readers had not made it desirable to lay much stress upon the Law and the Old Testament, the associations of a lifetime would have led him frequently to those old sources of truth and morality, all the more so as no authoritative Christian literature was as yet in existence. It was part of his mission to help in creating such a literature. He sets one of the first, it may be the very first, of the mystic stones, which, although apparently thrown together without order or connection, form so harmonious and so complete a whole; and alike in the solidity of its material and in the simplicity of its form this Epistle is well fitted to be one of the first stones in such a building.
But it is easy to go away with an exaggerated view of the so-called deficiencies of this letter as regards distinctly Christian teaching. The passage before us is a strong piece of evidence, and even if it stood alone it would carry us a long way. Moreover, the strength of it is not much affected by the ambiguity of construction which confronts us in the original. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty how the genitive “of glory” ( ) ought to be taken; but the Revisers are possibly right: “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons.” Nor does it much matter whether we take the Greek negative ( ) as an imperative, “Do not go on holding”; or as an interrogative which expects a negative reply, “Do ye hold?” In any case we have the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the fact of His being an object of faith to Christians, placed before us in clear language. No mere Jew, and no Ebionite who believed that Jesus was a mere man, could have written thus. And the words with which the Epistle opens are scarcely less marked: “James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a bond-servant.” In both passages the title “Lord,” which in the Old Testament means Jehovah, is given to Jesus Christ, and in the opening words God and the Lord Jesus are placed side by side as equal. Moreover, St. James, who might have claimed honor as the brother of the Lord, prefers to style himself His bond-servant. He has “known Christ after the flesh,” few more closely and intimately, and he knows from experience how little such knowledge avails: “henceforth knows he Him so no more.” He who does the will of God is the true brother of the Lord, and it is this kind of relationship to Christ that he wishes to secure for his readers.
Nor do these two passages, in which Jesus Christ is mentioned by name, stand alone. There is the question, “Do not they blaspheme the honorable Name by which ye were called?” The honorable Name, which had been “called upon” them, is that of Christ, and if it can be blasphemed it is a Divine Name. {Jam 2:7} The Second Advent of Christ, “the coming of the Lord,” is a thing for which Christians are to wait patiently and longingly, {Jam 5:7-9} and the office which He will then discharge is that of the Divine Judge of all mankind. “The coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth before the doors”. {Jam 5:8-9}
Nor have we yet exhausted the passages which in this singularly practical and undoctrinal Epistle point clearly to the central doctrine of the Divinity of Christ and His eternal relation to His Church. “Is any among you sick? Let film call for the elders of the Church: and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up”. {Jam 5:14-15} As in the case of the man healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple {Act 3:6; Act 3:16} it is “in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom God raised from the dead, even in this Name,” that the sick man is to be restored. And some interpreters (Dorner and Von Soden) think that Christ is included, or even exclusively intended, in “One is the Lawgiver and the Judge.” {Jam 4:12. Comp. Jam 5:9} Thus Liddon: “Especially noteworthy is his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of men, is not the delegated representative of an absent Majesty, but is Himself the Legislator enforcing His own laws. The Lawgiver, he says, is One Being with the Judge who can save and can destroy; the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven, has enacted the law which He thus administers.” But without taking into account expressions of which the interpretation is open to doubt, there is quite enough to show us that the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His redeeming death, His abiding power, and His return to judgment are the basis of the moral teaching of St. James, and are never long absent from his thoughts. Expressions, some of which no mere Jew or Ebionite could have used, and others which no such imperfect believer would have been likely to use, abound in this short Epistle, in spite of its simple and practical character. “My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.” These words open a new section of the letter, as the renewed address indicates; and although the Epistle is not a set treatise, capable of analysis, but a letter, in which the subjects to be treated are loosely strung together in the order in which they occur to the writer, yet the connection between the two very different subjects of this section and the preceding one can be traced. The previous section teaches that much hearing is better than much talking, and that much hearing is worthless without corresponding conduct. This section denounces undue respect of persons, and especially of wealthy persons during public worship. The connecting thoughts are religious worship and the treatment of the poor. The conduct which is true devotion is practical benevolence, moral purity, and unworldliness. This conclusion suggests a new subject, worldly respect of persons in public worship. That is the very reverse of pure devotion. To profess ones belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and at the same time show ones belief in the majesty of mere money, is grievously incongruous. St. James is not making any attack on differences of rank, or asserting that no man is to be honored above another. He is pointing out that reverence for the wealthy is no part of Christianity, and that such reverence is peculiarly out of place in the house of God, especially when it brings with it a corresponding disregard of the poor.
“If there come into your synagogue.” This is one of several improvements which the Revisers have introduced into this passage. The Authorized Version has “assembly,” which obscures the fact that the letter is written in those very early days of the Church in which the Jewish Christians still attended the worship of the Temple and the synagogue, or if they had a separate place of worship, spoke of it under the old familiar name. The latter is probably what is meant here. St. James, in writing to Christians, would hardly speak of a Jewish place of worship as “your synagogue,” nor would he have rebuked Christians for the way in which different persons were treated in a synagogue of the Jews. The supposition that “the article ( ) indicates that the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian Dispersion is meant, i.e., their religious community, symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship,” is quite unfounded, and against the whole context. A typical incident-perhaps something which had actually been witnessed by St. James, or bad been reported to him-is made the vehicle of a general principle. {comp. Jam 1:2} That the reference is to judicial courts often held in synagogues is also quite gratuitous, and destroys the contrast between “pure religion” and worldly respect of persons in public worship.
Another improvement introduced by the Revisers is a uniform translation of the word () capriciously rendered “apparel,” “raiment,” and “clothing.” Only one word is used in the Greek, and it is misleading to use three different words in English. By a quaint misuse of the very passage before us, the translators of 1611 defend their want of precision in such matters, and avow that in many cases precision was deliberately sacrificed to variety and to wish to honor as many English words as possible by giving them a place in the Bible! In ordinary copies of the Authorized Version the Address to King James is commonly given, the far more instructive Address to the Reader never. Near the close of it the translators say as follows:-
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word: as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of new fangleness called , though the difference be little or none (Niceph. Call. 8:42); and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into Hedera (Jerome, In IV Jonae. See S. Augustine, Epist., 71). Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of a like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, “To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts.” In the passage before us the repetition of one and the same word for “clothing” is possibly not accidental. The repetition acculturates the fact that such a thing as clothing is allowed to be the measure of a mans merit.
The rich man is neither the better nor the worse for his fine clothes, the poor man neither the better nor the worse for his shabby clothes. The error lies in supposing that such distinctions have anything to do with religion, or ought to be recognized in public worship; and still more in supposing that any one, whether rich or poor, may at such a time be treated with contumely.
“Are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges with evil thoughts?” Here, as in the first verse, there is a doubt whether the sentence is an interrogation or not. In the former case the meaning is the same, whichever way we take it for a question which implies a negative answer ( interrogative) is equivalent to a prohibition. In the present case the meaning will be affected if we consider the sentence to be a statement of fact, and the number of translations which have been suggested is very large. In both cases we may safely follow the Vulgate and all English versions in making the first verse a prohibition, and the fourth a question. “Are ye not divided in your own mind?” Or more literally, “Did ye not doubt in yourselves?” i.e., on the typical occasion mentioned. At the outset St. James says, “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons.” But the conduct described respecting the treatment of the gold-ringed man and the squalidly clothed man shows that they do have respect of persons in their religion, and that shows that genuine faith in Christ is wanting. Such behavior proves that they doubt in themselves. They are not single-hearted believers in the Lord Jesus, but double-minded doubters, {Jam 1:6-7} trying to make the best of both worlds, and to serve God and Mammon.
The word rendered “doubt” () may mean “distinguish”: “Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?” It is so taken by Renan (“LAntechrist,” p. 49) and others. This makes sense, but it is rather obvious sense; for of course to give a rich man a good place, and a poor man a bad one, is making distinctions. It seems better to adhere to the meaning which the word certainly has in the preceding chapter, {Jam 1:6} as well as elsewhere in the New Testament, {Mat 21:21; Mar 11:23; Act 10:20; Rom 4:20; Rom 14:23} and understand it as referring to the want of faith in Christ and in His teaching which was displayed in a worldly preference for the rich over the poor, even in those services in which His words were to be taught and His person adored.
“Judges with evil thoughts” is an improvement on the more literal but misleading “judges of evil thoughts” ( ).
The meaning of the genitive case is that the evil thoughts characterize the judges, as in such common phrases as “men of evil habits,” “judges of remarkable severity” (see above on “hearers of forgetfulness,”). The word for “thoughts” is one which in itself suggests evil, even without any epithet. It is the word used of the reasonings of the Pharisees, when they taxed our Lord with blasphemy for forgiving sins (Luk 5:22. Comp. Luk 24:38). St. Paul uses it of those who are “vain in their reasonings,” {Rom 1:21; 1Co 3:20} and couples with it “murmurings” {Php 2:14} as congenial company. Those men who, even while engaged in the public worship of God, set themselves up as judges to honor the rich and contemn the poor, were not holding the faith of Jesus Christ, but were full of evil doubts, questionings, and distrust.