Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of James 2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
25. was not Rahab the harlot ] The question meets us, What led St James to select this example? St Paul does not refer to it, as he probably would have done, had he been writing with St James’s teaching present to his thoughts, in any of the Epistles in which his name appears as the writer. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 11:31) it appears as one of the examples of faith, but this was most probably after St James had given prominence to her name. In the mention of Rahab by Clement of Rome (i. 12) we have an obvious echo from the Epistle just named, with the additional element of a typical interpretation of the scarlet thread as the symbol of the blood of Christ, by which those of all nations, even the harlots and the unrighteous, obtained salvation. A more probable explanation is found in the connexion of St James with the Gospel according to St Matthew. The genealogy of the Christ given in ch. 1 of that Gospel must have been known to “the brother of the Lord,” and in it the name of Rahab appeared as having married Salmon, the then “prince” of the tribe of Judah ( Mat 1:5 ; 1Ch 2:50-51; Rth 4:20-21). The prominence thus given to her name would naturally lead him and others to think of her history and ask what lessons it had to teach them. If “harlots” as well as “publicans” were among those who listened to the warnings of the Baptist and welcomed the gracious words of Christ (Mat 21:31-32), she would come to be regarded as the typical representative of the class, the Magdalene (to adopt the common, though, it is believed, an erroneous view) of the Old Testament. A rabbinic tradition makes her become the wife of Joshua and the ancestress of eight distinguished priests and prophets, ending in Huldah the Prophetess (2Ki 22:14). Josephus ( Ant. v. i. 2), after his manner, tones down the history, and makes her simply the keeper of an inn. Another ground of selection may well have been that Rahab was by her position in the history the first representative instance of the deliverance of one outside the limits of the chosen people. In this instance also, St James urges, the faith would have been dead had it been only an assent to the truth that the God of Israel was indeed God, without passing into action. The “messengers” are described in Josh, Jos 6:23 as “young men,” in Heb 11:31 as “spies”.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works? – In the same sense in which Abraham was, as explained above – showing by her act that her faith was genuine, and that it was not a mere cold and speculative assent to the truths of religion. Her act showed that she truly believed God. If that act had not been performed, the fact would have shown that her faith was not genuine, and she could not have been justified. God saw her faith as it was; he saw that it would produce acts of obedience, and he accepted her as righteous. The act which she performed was the public manifestation of her faith, the evidence that she was justified. See the case of Rahab fully explained in the notes at Heb 11:31. It may be observed here, that we are not to suppose that everything in the life and character of this woman is commended. She is commended for her faith, and for the fair expression of it; a faith which, as it induced her to receive the messengers of the true God, and to send them forth in peace, and as it led her to identify herself with the people of God, was also influential, we have every reason to suppose, in inducing her to abandon her former course of life. When we commend the faith of a man who has been a profane swearer, or an adulterer, or a robber, or a drunkard, we do not commend his former life, or give a sanction to it. We commend that which has induced him to abandon his evil course, and to turn to the ways of righteousness. The more evil his former course has been, the more wonderful, and the more worthy of commendation, is that faith by which he is reformed and saved.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Rahab the harlot] See Clarke on Jos 2:1, c., and “Heb 11:31“, &c. Rahab had the approbation due to genuine faith, which she actually possessed, and gave the fullest proof that she did so by her conduct. As justification signifies, not only the pardon of sin, but receiving the Divine approbation, James seems to use the word in this latter sense. God approved of them, because of their obedience to his will and he approves of no man who is not obedient.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This instance of Rahab is joined to that of Abraham, either to show, that none of any condition, degree, or nation, was ever numbered among true believers, without good works; or else to prove, that faith, wherever it is sincere and genuine, is likewise operative and fruitful, not only in older disciples and stronger, such as Abraham was, but even proportionably in those that are weaker, and but newly converted to the faith, which was Rahabs case.
The harlot; really and properly so, Jos 2:1; Heb 11:31; though possibly she might keep an inn, and that might occasion the spies going to her house, not knowing her to be one of so scandalous a life; which yet the Holy Ghost takes special notice of, that by the infamousness of her former conversation, the grace of God in her conversion might be more conspicuous.
Justified by works; in the same sense as Abraham was, i.e. declared to be righteous, and her sincerity approved in the face of the congregation of Israel, when, upon her hiding the spies, God gave a commandment to save her alive, though the rest of her people were to be destroyed.
When she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way: her receiving them implies likewise her hiding them; both which, together with her sending them forth another way, were acts of love to the people of God, of mercy to the spies, and of great self-denial in respect of her own safety, which she hazarded by thus exposing herself to the fury of the king of Jericho and her countrymen; but all proceeded from her faith in the God of Israel, of whose great works she had heard, and whom she had now taken to be her God, and under whose wings she was now come to trust.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. It is clear from the natureof Rahab’s act, that it is not quoted to prove justification by worksas such. She believed assuredly what her other countrymendisbelieved, and this in the face of every improbability that anunwarlike few would conquer well-armed numbers. In this belief shehid the spies at the risk of her life. Hence Heb11:31 names this as an example of faith, rather than ofobedience. “By faith the harlot Rahab perished notwith them that believed not.” If an instance of obediencewere wanting. Paul and James would hardly have quoted a woman ofpreviously bad character, rather than the many moral and piouspatriarchs. But as an example of free grace justifying men through anoperative, as opposed to a mere verbal faith, nonecould be more suitable than a saved “harlot.” As Abrahamwas an instance of an illustrious man and the father of the Jews, soRahab is quoted as a woman, and one of abandoned character, and aGentile, showing that justifying faith has been manifested in thoseof every class. The nature of the works alleged is such as to provethat James uses them only as evidences of faith, as contrastedwith a mere verbal profession: not works of charity and piety, butworks the value of which consisted solely in their being proofs offaith: they were faith expressed in act, synonymous with faithitself.
messengersspies.
had received . . . hadsentrather, “received . . . thrust them forth” (inhaste and fear) [ALFORD].
another wayfrom thatwhereby they entered her house, namely, through the window of herhouse on the wall, and thence to the mountain.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot,….
[See comments on Heb 11:31] justified by works; this woman was an instance of the grace of God in calling the chief of sinners, and was a true believer; and what she did, she did in faith, Heb 11:31 and her faith was shown by her works to be true and genuine; and it was manifest that she was a justified person. This instance is produced with the other, to show, that wherever there is true faith, whether in Jew or Gentile, in man or woman, in greater or lesser believers, or in such who have been greater or lesser sinners, there will be good works; and therefore that person is a vain man that talks and boasts of his faith, and depends upon it, and slights and rejects good works as unnecessary to be done.
When she had received the messengers: the spies that Joshua sent, into her house, with peace and safety:
and had sent them out another way; than they came in, even through the window upon the town wall, Jos 2:1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Rahab the harlot ( ). Her vicious life she left behind, but the name clung to her always. For our purposes the argument of James may seem stronger without the example of Rahab (Josh 2:1-21; Josh 6:17; Josh 6:22-25; Matt 1:5; Heb 11:31). It is even said in Jewish Midrash that Rahab married Joshua and became an ancestor of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
In that she received (). First aorist middle participle of , to welcome.
The messengers ( ). Original meaning of (Mt 11:10). In Heb 11:31 we have (spies, scouts).
Sent out (). Second aorist active participle of , to hurl out.
Another way ( ). “By another way” (instrumental case), by a window instead of a door (Jos 2:15f.).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Rahab. Also referred to in Heb 11:31, among the examples of faith. Dante places her in the third heaven :
“Thou fain wouldst know who is within this light That here beside me thus is scintillating, Even as a sunbeam in the limpid water. Then know thou, that within there is at rest Rahab, and being to our order joined, With her in its supremest grade ’tis sealed. First of Christ ‘s Triumph was she taken up. Full meet it was to leave her in some heaven, Even as a palm of the high victory Which he acquired with one palm and the other, Because she favored the first glorious deed Of Joshua upon the Holy Land.”
Paradise, 9, 112 – 125.
Rahab became the wife of Salmon, and the ancestress of Boaz, Jesse ‘s grandfather. Some have supposed that Salmon was one of the spies whose life she saved. At any rate, she became the mother of the line of David and of Christ, and is so recorded in Matthew’s genealogy of our Lord, in which only four women are named. There is a peculiar significance in this selection of Rahab with Abraham as an example of faith, by James the Lord ‘s brother.
Sent them out [] . Better, thrust them forth, implying haste and fear. Compare Mr 1:12; Luk 4:29; Act 16:37.
Another way. Than that by which they entered. Through the window. See Jos 2:15.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) Moreover or similar to this, Rahab the harlot (innkeeper) who kept travelers in ancient times, was acquitted justified or declared righteous, when she of her own accord or in her own behalf, received God’s messengers, protected them and sent them away from the city on a safe road, Jos 2:15.
2) The sending of these messengers of God out on a safe journey, after having protected them, did not make her a child of God. It only showed that she had faith in God, their Redeemer and hers, and the message they were bearing, Heb 11:31; Jos 2:1; Jos 2:21; Jos 6:23.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25 Likewise also was not Rahab. It seems strange that he connected together those who were so unlike. Why did he not rather choose some one from so large a number of illustrious fathers, and join him to Abraham? Why did he prefer a harlot to all others? he designedly put together two persons so different in their character, in order more clearly to shew, that no one, whatever may have been his or her condition, nation, or class in society, has ever been counted righteous without good works. He had named the patriarch, by far the most eminent of all; he now includes under the person of a harlot, all those who, being aliens, were joined to the Church. Whosoever, then, seeks to be counted righteous, though he may even be among the lowest, must yet shew that he is such by good works.
James, according to his manner of speaking, declares that Rahab was justified by works; and the Sophists hence conclude that we obtain righteousness by the merits of works. But we deny that the dispute here is concerning the mode of obtaining righteousness. We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God. (120)
(120) The last verse is left unnoticed, —
Jas 2:26“
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works (or, having no works) is dead.”
The meaning is not, that works are to faith what the spirit is to the body, for that would make works to be the life of faith, the reverse of the fact; but the meaning is, that faith having no works is like a dead carcass without life.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Jas. 2:24. By works.That is, by the acts which indicate faith to be a reality, and alive.
Jas. 2:26. Dead.In the sense of being ineffective; mere helpless sentiment not moving, actuating principle.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Jas. 2:25-26
Justification by Works.The common misconception of Roman Catholic doctrine prevents our properly understanding the teaching of St. James. Justification by works is usually understood to mean justification by the strict and precise observance of prescribed religious duties. St. James has in mind acts of kindness, charity, and service, as the signs and expressions of faith in God. Rahab is no illustration of doing religious duties. She is the illustration of doing kindly service. She did a brave thing, and a wise thing, and a charitable thing, in hiding the spies, and getting them away safely, and she did this because she believed in God, and believed that these men were carrying out a mission from God. But should we have heard anything about Rahabs faith, if that faith had done nothingnothing but talk pious things? Her works proved her faith. She was accepted (justified) on the ground of her faith; but it was because that faith was real enough, vital enough, healthy enough, to do something. She was accepted for her works, because the soul of faith was in them.
I. Some works can never justify any man.Works done in order to form a basis of meritthese cannot justify, because they never can be so worthy or so perfect as to claim Divine acceptance. They may take different forms: good conduct; strained feeling; pious deeds. The hopelessness of them for justifying a man lies in a mans making his own terms of acceptance with God, and failing to get up to his own terms. If we are to claim justification, we must have an unquestionable ground of claim; and this man can never have, since he carries his moral imperfection into everything he does.
II. Some works will always justify a man.Such works as Abrahams and as Rahabsworks which were the simple, natural, and proper expression of a right state of mind and heart, and had no thought of merit in them, or thought of claim. Abraham did not aim, in trying to offer his son, to build up a merit. Rahab did not, in ministering to Golds servants, try to build up a merit. God accepted bothaccepted the state of mind and heart of both, accepted the soul of faith with its body of works, which together made a living sacrifice.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Jas. 2:25. Rahab read by her Motives.Did we fix attention on her manner of life, we should have to express severe condemnation. Did we fix attention on her actions in secreting the spies, and securing their safe departure, we could only give her very qualified praise, for it implied a failure in loyalty to her own country and people. But when we read her heart and her motive, the whole estimate of her life and conduct are changed. Faith in God may override loyalty to country. But she might have had her faith, and no one been the better for it, not even she herself, if it had not been a practical faith, and used its opportunity. She was justified in acting as she did, because she believed what she did. But her faith would only have been as the faith of many around her, a faith which was more fear than faith, if she had not acted. Read her in the light of her motives, and Rahab illustrates the truth that faith is justified by its works.
A Works-faith.What may be called a works-faith is illustrated in Rahab. Divide thus:
1. The faith she had.
2. The interests her faith opposed.
3. The opportunity that came for testing her faith.
4. The triumph of her faith.
5. The proof that it was accepted.
6. The reward of faith which could work. Point out that disabilities and disadvantages of outward circumstances need not prevent faith, though they must make struggle for it.
Jas. 2:26. A Truth that can be turned Two Ways.Faith without works is dead. That is the truth on which St. James insists here. But the converse is equally trueworks without faith are also dead. They are wholly ineffective for the justification of a man. Works are but routine, outward, material. Faith is but a sentiment, or a response of the human intellect to proofs. Neither works by themselves nor faith by itself can ever accomplish anything in relation to a mans justification and salvation. Put the two things together. Let faith put the man into the works, let the works verify the fact that the man is in the faith, then you have the living, the real faith, which is the condition of salvation on the human side. A mans body is a helpless thing save as quickened by the indwelling spirit. A mans spirit is out of all possible relations until it can get into them through the agency of a body.
1. Body is nothing without spirit.
2. Spirit is nothing without body.
3. The two in relation make a living being.
4. Faith is nothing without works.
5. Works are nothing without faith.
6. The two in relation make the ground of mans justification.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
FAITH MUST HAVE WORKS
(EXAMPLE NO. 3)
Text 2:2526
Jas. 2:25
And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by her works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
26.
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
Queries
170.
Of what nationality or from what people was Rahab?
171.
Why do you think James used her for an example when there were so many examples from Israel he could have used? (As in Hebrews 11.)
172.
Rahab was so positively identified as a law breaker (adultery and fornication are strictly forbidden in the law of Moses), how could it be said that she was justified by works?
173.
Do you think this justifies Rahabs lying to the soldiers who were searching for the spies hidden on her roof-top? (The account is in Joshua 2).
174.
What does Heb. 11:31 say about the reason for Rahabs being spared?
175.
How many times in this section (Jas. 2:14-26) has James repeated the thought that faith apart from works is dead?
176.
What is the meaning of dead?
Paraphrases
A. Jas. 2:25
In the same way Rahab, whose very occupation broke the law, was saved because she acted upon her faith by hiding the spies and telling them how to escape.
Jas. 2:26.
For just as the body is dead when it has no spirit, in the same way faith is dead when it has no works.
B.*Jas. 2:25 Rahab, the wicked woman, is another example of this. She was saved because of what she did when she hid those messengers and sent them safely away by a different road.
Jas. 2:26.
Just as the body is dead when there is no spirit in it, so faith is dead if it is not the kind that results in good deeds.
Summary
Rahab, the harlot, was a sinner, yet when she acted upon her faith she was justified; so faith must be coupled with action for justification.
Comment
Every person of every race upon the earth, of every sex; yes, and of every occupation and condition of life may find justification upon the principle of faith herein described. True, the occupation may of necessity be changed, and most certainly the condition of life may be changed by salvationbut the point is that every person may be justified if he so chooses.
Rahab was a Canaanite, a woman whose very occupation was a continual violation of one of the ten commandments, under the full weight of sin. Her sinful state would not be questioned by anyone with the remotest understanding of Gods revelation. The fact that she is here chosen as a case in point has at least two reasons.
First, her sinful state. The fact that man does not and cannot earn his way into heaven seems most evident in this particular example. It seems that some people would prefer to grade sins as they would grade a paper in school. The A- sins are very mild; while the B+, while still acceptable, are not quite so good. Perhaps here some would like to call them white lies. Most certainly many people would like to grade their sins between C-and A, mostly not so good, but passing! The F sins would include the ones committed by the other fellow, or the ones not continued by the person. The grading of sins is completely foreign to Gods revelation. All sins are F! There are no passable sins . . .
When a person realizes his own sins are condemningreally F grade, and he (with his sins) is completely unacceptable to God, then his salvation by works doctrine becomes completely inadequate. In despair he realizes that nothing he can do will earn salvation. He is absolutely incapable of undoing his sinful state. Rahab was an F grade sinner, as is every person. Of her state there is no doubt. Yet she found justification.
How many people in torment, filled with guilt complexes, knowing they do not deserve heaven, could find joy through justification in Christ Jesus! The fact that Rahab was justified, and her working faith was counted as if she were righteous, should give us hope too. We are justified by works, as James puts it, not by earning our salvation; but by the mercy of God, who counts a faith that works obedience in us as if we were righteous. Rahabs example is an argument for a faith completed by works, and against salvation by deserving works (i.e. the works of law).
Not only does James emphasize the works of Rahab in connection with her justification, but the details of her working conviction in God are clearly stated in the account of the Old Testament, (Joshua 2 and Jos. 6:23). Paul declares By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that were disobedient, having received the spies with peace. Thus Paul (assuming he wrote the Hebrew epistle) agrees with James. Her faith worked with, helped her works; and her faith was perfected by what she did; and she was justified because of that perfected (completed) faith.
The entire discourse is concluded with a final argument, an illustration. In repetition once again, he affirms that faith apart from works is dead, adding this to the conclusion in Jas. 2:24.
The illustration regarding body and spirit might not be put together in the expected manner. One might expect that the body and works should be partners, and that faith and spirit would be the counterparts. However, James joins the body with spirit, and faith with works. Through such an unusual statement, James emphasizes his point with all the more force. Even as the spirit is the quickening force that gives life to the body, so works is the perfecting force that gives life to faith. As the body has no fruit without spirit, so faith has no fruit without works. The simple, beautiful, and powerful illustration concludes his discourse on the great principle. It has been affirmed seven times within twelve verses. (Jas. 2:14; Jas. 2:17-18; Jas. 2:20; Jas. 2:22; Jas. 2:24; Jas. 2:26.)
Repetition has always been a means of emphasis and memory. It is extremely difficult to read this passage and miss the point! The sinner who reads the passage is not content to ask, What must I believe to be saved, but as on the day of Pentecost must ask, What must we do? (Act. 2:37). The Christian who reads is forced to the conclusion that a genuine life of obedience and surrender of action to the will of Christ is necessary for his justification by grace. This, of course, is applicable in all fields: in morality, in work, in recreation, in worship. Instead of affirming in typical faith-only fashion, for me to believe is Christ, let us affirm with the apostle Paul, for me to live is Christ! (Php. 1:21; Gal. 2:20).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(25) Likewise also . . .The second example, brought forward in strange and complete contrast to Abraham, the father of many nations, is that of Rahab, the harlot, who received and sheltered in her house at Jericho the two spies sent out from the camp of Israel (Joshua 2). The evil name of the poor womans unhappy trade cannot truthfully be softened down to innkeeper, nor even idolater.
Sent them out.Literally, hastened, or thrust them forth, showing her haste and fear.
It may not be out of place to notice that Clement, Bishop of Rome, one of the Apostolic Fathers, in his first letter to the Corinthians, sees in the scarlet thread which Rahab bound in her window a type of our Redeemers blood. And it is most remarkable, as showing the mercy of God, that this outcast of society was not only saved alive and brought into the fold of Israel, but became a direct ancestress of her Saviour, by marriage with Salmon, the great-great-grandfather of David (Mat. 1:5).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. Rahab the harlot See note, Heb 11:31.
Received the messengers An act resulting from her faith in Jehovah, God of Israel, performed bravely in spite of danger, terminating in her incorporation into the people of God and into the line of the Messiah. Note, Mat 1:2. As it was through her memorable adhesion to Israel that Israel came into Canaan, her faith was a hinging fact in Israel’s history, and so commemorated with great interest.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?’
James then brings a second example out of the Old Testament, the example of Rahab who hid the spies when Joshua was about to invade Canaan. Here he is giving an example of a Gentile who also evidenced the same truth, for his message is to both ex-Jews and ex-Gentiles. There in Jericho there was one woman whose heart had been stirred to believe in the God of Israel. And as a result, when the spies came she fed then and hid them, and then arranged for them to escape. And what did this prove? That she believed in the God of Israel and trusted that He would have mercy on her. But how did Israel know that she was a believer, and that they must spare her, even though everyone living in Jericho apart from her and her family had to be killed? And the answer is, because of what she did, because of her works. By this she was seen as righteous (justified) in the sight of Israel. By this they knew of her faith.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jam 2:25. Was not Rahabjustified by works, It ought to be observed, that Rahab is not here celebrated for “lying, and betraying her country to its enemies,” as some have objected. With respect to lies, they are every where condemned in the Holy Scriptures, and the truth is represented as sacred and inviolable: and as to the inhabitants of her country, they were devoted to destruction because of their idolatry and other great vices, and she appears to have been assured of this by a divine revelation, as well as by the events which had happened (see Jos 2:9; Jos 2:24.). Her discovering of the spies would not have prevented the ruin of the nation. The lie which Rahab told is not to be vindicated, but was a crime partly owing to her fear, and perhaps partly owing to her being educated among a loose and idolatrous people. What she is here commended for, is her faith, her ready renouncing of idolatry, and acknowledging the true God; and her acting, in consequence of that faith, in the manner which she apprehended most agreeable to the divine will. Whatever Rahab once was, she proved afterwards a pious and holy woman. See Jos 2:1; Jos 2:24 particularly Jam 2:9-11.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jas 2:25 . To the example of Abraham, that of Rahab is added: But was not in like manner Rahab the harlot justified by works? The form of the sentence is the same as in Jas 2:21 .
] does not signify “even so” (as Frommann explains it in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 97), but by the similarity of what Rahab became a partaker with what happened to Abraham is brought forward, whilst by the diversity of the relation is indicated. This diversity is noted by the addition . Rahab, namely, was a ; nevertheless, on account of the works which she did (namely, her works of faith), she was declared righteous. Thus, by the addition of this example, the truth that a man is justified is yet further confirmed. [158] The article is not, as some expositors think, demonstrative illa; and means neither mulier cibaria vendens, nor caupona vel hospita (Lyranus, Grotius), nor idololatra (Rosenmller).
. . . ] This participial sentence mentions the , on account of which Rahab was justified. The correctness of the assertion, that Rahab was justified on account of her works, consists in this: that, according to the narrative contained in Jos 2:6 , life was on account of them granted to her, she was formally delivered from that punishment which befell Jericho; see Jos 6:24 . Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what was said in Jas 2:24 to this fact, since also the future declaration of righteousness will be an acquittal from punishment.
In Heb 11:31 the deliverance of Rahab is ascribed to her , but so that her action is likewise mentioned as the demonstration of it. Theile explains = clam excepit; but Wiesinger correctly observes: “The secondary meaning clam is not contained in the word, but in the circumstances;” see Luk 10:38 ; Luk 19:6 ; Act 17:7 . In the Epistle to the Hebrews the simple verb is used, and the [159] are there more exactly designated as . is not simply cmittcre (Schneckenburger), but has the secondary meaning of force = thrust out; comp. Luk 8:54 ; Joh 2:15 ; Act 9:40 . It denotes the pressing haste with which she urged the messengers to go out of the house. ] i.e. by another way than from that by which they entered the house, namely, , Jos 2:15 . For the local dative, see Winer, p. 196 [E. T. 273].
[158] Bede assigns as a reason why Rahab is here adduced as an example: ne quis objiceret Abrahamum ejusque fidem excelsiorem esse, quam et quivis christianus imitatione eam adsequi possit. Grotius thinks: Abrahami exemplum Hebraeis ad Christum conversis sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis scribit, adjunxit exemplum feminae extrancae (similarly Hofmann); and Schneckenburger observes: novum additur exemplum e sexu muliebri sumtum. All these meanings are, however, arbitrary, as there is no indication of them in the words before us. This holds also good against Lange, according to whose opinion Rahab is here to be considered “as a representative of the Gentile Christians in their works of faith.”
[159] Lange strangely supposes that James has chosen this expression “in allusion to the fact that the Gentiles of his time were ready to receive the messengers of the gospel.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Ver. 25. The messengers ] Gr. The angels, so Luk 7:24 ; Act 12:15 . See Trapp on “ Act 12:15 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25 .] The example of Rahab . Various reasons have been assigned for this example being added. Bed [8] says, “Ne se causarentur opera tanti patris Abrah imitari non valere, prsertim cum nullus eos modo cogeret Deo filios offerre perimendos, addit et mulieris exemplum, mulieris criminos, mulieris alienigen, qu tamen per opera misericordi, per officium hospitalitatis, etiam cum periculo vit su Dei famulis exhibitum, justificari a peccatis meruit” &c. Grotius, “Abrahami exemplum Hebris ad Christum conversis sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis scribebat, adjunxit exemplum fmin extrane:” and similarly Hofmann, Schriftb. i. 557. Schneckenburger, “Novum additur exemplum e sexu muliebri sumptum:” and so Bengel, “Post virum ponitur mulier: nam viros et mulieres appellat,” ch. Jas 4:4 (see note there). When Delitzsch, on Heb 11:31 , assigns as a reason that der Paulinismus had already used this example to prove justification sola ex fide , he does not necessarily assume the later date for our Epistle. See the whole matter discussed in the Prolegomena. And (the brings out the contrast of the example, again affirming the Apostle’s proposition, to the , which has been just denied. Huther understands the as bringing out the dissimilarity between the examples implied in ) in like manner (with Abraham) was not Rahab the harlot (not “caupona” or “hospita,” as Grot., not “idololatra,” as Rosenmller, but to be taken literally: see on Heb 11:31 ) justified by works, when she received (not necessarily “ clam excepit ,” as Theile, see reff. It may be so, but the word does not express it. The word in Heb. is ) the messengers ( , Heb 11:31 ), and thrust them forth (in haste and fear. Jos 2:15-16 ; is not simply ‘emittere:’ see reff.) by another way (viz. , Jos 2:15 LXX. For the local dative, see Rom 4:12 ; Rev 22:14 ; and Winer, 31. 9)?
[8] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Jas 2:25 . : It must probably have been the position already accorded to Rahab in Jewish tradition that induced the writer to cite an example like this. In Mechilta , 64 b , it is said that the harlot Rahab asked for forgiveness of her sins from God, pleading on her own behalf the good works she had done in releasing the messengers. The attempts which have been made to explain away the force of are futile.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
also. Should follow “harlot”.
sent . . . out. App-174.
another. App-124.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] The example of Rahab. Various reasons have been assigned for this example being added. Bed[8] says, Ne se causarentur opera tanti patris Abrah imitari non valere, prsertim cum nullus eos modo cogeret Deo filios offerre perimendos, addit et mulieris exemplum, mulieris criminos, mulieris alienigen, qu tamen per opera misericordi, per officium hospitalitatis, etiam cum periculo vit su Dei famulis exhibitum, justificari a peccatis meruit &c. Grotius, Abrahami exemplum Hebris ad Christum conversis sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis scribebat, adjunxit exemplum fmin extrane: and similarly Hofmann, Schriftb. i. 557. Schneckenburger, Novum additur exemplum e sexu muliebri sumptum: and so Bengel, Post virum ponitur mulier: nam viros et mulieres appellat, ch. Jam 4:4 (see note there). When Delitzsch, on Heb 11:31, assigns as a reason that der Paulinismus had already used this example to prove justification sola ex fide, he does not necessarily assume the later date for our Epistle. See the whole matter discussed in the Prolegomena. And (the brings out the contrast of the example, again affirming the Apostles proposition, to the , which has been just denied. Huther understands the as bringing out the dissimilarity between the examples implied in ) in like manner (with Abraham) was not Rahab the harlot (not caupona or hospita, as Grot., not idololatra, as Rosenmller, but to be taken literally: see on Heb 11:31) justified by works, when she received (not necessarily clam excepit, as Theile, see reff. It may be so, but the word does not express it. The word in Heb. is ) the messengers (, Heb 11:31), and thrust them forth (in haste and fear. Jos 2:15-16; is not simply emittere: see reff.) by another way (viz. , Jos 2:15 LXX. For the local dative, see Rom 4:12; Rev 22:14; and Winer, 31. 9)?
[8] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Jam 2:25. , and Rahab) Having made mention of an illustrious man, Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, he brings forward a woman (for he addresses men and women; ch. Jam 4:4), and one who was a Gentile, and had led an abandoned life, that no one may require works from Jews only.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
was: Jos 2:1, Mat 1:5
the harlot: Mat 21:31
justified: Jam 2:18, Jam 2:22
when: Jos 2:19-21, Jos 6:17, Jos 6:22-25, Heb 11:31
Reciprocal: Jos 6:25 – because Son 1:8 – go
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jas 2:25. Rahab was justified by works in the same sense as that of Abraham. (See the comments at verse 21.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jas 2:25. The second example which James adduces is that of Rahab.
likewise also was not Rahab. The same example, and the same incident in Rahabs history, is also adduced by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as an illustrious instance of faith. The example is not so obvious as that of Abraham; and we can assign no sufficient reason why it was selected by both writers.
the harlot: to be taken in its literal sense, and not to be considered as equivalent to innkeeper.
justified, namely before God.
by works when she received the messengers, and sent them out another way. This was certainly a work springing from her faith; it arose from her firm belief in the God of Israel. Indeed, Rahab herself gives this as the reason of her conduct: I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon as, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. The Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and in the earth beneath (Jos 1:9; Jos 1:11). Her receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way, was therefore a proof that her faith was real and living. By faith, says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace (Heb 11:31). Her deliverance from death is to be ascribed to her faith, but it was to her faith as active. Thus did she manifest the reality of her faith. Her faith cooperated with her works, and by works was her faith made perfectreceived its full realization; and in this sense she is said to be justified by works.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle declares, that Rahab was justified by a working faith, as Abraham was before her, which appeared in her entertaining the spirits, lodging them in her house, and dismissing them with all possible privacy, which was a notable evidence of her faith in the God of Israel, her faith being accompanied with great self-denial, and exposing her to a mighty hazard. Indeed, Rahab’s faith was mixed with great infirmity, she told a lie; but that is overlooked by God, and her faith only recorded, not her failing divulged. Rahab’s lie, Sarah’s laughter, Job’s patience, are not mentioned: we discover corruption in the very exercise of our graces; but Oh! how good a master do we serve, that pardons our infirmities, and accepts our sincerity!
Learn hence, that the duties and services of believers, though blemished with many defects, do find acceptance with God, and shall not fail to be rewarded by him. Rahab’s faith was seen in receiving the spies, her weakness and infirmity appeared in her lying; God pitied and pardoned the one, and accepted and rewarded the other.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Rahab’s Example
Our body is a temporary dwelling place which will one day be put off. ( 2Co 5:1 ; 2Pe 1:13-14 .) It was made from dust and will return to dust at death. ( Gen 2:7 ; Gen 3:19 ; Ecc 12:7 .) Roberts says the spirit is “the animating principle of life.” So, a body apart from the spirit is dead and will only decay. James concludes faith apart from works is also dead and will rot ( Jas 2:26 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Jas 2:25-26. Likewise also, &c. After Abraham, the father of the Jews, the apostle cites Rahab, a woman and a sinner of the Gentiles, to show that in every nation and sex true faith produces works, and is perfected by them; that is, by the grace of God working in the believer, while he is showing his faith by his works: see note on Heb 11:31. Rahabs faith consisted in her attending to, and reasoning justly on, what she had heard concerning the dividing of the waters of the Red sea for a passage to the Israelites, and concerning the destruction of Sihon and Og. For from these things she concluded that the God of the Israelites was the true God, and sole Governor of the universe; and, firmly believing this, she renounced her former false gods, and concealed the Israelitish spies at the hazard of her life. In this she showed a disposition of the same kind with that which Abraham showed, when he left his country and kindred at Gods command. And as Abraham, for that great act of faith and obedience, was rewarded with the promise of Canaan, so Rahab, as the reward of her faith and works, was not destroyed with the unbelieving inhabitants of Jericho. For as the body without the spirit is dead Has no sense or feeling, no vital heat, action, or energy, but is a mere carcass, how fair and entire soever it may appear, and will at length fall into putrefaction and dissolution; so such a faith as is without works is dead also Now appears as a carcass in the sight of God, is useless, yea, loathsome and offensive. Two things, then, of great importance must be attended to on this subject. 1st, That the best outward works without faith are dead; they want their root and vital principle; for it is only by faith that any thing which we do is really good, as being done with an eye to the glory of God, and in obedience to him. 2d, That the most plausible profession of faith without works is dead, as the root is dead when it does not vegetate, when it produces no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we must see to it that we have both. We must not think that either of them, without the other, will justify and save us. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we must take care that we stand in it.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 25
Rahab the harlot. For the account of the circumstances here referred to, see Joshua 2:1-24: Her belief in Jehovah, as the true God, (Joshua 2:11,) led to correspondent action. It was therefore a faith showing itself in works.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
Certainly these picture works as a part of justification. However we need the following verse to qualify how we understand the rest of the context.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
2:25 {13} Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
(13) A forth reason taken from a similar example of Rahab the harlot, who was proved by her works that she was justified by a true faith.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
James could have ended his argument about the "revered patriarch" Abraham, but he chose to add the illustration of Rahab, the "redeemed prostitute." [Note: Blue, p. 826.]
"Rahab . . . is superbly suited to tie the strands of his thoughts together. This passage had begun, as we have seen, with an allusion to his theme of ’saving the life’ (Jas 2:14; Jas 1:21). Not surprisingly, therefore, Rahab is selected as a striking example of a person whose physical life was ’saved’ precisely because she had works." [Note: Hodges, The Gospel . . ., p. 32.]
Apparently Rahab trusted in God before the spies ever arrived at her door (cf. Jos 2:9-13). Rather than being originally part of the Israelite nation she was a proselyte to Judaism. Thus with these two examples James showed the necessity of works for believers regardless of one’s background and origins. Abraham and Rahab were poles apart.
"The contrast is neat: Abraham, a major Bible figure; Rahab, a minor participant. Abraham the father of the faithful; Rahab a foreigner. Abraham the respected; Rahab the disreputable. Abraham a man; Rahab a woman. As so often, the contrast is intended to alert us to the fact that a fully comprehensive statement is being made-as it were, covering the situation all the way from Abraham to Rahab and back again. The primary works of faith, then, are the works of Abraham and Rahab and they apply to all without exception.
"What was the work of Abraham? He held nothing back from God. God said, ’I want your son’ and Abraham ’rose early in the morning’ (Gen 22:3) in prompt obedience. What was the work of Rahab? She reached out and took into her own care those who were needy and helpless, regardless of the cost to herself." [Note: Motyer, pp. 115-16.]
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.