James 2

CHAPTER II

Respect of Persons, 2:1–13

The Folly and the Sin of Toadying to the Rich, v. 1–7

James 2:1

1 My brethren, do not let the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, (who is) the glory, be connected with respect to persons!

The friendly address “my brethren” introduces the new subject and bids the readers heed the admonition in a fraternal spirit. As believers in a Lord who is so glorious they ought not to make such improper distinctions among men; their faith ought to put them far beyond this common worldly practice. The ἐν phrase is adverbial; it should be noted that, when it is used with adverbs, ἔχω commonly means “to be.” So we do not translate “do not have” or “do not hold” but “do not let faith be in connection with” or “connected with.” The sense is: Keep it free from such a blemishing connection.

Προσωπολημψία is the act of being partial to a person when one sees who he is. A judge is guilty of this when he does not consider the just merits of a case but the standing of the man on trial. Men generally do this: if a friend does wrong, they close an eye and call it right; if a rich man or a powerful man comes along, they toady to him. Neither the plural nor the singular of this noun are Hebraic although the verb and its derivatives are Palestinian Greek, which is derived from the Hebrew nasa’ phanim, to lift the face on a person in the sense of being favorable or partial to him (M.-M. 553). It is said of God that he is no respecter of persons but is always fair, just, righteous to all.

ΤοῦΚυρίου is the common objective genitive after πίστις: “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” We have the same designation in 1:1. It here emphasizes his deity, his greatness, and his exaltation. The final genitive τῆςδόξης has caused much discussion, but most of it is regarding the construction, and less of it regarding the sense. It emphasizes the glory of the Savior in whom we believe, his exaltation in everlasting glory. We who believe in a Savior that is so infinitely glorious see the utter vanity of all earthly glory and rise above being impressed by it as worldly men are foolishly impressed. However it may be construed, this is the force of the last genitive.

Our versions construe: “the Lord of glory.” While this makes smooth English, the whole name and title, “our Lord Jesus Christ,” is a standard unit, which means that one word in it cannot well be modified in this way. Bengel and others regard the genitive as an apposition: “our Lord Jesus Christ” is called “the glory” as he is called the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light, etc. Others regard it as a qualitative genitive which is stronger than an adjective and translate “the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” or, “in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The view that “the glory” refers to “the Shekinah” does not commend itself. It is based on the strong Jewish character of James. The fact, however, is that James exhibits the most marked Christian character, and his language is clear, idiomatic Greek.

It is worth noting that here and throughout this epistle James deals with Christian conduct, but ever does so on the basis of “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,” in which James is one with his brethren. The entire substructure is soteriological, which also appears at every turn: the deity of Christ, his whole work as the Savior, our regeneration, our life in the gospel as the life of faith, etc. Stier exclaims: “Alas, this precious epistle has been in all ages too much misunderstood, and on that account too few have been found swift to hear it.… It is pre-eminently a New Testament writing and by no means a legal one.” To read it as being altogether Jewish is to read it through a veil.

James 2:2

2 “For” specifies by showing to what James refers. For if there comes into a synagogue of yours a man with a gold ring on his finger, in shining clothes, and, on the other hand, there comes in also a poor one in shabby clothes, and you look upon the one wearing the shining clothes and say: Thou, do thou sit here please! and to the poor one you say: Thou, do thou stand there! or: Sit thou on the floor by my footstool! did you not get into doubt in your own selves and get to be judges marked by wicked considerations?

The condition of expectancy (ἐάν) simply visualizes a case which may occur at any time. We take συναγωγή to mean “a synagogue of yours,” for James mentions the places in it: “here,” a prominent place, “there,” an obscure place. “Assembly” is not the meaning, for the fact that the congregation is assembled in its place of meeting is self-evident. The two contrasted visitors are outsiders; we take them to be Jews. The one is rich, high, ostentatious. The eye catches the costly ring on his finger and is struck by his brilliant clothing, very likely a flowing robe of pure white silk or of finest wool. The gentleman deigns to look in upon these Christians to see what their worship is like. Paul speaks of such visitors coming into the church of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14:23, 24).

Again, there comes in a poor man in a shabby garment. The eye at once notes his poverty, ῥυπαρά, compare the noun ῥυπαρία discussed in 1:21. He, too, has heard of these Jewish Christians and comes to see what their religion and their worship are like. The opinion that the Jewish Christians are still worshiping in the Jewish synagogue, and that what James depicts takes place in a synagogue that is composed of Jews and of Christians, cannot be accepted. Already in Jerusalem and at the very beginning of their history the Christians had their own meeting places, in fact, had to have.

James 2:3

3 James describes how the one wearing the garment, “the brilliant one” (the adjective is added by a second article and is like an apposition or a climax, R. 776), becomes the cynosure of all eyes and is obsequiously invited to a prominent seat, everybody being delighted at his condescension to visit them. Ropes points out that καλῶη scarcely means “in a good place” (our versions), but his view does not seem to be based on facts. In various Greek liturgies the minister directs the congregation: στῶμενκαλῶς, which seems to mean: “Let us stand, please!” although the Spanish liturgies translate: “Stand we all fairly!” The great gentleman is given a prominent seat with great deference. So much, James says, are you Christians still impressed by a gold ring and a bright rag!

But to the poor man no deference whatever is shown. He is told “to stand there” by the wall or wherever he can be wedged in in the rear; or else he is asked by someone to sit on the floor, close to the person’s footstool, where there is just room enough for a man to squat. We should remember that most people sat cross-leggedly on the floor, only more important persons had elevated seats, chairs, benches, etc. No one would think of treating the rich visitor in this fashion, oh, no! That is the point James makes. His readers are still respecters of persons in the evil sense of the word.

James 2:4

4 James brings this home to them with a double question: “Did you not get into doubt in your own selves?” and then elucidates this by adding: “And get to be judges marked by wicked thoughts?” Luther gives only the general sense: bedenket es nicht recht und macht boesen Unterschied. Some are puzzled by the aorists and call them gnomic, our versions thus translate them with present tenses. Gnomic aorists do not appear in specific, direct questions, they are universal and timeless. These aorists are quite regular: the readers got into doubt and became such judges before men such as the two described who came into their synagogue, consequently the readers act so when such men come in.

Διεκρίθητε and “became κριταί marked by wicked considerations” (the genitive is qualitative) are intended to match; hence the second half of the question illumines the first half. Among the various meanings that are possible for the first verb, “to doubt in yourselves” is after all the best. The faith of the readers should have taught them to show the same courtesy to all their visitors and not to make distinctions, not to judge according to considerations that are no less than πονηραί, not only “wrong” or “evil” but actively “wicked.” Since when does “the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (who is) the glory,” justify considerations which treat the man with a fine coat as being superior and the man with a shabby coat as being inferior? Is the soul of the one worth more than the soul of the other? Are not all men, rich and poor, equal in the house of God? Something is wrong with the faith of those who have not heard the Word of God sufficiently to learn this and to act on this elementary truth (1:22, etc.).

James 2:5

5 Listen, my brethren beloved! Did God not choose for himself the poor as regards this world, rich in connection with faith and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to those loving him? You, however, did dishonor the poor one.

The imperative requests attention to what follows and does it with the same loving concern that was manifested in 1:19. We note the vividness of the command, the question, and the assertion as if James had his readers before him. They certainly do not deny the outstanding fact that God chose for himself to be his chosen people “the poor as regards the world (dative of relation), rich in faith,” etc. They are poor in one respect, namely in regard to the world; they have precious little money, etc. But in another respect they are rich indeed, namely, ἐνπίστει, “in connection with faith” (the faith already mentioned in v. 1). This does not mean that their faith constitutes their riches, for their riches are “the kingdom” of which their faith makes them heirs.

This kingdom is “the crown of the (heavenly) life,” for regarding both this crown and this kingdom James says: “which he promised to those loving him”; on the designation “lovers of God” see 1:12. Their wealth consists of the heavenly kingdom of which they are joint heirs with the supreme Heir Christ (Heb. 1:2). As kings they shall join Christ and sit in royal splendor on his heavenly throne (1 John 3:2).

We do not regard the second and the third accusatives as predicative as the R. V. does: “to be rich in faith and heirs.” It would then be necessary to supply εἶναι. Then, however, the statement would be strange indeed. It would leave the impression that the earthly poor as a class were chosen by God to be believers and heirs of heaven. James is not speaking of the earthly poor in general but, like Paul in 1 Cor. 1:26, of the membership of the church, where we find “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,” but quite the contrary. Stier says: “Seek them in the cottages and under mean garments.” James would not say that the earthly rich are eo ipso debarred from the kingdom; in 1 Tim. 6:17–19 Paul tells the rich Christians what kind of people they must be. Earthly riches are a handicap as far as true faith is concerned; many a word of Jesus was spoken to this effect, and James has these words of Jesus in mind.

The object which James has in view is quite plain. The poor visitor at the services is far more likely to become a believer than the rich one; yet the readers treat the former with churlishness, the latter with obsequity. They ought to treat both with the same honorable friendliness. “You,” James says, “did dishonor the poor man” (representative singular, R. 408). You acted as if this were what your Christian faith had taught you whereas it taught you the very opposite. Look at your own numbers! How many of you would be heirs of the kingdom if God would act as you do?

Here James again operates with the great essentials, with faith, the kingdom, the promise or gospel, and with love as the fruit of faith. Those who regard him as a Jewish moralist apparently pass very rapidly over these great Christian fundamentals.

James 2:6

6 From the poor James turns to the rich. Do the rich not tyrannize you and on their part hale you to courts? Do they on their part not blaspheme the noble name, the one called upon you?

James is speaking of the rich Jews who were for the most part Sadducees and at this period (A. D. 35–65) were the tyrannous oppressors of the poorer Jews and thus also made a specialty of harassing Christian Jews. The Roman government allowed the Jews in the Diaspora a great deal of legal control over their own nationals. We see this when Saul carries letters to Damascus to arrest Christian Jews (Acts 9:2) and when he speaks of persecuting them “even unto foreign cities” (Acts 26:11). In Corinth the proconsul Gallio remands Paul’s accusers to the Jewish tribunal to try him there if he has been guilty of an infraction of Jewish law. Rich and powerful Jews in the Diaspora were thus able to maltreat poor Jews and especially Christian Jews by dragging them before their synagogue κριτήρια, courts or judgment seats.

This fact, which is so clearly reflected in our epistle, is one of the evidences for its early date. After the Jewish war broke out in the year 66 all this underwent a radical change. Αὐτοί is emphatic. Are they not the ones who drag you before courts? It is not said that all rich Jews were so ruthless. The next question which has another αὐτοί shows of whom James is speaking.

James 2:7

7 “Do they not blaspheme the noble name, the one called upon you?” Καλόν = excellent, illustrious, noble. James refers to the name of Jesus which was used in the baptismal formula: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This holy name, which makes the readers “heirs of the kingdom,” so many of these rich Jews revile or blaspheme. We need not tone down the word “blaspheme.” The expression “called upon you” occurs in the LXX (2 Chron. 7:14; Jer. 14:9; 15:16; Amos 9:12) with reference to those who were marked by God’s name as being his own (note: “God chose for himself” in v. 5). Plummer quotes Justin Martyr who lived at a later period: “That which is said in the law: ‘Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree,’ confirms our hope which is hung upon the crucified Christ, not as if God were cursing that crucified One, but because God foretold that which would be done by all of you (Jews) and those like you.… And you may see with your eyes this very thing coming to pass; for in your synagogues you curse all those who from him have become Christians” (Trypho, XCVI). The readers of James certainly have no reason for bowing and scraping obsequiously before some rich Jew when these rich Jews treat a poor Jew with disdain.

What One Transgression of Law Does, v. 8–13

James 2:8

8 James cuts off completely every evasion: If, however, you are carrying out a law royal (in its quality) according to the Scripture: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself! you are doing nobly; but if (in doing so) you have respect of persons you are committing sin, being convicted by this law as transgressors.

If the claim is made by any of the readers that by treating a rich Jew with such solicitude they are carrying out “law royal” in quality according to the Scripture passage (Lev. 19:18, repeated by Jesus in Matt. 22:39): “Thou shalt love (future in legal commands) thy neighbor as thyself!” James answers: “You are doing excellently.” There is no question about it; we should ever love our neighbor as ourself. Ἀγαπᾶν means to love with intelligent, purposeful love. James does not want his readers to mistreat a single rich Jew when he comes to their services or at any other time, no matter how vicious such a Jew may be.

A number of answers have been given to the questions as to why νόμοςβασιλικός is anarthrous and as to what “royal law” means. The article is absent because the term is wholly qualitative; hence it does not mean “the royal law”; nor is “royal law” merely equal to “thou shalt love,” etc., it is simply in accord with this Scripture, this Scripture being a formulation of “law” that is truly “royal” in its quality. It is “royal,” kingly, not because it emanates from God or from Christ as King; not because it applies to kings, or because it makes kings of those who obey it. It is “royal law” because it is sovereign over all other laws, is a law of such a quality that on it “hang all the law (Torah, Instruction) and the prophets” (the whole Old Testament, Matt. 22:40). “The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself!’” Gal. 5:14. Cf., 1 John 4:20.

James 2:9

9 But the readers must carry out truly what they are pleased to call “royal law,” an expression that is found only here in Scripture. Here is where their trouble lies: “Yet if (in your claim to carry out royal law as voiced, for instance, in this Scripture) you have respect to persons (treating one Jewish visitor in one way because his dress shows him to be rich, and another Jewish visitor far differently because his dress shows him to be poor) you are committing what is sin” (again qualitative and hence anarthrous); and that not because James says so but as “being convicted by the law (article of previous reference: by this very law) as transgressors”; for royal law forbids this very thing, to treat one man in one way, another in the opposite way.

James 2:10

10 With γάρ James elucidates in a simple manner. For whosoever guards the whole law but stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all points. For he who said: Thou shalt not commit adultery! said also: Thou shalt not kill! Now if thou dost not commit adultery but dost kill thou hast become a law-transgressor.

In the Koine we may have the indefinite relative and the subjunctive with or without ἄν; the sense is the same. We have the perfect twice in the main clause: γέγονε and γέγονας. The grammars seem to have some difficulty with this form. To call it “gnomic” (B.-D. 344; R. 897) does not explain the tense; it states only that the proposition is general; to call it a prophetic perfect (R. 898) does not explain it fully either. The case is one that is imagined: “Whosoever guards the whole law but stumbles in one point,” i.e., whoever may do this at any time, no matter when; by that fact of stumbling in one point “he has become guilty of all points” and ever remains so. The imagined case is in imagination treated as one that is looked back upon, and the perfect states the abiding result.

The claim that by treating the rich visitor with such deference while giving scant attention to the poor visitor love to the rich visitor is being shown (v. 8), is one that is often put forward: by doing such legal things as these men would shield themselves and think that this will let them escape when they fail to do other things of the law. James might have shown that it was not at all love that prompted the deference to the rich visitor. He has in a way done this when he charges his readers with respect to persons, which is certainly not in accord with “royal law,” with love. It is always a base thing, whether such respect is shown by a partial judge (a superior) or by poor people (inferiors) who cringe before the rich and the powerful. James takes up the deception at its very root, in its relation to the law itself. Since when is keeping a part of the law an excuse for transgressing some other part?

The very opposite is true: “These ye ought to have done and not to leave the other undone,” Matt. 23:23. To stumble in one point is to be guilty of all points.

James assumes an extreme case: that a man actually keeps the whole law and stumbles in only one point. He would not say that such cases actually occur: “For in many things we all stumble” (3:2). But assuming such a case, instead of the keeping of so much of the law covering up the one case of stumbling, the very opposite occurs; the one case of stumbling makes us guilty of transgressing the law in all points. A glass that is struck at only one point is nevertheless shattered. The law is not a set of ten pins, one of which may be knocked down while the others are left standing. The law is a unit, its unity is love; to violate it at one point is to violate love as such, the whole of it. We constantly tend to minimize our sins and thus to reduce our repentance and amendment of life; we need James to show us the whole damage of sin, the whole condemnation of the law, the full depth to which repentance must go.

James 2:11

11 James illustrates by using a simple example. It is the same God who said in his law: “Thou shalt not commit adultery!” and also: “Thou shalt not kill!” The aorist subjunctive and not the aorist imperative is used in negative commands; this aorist is peremptory. “Now if thou dost not commit adultery but dost kill thou hast become a law-transgressor.” Vice versa would also be true; likewise any other two specifications of the law. What is transgressed? Why, the law. The whole law condemns the transgressor of any part of it. Even in human courts no just judge will excuse one crime by referring to the noncommission of all other possible crimes.

He does not say: “Here are one hundred laws which this man did not break; hence his breaking of only one law does not count.” You need not touch an electric wire at a 1, 000 points, you get the full shock of the current by touching just one point. To transgress one commandment reveals the fact that you are not true to the law. From the generalizing “whosoever” used in v. 10 James advances to the direct personal “thou” in v. 11.

James 2:12

12 Instead of trying a subterfuge in order to excuse ourselves as regards the law, and thus by even a single transgression bringing down upon ourselves, who have many transgressions (3:2), its whole condemnation, James bids his readers to give up everything of this sort. So (ever) keep speaking and so (ever) keep acting as about to be judged by means of liberty’s law. For the judgment is without mercy for him who did not exercise mercy; mercy boasts against judgment.

Οὕτω … ὡς correspond. The former cannot refer to the preceding thought. James tells his readers ever to speak and ever to act (present, durative imperatives) as people who are about to be judged by God, not by means of the law, i.e., the Ten Commandments, two of which have just been quoted, nor by the summation of the second table (v. 8, 11), but by “liberty’s law” (both anarthrous nouns are qualitative). The readers will then escape the condemnation of the law. “Liberty’s law” will be their merciful salvation.

We see at once that everything depends on what James means by “liberty’s law” which repeats “law complete (in quality), the one of the (true) liberty,” occurring in 1:25—see the exposition already given. The Ten Commandments cannot be called “a law of liberty.” We think the commentators are not clear when they eliminate the gospel from this “law of liberty” and yet place this law in the heart (Jer. 31:33) so that we do the law freely of our own selves. How can this be done save by the gospel alone? See how Jer. 31:34 adds the forgiveness of sins. Even then we still sin and need constant forgiveness and cleansing from all unrighteousness (3:2; 1 John 1:8–10). James undoubtedly refers to both law and gospel when he speaks of “liberty’s law” which he also calls “the implanted Word, the one able to save your souls” (1:21), “truth’s Word” (1:18) which contains the promise of the crown of the life for those loving God (1:12). That is why this paragraph begins with “the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, (who is) the glory.” He warns us not to let this our faith become damaged or destroyed by such a sin as respect to persons (v. 1) and by playing off our supposed obedience to some commandments of the law against transgressions of this or that other commandment.

Ever speak and ever act, James says, as people who embrace the Word of God truly by living faith, and who are to be judged by Christ at the last day by means of this Word: “The Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day,” John 12:48. This Word is not a law of liberty because it liberates us from obedience to God’s holy commandments or even from a single point in any of them; the gospel itself and true faith impel us to this obedience. James twice calls us “those loving God” (1:12; 2:5); this love, the fruit of faith, does freely what God bids in the law; this is liberty indeed. Without it the law produces only slavery as Paul shows so completely. Our happiness is to be judged by means of the law of liberty. Blessed are we when we are doing the Word, doing it by believing and by loving (1:25).

When Christ judges us by liberty’s law he will do this as he himself has said in Matt. 25:34–40: he will treat all our good works as evidence of our faith, give us the promised crown (1:12) and the promised kingdom as those who love God (2:5). Though we have stumbled often, the repentance to which James continually urges his readers will liberate us from all guilt.

James 2:13

13 For, certainly, that last judgment is without mercy for him who did not exercise mercy. Has Jesus himself not said so in describing this judgment (Matt. 25:41–45)? What is all this about letting Jesus be hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, in prison, and doing nothing for him, but failure to exercise mercy? The commentary on our passage which is found in Matthew 25 is too plain to be overlooked. Yes, these people will say what Jesus states in Matt. 7:22; but see what an answer they have already received. Even doing the greatest works without faith in the gospel will leave them guilty in all points of the law.

Ἔλεος is “mercy,” the pity for those in distress. Read Hos. 6:6, and Matt. 9:13; 12:7. Glancing back at the poor man mentioned in v. 2, etc., we see that the readers should have been kind and merciful to him; but they were not. Where, then, were their faith and their love? James is not taking exception to a minor fault; he sees fully what is wrong and speaks plainly indeed. He continues to do so in the next section which has become famous although it is often misunderstood.

James closes most effectively: “Mercy boasts against judgment.” The unmerciful shall not find mercy in the judgment; the merciful shall boast even in the face of judgment. This is not the language of legalism, which would be farcical in view of v. 9 plus 3:2; it is the language of Christ and of the gospel (Matt. 5:7; 25: 5:40). “Mercy” is to be understood in the same sense as it was in the previous sentence, the mercy produced in the believer’s heart and life by the mercy of God, the evidence of true faith. Jesus will publicly acknowledge this mercy as an evidence of faith, and so it may indeed “boast against judgment,” no judgment condemns the man who has this evidence.

Barren Faith, v. 14–26

Lacking Its Works, Faith Is Dead, v. 14–17

James 2:14

14 As the right use of the law and the right trust in the gospel are associated in the mind of James, so true faith and works as fruit and evidence of faith naturally also are. This is the teaching of Jesus and of all his apostles. James presents it in a lucid and a simple way, and it is unfortunate that some do not understand James, which includes Luther (see the Introduction). What the profit, my brethren, if one declares to have faith yet does not have works? Is that faith able to save him?

Two self-answering questions penetrate to the bottom of the whole matter. The profit amounts to nothing. The faith which this man has is unable to save him. The second question which has the interrogative particle μή implies “no” as the proper answer. The address, “my brethren,” urges the questions upon the readers, who are not to be like the person that is introduced. Ἐάν with its two subjunctives pictures a vivid case, that of a person who asserts that he has faith and yet does not have works. His assertion amounts to this, that faith can exist without works. He declares and yet has not. We have two coordinate verbs, hence they are of equal weight; the second is not a mere subordinate participle.

Faith itself cannot be seen; it makes its presence known by a proper confession and by its proper and natural works. A tree is known by its fruits (Matt. 7:16–20). Now here there is a man who declares that he has true and proper “faith,” but everybody sees, and, in fact, he himself must admit, that he has not the “works” that belong to such a faith. He is like the man mentioned in 1:26 “who thinks that he is religious”; but this man says so and names faith as the ground of his claim. Yet he is one who has not works. To go back into the epistle: he, for instance, does not bridle his tongue (1:26), does not visit orphans and widows and keep himself unspotted from the world (1:27), and makes no true effort to carry out the royal law of love (2:8), has respect to persons such as rich worldly men (2:9), fails to show mercy (2:13).

The great question is: “Is that faith able to save him?” In the expression ἡπίστις the article is that of previous reference, “that faith” which he says he has but fails to prove that he has no matter what faith he may actually have. James has used the expression “able to save your souls” in 1:21 and now refers to the same salvation. As far as James is concerned, there is no question that true faith “saves,” but only true faith and not a fruitless thing that one may call faith. James has exactly the same conception of saving faith that Paul has when the latter declares that we are justified by faith without works of the law: a true and living trust in the Savior Jesus Christ (see v. 1). Paul does not have in mind one kind of faith when he says that faith without works saves while James has in mind another kind of a faith when he says that without works faith does not save. Both refer to identically the same kind of a faith, and both attribute to it regeneration (1:18), justification, and salvation.

Paul and James deal with different kinds of works. Paul deals with works of law which have nothing to do with true gospel faith, which are the boast of all Pharisees and all work-righteous men, who think that they are able to save themselves by such works, at least to aid Christ in saving them. Trust in works of law is the direct opposite of faith in Christ alone. James deals with gospel works, which ever evidence the presence of gospel faith, which, like this faith, glorify Christ alone, without which all claim of having true faith is spurious, a self-delusion. Both James and Paul attribute salvation to a living faith (Mark 16:16; John 3:16), but Paul lays stress on what must be removed if a man is to have and to retain this faith, James on what dare not be absent when a man has and wants to retain this faith. Paul roots out what destroys and excludes faith; James stimulates sluggish faith. The two are in perfect agreement; in the ethical parts of all his epistles Paul, too, calls for the fruits of faith.

We need not stop to figure out what kind of a faith this man has who lacks the true works of faith. It is certainly not a faith that saves him as James states. One of the strange phenomena is the fact that Luther, who had so little use for James, nevertheless writes in his famous preface to Paul’s Romans as he might well have written in a preface to James: “Oh, it is a living, active, energetic, mighty thing, this faith, so that it is impossible that it should not work what is good without intermission. It does not even ask whether good works are to be done, but before one asks it has done them, and is ever doing. But he who does not do such works is a man without faith, is fumbling and looking about him for faith and good works, and knows neither the one nor the other yet chatters and babbles many words about both.” If this is not the voice of James, whose is it—even down to the chatter and babble (1:19)?

James 2:15

15 James illustrates by referring to a case of charity that is not charity at all; the mercy that should reveal the presence of faith is absent, and this absence reveals the contrary. If a brother or a sister are naked and lacking of daily food, yet one of you should say to them: Go in peace; be warmed and be filled! but (if) you do not give to them the necessities for the body, what (is) the profit? i. e., what good is it to you?

While a double subject is ordinarily followed by a singular verb in the Greek, the difference in gender (masculine and feminine) makes a plural necessary here because the adjective and the participle cannot be repeated in two genders and must be masculine plurals and thus be followed by a plural verb. Two common needs are mentioned, lack of clothing and lack of daily food.

James 2:16

16 James asks, if in a case of this kind one of you should say to these needy ones (aorist: finish it off with this): “Go in peace; be warmed and be filled!” and yet give them nothing for their body, “what is the profit” (the same question as that asked in v. 14)? James means, what profit is there as far as proving real faith is concerned? Less than none. First, “one of you” and then the plural, “you should give,” is a variation such as Paul loves.

James is an excellent teacher. He takes a most ordinary case of poverty, in connection with which it would be an elementary act of Christian faith and brotherly love to extend at least some help. None is extended. Only words: “Goodbye, goodbye, be warmed and be fed—only I can do nothing for you!” We regard the verbs as passives and not as middle imperatives. The passives imply: “Let somebody else warm and feed you!” What do you think of a faith that produces such evidence?

James 2:17

17 James tells us what he thinks: So also this faith (the one the person referred to in v. 14 claims to have), if it have not works (supposing that the illustration is true), is dead according to itself, which does not mean “dead in itself” (nothing is ever dead in any other way) but “according to its own showing.” Having a special and an easy opportunity to show its life, it shows the very opposite. A dead tree, a dead branch fails to show life by not bearing fruit.

James states with utmost plainness what sort of a faith this is that fails to produce the fruits of faith. It may be some sort of a faith: fides generalis, as the dogmaticians say, faith that believes in God and in Christianity in a general way; fides historica, a faith that knows the outward facts of the gospel history and would not deny them; a fides dogmatica, one that is posted regarding doctrines and is perhaps keen to argue about them like the faith of some scientific theologians. It cannot be more than a mere notitia and assensus, a matter that was in the head, that dried up there and did not enter and vivify the heart.

Yet James by no means makes works help to constitute faith as if works were the life of faith, so that, when works are added, we have fides formata, while without works fides would be informata (the Catholic conception of faith, which is rather plain work-righteousness).* True gospel works are the native and the necessary product of faith. This faith, which saves before it ever does a single work, saves by embracing Christ and reveals itself by producing love and works of love, which, wherever they appear, show that real, saving faith is present. It is also the faith that stands trials (1:12, etc.) and overcomes temptation (1:2, etc.). Note “faith” in 1:3, 6; 2:1.

The only Kind of a Faith without Works That One May Have Is like That of the Demons, v. 18–20

James 2:18

18 A variety of interpretations of this passage is offered in the commentaries. They discuss a number of points, among them the questions as to who is meant by τὶς—σύ—ἐγώ; whether an objector or a supporter of James is speaking; how far his address extends; what the point of it really is. Some mention an alteration of the text or speak of a possible serious omission from the text. A great number of pages would be required to present the many different views, many of which find a rather involved thought in the few, simple words of the text whereas James expected his readers to understand him without difficulty.

James has just demonstrated (v. 14–16) and then stated (v. 17) that on its own showing the faith that has no works is “dead,” amounts to nothing (certainly cannot save). Somebody, it makes no difference who, will come and assure one or the other of the Christians to whom James is writing that what James tells them is a mistake: But someone will say (to one of you): Thou hast faith (real, live faith despite the lack of works and despite what I, James, say about this lack in v. 14–17), and I (James) have works (and only want to make them more important than they are).

This “someone” is any member of the church who himself has no works; he is the “someone of you” mentioned in v. 16 who, for instance, puts off the naked and hungry with nothing but empty words; he does not like what James is teaching, that faith such as this is dead. He thus assures the one and the other of the Christians who hears from James that such a man’s faith is dead: “Thou, why thou hast faith! James is making too much of works; just rest easy with your faith.”

Regarding me, James adds, this someone, of course, admits to thee: and I have works, and hence I make them so important for everybody. It is this ἐγώ that causes so many interpreters difficulty; they think that it must be identical with τὶς; it refers to the writer, to James himself. James could not use αὐτός, “he,” and the third person of the verb ἔχει because this would leave the readers at sea as to who “he” might be. He uses the straightforward “I.” When this someone actually spoke to a fellow member of the church, his words were: “and James (of course) has works.” When James himself quotes the man he naturally does not quote his own name but substitutes “I.” The thought of this “someone” is: “Let James have his works; they are not what he thinks they are. Do not thou, my friend, to whom I am speaking, worry about thy not having works!”

All pastors know that there is still many a “someone” about who tells his fellow church members the same comforting thing. Ever and ever it eases church members away from the noble and the ardent works of faith and of love of which they ought to have great sheaves to bring in on harvest day (Ps. 126:6). What such members do are not works of faith at all; what they do requires nothing as great and as vital as faith; it calls for only a little respectability, a little decency, and often only a little of this.

James now turns, not to this “someone” (as is often supposed), but to this “thou” whom “someone” seeks to mislead. In the simplest fashion James explodes the assurance which “someone” would offer to this “thou”: Show thou to me thy faith without the works! Just show it! “Someone” tells thee: “Thou hast faith.” If he is right, and if despite lack of works thou hast faith, go ahead and show that faith of thine without works! Thou wilt find it as I, James, tell thee, a dead thing. This “someone” says: “I (James) have works.” I, indeed, have works: and I will show thee from the works my faith; thou wilt promptly see the difference. If thy faith is without works it is dead; as shown by the works, mine is anything but dead. The fact that both κἀγώ are identical should be obvious; the fact that the second = James and thus also the first is plain.

As far as ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖτις is concerned, this formula is not like those found in 1 Cor. 15:35; Rom. 9:19; 11:19, and in secular discussions. Look at the three passages themselves—even the form is different; but what is of more import—the use is different. In our passage “someone” is not contradicting James, and James is not then answering this “someone”; “someone” is quoted who will say what he does to one of the Christian readers of James, and James offers to make the test with this reader. This is a much finer thing than merely letting an objector contradict the writer, and letting the writer then meet the objector’s objection. We have three persons and not merely two. We have two persons seeking to win a third.

It is also supposed that James imitates the moralistic diatribes of his times. I doubt that James ever heard or read one of them. James is a man of parts, direct in his thought, not a trained dialectician but practical in every way. He does independently just what such a practical man would do, and he does it by hitting the nail squarely on the head.

James 2:19

19 He delivers a second, still more stunning blow. “Someone” will tell this church member that he is right, that he has faith although it is a faith without works. If that is, indeed, the case, what sort of faith is it, what does it believe? James has called it a “dead” faith (fides generalis, historica, dogmatica, see v. 17). What is the content of such a faith? Thou believest that One is God. Thou dost well! Even the demons believe it and—shudder!

That is the kind of faith that this “someone” would persuade thee is a good enough faith for thee. Some think that James is asking a question: “Dost thou believe, etc.?” A rhetorical question is not out of place; but there is doubt on this point. We have several variant readings, but all of them have the same sense: “One is God.” In the expression εἷςἐστινὁΘεός, εἷς is the subject and ὁΘεός (although it has the article) is the predicate, and this expression should not be translated as it is in our versions: “there is one God,” or: “God is one.” The reason for this is the fact that this = Deut. 6:4, which since the exile formed the shemaʿ that was prayed religiously morning and evening by every Jew; in later times the shemaʿ was amplified by additions from Deuteronomy.

This summation of a faith that is dead is perfect in every way. James is writing to former Jews who certainly still prayed their shemaʿ regularly. The use made of it here to describe the contents of a dead faith would strike every reader, for it would make him think of the Jews—he was at one time among their number—who continually pray thus, whose faith is a dead thing, the fruits of it (as Heb. 6:1 and 9:14 tell other Jewish Christians) are “dead works” from which we need to repent and have the conscience cleansed.

There is no call for a discussion of Jewish and Christian monotheism at this place, or for Zahn (Introduction I, 97) to advance the conclusion that the “someone” referred to in v. 18 is a Jew. It is likewise not helpful to say that the shemaʿ would not express the dead faith of a Jew who had become a member of the Christian Church because he would in his dead way add the name “the Lord Jesus Christ” (cf., 1:1). The demons’ faith, as this was expressed by the demon spirits in the demoniacs, certainly acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God, but that did not improve their faith. Dead faith is ready to say “yes” to all the articles of faith. James is not listing all that such a faith accepts, for quantity is not the point.

“Thou dost well!” is certainly irony since it is followed by: “Even the demons believe it and—shudder!” The verb denotes terror which makes one’s hair stand on end. This comes like a thunderclap. No more stunning illustration of dead faith has ever been presented. Yes, even the demons have faith. Will this “someone” tell them that that is enough? Will he intimate that the demons are saved by their faith; that the Christian to whom he says: “Thou hast faith,” needs no better faith?

James 2:20

20 Δέ connects this verse with the foregoing. Now wilt thou realize, O empty man, that the faith without the works is barren? Is this not enough to make thee realize this and to stop listening to “someone” who would tell thee that this kind of a faith is enough? The infinitive means “to realize” and not merely “to know.” “O” is used sparingly in the Greek and thus is emphatic when it is used.

It sounds severe to call this church member an “empty man,” one who is hollow. Some have thought that κενός has the same force as ῥακά has in Matt. 5:22; we do not think so; the terms do not even resemble each other, to say no more. “Empty man” is the proper word. His head and his heart should have been filled with “the Word of truth” (1:18), with “the implanted Word” (1:21), so that he might know what true faith is, so that no “someone” could come and persuade him to be satisfied with a faith that is no better than that of demons.

The reading varies between ἀργή and νεκρά; we have “dead” in v. 17, and some scribe apparently inserted it here (A. V.). To call faith without works “barren” faith after calling it “dead” is certainly apt: dead things are barren. Even the wording ἔργων—ἀργή, “works—workless,” matches. “What the profit?” which was asked in v. 14 expresses the same thought. There is no profit at all, such a faith is barren of salvation, of any saving power.

When G. K. has the word mean only wertlos, “worthless,” its distinctiveness is erased. His added exegesis even Romanizes: “Faith (intellectually understood) is to a degree only the shell” and “attains its necessary fulness” by works, which would certainly be the fides formata of Romanism. The faith that is dead and barren is only intellectual or a mere sentiment; it never attains anything substantial. The faith that is not dead and barren, and that shows by its fruit of love and good works that it is not, is by no means merely intellectual; it is fiducia, the confidence of the heart, and hence moves our innermost being and thus saves. We have an illustration of what “barren” means when capital lies idle and draws no interest; but this is only one illustration.

Abraham’s Faith Had Works, v. 21–24

21–24) Abraham, our father, was not he declared righteous as a result of works when he brought up Isaac, his son, upon the altar of sacrifice? Thou seest that the faith was helping by means of his works; and as a result of the works the faith was brought to its goal, and the Scripture was fulfilled, the one stating: And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and he was called God’s friend.

Abraham is venerated as “the father of believers” to this day. In Rom. 4:10–12 Paul shows in a most striking way that Abraham is the father of believers, of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised. Being Jewish Christians, the readers of James wanted to be true spiritual sons of Abraham and have a faith exactly like his. When James calls him “our father Abraham” he refers to him as the great national ancestor of himself and of his readers; what James has to say about the spiritual connection with Abraham appears in the predications. In Romans 4 Paul naturally presents also the spiritual connection of the Gentile believers with Abraham, a connection that is fully on a par with that of all Jewish believers. Since he is addressing only Jewish believers before the question regarding Gentiles arose, James naturally says nothing in regard to the latter; a short time after this epistle was written, at the conference in Jerusalem, James takes his stand with Peter and with Paul regarding the Gentile believers who were then coming into the church.

The readers were not using the example of Abraham as a proof that faith without works is enough for salvation. James is not controverting this idea; he does not mention it. To introduce this idea is to start an unnecessary controversy.

The negative particle οὐκ implies that all of the readers of James will promptly assent to the fact, will not regard it subject to doubt, that Abraham was declared righteous ἐξἔργων when he brought his son Isaac up upon the sacrificial altar. Ἐκ refers to source. “By” in our versions is unsatisfactory. The works did not declare Abraham righteous; God did this, for he is the agent implied in the passive. The English “by” might denote means; but the Greek ἐκ is not used to express means, this would be expressed by διά or by a simple dative. God’s verdict on Abraham arose “out of” works: this verdict was the outcome, the result, of works. Although only the one great work is mentioned, the plural “out of works” is a plural of the category and is in place. To make one work the source of the verdict is to use works when doing so. The plural does not mean that this one work completed the line of Abraham’s works and thus finally secured the great verdict for Abraham.

Ἐδικαιώθη is the historical aorist, and the verb is as completely forensic in James as it is in Paul, as it is everywhere in the Bible, as it is in the Hebrew and in the Greek even outside of the Bible. It implies that God is the Judge who pronounces the verdict “righteous!” This significance has been established from every angle. The passive is a true passive and is not to be understood in the sense of the middle “became righteous”; it means “was declared righteous.” Ist or hat sich gerecht erwiesen (Calvin, Philippi), and dazu gelangen, dass man gerecht ist (von Hofmann), are wrong translations linguistically as well as Scripturally. The one Judge regarding righteousness is God, which fact nothing will ever alter. Δικαιοῦν and σώζειν, “to declare righteous” and “to save,” are not the same; to substitute the one for the other deflects us from the Judge, his judgment seat, his verdict, the relation into which this verdict places us. I may save a drowning man without pronouncing a verdict on him.

The participial addition is of the utmost importance. Since it is an aorist it may indicate an action that is simultaneous with or antecedent to the action of the main verb: “at the moment he brought up Isaac,” or “having brought him up,” “after he brought him up.” This point is immaterial, for it is settled by ἐκ: the verdict resulted “out of” the works.

The essential point is the fact that James is not speaking of the first verdict which God pronounced on Abraham when Abraham was first brought to faith. That occurred before Abraham had done a single work. That was a verdict ἐκπίστεως, out of faith alone. The content of this faith, which makes it the source of God’s verdict, is Christ, the Christ of the promise of the Old Testament and of the fulfillment of the New Testament. Paul presents this first verdict of God’s fully and with vigor in various portions of his epistles. James presents God’s subsequent verdicts.

The last subsequent verdict is the one which we all expect at the last day. We have it recorded in advance in full in Matt. 25:31–46. As James says, it will be rendered “not out of faith alone” (v. 23). Certainly not. If any subsequent verdict finds us without the works of faith it will find us with a faith that is at best dead and barren. The verdict on that faith is condemnation since such a faith could embrace Christ only outwardly.

Every subsequent verdict that finds us with the works of faith acquits us, declares us righteous, for the works of faith attest the genuineness of the faith which inwardly and truly clings to Christ. The most notable of these subsequent verdicts is the final one at the last day.

Like James, Paul, too, refers to these subsequent verdicts. That is why he constantly urges his readers to do good works (1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; Col. 1:10; 1 Tim. 6:18, to mention only these). It is the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount over again. Like James, Paul presents the final subsequent verdict as being one that is based on the works of faith (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:6; 14:12). This is again the preaching of Jesus in Matt. 16:27; John 5:29. Finally look at Rev. 2:23; 20:12; 22:12.

We have the same doctrine throughout. The supposed clash between James and Paul is not based on facts. As James, so Paul knows of no verdict of acquittal for a faith that is dead and barren. Every subsequent verdict must include the works of faith. From the time of its creation true faith must attest itself by corresponding works. “And thus it would really be time for theology to perceive as its own misunderstanding of James the misunderstanding about Paul which it saddles on James.” Beyschlag. See also v. 1.

There is no difference between James and Paul in regard to faith, good works, and declaring righteous. The difference that is sought in these terms with the object of harmonizing James and Paul fails of its good intent. Paul goes farther than James, for he is compelled to do so; he deals with the sinner’s first acquittal, which James has no occasion to do; he also deals with works of law, which James does not need to treat. The readers of James were inclined to evade good works and to rely on a dead faith; those of Paul to rely on works of law without Christ and true faith in him.

James selects the greatest work of Abraham’s faith, the deed which Abraham performed when he placed Isaac, his son, on the sacrificial altar. Review The Interpretation of Hebrews, chapter 11, 17–19, in order to understand this work of faith fully. Ἀνενέγκαςἐπί = “brought up upon the altar”; at this point, when Isaac had been placed on the altar, God intervened. James might have referred to some other work of faith that was done by Abraham, or he might have mentioned more than one work as the writer of Hebrews (11:8–19) does. Since this greatest work was the crown of all others it serves the writer’s purpose eminently. Abraham had already been declared righteous (Gen. 15:6, this, too, was a subsequent verdict); he was now again declared righteous by another subsequent verdict (Gen. 22:16–18). While the word “was declared righteous” does not occur in connection with the latter, no more decisive verdict was ever pronounced upon any man. It is well to bear in mind the fact that God has many ways of declaring righteous; note, for instance, how Jesus acquitted the malefactor, Luke 23:43.

James 2:22

22 While he still retains the singular “thou” James states what this act of faith on Abraham’s part meant: “Thou seest that the faith was helping by means of his works.” C.-K. 442, etc., is right: συνεργέω = “to help.” It does not mean “to cooperate with” as some suppose. C.-K. says that the entire connection becomes incomprehensible, and the very point of proof is destroyed, when it is supposed that a cooperation or working together is spoken of so that the works, too, become the workers; on the contrary, it is faith through which the works have value in that they attest the genuineness and the living quality of the faith; faith proves itself in our life by the fact that it acts, loves, suffers, etc. “Everywhere where the word occurs it speaks of help, assistance.” We add that only when the subject is plural does a cooperation occur, and it is then a cooperation of the parts of this plural subject alone (Rom. 8:28, πάντα).

The dative τοῖςἔργοις is one of means and is not due to the σύν in the verb. It is a current error that faith and works (or faith and love) pull together like a team of horses. Works are not independent, they cannot cooperate or stand in an equal partnership with faith. They are produced by true faith, and faith uses them as its means. The sense is: “the faith was helping by means of the works.” The imperfect tense leads us to expect a following aorist even as we are as yet not told to what Abraham’s faith was helping by means of his works.

Three historical aorists tell us this fact: “and as a result of the works the faith was brought to its goal, and the Scripture was fulfilled, the one stating: ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend.” To this outcome Abraham’s faith helped “by means of his works.” We once more have the phrase “as a result of the works,” and it now occurs in the statement that the faith of Abraham was brought to its great goal.

We should not translate ἐτελειώθη Abraham’s faith “was made perfect” (our versions), for this would leave a wrong impression. One might think that Abraham’s faith had hitherto been imperfect, had not been sufficient for God to declare him righteous. And the translation Abraham’s faith “was brought to completion” would leave the impression that Abraham’s faith had been incomplete until the time of the offering of Isaac so that God could not really justify him until Abraham brought this offering. In Roman Catholic phraseology: until the time of the offering of Isaac Abraham would have had only a fides informata; his work of offering Isaac then converted this faith into a fides formata, which was at last perfected or made complete. Only a Romanist believes that.

Ἐτελειώθη means that Abraham’s faith “was brought to its goal.” It is passive: God brought Abraham’s faith to its goal. God did this ἐκτῶνἔργων, “from out of the works,” i.e., these works that were involved in Abraham’s offering of Isaac, “as the outcome or result” of these works. God called upon Abraham to do these works in faith; Abraham’s faith helped by means of these works so that God brought Abraham’s faith to its goal as the outcome of works. The verb συνήργει leaves unsaid to what Abraham’s faith “was helping by means of his works”; we now learn to what it was, namely to the goal to which God wanted to bring his faith and did bring it. That, however, advances us only one step. We must now be told what this goal was to which God brought Abraham’s faith while God let Abraham help by means of his works, God brought Abraham’s faith to its goal as a result of these works.

James 2:23

23 We are now told this. The goal is the fulfillment of the Scripture passage concerning Abraham: “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” We again have the passive ἐπληρώθη: “and the Scripture was fulfilled, the one stating, etc.”; it was fulfilled by God. This reads like a reference to a prophecy or a promise, and such it is.

“Abraham believed God”; πιστενω with the dative does not mean that Abraham believed in God, but that he believed what God said. Thirty years before God called for the works of Abraham’s faith that were manifested in the offering up of Isaac, God spoke the great prophecy and promise that is recorded in Gen. 15:1–5, regarding which v. 6 states that Abraham believed it when he heard it, and that God reckoned his faith to him for righteousness. Scripture records this fact (Gen. 15:6). James says that thirty years later, when at God’s command Abraham, who had believed that prophecy and promise, offered Isaac and thereby, as it seemed, was about to destroy that prophecy and promise, God fulfilled this Scripture which is set down for us in Gen. 15:6, this Scripture about Abraham’s believing God, etc. The readers of James know how God fulfilled it. He did not overthrow that Scripture, did not cancel the prophecy and promise recorded in Gen. 15:1–5 and thereby make null and void the faith with which Abraham had for thirty years believed (Gen. 15:6), the faith which in this last supreme ordeal was ready to go as far as Heb. 11:17 indicates.

Although the command to sacrifice Isaac seemed a nullification of Gen. 15:6 it proved a fulfillment. God preserved Isaac.

At the time of this offering up of his son Abraham’s believing God thirty years before was vindicated. God maintained the prophecy and promise of thirty years before, which rested entirely on Isaac. Abraham laid Isaac on the altar, but God preserved Isaac without even raising him from the dead (Heb. 11:17). Abraham’s faith of thirty years before, which he had kept alive for thirty years, “was reckoned to him for righteousness.” God stood by that reckoning and that verdict of his when Abraham, still believing what God had said, laid Isaac on the altar. After his son had been preserved to him, Abraham heard the blessed words that are recorded Gen. 22:16–18, words which were even sealed with an oath. This was renewed assurance to Abraham’s faith that what God had said thirty years before would be fulfilled to the uttermost. To this goal Abraham’s faith was brought by God.

Yet—and this is the point which James would make—not without the works of Abraham but as a result of these works, i.e., as a result (ἐκ) of Abraham’s deeds when he did with Isaac what he had been told to do by God. This is the value of Abraham’s works of faith.

The subsequent verdicts of God, which declare a man righteous, have reference to a faith which produces these its proper fruits. Δογίζομαίτινιεἴςτι = “to reckon to somebody for something” and is the terminus technicus of Scripture for God’s act of declaring righteous, which C.-K. 681 defines: “Something is transferred to the subject (person) in question and reckoned as his, which he for himself does not have … it is accounted to the person per substitutionem; the object present (faith) takes the place of what it counts for (righteousness), it is substituted for it.” In these subsequent verdicts on Abraham his faith with all its works did not make him righteous, God merely acknowledged what Abraham had been made. Although he was not righteous but a sinner, God counted, reckoned, pronounced him righteous, and did that not because of the worth and merit of his act of believing but because of the value of what he embraced by believing. Abraham embraced the promised Messiah and the perfect righteousness of this Messiah (John 8:56) as it was offered to him in God’s promise. That is the substitution which is involved in God’s reckoning of faith as righteousness, acquitting the believer and pronouncing him righteous. See the further exposition in Rom. 4:3.

As a further result of the goal of Abraham’s works of faith James adds the fact that “he was called God’s friend.” This title for Abraham became current among believers. The genitive “of God” is not objective: “friend to God,” but subjective: God regarded and treated him as a friend. This statement does not occur in the Old Testament but is drawn from it. In 2 Chron. 20:7 Abraham is called “thy friend forever,” LXX, ὁἠγαπημένοςσουεἰςτὸναἰῶνα; in Isa. 41:8 “my friend,” LXX, ὃνἠγάπησα. While φίλος does not occur, we find Philo using it, and the church fathers, of course, also employ it. The Arabs still use it frequently: “Khalil Allah” (Allah’s friend), or simply “El Khalil” (the friend). Even Hebron, the city of Abraham, is termed “El Khalil.” The thought of James is that God reckoned Abraham as his friend because of the way in which Abraham’s faith showed itself in the works of faith.

James 2:24

24 From the facts regarding Abraham as they are recorded in this passage of Scripture (Gen. 15:6) and as they are amplified by Abraham’s offering up of Isaac we are able to gather what applies to faith in every person’s case. You perceive that as a result of works a person is declared righteous, not as a result of faith alone.

The rendering of the A. V. is more correct than that of the R. V., for μόνον must retain its emphasis. In the R. V. the emphasis is on “faith.” We have shown that James is dealing with God’s subsequent verdicts and not, as Paul, with God’s first verdict, when, as Paul states it in Rom. 4:5, God “declares the ungodly man (ἀσεβῆ) righteous.” Every subsequent verdict is drawn “out of works” and not “out of faith alone.” A dead and barren faith does not secure the verdict, let “anyone” say what he will (τὶς in v. 18a). The fact that these are works of genuine faith is evident; dead and barren faith has no works, it is dead and barren for that very reason.

When in Rom. 3:28 Paul writes χωρὶςἔργωννόμον, “without works of law,” these works are entirely different from the works of faith of which James speaks. Whatever lies at their root, whether it is a dead faith or not, their very name “works of law” shows that they have nothing to do with the gospel, which produces true faith and true works of faith. To rely on “works of law” in order to procure God’s favorable verdict, is to repudiate Christ and true faith in him. This is the truth that workers of law and Judaizers compelled Paul to set forth at length. James has people to contend with who imagine that they are able to retain God’s favorable verdict without the works of faith, who fail to see that they would then have only a dead faith. After telling them that such a faith is dead, without profit, and barren as far as salvation is concerned, James says that in the case of Abraham they may see that a person is declared righteous by God “not out of (ἐκ, as a result of) faith alone.” It is certainly true, as true as the fact that no person is declared righteous “as a result of works of law.” The present tense is used in general propositions.

Rahab’s Faith Had Works, v. 25, 26

James 2:25

25 James adds another illustration to the same effect. It is in contrast to Abraham in many respects. This is a woman, a pagan, who was a harlot during her life as a pagan. More noteworthy still. Abraham had believed for thirty years; but this pagan woman had recently come to faith when the Israelites were surrounding Jericho and sent their spies into the city. In Josh. 2:9–11 we have her confession of faith. Rahab is listed among the ancestors of Jesus, Matt. 1:5. Likewise, moreover, also Rahab, the harlot, was she not declared righteous when she received the messengers and hurried them out by another way?

“Likewise” makes Rahab’s a parallel case, and δέ adds it as one that has outwardly different features. James even has a parallel wording: the question, “was she not declared righteous?” Her name is placed forward with an apposition, her works are added by aorist participles. All this is exactly as it was in v. 21. R. 966 and 1128 let the participles state the reason or cause for which Rahab was declared righteous; see the identical construction of the participle in v. 21.

So young is this woman’s faith; yet because it was a genuine faith it had corresponding works: she received the messengers, she protected them, she hurried them off (ἐκβάλλω). James does not need to narrate all the details, his readers know them. Heb. 11:31 reads: “By means of faith Rahab, the harlot, did not perish with the disobedient ones, having received the spies with peace.” Throughout Hebrews 11, the great chapter on faith, each person’s faith is exhibited by his works, Abraham’s, for instance, at length. Like Heb. 11:31, James does not speak of Rahab’s justification in the sense of saving her soul. Her faith saved her from perishing “with the disobedient.” By God’s verdict she was not condemned to perish as were the rest of the disobedient in Jericho. We leave it at that, for even in the verdict of God regarding the preservation of her life we see a faith that is alive with works. Her subsequent history shows further, saving verdicts of God.

James 2:26

26 James once more sums it all up as he does in v. 17: For as the body without breath is dead, so also the faith without works is dead. The emphasis is on “dead” which was the decisive word also in v. 17. One dead thing is likened to another, namely a physically dead thing and a spiritually dead thing. We are able to see the former: “the body without breath”; nobody doubts its deadness. Faith cannot be seen because it is in the heart; but “the faith without works” is just as dead.

The tertium comparationis is found in the two χωρίς phrases: “without breath—without works.” Fault is found with this comparison. Breath and works are called incongruous as far as their relation to the body and to the faith is concerned. But this implies extending the tertium. Only in one point need there be congruity, and James certainly names that point: absence proving deadness. Absence of breath, deadness of the body; absence of works, deadness of the faith.

Our versions and others think that πνεῦμα means “spirit.” There is no reason for thinking that James intends to give πνεῦμα the meaning “spirit” and not “breath,” for if he had intended to name the animating principle of the physical body he would most certainly have used ψυχή, the regular term for this very thought.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

• One should understand the Catholic conception. As far as the Catholic is concerned, fides does not consist of knowledge—assent—confidence. Knowledge is not necessary, which claim Bellarmin states even drastically: Fides distinguitur contra scientiam, et melius per ignorantiam quam per notitiam definitur, faith is defined rather by ignorance than by knowledge. The elimination of confidence from faith is authoritative, Council of Trent, sess. VI, can. XII: Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, anathema sit!

Whoever says that justifying faith is fiducia, confidence in divine mercy, or that it is confidence aloneby which we are justified, let him be accursed! Thus, according to the Catholic conception, faith is only assent to what the Catholic Church maintains and requires. This assent is naturally informis or informata, lacking form or content. This content is secured by adding the works which the Catholic Church prescribes to the assent. Thus the fides informis becomes more and more fides charitate formata, the works, as it were, give body to the assent. All that the Scriptures say regarding πίστις cries out against this Catholic conception. Πίστις is knowledge, assent, and confidence, and the Greek word contains especially the idea of trust, confidence, fiducia, which is anathematized by the Catholic decree.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.