Jas 2:21 . : A stereotyped phrase in Jewish literature. : the writer is referring to the well-known Jewish doctrine of ( Zecth ), on this subject see Introduction IV., 2. : on this subject an example of Jewish haggadic treatment may be of interest: “When Abraham finally held the knife over his beloved son, Isaac seemed doomed, and the angels of heaven shed tears which fell upon Isaac’s eyes, causing him blindness in later life. But their prayer was heard. The Lord sent Michael the archangel to tell Abraham not to sacrifice his son, and the dew of life was poured on Isaac to revive him. The ram to be offered in his place had stood there ready, prepared from the beginning of Creation ( Aboth , Jas 2:6 ). Abraham had given proof that he served God not only from fear, but also out of love, and the promise was given that, whenever the ‘Aedah [= the “binding,” i.e. , of Isaac] chapter was read on New Year’s day, on which occasion the ram’s horn is always blown, the descendants of Abraham should be redeemed from the power of Satan, of sin, and of oppression, owing to the merit of him whose ashes lay before God as though he had been sacrificed and consumed,” Pesi . R. , 40 (quoted in Jewish Encycl. , i. 87 a ). It is interesting to notice that even in the Talmud (e.g., Ta‘anir , 4 a ) the attempted sacrifice of Isaac is regarded also from a very different point of view, such words as those of Jer 19:5 ; Mic 6:7 , being explained as referring to this event (see further Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch. , xxiv. pp. 235 ff.).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

justified. App-191.

son. App-108.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

21.] The example of Abraham. Was not Abraham our father (the Apostle and his readers being all Jews) justified (accounted righteous before God. No other meaning will satisfy the connexion, inevitable to any intelligent reader, between this and the of Jam 2:14; which again is connected with the of Jam 2:12. Commentators have endeavoured to evade this full meaning, in various ways. Thus e. g. Calvin, Notanda est hc amphibologia; justificandi verbum Paulo esse gratuitam justiti imputationem apud Dei tribunal: Jacobo autem esse demonstrationem justiti ab effectis, idque apud homines, quemadmodum ex superioribus verbis colligere licet: ostende mihi fidem tuam &c. It is manifest, that by such amphibology, any difficulties whatever may be explained away. On the difficulty itself, see in the Prolegomena) by (out of, as the ground of the justification: precisely as St. Paul so constantly uses the phrase ) works (the category to which the ground of his justification belonged. It was one especial work, in matter of fact: and that work, itself springing out of preeminent faith) when he offered (not, as E.V., al., had offered: the aor. part., as so often, is synchronous with the aor. itself in the same sentence. in this reference with is not to offer up in sacrifice, but simply to offer, to bring as a sacrifice to the altar: whether the entire offering up takes place or not. Where it did take place, the general meaning may be given: where it did not, as here, the particular one must be kept. Cf. 1Pe 2:24) Isaac his son at the altar?

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jam 2:21. , Abraham our father) So St Paul, Rom 4:1.- , was justified by works) St James recognises the inward and peculiar power of faith, which is previous to works, and distinct from works and from their influence, which reacts upon faith (Jam 2:22): but hypocrites are ignorant of this; speaking more readily in flattering terms of works, of which they themselves are destitute. Therefore James employs an argument ad hominem; and that he may convince them, he especially mentions works, while in mentioning them, he understands (as lying underneath the works) the active principle of faith. Nor does James use the word , to be justified, in a different sense from that in which St Paul uses it; in which sense righteousness is most intimately connected with salvation, Jam 2:14. But that sense is a very pregnant one; so that the term righteousness is co-extensive in its meaning on the opposite side with sin (see especially the note, Rom 3:20); and as sin includes both guilt (reatus) and the taint (vitium) of our nature, so does righteousness denote the whole process, by which a man is righteous, and is judged and pronounced to he so; that is, one with whom God is no longer angry on account of his guilt, but reconciled to him: and one who on his part is no longer an enemy to God, but a friend, Jam 2:23. Comp. Rom 8:7 with what precedes and follows. Now both St James and St Paul use this word, , to justify, in one and the same sense, though St Paul in a more restricted, and St James in a wider application; and for this reason, that St Paul is accustomed to speak of the act of justification, which chiefly consists in the remission of sins; whereas St James, which is especially to be observed, speaks of the state resulting from the same justification (which is incorrectly but frequently termed a second justification), when a man continues in the righteousness which is of faith, and makes progress in that which is of works. Hence it is that St Paul, from Gen 15:6, brings forward Abraham as believing; St James, from Gen 22:10, as even offering his son upon the altar, long afterwards. The former simply adduces the saying, It was counted to him; the latter also this, He was called friend, which was afterwards added. The former says, God justifies, and justifies the ungodly, and we are justified; the latter simply says, A man is justified. The former makes mention of faith only, and not of works, although they proceed from faith; the latter makes mention of faith and works.- , upon the altar) He designs to show, that the work of Abraham was undertaken altogether in earnest.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jas 2:21-26

TRUE FAITH ILLUSTRATED

Jas 2:21-26

(a) In The Case of Abraham

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works,—To establish his thesis that faith, apart from works, is useless and vain, James turns to the father of the Hebrew rare (Abraham), and offers him as an example of the fact that works are vital in God’s plan. These to whom James wrote included many Jewish people : and those who were not would, as Christians. be interested in. and would soon acquire a knowledge of, one who occupied such a prominent place in the history of the Lord’s people in earlier dispensations; and his example would, therefore, be most impressive. Further !braham is the spiritual ancestor of all ‘”who walk in the steps of” his faith today (Rom 4:1-25) ; and all who are Christ’s. are “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The principle involved in Abraham’s justification is, therefore, illustrative of the manner in which all men are justified today. The case of the illustrious father of the ] ewish people is frequently rited. for this purpose, in the Scriptures both Old and New. (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:1-20; Gen 17:1-8; Heb 11:8-18; Gal 3:15-29) ; and ] ames’ reference thereto was neither novel nor unusual. It was just the instance which would be the most impressive to the people to whom he wrote.

(1) Abraham was “justified,” (edikaiothe, first aorist passive indicative of dikaio, to pronounce or declare one to be just): i.e .. he was counted, reckoned, pronounced, declared to he in a right rrlationship with God. The basic significanre of the word translated ”justified,” is that of acquittal ; one justified is not regarded as an enemy of God; thence forth no state oi alienation between such a man and God exists. Thus, to be justified is to be acquitted -thereafter to be in a relationship with God which he approves. “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Mat 12:37.) “And by him every one that believeth is justified from all things. from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Act 13:39.) It follows. therefore, that one who is justified is by the Lord regarded (counted, reckoned, declared to be) innocent of any charges formerly made. The verdict has been rendered; one justified is declared not guilty.

(2) Abraham was justified “by works.” The words, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works . … ” Translate the Greek phrase, Abraam ho pater hemon ouk ex ergon edikaiothe, the negative ouk indicating that an affirmative answer is expected. Thus, even the objector who alleges that faith, without works, produces a blessing, must concede that, in Abraham’s case, justification was by works. The preposition “by” (Greek, ex, out of), points to the source of Abraham’s justification; it was out of works that he was justified, not by means of works. Works, as such, are not efficacious; God, it is, who declares one just; but God does it out of works-that is, he issues the verdict when the works appear. Only God can justify; but God justifies only when the works, which he prescribes, appear. The verdict of justification results from the works. Hence, no works, no justification! There was a definite time and place when Abraham was justified. When was it?

in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?—-It will be noted that the phrase “in that,” with which this portion of the verse begins is, in the King James Translation, “When . .. ” The meaning is the same. Inasmuch as the verb is aorist (which indicates an action contemporary with, or prior to the action of the main verb), the meaning here is that the declaration of Abraham’~ justification, and his offering of Isaac were simultaneous; i.e., out of (ek) the one-the offering-the other-justification occurred. For the story of Abraham and his offering of his son Isaac, see Gen 22:1-19, and compare Heb 11:17-19.

22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works,—James points his objector to the obvious truth of that he had just penned. It was easy to see, in this historic incident, that Abraham’s faith wrought (exercised itself) with his works in offering up his son Isaac. “Wrought with,” is from sunergei, imperfect active of stmergeo, to cooperate with; hence, faith and works kept on cooperating with each other to produce the result-Abraham’s justtification.

and by works was faith made perfect;—It was “by” (Greek, ek out of) works that faith, in Abraham’s case, was “made perfect.” The phrase, “made perfect,” is from eteleiothe, aorist passive inwcative of teleio, to consummate, to complete, to finish. The tenses in this verse are highly significant. Faith was continually exercising itself (imperfect tense) with works (the command to offer up Isaac on the altar), and out of these works iaith was perfected at once (aorist tense). Neither works, nor faith operating alone can justify; each in cooperation with the other produces that status wherein God justifies.

23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness;—Scripture alluded to here is that found in Gen 15:6 : “And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.” This was affirmed of Abraham after the illustrious patriarch had accepted, without question, and despite his childlessness, and the advanced ages of himself and his wife Sarah, God’s promise of vast posterity. Not knowing at the time how such could be, he nevertheless believed that it would be and stumbled not at the promise of God in unbelief. This scripture (Gen 15:6), is declared to have been fulfilled when Abraham’s faith was made perfect. It is vitally important lo observe when the scripture referred to was fulfilfod. Though Abraham was earlier (Gen 15:6), acknowledged as a believer, and his faith “reckoned” for righteousness, it was not until later (Gen 22:1-19), that his faith was consummated (made perfect) in the act of obedience involving Isaac. Abraham believed God, prior to this act of obedience; i.e., he fully accepted God’s word, and relied implicitly on the promises which it contained; and, as a result, his faith “was reckoned unto him for righteousness … . ” “To reckon,” (elogisthe) is to regard, deem, consider, account; hence, God deemed, considered, regarded Abraham’s faith as righteousness (right-doing). Faith itself, thus became an act of obedience which, in its exercise, and when, at the moment, there were no additional duties devolving rtpon Abraham, God accepted as proof of Abraham’s devotion. One must not irom this assume that the exercise of belief bestowed upon Abraham blessings apart from and independent of any obedience; though this conclusion is often drawn, it is an erroneous and hurtful one. In the nature oi the case, the promise of great posterity involved matters which would require considerable time for their development; hence, there was nothing more, at the moment, ior Abraham to do but to accept, without hesitation, the assurances oi such from God. This, he did; and his acceptance thereof, became an act of righteousness which God, in his tum, accepted, and put to Abraham’s account for righteousness (right-doing). It is a violent perversion of this passage and historic incident from it to assume that because Abraham’s faith was accepted as an act of righteousness when there was nothing else required of him at tire time that in our case faith will suffice without the performance of those conditions which are required of us now. Even in Abraham’s case, as James so clearly shows, the patriarch’s faith did not reach its consummation, its fulfillment, until it had translated itself into action in the offering of Isaac.

and he was called the friend of God.—That is, Abraham was, and was called “the friend of God”; i.e., God’s friend. The phrase, “of God,” is not an objective genitive, “friend of God,” meaning that Abraham regarded God as his friend (though doubtless he did), but a subjective genitive, he was one whom God considered as his friend! “Didst not thou, o our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it to the seed of Abraham, thy friend for ever ?” (2Ch 20:7.) God regarded Abraham as his friend because he was ever faithful to God, and always submitted his will to God’s. Jesus said, “Ye are my friends if ye do the things which 1 command you.” (Joh 15:14.)

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faitb.— This is the irresistible conclusion to be drawn from the preceding premises. Any reasonable person must, on careful and prayerful consideration of the foregoing affirmations of the sacred writer, readily see that faith blesses only when it leads the one exercising it to faithful compliance with the commands of God. James’ conclusion is established (1) by analogy (verses 14, 15); ( 2) by demonstration (verses 17, 18); (3) by example (a) in the case of the demons (verse 19) ; (b) in the case of Abraham (Yerses 21-23); (4) by inspired affirmation (verses 14-26); (5) by an appeal to common sense (verse 24). “Ye see,” (from the array of evidence presented) that it is “by works,” (obedience to the commandments of the Lord Act 10:34-35), that “a man is justified” (declared to be innocent), “and not only by faith,” (not by faith only). The inference is obvious. There is no more important matter taught in the New Testament.

Justification is not by faith only! “It is by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.” The allegation that Paul taught justification by faith only, and is in conflict with James is utterly false; there is a vast difference between the doctrine of justification by faith (which Paul and James both taught, Rom 5:1; Jas 2:20-22), and the doctrine of justification by faith only, which neither of them taught. We have seen earlier that the faith that saves is one that expresses itself in obedience to the commands of God. Faith, apart from works, is dead, barren, vain. (Jas 2:17; Jas 2:20; Jas 2:26.) Justification is by faith. (Rom 3:28; Rom 5:1.) This faith which justifies is either with, or without, works. If it is with works, it is not by faith only; and it blesses only when accompanied by the works which perfect it. If it is without works, salvation results from a faith that is dead. But, a faith that is dead is barren (unproductive of life whatsoever). There is no salvation on the basis of a dead faith. A faith that can save is neither barren nor dead. But, faith, without works, is both barren and dead. It follows, therefore, that salvation is not by faith only.

Those whose doctrine it is that salvation is at the point and moment of faith, and without any additional acts of obedience, have found this passage to be exceedingly difficult to reconcile ‘With their view that Paul taught justification by faith only. The methods have been many and the efforts to this end varied and novel.

( 1) Luther, the leading light of the Reformation movement, made short work of the effort by denying, for a time at least, that the Epistle of James is worthy of a place in the sacred canon of Script11re, on the allegation that in the section which we have been considering, (Jas 2:14-26), its teaching conflicts with Paul, whose words in Rom 3:28, read: “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law,” but which the fiery Reformer changed to read, “. . . a man is justified by faith alone, … ” an unwarranted and unjustified rendering without lexical support. He referred to James as a “right strawy epistle,” said it had “no gospel character in it,” and added, “I will not have it in my Bible in the number of the proper chief books.” He admitted that “there is many a good saying in it,” but he was unable to harmonize his doctrine of justification by faith only with it. The views are indeed irreconcilable; and, the stout-hearted Luther was honest enough not to attempt such. More recent theologians, while holding to the same view of justification as Luther, have attempted to reconcile the difference in the following ways:

(2) “Paul refers to the justification of a sinner; where, James regards the matter from the viewpoint of the justification of a Christian.” This answer is both fanciful and false; there is no such distinction between the two New Testament writers as is here affirmed; both refer to the same passage of Scripture to establish Abraham’s justification.. Paul, in Rom 4:1-5, refers to Gen 15:6, to prove that Abraham was not justified by works. James, (2: 20-22), refers to Gen 15:6, to prove that Abraha1n was justified by works I Abraham was justified by works, affirmed James. Abraham was not justified by works, declared Paul. By what scripture do they prove their contentions? The same scripture, Gen 15:6. It should be quite obvious that Paul and James have under consideration two different kinds of works. Paul, in Rom 3:28, tells us that “a man” is justified “apart from the works of the law.” What law? The Law of Moses, of course. James informs us that Abraham was justified by works which perfected his faith. What particular work was alluded to? The offering of Isaac. But, this was a commandment of God. It follows, therefore, that the works which are excluded (by Paul) from the plan of salvation are works such as the law of Moses, and the works which are included (by James) are the commandments of Christ and of God.

(3) “The justification of which James writes is before men (‘Ye see .. .’ verse 24), and not before God. Abraham’s act justified him in the eyes of men, not God.” This effort is both completely absurd and obviously false. Who, among men, saw the offering of Isaac? Not the young men who accompanied Abraham and Isaac to the place of offering; they were sent away. (Gen 22:3; Gen 22:5.) They were not present to see Abraham’s justification in the act. No others were present save the patriarch and his son. If it is alleged that the justification came af /er the event, then it was neither at the point of faith or works!

(4) “Paul writes of true, justifying faith; whereas, James deals with a faith that is false and feigned.” If so, Abraham was justified by a spurious and counterfeit faith! Desperate indeed must one be to entertain for a moment such a view. The faith of which James writes is invalid only when it is separated from works. Paul penned nothing in conflict with this view; on the contrary, he made obedience to the commands of God essential to salvation. (Rom 6:1-7; Gal 3:26-27; 2Th 1:7-9.) Inasmuch as both James and Paul were inspired writers, neither wrote a line in conflict with the other. All truth harmonizes. Paul, in Romans 3, 4, demonstrates that salvation is through Christ by faith and apart from the works of the law of Moses ; Jam es shows that salvation is by a faith which expresses itself in humble and unquestioning obedience to the will of the Lord. (Jas 2:14-26.)

Strange indeed that men would insist, in the light of this section of Scripture that salvation is by faith only; but so all denominational bodies do which deny the essentiality of water baptism. Stranger still that men who are members of the body of Christ and who accept the view that baptism sustains some relation to the plan of salvation would assert that there is some sense in which salvation is by faith only! Salvation is not by faith alone; salvation is not by works alone; the former view is that of the major Protestant denominations; the latter view is that of the Roman Catholic Church! The truth is, as illustrated in the case of Abraham (Jas 2:20-22), faith exercises itself with works, and in works it is perfected: “Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.” Legalism, does some one shout? Then let the charge be levelled at Jam es, who penned these words, and not at those of us who believe them I Highly susp1c1ous is any effort, however much piety its advocates may affect, which has, as its design, the aim to minimize any of the commandments of Christ. The same Lord which commanded faith requires baptism in water (Mat 28:18-20) ; it is an officious intermeddling with the will of God to magnify one and minimize the other. Those who thus do are spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees who had developed the practice into a profession ! (Matthew 23 :lfI.)

(b) In The Case Of Rahab

25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works,—“In like manner,” means, in this instance, in the same way. Rahab affords another example of that which James, in this section of his Epistle, affirms-that justification is not by faith only, but is also dependent on acts of obedience to God’s will. It is not improbable that James deliberately selected two instances from Old Testament history-Abraham and Rahab -the former from the highest ranks of the most illustrious, the second from one who had been on the lowest rung of the social ladder, to show that in neither instance was salvation by faith only, and that each perfected the faith exercised in works. Rahab was an inhabitant of Jericho, a heathen before her contact with the messengers, and it is possible that her case was cited, in addition to that of Abraham, for the further design of showing that the principle of justification is the same whether applied to those in the family especially favored of God or those out of it. We are not, of course, to assume that Rahab was a harlot at the time she was justified by works; formerly a pagan, she had lived as many pagans did, a life of loose, dissolute activity; and though she had ceased that manner of living, the identifying phrase by which she had been known, clung to her. For the details of her life, see Jos 2:1-24.

in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?—This woman of the ancient past, a harlot (a prostitute, a woman who sold her body for immoral purposes), was living in Jericho, in the Jordan valley, during the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. When Joshua sent spies into the city to obtain information on the basis of which the city was later to be besieged and taken, she received them into her house, welcomed them, hid them, protected them, and then enabled them to escape safely, having elicited from them a promise of deliverance for her loved ones, when the Israelites had taken the city. (Jos 2:1-14.) In these actions she evidenced her faith, a faith which expressed itself in the actions above outlined. Her’s was not a vain and empty faith; it busied itself in performing those actions which validated it. Hundreds of years later, the Hebrew writer. in detailing the heroic acts of faith in Israel’s history, did not overlook this impressive incident, but cited it as an example of genuine faith and great courage: “By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that were disobedient, having received the spies in peace.” (Heb 11:31.)

The verbs of action, in verse 25 are significant. Rahab ”received” (hupodexamene, aorist middle participle, to welcome) the messengers and “sent them out” (exbalousa, aorist active participle, to hurry away) another way. Her’s was an invaluable senice which she performed gladly and effectively. Thus, she, like Abraham, afforded James with another excellent example of true. justifying faith (faith expressing itself in works.) Rahab is listed in the genealogy of our Lord, having married Salmon. (Mat 1:5.)

26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead,—The body (soma) is the animal frame of man which houses the spirit- the immortal nature-and which is temporal, irail, subject to deterioration and decay. In death it is dissolved (2Co 5:1): it is a “tabernacle” which must be put off (2Pe 1:13-14) : it is made from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7), to which it returns at death (Ecc 12:7). The word soma, translated “body” in our text, does not denote the material substance (this is the sarx, flesh, and its related substances). as much as it inillcates the composition of the flesh into an organism which, when united with the spirit, constitutes life. The “spirit” (fmeuma) is the ”vital principle by which the body is animated’ (Thayer) : and, in this instance, refers to the immortal nature of man. The soul, not mentioned here, but often elsewhere in the sacred writings; is a generic term, the context determining its significance, in any given instance. It is used (a) to designate the whole person (Act 2:41; 1Pe 3:20); (b) the animal life which man possesses, and which ends in death (Psa 78:50); (c) in contradistinction to the spirit, the intellectual nature (1Co 2:14, Greek; Heb 4:12; 1Th 5:21); and (d) the spirit, the immortal nature (Act 2:31).

The body is temporal and frail and eventually falls into the grave; the spirit (and soul, when used as a synonym of the spirit), is eternal and therefore not subject to dissolution or decay. Our bodies we receive from our earthly parents; our spirits are infused into us, and fathered for us, by God himself. (Heb 12:9.) Were it possible, in view of this fact, (which it is not), to prove that there is some moral taint hereditarily transmitted from parent to child (which theologians style Original Sin, the Adamic Nature, etc.,) the doctrine of Total Depravity would still not be established, because our spirits come to us directly from God, and not from our parents. Inasmuch as “like begets like” (Gen 1:9-25, every thing brings forth after its own kind), and since God begets our spirits, they are, at birth, as pure as the source from which they spring, and become sinful only through personal transgression.

The body, “apart from the spirit,” is dead. “Dead,” (nekron) signifies one whose life is extinct, “one that has breathed his last, lifeless.” (Thayer.) One who is dead, is therefore, destitute of life. Here, incidentally is tl1e best brief, practical definition of death (and, by implication, life) which can be formulated. What is life! It is that state or condition which obtains while the body and spirit are united. What is death? It is the resulting condition when the spirit is no longer in the body. Death is then, simply the separation of body and spirit. The body, the outward frame of man, without the spirit which animates it, is dead, lifeless, henceforth inactive.

even so faith apart from works is dead.—This is the conclusion, which inspiration draws from the foregoing premises. Faith, without works, is as lifeless as the body without the spirit. Compared here are two things, both dead. One is spiritually dead, the other is physically dead. Faith, without works, is as destitute of life as is a fleshly body without the spirit. Separate faith and works, and the faith remaining is as lifeless as a body from which the spirit has departed. What are the works which must be joined to faith to make it alive? The commandments of the Lord. (Act 10:34-35.) These commandments are righteousness. (Psa 119:172.) Only those who work righteousness are acceptable to him. “Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God . . .. ” (1Jn 3:10.)

While the principles herein taught by James are of course applicable to alien sinners-those who have never obeyed the gospel- we must not assume that they are limited to such. As a matter of fact, these words were penned especially to Christians; and are designed to impress believers with the fact that their faith must evidence itself in action to be a blessing to them. Members of the church whose faith does not prompt them to faithfulness in the Lord’s work, and to regular Christian activity such as consistent church attendance, liberality in giving, and personal work, are spiritual corpses, possessed of a faith which is destitute of all life.

Discussion Questions on James Chapter Two

(The question numbers refer to the verse number.)

1.Who is addressed in this verse?

How do we hold faith?

What is partiality?

Is partiality another word or prejudice?

List some kinds or types of partiality in our world.

Can we have faith in Jesus and be partial?

2.What kind of partiality is illustrated?

How should we treat those who come into our assemblies?

How should we treat a person with expensive clothes and jewelry?

How should we treat a person in dirty clothes?

What is the difference in the soul of these two types of people?

3.Should we pay attention to the wealthy person?

Should we pay attention to the poor person?

Why do we show some people more attention than others?

Have you ever been on the other end – treated differently for some reason?

List some ways we show distinction in how we treat people.

4.How do we show partiality?

How do we become judges?

Is judging – right or wrong?

Are there passages that teach judging is wrong?

Read these verses: Mat 7:1; Rom 14:10; Rom 14:13

Are there passages that suggest judging is right?

Study these passages: Joh 7:24; 1Co 6:2-3

How can you tell when judging is forbidden?

In what areas are we to judge others?

In what areas are we forbidden to judge others?

5.Why does James tell us to listen?

Why don’t we pay attention as we should?

Is our attention span as long as it should be?

How are the poor chosen to be rich in faith?

Is it better to be poor than rich?

Name some rich men that God blessed.

Name some poor men that God blessed.

Name some poor men that God made wealthy.

Who are heirs of the kingdom?

To whom is the kingdom promised?

6.How do we dishonor some people?

What does the term disrespect mean as we describe how others treat us?

How do rich people oppress us?

Why does James say that the rich drag us into courts?

Is the legal system slanted toward the rich?

7.What does the word blaspheme mean?

Why do some think blasphemy is an unforgivable sin?

What does Mat 12:31-32 teach?

How do the rich blaspheme?

Whom do they blaspheme?

What is the name we are called?

8.What is the royal law in the Scriptures?

What scriptures are intended here?

Explain: Love your neighbor.

Explain: As yourself.

Who is my neighbor?

Study Luk 10:25-37.

Is our neighbor one who lives around us or one we can help?

How can we fulfill this law of God?

9.How do we show partiality to others?

What ever happened to sin in our language?

Why do avoid this word?

Why do we use – mistake, goof, error in judgment – instead of SIN?

Why is partiality a sin?

What does the word transgressor mean?

10.Who keeps the whole law?

Was it possible to keep every precept in the Law of Moses?

What does it mean to stumble?

Have you ever tripped over some command in the Bible?

Why is one point the same as violating the entire law?

Why are we guilty of all the law by failing in one point?

11.What law is quoted?

What is adultery as used in the Ten Commandments?

What is murder as used in the Ten Commandments?

When does one become a transgressor of the law?

12.How should we speak?

Why will be NOT be judged by the Law of Moses?

By what law will we be judged?

13.Is God a God of mercy?

Will there come a time when His mercy will end?

What part does our showing mercy to others have in our judgment?

How does mercy triumph over judgment?

14.Can someone claim to have faith, but not be saved?

How is the word profit used in this verse?

What is meant by works in this section?

Can faith save?

Can faith without works save?

15.How should we treat a poor brother or sister?

What does the word benevolence mean?

What does the word destitute imply?

What about a widow who is destitute? (1Ti 5:5)

16.Should we wish the poor well?

Should our wishes be supported by our actions?

Is there any value in well wishing without actual help?

Are there some we should NOT help?

Give a definition of the word – Help.

Are there things we do that do NOT help?

17.Can our faith be dead?

Explain how faith saves.

Are we saved by faith?

What is faith by itself?

What are the works mentioned in this verse?

Can our faith go up and down, have highs and lows?

Can our faith die?

18.Can we separate faith from works?

Can one have works without faith?

Can one have faith without works?

How do we demonstrate our faith?

Explain how works show our faith.

19.How many gods are there?

Does Satan believe in God?

Will Satan be saved? (Since faith saves, will Satan be saved?)

What does the word tremble suggest?

Why did Felix tremble in Act 24:25?

20.Who is a foolish man?

Are men foolish or is it their actions?

Is this information important to you?

Does it make a difference if our faith is dead or not?

21.Discuss: Abraham’s faith.

Was Abraham justified by faith OR by works?

What did the sacrifice of Isaac show about the faith of Abraham?

See Rom 4:1-12.

Is there a contradiction between Romans and James?

22.How does faith function together with works?

How is faith made perfect by our works?

See Gal 5:6 – faith working by love

23.What does Gen 15:6 teach about Abraham?

What does the word accounted (imputed in KJV) mean?

Was Abraham righteous or was it just accounted as if he was righteous?

Why was Abraham called the Friend of God?

24.Is man justified by: a)faith, b) works, c) both, or d) neither?

Explain the denominational teaching of faith only.

How many times does this phrase occur in the New Testament?

25.Who was Rahab?

What was her occupation?

Why is she always connected with it?

How was she justified by works?

What do the examples of Abraham and Rahab teach us?

26.Explain the example of the body and the spirit.

What is the spirit of man?

What is the soul of man?

What is the difference between spirit and soul?

What does Heb 4:12 teach about spirit and soul?

How is faith dead without works?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

justified

(See Scofield “Rom 4:2”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

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

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

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

Reciprocal: Gen 22:10 – General Gen 22:12 – now Gen 26:5 – General Neh 9:8 – foundest Son 1:8 – go Eze 18:22 – in his Mat 1:24 – did Luk 16:15 – Ye Luk 18:14 – justified Rom 2:13 – justified 1Co 6:11 – but ye are justified Heb 11:17 – faith

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jas 2:21. Heb 11:17 says Abraham’s faith was tried by the event. about his son. The present verse says it was works that did it or that justified him. There is no disagreement between the passages. It was his faith that caused him to offer up his son; his works put his faith into a practical proof.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jas 2:21. James now adduces two examplesthose of Abraham and Rahabto prove the truth of his assertion that faith can only save if it is productive of good works. And, first, the example of Abraham.

Was not Abraham. The same example is adduced by Paul (Rom 4:1-5); but there is no reason to suppose that the one writer borrowed from the other. The example of Abraham would readily occur to every Jew, on account of the importance of that patriarch in their national history.

our father: the same appellation is given by Paul; but here it is given because both James and his readers, the Jewish Christians, were descended from Abraham.

was justified. Some suppose that by justified is meant proved to be justified, and that the allusion is to the manifestation of our justification before men, which can only be by works. Thus Calvin remarks: Paul means by the word justified the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men. In this sense we fully allow that a man is justified by works, as when one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable estate, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known. But this has too much the appearance of a subterfuge to avoid a difficulty; it puts a forced interpretation upon the text. We take the word in its ordinary meaning, declared righteous in the sight of God, equivalent to saved in a previous verse: Can faith save him?

by works. Paul also appeals to the case of Abraham, but with a desire to prove that he was justified by faith without works. These writers view the matter in different lights. Paul asserts that Abraham was justified by the unseen principle of faith; he simply believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, James affirms that the faith by which Abraham was justified was a faith which manifested itself by works, and was seen in a remarkable manner by the great act of his obediencethe sacrifice of Isaac; his faith obtained its perfection by works. See excursus at the end of this exposition. The plural works, whereas only one work is mentioned, is explained from the fact that the class is named to which the offering up of Isaac belongs.

when he had offered Isaac his son on the altar. This great act of obedience (Gen 22:2) was certainly a work of faith, arising from Abrahams practical belief in God. By faith, writes the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises, offered up his only-begotten son, of whom it is said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure (Heb 11:17-19). It was therefore a most notable proof that Abraham had a living faith, and was therefore in a justified state.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Jas 2:21. Was not, &c. As if he had said, Take an instance of this in the most celebrated of all the patriarchs, our father Abraham. Was not he justified by works Did not his works manifest the truth and liveliness of his faith; when In consequence of the full persuasion he had of a divine command to do it; he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Intending, in obedience to what he apprehended to be the will of God, actually to have slain him, and to have trusted in God to accomplish the promise of a numerous seed to descend from him, by raising him from the dead: see notes on Heb 11:17-19. St. Paul says Abraham was justified by faith, (Rom 4:2, &c.,) yet St. James does not contradict him. For he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Gen 15:6; St. James of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Pauls sense; that is, accounted righteous by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. Jamess sense, that is, made righteous by works, subsequent to his faith: so that St. Jamess justification by works is the fruit of St. Pauls justification by faith.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 21

By works; that is, by a working faith,–works which were the fruits and the evidence of his faith. That this is the meaning is clear from the expressions in James 2:22,23.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Mr. D’s Notes on James

Jam 2:21-26

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

“Abraham our Father” is proof that the epistle is written to Jewish believers, at least primarily Jewish. He would not have mentioned “our father” if it weren’t for his Jewish readers.

The term “justified” deserves some study at this point. Rom 3:24 uses the same term in relation to salvation. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:” We can draw from this that the word in James cannot be twisted into something other than its normal easy meaning. It can’t be made to mean something different than usual so it is clear we don’t have a problem in this text.

It seems that James is saying that Abraham was justified by works. We will see in our application later that Eph 2:9 tells us, salvation is not of works, thus some would suggest we must have a contradiction in the Word. Not so. We will see the truth of the matter shortly.

Actually, we need to read the context for the full effect. Verses twenty-one through twenty-three state, “21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”

Here we see the total package of what James is saying. You must not take verse twenty one and build doctrine upon that limited portion of Scripture. You need the context which gives understanding to the verse.

By works, in twenty-one, he means the package of faith plus works which he has been talking about in the previous context. The two go together, the two are inseparable, and one is not valid without the other.

No, works cannot save, but faith producing works certainly does.

We might give a little thought to what justification is. I will include a more detailed study at the end of this section if you want further information.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

2:21 Was not Abraham our father {k} justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

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

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This verse at first seems to contradict other verses that say God declared Abraham righteous when Abraham believed God’s promise (Gen 15:1-6; Rom 4:1-5). The solution to the problem lies in the meaning of "justified." This word always means to declare someone righteous in the sight of the law, not to make someone righteous in his or her conduct (cf. Exo 23:7; Deu 25:1; 1Ki 8:32). The failure to define justification biblically is what has led some Reformed interpreters to conclude that everyone who is truly justified will inevitably behave righteously.

The NIV translation "considered righteous" is a bit misleading (cf. Jas 2:25). Abraham was declared righteous more than once. Most interpreters understand the first scriptural statement of his justification as describing his "new birth," to use the New Testament term (Gen 15:6). This is when God declared Abraham righteous. About 20 years later James says Abraham was justified again. Scripture consistently teaches that believers whom God declares righteous never lose their righteous standing before God (Rom 5:1; Rom 8:1; et al.). They do not need to be saved again. Abraham’s subsequent justification evidently refers to a second declaration of his righteousness. James said this second time Abraham’s works declared him righteous. They gave testimony (bore witness) to his faith. [Note: See Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, p. 441; and Robertson, 6:37.] Works do not always evidence faith (Jas 2:19), but sometimes they do. They do whenever a person who has become a believer by faith continues to live by faith. Abraham is a good example of a believer whose good works (obedience to God) bore witness to his righteousness. He continued to live by faith just as he had been declared righteous by faith.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

; Jam 2:21; Jam 2:25

Chapter 13

THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM; AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT.

Jam 2:19; Jam 2:21; Jam 2:25

IN the preceding chapter several points of great interest were passed over, in order not to obscure the main issue as to the relation of this passage to the teaching of St. Paul. Some of these may now be usefully considered.

Throughout this book, as in that on the Pastoral Epistles and others for which the present writer is in no way responsible, the Revised Version has been taken as the basis of the expositions. There may be reasonable difference of opinion as to its superiority to the Authorized Version for public reading in the services of the Church, but few unprejudiced persons would deny its superiority for purposes of private study and both private and public exposition. Its superiority lies not so much in happy treatment of difficult texts, as in the correction of a great many small errors of translation, and above all in the substitution of a great many true or probable readings for others that are false or improbable. And while there are not a few cases in which there is plenty of room for doubt whether the change, even if clearly a gain in accuracy, was worth making, there are also some in which the uninitiated student wonders why no change was made. The passage before us contains a remarkable instance. Why has the word “devils” been retained as the rendering of , while “demons” is relegated to the margin?

There are two Greek words, very different from one another in origin and history, which are used both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament to express the unseen and spiritual powers of evil. These are and , or in one place . {Mat 22:31; not Mar 5:12; Luk 7:29, or Rev 16:14 and Rev 18:2} The Scriptural usage of these two words is quite distinct and very marked. Excepting where it is used as an adjective, {Joh 6:70; 1Ti 3:2; 2Ti 3:3; Tit 2:3} is one of the names of Satan, the great enemy of God and of men, and the prince of the spirits of evil. It is so used in the Books of Job and of Zechariah, as well as in RAPC Wis 2:24, and also throughout the New Testament, viz., in the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse. It is, in fact, a proper name, and is applied to one person only. It commonly, but not invariably {1Ch 21:1; Psa 108:5; Psa 109:5} has the definite article. The word , on the other hand, is used of those evil spirits who are the messengers and ministers of Satan. It is thus used in Isaiah, the Psalms, Tobit, Baruch, and throughout the New Testament. It is used also of the false gods of the heathen, which were believed to be evil spirits, or at least the productions of evil spirits, who are the inspirers of idolatry; whereas Satan is never identified with any heathen divinity. Those who worship false gods are said to worship “demons,” but never to worship “the devil.” Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New are the two words ever interchanged. Satan is never spoken of as a or , and his ministers are never called . Is it not a calamity that this very marked distinction should be obliterated in the English Version by translating both Greek words by the word “devil,” especially when there is another word which, as the margin admits, might have been used for one of them? The Revisers have done immense service by distinguishing between Hades, the abode of departed spirits of men, and Hell or Gehenna, the place of punishment. {Jam 3:6} Why did they reject a similar opportunity by refusing to distinguish the devil from the demons over whom he reigns? This is one of the suggestions of the American Committee which might have been followed with great advantage and (so far as one sees) no loss.

St. James has just been pointing out the advantage which the Christian who has works to show has over one who has only faith. The one can prove that he possesses both; the other cannot prove that he possesses either. The works of the one are evidence that the faith is there also, just as leaves and fruit are evidence that a tree is alive. But the other, who possesses only faith, cannot prove that he possesses even that. He says that he believes, and we may believe his statement, but if any one doubts or denies the truth of his profession of faith he is helpless. Just as a leafless and fruitless tree may be alive; but who is to be sure of this? We must note, however, that in this case the statement is not doubted. “Thou hast faith, and I have works”; the possibility of possessing faith without works is not disputed. And again, “Thou believest that God is one”; the orthodox character of the mans creed is not called in question. This shows that there is no emphasis on “say” in the opening verse, “If a man say he hath faith, but have not works”; as if such a profession were incredible. And this remains equally true if, with some of the best editors, we turn the statement of the mans faith into a question, “Dost thou believe that God is One?” For “Thou doest well” shows that the mans orthodoxy is not questioned.

The object of St. James is not to prove that the man is a hypocrite, and that his professions are false; but that, on his own showing, he is in a miserable condition. He may plume himself upon the correctness of his Theism; but as far as that goes, he is no better than the demons, to whom this article of faith is a source, not of joy and strength, but of horror.

It is most improbable that, if he had been alluding to the teaching of St. Paul, St. James would have selected the Unity of the Godhead as the article of faith held by the barren Christian. He would have taken faith in Christ as his example. But in writing to Jewish Christians, without any such allusion, the selection is very natural. The Monotheism of his creed, in contrast with the foolish “gods many, and lords many,” of the heathen, was to the Jew a matter of religious and national pride. He gloried in his intellectual and spiritual superiority to those who could believe in a plurality of deities. And there was nothing in Christianity to make him think less highly of this supreme article of faith. Hence, when St. James desires to give an example of the faith on which a Jewish Christian, who had sunk into a dead formalism, would be most likely to rely, he selects this article, common to both the Jewish and the Christian creed, “I believe that God is One,” “Thou doest well,” is the calm reply; and then follows the sarcastic addition, “The demons also believe-and shudder.”

Is St. James here alluding to the belief mentioned above, that the gods of the heathen are demons? They, of all evil spirits, might be supposed to know most about the Unity of God, and to have most to fear in reference to it. “They sacrificed unto demons, which were no God,” we read in Deuteronomy. {Deu 32:17} And again in the Psalms, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons” (Psa 106:37, Comp. Psa 96:5). In these passages the Greek word represents the Elilim or Shedim, the nonentities who were allowed to usurp the place of Jehovah. And St. Paul affirms, “That the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God”. {1Co 10:20} It is quite possible, therefore, that St. James is thinking of demons as objects of idolatrous worship, or at any rate as seducing people into such worship, when he speaks of the demons belief in the Unity of God.

But a suggestion which Bede makes, and which several modern commentators have followed, is well worth considering. St. James may be thinking of the demons which possessed human beings, rather than those which received or promoted idolatrous worship. Bede reminds us of the many demons who went out at Christs command, crying out that He was the Son of God, and especially of the man with the legion among the Gadarenes, who expressed not only belief, but horror: “What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure Thee by God, that Thou torment me not.” Without falling into the error of supposing that demons can mean demoniacs, we may imagine how readily one who had witnessed such scenes as those recorded in the Gospels might attribute to the demons the expressions of horror which he had heard in the words and seen on the faces of those whom demons possessed. Such expressions were the usual effect of being confronted by the Divine presence and power of Christ, and were evidence both of a belief in God and of a dread of Him. St. James, who was then living with the mother of the Lord, and sometimes followed His Divine Brother in His wanderings, would be almost certain to have been a witness of some of these healings of demoniacs. And it is worth noting that the word which in the Authorized Version is rendered “tremble,” and in the Revised “shudder” (), expresses physical horror, especially as it affects the hair; and in itself it implies a body, and would be an inappropriate word to use of the fear felt by a purely spiritual being. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but in the Septuagint we find it used in the book of Job: “Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up”. {Job 4:15} It is a stronger word than either “fear” or “tremble,” and strictly speaking can be used only of men and other animals.

This horror, then, expressed by the demons through the bodies of those whom they possess, is evidence enough of faith. Can faith such as that save any one? Is it not obvious that a faith which produces, not works of love, but the strongest expressions of fear, is not a faith on which any one can rely for his salvation? And yet the faith of those who refuse to do good works, because they hold that their faith is sufficient to save them, is no better than the faith of the demons. Indeed, in some respects it is worse. For the sincerity of the demons faith cannot be doubted; their terror is proof of it: whereas the formal Christian has nothing but cold professions to offer. Moreover, the demons are under no self-delusion; they know their own terrible condition. For the formalist who accepts Christian truth and neglects Christian practice there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will come a time when “believe and shudder” will be true also of him. “But, before it is too late, wiliest thou to get to know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?”

“Wilt thou know” does not do full justice to the meaning of the Greek ( ). The meaning is not, “I would have you know,” but, “Do you wish to have acquired the knowledge?” You profess to know God and to believe in Him; do you desire to know what faith in Him really means? “O vain man” is literally. “O empty man,” i.e., empty-headed, empty-handed, and empty-hearted. Empty-headed, in being so deluded as to suppose that a dead faith can save; empty-handed, in being devoid of true spiritual riches; empty-hearted, in having no real love either for God or man. The epithet seems to be the equivalent of Raca, the term of contempt quoted by our Lord as the expression of that angry spirit which is akin to murder. {Mat 5:22} The use of it by St. James may be taken as an indication that the primitive Church saw that the commands in the Sermon on the Mount are not rules to be obeyed literally, but illustrations of principles. The sin lies not so much in the precise term of reproach which is employed as in the spirit and temper which are felt and displayed in the employment of it. The change from “dead” (A.V.) to “barren” (R.V.) is not a change of translation, but of reading ( ), the latter term meaning “workless, idle, unproductive”. {Mat 20:3; Mat 20:6; 1Ti 5:13; Tit 1:12; 2Pe 1:8} Aristotle (“Nic. Eth.,” 1. 7:11) asks whether it is likely that every member of a mans body should have a function or work () to perform, and that mart as a whole should be functionless (). Would nature have produced such a vain contradiction? We should reproduce the spirit of St. Jamess pointed interrogation if we rendered “that faith without fruits is fruitless.”

In contrast with this barren faith, which makes a mans spiritual condition no better than that of the demons, St. James places two conspicuous instances of living and fruitful faith-Abraham and Rahab. The case of “Abraham our father” would be the first that would occur to every Jew. As the passages in the Apocrypha (RAPC Wis 10:5; Sir 44:20; 1Ma 2:52) prove, Abrahams faith was a subject of frequent discussion among the Jews, and this fact is quite enough to account for its mention by St. James, St. Paul, {Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6} and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, {Heb 11:17} without supposing that any one of them had seen the writings of the others. Certainly there is no proof that the writer of this Epistle is the borrower, if there is borrowing on either side. It is urged that between the authors of this Epistle and that to the Hebrews there must be dependence on one side or the other, because each selects not only Abraham, but Rahab, as an example of faith; and Rahab is so strange an example that it is unlikely that two writers would have selected it independently. There is force in the argument, but less than at first sight appears. The presence of Rahabs name in the genealogy of the Christ, {Mat 1:5} in which so few women are mentioned, must have given thoughtful persons food for reflection. Why was such a woman singled out for such distinction? The answer to this question cannot be given with certainty. But whatever caused her to be mentioned in the genealogy may also have caused her to be mentioned by St. James and the writer of Hebrews; or the fact of her being in the genealogy may have suggested her to the author of these two Epistles. This latter alternative does not necessarily imply that these two writers were acquainted with the written Gospel of St. Matthew, which was perhaps not in existence when they wrote. The genealogy, at any rate, was in existence, for St. Matthew no doubt copied it from official or family registers. Assuming, however, that it is not a mere coincidence that both writers use Abraham and Rahab as examples of fruitful faith, it is altogether arbitrary to decide that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote first. The probabilities are the other way. Had St. James known that Epistle, he would have made more use of it.

The two examples are in many respects very different. Their resemblance consists in this, that in both cases faith found expression in action, and this action was the source of the believers deliverance. The case of Abraham, which St. Paul uses to prove the worthlessness of “works of the law” in comparison with a living faith, is used by St. James to prove the worthlessness of a dead faith in comparison with works of love which are evidence that there is a living faith behind them. But it should be noticed that a different episode in Abrahams life is taken in each Epistle, and this is a further reason for believing that neither writer refers to the other. St. Paul appeals to Abrahams faith in believing that he should have a son when he was a hundred, and Sarah ninety years of age. {Rom 4:19} St. James appeals to Abrahams faith in offering up Isaac, when there seemed to be no possibility of the Divine promise being fulfilled if Isaac was slain. The latter required more faith than the former, and was much more distinctly an act of faith; a work, or series of works, that would never have been accomplished if there had not been a very vigorous faith to inspire and support the doer. The result ( ) was that Abraham was “justified,” i.e., he was counted righteous, and the reward of his faith was with still greater solemnity and fullness than on the first occasion {Gen 15:4-6} promised to him: “By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed My voice”. {Gen 22:16-18}

With the expression “was justified as a result of works” ( ), which is used both of Abraham and of Rahab, should be compared our Lords saying, “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned,” {Mat 12:37} which are of exactly the same form; literally, “As a result of thy words thou shalt be accounted righteous, and as a result of thy words thou shalt be condemned” ( ); that is, it is from the consideration of the words in the one case, and of the works in the other, that the sentence of approval proceeds; they are the source of the justification. Of course from the point of view taken by St. James words are “works”; good words spoken for the love of God are quite as much fruits of faith and evidence of faith as good deeds. It is not impossible that this phrase is an echo of expressions which he had heard used by Christ.

That the words rendered “offered up Isaac his son upon the altar” really mean this, and not merely “brought Isaac his son as a victim up to the altar,” is clear from other passages where the same phrase ( ) occurs. Noah “offering burnt offerings on the altar” {Gen 8:20} and Christ “offering our sins on the tree” {1Pe 2:24} might be interpreted either way, although the bringing up to the altar and to the tree does not seem so natural as the offering on them. But a passage in Leviticus about the offerings of the leper is quite decisive: “Afterward he shall kill the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meal offering upon the altar”. {Lev 14:19-20} It would be very unnatural to speak of bringing the victim up to the altar after it had been slain. {Comp. /RAPC Bar 1:10; 1Ma 4:53} The Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and all English versions agreed in this translation; and it is not a matter of small importance, not a mere nicety of rendering. In all completeness, both of will and deed, Abraham had actually surrendered and offered up to God his only son, when he laid him bound upon the altar, and took the knife to slay him-to slay that son of whom God had promised, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Then “was the Scripture fulfilled”; i.e., what had been spoken and partly fulfilled before Gen 15:6 received a more complete and a higher fulfillment. Greater faith hath no man than this, that a man gives back his own promises unto God. The real but incomplete faith of believing that aged parents could become the progenitors of countless thousands had been accepted and rewarded. Much more, therefore, was the perfect faith of offering to God the one hope of posterity accepted and rewarded. This last was a work in which his faith co-operated, and which proved the complete development of his faith; by it “was faith made perfect.”

“He was called the Friend of God.” Abraham was so called in Jewish tradition; and to this day this is his name among his descendants the Arabs, who much more commonly speak of him as “the Friend” (El Khalil), or “the Friend of God” (El Khalil Allah), than by the name Abraham. Nowhere in the Old Testament does he receive this name, although our Versions, both Authorized and Revised, would lead us to suppose that he is so called. The word is found neither in the Hebrew nor in existing copies of the Septuagint. In 1Ch 20:7, “Abraham Thy friend” should be “Abraham Thy beloved”; and in Isa 41:8, “Abraham My friend” should be “Abraham whom I loved.” In both passages, however, the Vulgate has the rendering amicus, and some copies of the Septuagint had the reading “friend” in 2Ch 20:7, while Symmachus had it in Isa 41:8 (See Fields “Hexapla,” 1. p. 744; 2. p. 513). Clement of Rome (10., 17.) probably derived this name for Abraham from St. James. But even if Abraham is nowhere styled “the friend of God,” he is abundantly described as being such. God talks with him as a man talks with his friend, and asks, “Shall I, Abraham that which hide from I do?” {Gen 18:17} which is the very token of friendship pointed out by Christ. “No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known unto you”. {Joh 15:15} It is worthy of note that St. James seems to intimate that the word is not in the sacred writings. The words “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness,” are introduced with the formula, “The Scripture was fulfilled which saith.” Of the title “Friend of God,” it is simply said “he was called,” without stating by whom.

“In like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?” It is because of the similarity of her case to Abrahams, both of them being a contrast to the formal Christian and the demons, that Rahab is introduced. In her case also faith led to action, and the action had its result in the salvation of the agent. If there had been faith without action, if she had merely believed the spies without doing anything in consequence of her belief, she would have perished. She was glorified in Jewish tradition, perhaps as being a typical forerunner of proselytes from the Gentile world; and it may be that this accounts for her being mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah, and consequently by St. James and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Talmud mentions a quite untrustworthy tradition that she married Joshua, and became the ancestress of eight persons who were both priests and prophets, and also of Huldah the prophetess. St. Matthew gives Salmon the son of Naasson as her husband; he may have been one of the spies.

But the contrast between Abraham and Rahab is almost as marked as the similarity. He is the friend of God, and she is of a vile heathen nation and a harlot. His great act of faith is manifested towards God, hers towards men. His is the crowning act of his spiritual development; hers is the first sign of a faith just beginning to exist. He is the aged saint, while she is barely a catechumen. But according to her light, which was that of a very faulty moral standard, “she did what she could,” and it was accepted.

These contrasts have their place in the argument, as well as the similarities. The readers of the Epistle might think, “Heroic Acts are all very suitable for Abraham; but we are not Abrahams, and must be content with sharing his faith in the true God; we cannot and need not imitate his acts.” “But,” St. James replies, (and he writes , not ), “there is Rahab, Rahab the heathen, Rahab the harlot; at least you can imitate her.” And for the Jewish Christians of that day her example was very much in point. She welcomed and believed the messengers, whom her countrymen persecuted, and would have slain. She separated herself from her unbelieving and hostile people, and went over to an unpopular and despised cause. She saved the preachers of an unwelcome message for the fulfillment of the Divine mission with which they had been entrusted. Substitute the Apostles for the spies, and all this is true of the believing Jews of that age. And as if to suggest this lesson, St. James speaks not of “young men,” as Jos 6:23, nor of “spies,” as Heb 11:31, but of “messengers,” a term which is as applicable to those who were sent by Jesus Christ as to those who were sent by Joshua.

Plutarch, who was a young man at the time when this Epistle was written, has the following story of Alexander the Great, in his “Apothegms of Kings and Generals”: The young Alexander was not at all pleased with the success of his father, Philip of Macedon. “My father will leave me nothing,” he said. The young nobles who were brought up with him replied, “He is gaining all this for you,” Almost in the words of St. James, though with a very different meaning, he answered, “What does it profit ( ) if I possess much and do nothing? “The future conqueror scorned to have everything done for him. In quite another spirit the Christian must remember that if he is to conquer he must not suppose that his heavenly Father, who has done so much for him, has left him nothing to do. There is the fate of the barren fig-tree as a perpetual warning to those who are royal in their professions of faith, and paupers in good works.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary