Bible Commentaries
James 2

Verses 1-4

Jas 2:1-4

SECTION 4
James 2:1-13

RESPECT OF PERSONS
James 2:1-4

1 My brethren,-With this warm and friendly phrase, characteristic of James, a new theme begins. This brotherly address was the manner in which the writer often began a fresh topic. (James 1:19; James 2:5-6; James 3:1; James 5:7.) Inasmuch as it was his intention to rebuke the brethren to whom he wrote for serious and repeated infractions of the law of love, it was fitting that this subdivision should thus begin. For the significance of the word "brethren," the implications involved in its use, and the lessons applicable to us today therein, see the comments on James 1:2.

hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.---"The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," (ten pistin tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou) is not, of course, the faith which Christ exercises; it is the whole of the Christian religion, represented under the phrase, "the faith," where a vital part thereof it made to stand for, and represent, the whole of it. James is saying here, "My brethren, do not hold to Christianity and at the same time show partiality and special concern for those who are rich or highly favored of the world." It is, in effect, to say: Don’t try to be a Christian and a hypocrite at the same time! The disposition which prompts one disciple of the Lord to entertain and exhibit favoritism for another, on external grounds, and because of worldly considerations, is wholly foreign to the spirit of Christianity, and a violent perversion of genuine religion. Christ is identified in the passage as "the Lord of glory," not without much significance in the connection in which it appears. Its meaning is much the same as "the glorious Lord," and was doubtless introduced to show that in spite of, and despite the poverty and extreme humiliation to which he was subjected while on earth, his is now a position of great glory, a glory which he offers to his humble disciples, and grounded in Christian character, not on fame or worldly possessions.

This "faith" Christians are not to hold "with respect of persons." "Hold not," is me echete, present active imperative of echo, with the negative; i.e., quit having the habit of holding the faith in such fashion. It will be observed that here, and often elsewhere in the Epistle, the writer repeatedly returns to his theme that it is impossible for one properly to approach God in worship if the heart is not right, or if the conduct is corrupt. Though James is filled with injunctions the design of which was to impress his readers with the necessity of practical religion, ever emphasized is the fact that such will result in a blessing only when purity of heart and life characterize the worshipper.

"With respect of persons," is from en prosopolepsiais, compounded from the nouns prosopon (which means face, countenance), and lempsia, derived from lambano, to receive, thus, literally, to receive face! As used here, it signifies to show regard for the external circumstances of another, and to exhibit favoritism on the ground of rank, wealth, social position, worldly attainment and fame. It is this disposition which James condemns, and which our Lord so sharply rebuked while on earth. (Luke 20:21.) Partiality, based on worldly or material considerations, is so far removed from the true spirit of Christ, that for any of the disciples to exhibit such is a violent perversion of the Christian religion. For other instances of the word, see Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25. God does not show respect of persons, and neither may we. It was this which impressed Peter in the incident of the great sheet: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34.)

Having seen that all are equal before God, and that it is sinful to show respect of persons from worldly considerations, inasmuch as every disciple is entitled to the same privileges in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29), it is an extension of this beyond proper bounds to imply that there are no differences obtaining between men. We are taught, in the New Testament to "honor the king" (1 Peter 2:13), and to pray for those in high places (1 Timothy 2:2).

Elders, deacons, aged men and women, dignitaries, men of great faith and courage, are often singled out, in the Scriptures, and declared to be worthy of special regard for their works of faith, their labors of love, and patience in hope they exhibit. (1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Timothy 3:13; 1 Timothy 5:1-3; Hebrews 11 :lff; 2 Peter 2:10-11.) What is taught is that there is no place for worldly acclaim in Christianity, and that all such reverence in public worship is unseemly and sinful. Inasmuch as God is no respecter of persons, neither should we be.

2 For if there come into your synagogue---"Synagogue," (sunaagogen), from sun, with, and ago, to gather, thus, literally, to assemble with, meant, in the apostolic age, (a) a congregation assembled; (b) the place where the assembly took place. It seems quite obvious, from the context, that it is the first of these meetings-a congregation assembled-which is intended here. If to us today it appears strange that a Christian writer, addressing Christians regarding conduct in a Christian assembly should, nevertheless, refer to the event under a Jewish appellation, let it be remembered that the religious background of the writer and the people to whom he wrote was wholly Jewish; that these impressions lingered for a long time; that the Jewish influence was strongly felt and exhibited throughout the apostolic age; and that terms were of necessity used which would convey as fully as possible to Jewish people the mind and message of the Spirit through James.

a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing,---Occasionally a man of means would visit the assemblies of the saints and, as has ever been characteristic of many people, the disposition to fawn upon such, and to show them special honors, was a temptation to which men in every age have been subjected, and to which they sometimes yielded. The phrase, "a man with a gold ring," is, in the Greek Testament, aner chrusodaktuli-0s, literally, a gold ringed man! This indicates that such a one would be possessed of many rings, and would wear them in ostentatious fashion. An ancient writer mentions one man who wore six rings on each finger, day and night, and did not remove them when he bathed. The historians record that Hannibal, after a great battle in which his forces were successful, sent three bushels of gold rings from the fingers of Roman knights killed in the conflict as a trophy to Carthage. Moreover, the man in the mind of the writer, in addition to the grand display of rings which he wore, was arrayed "in fine clothing," (en estheti lampria, brilliant, gaily colored garments), which attracted much attention from those less endowed.

and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing ;---This poor man, in the illustration, was much worse off than we ordinarily mean by the adjective poor today. The word is ptochos, a beggar (Matthew 19:21), one dependent on the charity of others for his very livelihood, not simply one with but little of this world’s goods, yet with a sufficiency for living. His apparel, in sharp contrast with that of the richly bedecked man described above is described as "vile clothing," (en rnparai estheta, squalid, cheap, perhaps dirty). Though their economic status is as different as day and night, and though, in social rank, they are as far apart as the poles, they are both in church, and there stand equal before God who respects not the persons of men.

3 and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing,---How characteristic of men so to do, and what common human weakness is here evidenced! "Ye have regard for," is epiblepsete de epi, aorist active subjunctive of epibelpo, to gaze with favor upon, and thus to be impressed, as in this instance, with the dazzling gold ornaments, and the brilliant display of clothing worn by the affluent man.

and say, Sit thou here in a good placc;---(Su kathou hode kalos), "You (emphatic) sit here in a good place"; i.e., a place of honor and prestige. The most coveted place in a synagogue, to a Jew, was near the end of the building, facing Jerusalem, and where the ark in which the sacred roll of the law was kept. In the illustration which James uses, of course based upon actual observance, the visitor is escorted to the most favored place in the building and with great deference there seated.

and ye say to the poor man, stand thou there, or sit under my footstool;---There is thinly veiled contempt in the words of the usher to the poor man, and no regard whatsoever shown for his comfort. He is not invited to sit in the usual places at all; he is rudely told to stand ; he is not escorted to any place ; but coldly instructed to find his own; with a contemptuous wave of the hand, the usher says, in effect, "Stand there, or sit, if you must, under my footstool, the place where I rest my feet." For a visitor to be required to stand, while the regular attendants sat was extreme discourtesy; and it was little better to be permitted, grudgingly, to sit under the stall where the people usually placed their feet. It was James’ intention to show, in this striking contrast, the difference people are disposed to make between the rich and the poor, and to condemn such. In view of this, what must our Lord think of that attitude of mind and heart which often prompts people, themselves alleged suppliants before the throne of grace and in need of much mercy, to array themselves in the most ostentatious garments possible, and to parade down the aisles of New Testament church buildings preening like peacocks to the admiration of some and the envy of others?

4 do ye not make distinctions among yourselves,---The phrases "do ye not make distinctions," and "among yourselves," both have marginal readings, in the American Standard Version of the Scriptures, thus indicating a difference in view among the translators as to the preferred rendering. For, "do you not make distinctions," there is the footnote, "are ye not divided," and for "among yourselves," the footnote reads, "in your own mind." Where the footnotes placed in the text, the passage would read, "Are ye not divided in your own mind .. .. " The verb, "make distinctions," is, in the Greek text, diekrithete, first aorist passive indicative of diakrino, to separate; and, the construction of the sentence is such that an affirmative answer was expected from the question raised. The verb is translated "doubteth," in James I:6, and in similar fashion in Acts 10:20, and Romans 14:23.

There is, therefore, two possible interpretations, depending on whether the translation in the text, or in the footnotes, is followed. If the first, the meaning is, "Do you not recognize differences among you based upon material considerations? Is it not true that you fawn upon the rich, when they enter your assemblies, and do you not treat with contempt the poor?" If the second, the meaning is, "When you show partiality, on the basis of economic standing or other material and worldly considerations, were you not exhibiting doubt (disbelief) in the teaching of our Lord who straitly forbade all such in his teaching?" In view of the fact that the word translated "distinctions" is used uniformly to express doubt, in the New Testament, it would appear that the second of these interpretations is the more probable one. The phrase which follows, "and become judges of evil thoughts," supports this view. The conduct of those to whom James wrote (the verb indicates that they were practicing the things which he condemned here) was such that they were wavering between what the Lord taught regarding fame, riches, social standing, and the like, and the temptation to show special favors to those well circumstanced. To use one of James’ phrases, they were men of two minds; i.e., "double-minded." (James 1:8.)

and become judges with evil thoughts?---These people had, by their exhibition of favoritism toward the rich, resulting from the wavering of their faith, become "judges with evil thoughts." The word "judges," is from dialogismon, from dialogismos, reasoning. The word is a legal term ; and, as here used, describes the litigation which resulted from the conflicting views which they felt, producing the doubt earlier mentioned. The conflict which existed in their minds, between what they knew the Lord taught regarding the rich and riches, and their desire to show preferential regard for such made them a court of conflict! These conflicts were as pronounced as would be the opposing views of lawyers arguing a case in court.

From this section we learn that it was evidently quite unusual for a rich man to visit an assembly of the saints. The appearance of such a man was so exceptional that when it occurred considerable excitement prevailed, prompting the brethren to exercise themselves unduly in assigning to him the most honorable seat possible. Such a disposition was highly displeasing to God with whom there is no respect of persons. In his sight, all men are equal in privilege and promise; and with him, one soul is a precious as another. It is evil to show honor to any man simply because he wears better clothing, lives in a more pretentious house, or has a bigger bank account. What prompts people to show special regard for the rich? Usually the motive is a selfish one. There is lurking in the back of the mind the idea that some day it may be necessary to ask favors of the rich, and it is therefore expedient to flatter them. Why bother with the poor? They can never do anything for us, anyway. Ah, how many sins stem from simple selfishness !

Verse 5

Jas 2:5

GOD’S REGARD FOR THE POOR
James 2:5

5 Hearken, my beloved brethren;---Compare statements beginning, in similar fashion, at James 1:2; James 1:19; James 2:1; James 2:14; James 3:1; James 3:10; James 4:11; James 5:7; James 5:12; James 5:19. To "hearken," is to hear with attention. James would have his readers to give special attention to what he was about to write, in view of the practices which he was rebuking. Immediately preceding this is a sharp reprimand; it is followed by this brotherly and tender address, breathing the very spirit of love, interest and concern for those to whom he wrote. These contrasts appear regularly in the Epistle. All of us should give careful attention to these matters. They are as important and pertinent to us today as for those originally addressed. The sins which the sacred writer condemns are no less common now.

did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith,---This question is cast in a form requiring an affirmative answer. That God has indeed chosen the "poor as to the world," is evident from the fact that far more poor people serve him than do the rich. The Lord has ordained that the poor shall be possessors of the blessings of his kingdom ; and, of this fact he frequently made mention. (Luke 6:20; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.) This, of course, does not mean that the choice was arbitrary and without regard for the character of those chosen ; indeed, the passage declares that those thus chosen are "rich in faith," a phrase which contrasts their spiritual endowments with the preceding one, "poor as to the world." The manner in which God chooses people is clearly indicated in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, where it is affirmed that the divine call is through the gospel (which is to all men, Mark 16:15-16), and that belief of the truth, (an act of men) is essential thereto. The poor outnumber the rich among those God has thus chosen simply because the poor are much more likely to obey God than the rich are. This passage does not assert that the Lord chooses people because they are poor; poverty, o.: itself, is not a blessing; nor, is the mere possession of wealth a sin. There are exceedingly good rich men, and extremely bad poor men. The meaning is that the poor are much more likely to be "rich in faith," than the rich are (who have far greater temptation), and inasmuch as God favors the poor for this reason, we ought not to reverse his order and favor the rich over the poor. The choice should always be made on the ground of richness of faith rather than on the basis of worldly and material possessions. Far better it is to be "poor as to the world," and "rich in faith," with the blessings which attend such, than to be possessed of all the gold of Ophir and the cattle on a thousand hills and to be impoverished in faith.

and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?---A second characteristic of those who are "poor as to the world," but "rich in faith," is that they are "heirs of the kingdom," (kleronomous tes basileias, inheritors of the kingdom, those who shall some day receive the blessings thereof by right of descent). To be an heir, in New Testament usage, is to be related to God in such fashion as properly to receive that which descends from a father-son relationship. (1 Peter 3:9.) This relationship begins with the new birth (John 3:3-5; cf. Colossians 3:24 ; Ephesians 1:18; Matthew 5:5), and such expressions as "eternal life,’’ (Matthew 19:29), "an inheritance incorruptible," (1 Peter 1:4), and the "eternal inheritance," (Hebrews 9:15), are based on this relationship, and they continue and extend the figure thus used. To be an heir of the kingdom is, therefore, to be in that line of descent from God so as to be properly entitled to inherit that which belongs to him, and which he holds for his children.

It is important to take note of the fact that the kingdom contemplated here is not the kingdom set up on the first Pentecost following our Lord’s resurrection, but the eternal kingdom which will result from the abdication of Christ at the end of this, the Christian age. (1 Corinthians 15:20-28.) That the kingdom referred to here is the heavenly aspect of Christ’s kingdom is evident from the fact that those who love him, who are rich in faith, and have been chosen, are already in the kingdom which had its beginning on the eventful Pentecost day. (Acts 2:1-47.) See Matt. 16: 1820; Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13-14; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:9. The kingdom, now in existence, is entered when one becomes a subject of Christ ; the aspect of the kingdom mentioned in our text is that which Christians shall be privileged to enter at the last day, provided they have added to their faith the graces which adorn the Christian character. (2 Peter 1:5-11.)

It is this kingdom which God has p1·01nised to the poor who are rich in faith, though poor as to the world. It is to such that the kingdom of heaven belongs, a fact often asserted and emphasized in the Scriptures. (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32.) However, the future aspect of the kingdom, and the blessings associated therewith, exist only in promise, and it is a perversion of the Scriptures to insist that that which is only in promise is, at the same time, enjoyed in realization. The eternal life which begins with the realization of the promise will be enjoyed only on entrance into the future kingdom. (Mark 10:30; Titus 1:2; 1 John 2:25’.) Those passages which assert that children of God are in possession of eternal life now (John 3:16), must, in harmony with the foregoing considerations, be regarded as teaching that such life is enjoyed in prospect-not in actuality. Life that is eternal never ends. If Christians possess such today, it is impossible for them to lose it,. and thus fall from grace. It is absurd for one to affirm today that one is in actual and literal possession of eternal life, yet concede the possibility of apostasy. How can that which is eternal end! There are more than twenty-five hundred warnings to the saints in the Scriptures touching the possibility of apostasy. One meets such on every page; it is not possible to open the Scriptures without seeing either directly or indirectly this fact taught. For example, "Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5:4.) "And thou Solomon, my son know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for Jehovah searcheth all hearts and under standeth all the imaginations of the thoughts. If thou seek him he will be found of thee; but if thou iorsake him, he will cast thee off for ever." (1 Chronicles 28:9.)

We may, therefore, from the foregoing premises conclude that (a) the father-son relationship begins with the new birth; (b) those born again enter the kingdom of Christ on earth over which our Lord reigns today, and in which the Spirit dwells; (c) those thus positioned are heirs and, consequently, inheritors of the blessings of the future kingdom; (d) for them that divine inheritance awaits; (e) while on earth and before the consummation of all matters to occur when the Lord returns they are in possession of the promise of these future blessings which, in summary, consist of eternal life; (f) actual realization will be when they are granted the abundant entrance into "the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:5-11.)

Though these blessings are in promise today, of the ultimate fulfillment thereof, we may entertain no doubt whatsoever, provided we are faithful and persevere to the end. (Revelation 2:10.) The promise of God is sure, and on it we may safely rely. (2 Peter 3:9.) God is faithful who promised; and, he will not fail us, if we do not fail him! "Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." (Romans 11:22.)

The promise is to those who love him. Here, indeed is the acid test; for it is love for him which prompts to faithful obedience to him: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him ; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. (1 John 2:4-5.) The phrase, "to them that love him," is, literally, to those loving him, (tois agaposin auton); i.e., to those who continue to love him, and who evidence this love by faithful obedience to his will.

Verses 6-7

Jas 2:6-7

OPPRESSION BY THE RICH
James 2:6-7

6 But ye have dishonored the poor man.---These to whom James wrote had done this by giving preferential consideration to the rich, and by treating the poor with contempt. Notwithstanding the fact that the poor were far more likely to obey the Lord than the rich, there were those among James’ readers who exhibited favoritism for the rich because they were rich, and showed disdain for the poor because they were poor. In so doing, they "dishonored" the poor man. The word translated "dishonored," (etimasate, aorist active indicative of alimazo, to degrade), means much more than merely to ignore, disregard; as here used, it signifies to put the poor in a state of degradation and to withhold from them the respect which they deserved. The attitude was more than a passive one; these thus rebuked showed contempt for the poor, and this involved active disrespect. This was to reverse God’s attitude in such matters. "Thou, 0 God, did prepare of thy goodness for the poor." (Psalms 68:10.) "For Jehovah heareth the needy." (Psalms 69:33.) "I know that Jehovah will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the needy." (Psalms 140:12.) See, also, Job 5:15-16; Job 36:15; Psalm, 9:18; 72:12, 13; 109:31; Jeremiah 10:13.

The statement, "But ye have dishonored the poor man," is an exceedingly vivid and impressive one in the original text. "But," (in contrast with the way God feels about such matters,) "You," (emphatic), "on your part, far from exhibiting the same high regard for the poor that God does, have treated him with the grossest disrespect and contempt." Their actions, in the matter, were wicked, because they were at variance with God’s will and way; and, as the next verse indicates, were lacking in good judgment. To dishonor the poor is a grevious sin, because it is an officious intermeddling with the plan of God. If God assigns to the poor a position of honor, how dare mere man to disregard it, and to set up a standard of his own ? Solomon said, "He that despiseth his neighbor sinneth ; but he that hath pity on the poor, happy is he." (Proverbs 14:21.) Distinctions among men, of whatever nature other than on Christian character, were especially obnoxious to James, and by him frequently condemned in the Epistle.

Do not the rich oppress you,--- In addition to the lack of Christian charity evidenced in the fawning favoritism some were manifesting toward the rich, the attitude was one of absurdity, and wanting in good sense ! The rich, whom they were favoring over the poor, were the very ones who had added to their misery through much persecution and oppression. The word for "oppress" in the text is a significant one, being katadunasteuousi11, compounded from kata, down; and dunastes, ruler, potentate; and reveals that already the early Christians were suffering tyranny from the hands of rich Jews in positio~s of authority and influence. The Greek, freely rendered, is, "Do not the rich lord it over you ?" Among the Sadducees of that period were many powerful Jews who were privileged by the Roman government to exercise considerable authority in the local courts of the Jews. There are numerous instances of such persecution from this source in Luke’s inspired history of the early church. (Acts 4:13; Acts 13:50; Acts 19:19.)

and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?---Not only did these wealthy Jews oppress (bear down hard upon) the poor of the period, they frequently "dragged" (a vivid expression which continues in use to this day of individuals brought into court against their wills), where, under the pretense of legality, there was exacted from them what little they possessed. The "judgment seats," before which they were "dragged" were probably synagogue courts. Though the Jewish people were under the subjection of the Roman government (which maintained an army of occupation in Palestine at the time), they were permitted the privilege of conducting both civil and religious courts in which were heard matters of litigation involving the religion and business affairs of the Jewish people. Into these courts rich Jews often had the poor brought and by their power and influence had actions decided in their favor and against the poor, however just the cause of the latter might be. It should be noted that these were not Christian rich men, but unbelieving Jews who oppressed and evilly treated the Christian Jews among the early disciples. This situation is cited by James to show the absurdity of the practice which prevailed among some Christians of the time to show undue regard for the rich because they were rich, and to despise the poor because they were poor.

It is worthy of note that the only other instance in which the word translated "oppress" in the text occurs, is in Acts 10:38, where it is said that Christ healed all that "were oppressed" of the devil. The actions of the heartless rich people of the period were comparable to that of the devil himself. How lacking in good sense it was to show servility to such characters solely on the ground that they were rich.

7 Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called?---The antecedent of "they" is the rich. (Verse 5.) In addition to the oppression and exactions characteristic of those people they blasphemed the good name by which the early disciples were called. "Blaspheme," is from blasphemousin, present active indicative of blasphemeo, derived from blasphemos, evil speaking. They slandered the name which the disciples wore; and this evil speaking was not momentary or occasional, they did it over and over so the tense of the verb indicates. They habitually blasphemed the name. This name is described as "honorable," from kalos, good, noble, excellent. The phrase, "by which ye are called," is, to epiklethen eph’ humas, literally, which is called upon you, and such is the marginal rendering in the American Standard Version. The verb called is from epikaleo, aorist passive participle, and signifies to assign a name to, to place a name upon. This name was most surely that of Clirist, pronounced upon us in baptism. (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38), and which Christians gladly wear because given by divine authority. (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 Peter 4:16.) It is a further indication of the fact that James, who was prominent in the Jerusalem church, is the author of the book which bears his name, that an expression similar to the words to epiklethen eph’ hmnas, "which is called upon you," occurs from his mouth in Acts 15:17, it being a quotation from the Septuagint (the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek) in Amos 9:12.

Verses 8-13

Jas 2:8-13

JasTHE ROYAL LAW
James 2:8-13

8 Howbeit.---This word, (not translated in the King James’ Version), from the Greek mentoi, indicates the connection between that which follows, and that which precedes it, in the text. It appears to be used adversatively, and to imply. that James’ readers were attempting to justify their conduct toward the rich on the ground that they were simply obeying the royal law of love which requires one to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. In this event, the statement is to be understood in the light of the following facts: The writer had condemned all undue regard for men simply because they are rich. The disciples might say, in reply: "Our regard for them is no more than we are expected to exhibit, in view of the fact that the law requires us to love our neighbor as our selves." The apostle answers: "It is good if you keep the law; however, since your neighbors include those both rich and poor, why have you honored those who are rich, and have despised the poor? It is all very well to plead the law in justification of your acts, but ’If ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.’ Thus, the very law which you offer as justification of your act condemns you because it forbids respect of persons, and so convicts you of being transgressors of the law."

Less likely is the view that the statement is designed merely to confirm what had earlier been penned. Favoritism· and partiality toward the rich, and a corresponding disregard for the poor, by Christians, is a violent perversion of the law of love, and is thus sinful. In this event, the meaning would be: "If you really fulfill the royal law, which requires you to love your neighbor as yourself, it is good; but, if you continue to show respect of persons, as you have been doing by favoring the rich and dishonoring the poor, you commit sin, and transgress the law of God yourselves." The law, which they affected to observe, positively for. bade all such distinctions: "Thou shalt not wrest jutstice: thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a bribe; for a bribe doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the yvords of the righteous." (Deuteronomy 16:19-20.) It is highly inconsistent to cite the law in justification of one’s actions in one matter, and disregard and violate the law in another matter.

if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the Scriptures,---"Fulfil," (teleite, present active indicative of teleo, to bring to completion, perfect, fill full), designates the obligation all sustain to the law. It is our responsibility to permit it to accomplish in us its futl purpose, and to see to it that its requirements are met as fully as it is possible for us so to do. "I£ ye fulfil," is a condition of the first class, and thus the conclusion which follows is assumed to be true; i.e., if the law is fulfilled, "ye do well." It is always well to do right. One who fulfills the law does right. James’ readers might properly feel secure in any course which involved fulfilling the law. In showing respect of persons, however, they were not fulfilling the law; they were, instead, disobeying it which forbade all such distinctions.

That which Christians are to fulfill is the "royal Law," (noinon basilikon), a kingly law. Why is it thus designated? There are numerous reasons why it may be so described. ( 1) It is the law of the kingdom of Christ ; and, in summary, involves man’s entire duty to those about him ; (2) it is a law which originates with the King of the universe ; (3) it stands at the head of all other laws respecting man’s obligation to his fellows; (4) it surpasses in nobility, all other obligations, and leads to the fulfillment of all others. (Galatians 6:2.) Thus, whether James meant that it is a law such as is proper even for kings to follow : or, that it is the king of all other laws, his purpose is quite obvious, the design being to indicate the supreme position which this law should have in the hearts and lives of us all. Notwithstanding its greatness, it must be obeyed; and, any action which violates its spirit, such as favoritism for the rich, because they are rich, is a violation of it.

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,---This is a portion (by no means all) of the "royal law," and that portion especially involved in the matter under discussion-respect of persons. This law is timeless in nature, it being incorporated in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18), and confirmed, sanctioned and made a part of the New Covenant by our Lord. (Luke IO : 28.) Jesus, indeed, taught that love is at the base of every duty, whether to God or man. In response to the lawyer’s query, "Teacher, which is the great commandment of the Jaw?" Jesus answered, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with· all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (Matthew 22:35-40.) Let us imagine a nail driven into the wall, and a string draped over it, the two ends hanging downward. Let one of these strings represent the command to love God supremely; the other, our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus tells us that these two conunandments hold up all that is in the law and the prophets. The law, comprising the five books of Moses, constitutes a vast segment of the Old Testament; and, when to this is added the prophets, major and minor, the mass is greatly enlarged; yet, the Lord declares that these two embrace the whole of the law and the prophets. The meaning is that these two duties are so comprehensive they sum up, and include, all else. He who loves God supremely will discharge fully his duty to God; he who loves his neighbor as himself will, in similar fashion, perform every obligation owed to his neighbor. A Gentile, desiring to make fun of the tremendous mass of material assembled by the Jews in their traditions, once said to a rabbi, "Rabbi, teach me the law, provided you can do so while standing on one foot!" (The Gentile felt that the eminent scholar could not long speak in this position!) The rabbi answered, "Love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul; and your neighbor as yourself; that is all of the law; the rest is mere commentary."

The first appearance of the statement, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self," is in the Old Testan1ent (Leviticus 19:18), but Jesus quoted, confirmed and ratified it, and made it a part of the "law of liberty" applicable to us today. (Matthew 18:19; Matthew 22:34-40; Luke 10:26-28; Mark 12:28-34.) It is significant that Jesus designated, as the foundation of all true religion, these basic principles involving love for God and man which, when properly observed, lead to the performance of every duty in both spheres, and neither of which was a part of the decalogue (the ten commandments). It is noteworthy that Jesus said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self,"-not instead of thyself! It is not wrong for one to entertain proper regard for one’s self; indeed, this becomes the standard by which we are to gauge our actions toward others. It is the application of the Golden Rule to life; which, when faithfu,lly followed, will prompt to the performance of every duty owed. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31.)

ye do well:---Your actions are approved and are above reproach. Far from being subjects of rebuke, as in the case involving an unseemly attitude toward the rich, if you obey the royal law which bids you to love your neighbor as yourselves, you shall enjoy the approbation of both God and men. To love others less than we love ourselves is to fail to measure to the standard offered; and, he who fails so to do, is in disobedience to him who erected the standard; i.e., to God himself. Hence, to fall short of this requirement is to be deficient in the performance of duty to God and man. On the other hand, he who properly fulfills his obligation in this area, will be blessed in the fact that in doing his duty to his neighbor he is also obeying God. (1 Peter 2:20.) Compare, also, Philippians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 7:7; and Acts 10:3. Any action, which has, as its design, the fulfillment of the law of God, is excellent; James had no word of condemnation for any who thus did; it was the violation of the law of love (as evidenced in favoritism for the rich and contempt for the poor) being practiced by those to whom he wrote which occasioned his treatment of the matter. One does not obey one portion of the law of God by disobeying another; and, it is highly inconsistent to quote one law in an effort to justify the violation of another law. Balaam, who wanted to see what the Lord had more to say, has had imitators in every age and dispensation. (Numbers 22:1-41.)

9 but if ye have respect of persons,---(ei de prosopolepteite, condition of the first class, and thus assumed a£ true that they were doing this), the verb of which is. from the same root as the noun in James 2:1. It means to judge people on the basis of outward appearance, rather than on the condition of the heart. The Greek verb is a compound term, occurring no where else in the New Testament, and signifying, literally, face-accepting. This, those to whom James wrote, were doing, in the contrasting attitudes they were exhibiting toward the rich and the poor. This is not an unusual attitude on the part of people of the world. Many are much more interested in what people appear to be, than in what they really are. The accidental circumstances of life, including wealth, fame, social position, and the like, are to many people of greater value than the enduring qualities of the soul and of the heart. To honor one person more than another simply because one has material means, and the other does not, is to be "face-accepting," and is sinful.

ye commit sin,---(hamartian ergazesthe), literally, "Ye work sin," you participate habitually in it. It was not an occasional lapse into the very human weaknesses, of which J arnes deals; it was a deliberate and calculated course of action which these disciples followed in fawning upon the rich and in showing contempt and disregard for the poor. Moreover, it was not simply or merely a "fault," in which they were engaging; it is by James designated as sin. The word "sin," being without the article in the Greek text, signifies it in the abstract; they were not only committing acts of sin (earlier described), they were in sin, in the practice which the writer so severely condemns.

being convicted by the law as transgressors.-The law which bade them to love their neighbor as themselves convicted them in their practice, inasmuch as it forbade all respect of persons. (Leviticus 19:15.) It was therefore, not possible for them properly to appeal to the law in support of their conduct, since the law to which they would thus appeal, condemned them. To transgress, is to cross over; i.e., to violate; sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4.) Thus, when these to whom James wrote violated such laws as that set out in Leviticus 19:15 (forbidding respect of persons), they demonstrated themselves to be sinners. However much they may have adhered to the law in other matters, in this respect they stood condemned by it. The conditions of one who thus does is clearly indicated in the verse following.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law,---"For," (gar), introduces the reason for the conclusion drawn in the verse preceding. "Whosoever shall keep..." is an indefinite relative clause, the verb of which ("shall keep," aorist active subjunctive of tereo, to guard), means to observe carefully with the view of adhering tenaciously to that which is kept; "the law," is the royal law earlier mentioned, and summed up, as it relates to duties by men to men, in the edict, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self." The argument of James here appears to be this: "You appeal, for support for your practice (in showing special regard for rich people), to the law which you claim to be observing. But, if you are to justify your action by the law, you must keep the law perfectly. It is most incon!?istent for you to claim justification for your acts by quoting the law, when your actions are flagrant violations of this same law which you affect to follow, with reference to showing respect of persons. (Leviticus 19:18.)

and yet stumble in one point,---"Stumble," (ptaisei, first aorist active subjunctive of ptaio, to trip,) denotes a lapse from that which is right. (James 3:2; Romans 11:1.) It will be observed that the word "point," in our English text, is in italics, thus indicating that there is no corresponding word for it in the Greek text. "Trip, moreover, in one," is the literal rendering of the phrase; however, the context clearly shows that some such word is needed to complete the sense. One might properly translate, ’’Stumble in one precept."

he is become guilty of all.---"He"; i.e., the one who claims to be keeping all of the law, and yet is violating one of its precepts. Such a one has become guilty ( gegonen, second perfect indicative of ginoniai, stands guilty) of all. That is, the position which he occupies is that of one who is guilty of all. All of what? Certainly not guilty of having transgressed every specific commandment of the law. Obviously, one who steals does not, by such an act, become a murderer; one who lies does not, in so doing, become a drunkard. How then does one become guilty of "all,"’ by violating one precept of the law? The meaning is, he stands condemned by all of the law when he violates any portion of it. This principle is universally recognized. Some members of our society are styled criminals. These are those who violate the law of the land. What makes them criminals? Their infractions of the law. How much of the law? Any portion thereof. A murderer is no less a criminal because his only crime is murder. He need not to this add other violations of the law in order to acquire this classification. A lawbreaker is one who breaks the law. There may be, and doubtless often is, but one law involved ; nonetheless, such a person is properly regarded as a lawbreaker. What is the relationship of such a person to the law? He is a law violator. While one must keep all of the law to be lawful; one need break only one precept of it to be a law violator. Thus, one may keep much of the law with great consistency, yet violate one portion of it, and stand condemned by the law as a breaker of it. To illustrate: A flock of sheep in a pasture surrounded by a paneled fence are in the pasture. If they leap over one of the panels, they are out of the pasture. It is, of course, not necessary for them to leap over every section of the fence around the pasture to be outside. One leap puts them out. Similarly, one violation of God’s law, unforgiven, puts one in the position of being condemned by it as a violator of it; disobedience to one precept puts the person who thus does in an area outside that which is characteristic of those who keep it.

The vital lesson taught here is that all of the law of God is pertinent to us, and that we must not feel at liberty to tamper with any portion thereof. He who seeks to pass judgment on the validity of God’s laws, and to regard some as essential and others as unnecessary, is most presumptuous, and has officiously invaded the realm of God. One does not justify the violation of one law, by citing another observed. It is not a valid defense against the charge of theft that one did not get drunk, slander another, or commit murder. Obedience to God’s law involves submission of the will. Those who keep only such laws as those which they approve, or in which they find satisfaction, have repudiated the will of God, and stubstituted their own. Such a disposition is presumption of the most objectionable type. It is not our prerogative and privilege to pass judgment on the propriety of any law of God. The fact that they are his is sufficient reason for unquestioned obedience thereto. God’s will must be obeyed, not because it commends itself to our sense of what is right and proper, but because it is God’s will! No other reason need be assigned. Here, indeed, is the acid test of faith. Here, too, many stumble and fall, because such walk by sight and not by faith. Only those who can truly say, "Speak, Lord; thy servant heareth; command, and he will obey," can ever get to heaven.

11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.---These two commandments, from the second table of the law (man’s duty to man), are cited to show that the law is one, because it originated from one source. Inasmuch as the whole of it came from the same God, what ever portion one violates is transgression of the will of the one God. It is, therefore, absurd to assume that one portion of the law, issuing from such a lawgiver, is valid and vital, whereas, another from the same divine source, may be disregarded with impunity. The law of Jehovah is one; it is the single expression of the divine will. It must be regarded as a -unit, and respected on this basis.

The order in which these commandments appear is not significant; here the seventh comes before the sixth (the arrangement in which they originally appear in the decalogue), but the order followed here is that of the Greek Version of the Old Testament. Jesus cited them in this order in Luke 18:20, as did Paul in Romans 13:9.

now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law.---The meaning is, Though you meticulously observe the first of these commandments, but disregard and disobey the second, you are a transgressor of the law, because the law which forbids adultery, also forbids the unlawful taking of human life. It is all the same law; and, it originated with the same lawgiver. It is no defense against the charge of drunkenness, that one is not a thief, not a murderer, not an embezzler, etc.; the law which forbids these, forbade that, also. In the final analysis, law exists as a disciplinary measure for the good of man. In an important sense, all commandments are, in principle, included in each one, inasmuch as each is a expression of the authority of the lawgiver; and, to violate one puts the violator in conflict with the will of him who originated all of them.

It would be an extension of the principle here taught beyond that intended and beyond that which is right to assume from this that one is as guilty who violates but one precept of Jehovah, as one who has violated a thousand such precepts; or, that there is but one plateau of depravity, and that one reaches it on the occasion of the first sin. Such is not taught, in any sense, here. What is taught is that any sin, however insignificant it may appear to the sinner, or to those about him, is as much a violation of God’s will, (which is an expression of his authority and sovereignty), as any other would be. It is obvious that James has under consideration here presumptuous actions engaged in by individuals who have passed judgment on God’s laws, and who have decided some of them are important, and others not. These considerations could not apply to good people who are sincerely desirous of doing all of the will of God, ancl who seek daily to do exactly this, but who through weakness, inadvertance, and ignorance unwittingly transgress his will. For these, provision has been made through the continuous cleansing of the blood of Christ to those who luep on walking in the light. (1 John 1:7-9; 1 John 2:1-4.) The writer has under contemplation here those who keep the law in those instances in which they approve of what God has said, and who hesitate not to violate it in those instances in which they disapprove, or which they regard as of little consequence. David said, "Blessed is the man that feareth Jehovah, that delighteth greatly in his commandments." (Psalms 112:1.) ·’I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. I will meditate on thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself in thy statutes : I will not forget thy word." (Psalms 119:14-16.) May we ever seek to imitate the Psalmist in this respect.

12 So speak ye and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.---- The verbs "speak," and "do," are present active imperatives, and thus designate habitual activity. "Ever speak and ever do as men that are to be judged ..... " There is a day of judgment coming. (Daniel 12:2; Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5 :I0.) It is, therefore, vitally important that we should keep on ~peaking and keep on doing in a fashion dictated by the realization that one day we must give an account for our speaking and our doing before the Judge of all the earth. To speall and to do, sums up all that we do and all that we say. Here, as often elsewhere in the Epistle, the writer emphasizes the importance of proper speaking and doing; and, thus repeats the principles which the Lord himself taught: "And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and hy thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matthew 12:36-37.)

That by which all men are to be judged is "a law of liberty." It is, therefore (a) law (a rule of action); (b) a law of liberty, in that it leads to liberty for those formerly enslaved by sin. For the significance of the word law, see comments on James 1:25. The "law of liberty" is the same as the gospel, "the implanted word" (James 1:21), and the "word of good tidings’’ ( l Pet. 1: 25). Those who humbly submit their wills to Christ, and who become obedient to the principles contained in the law of God, do not enslave themselves; on the contrary, they come into possession of true liberty, obtainable in no other way. This liberty is not license; the ideas are mutually exclusive; the liberty thus enjoyed necessitates restraints without which man could not survive in a state of society, nor be happy. "For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love, be servants one to another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." (Galatians 5:13-14.) By the law of liberty we are to live, and by it we are to be judged. Fortunate indeed are we that it is not the law of Moses, since none can keep it perfectly today (Acts 15:10) ; and, since any violation thereof puts us under the condemnation of the whole. ’We may indeed rejoice that in Christ we have been delivered from the law of Moses and are privileged to approach God through the great sacrifice which he made in our behalf. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death .... " (Romans 8:1-2.)

13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy:---There will be mercy shown in judgment for those who have faithfully served the Lord, and whose lapses were unintentional and absolved in the blood of Christ; but, those who have shown others no mercy need not expect mercy themselves when before the judgment seat of Christ they come to stand. (Acts 17:30; 1 Corinthians 5:10.) The word translated "mercy." eleos, means pity for those in distress. The close connection between this statement and that appearing in James 2:2, should be observed. Instead of showing compassion on the poor, as they ought to have done, James’ readers had treated them with contempt, and had turned their attention to the rich simply because they were rich. They had shown no pity for the poor; if they persisted in this course, no pity would be shown for them in the judgment! It is remarkable that our Lord, in his description of the Judgment, affirmed precisely this same principle: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me." (Matthew 25:41-45.) It is the merciful who shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7) ; those who have been merciless need not expect it when they need it most. To be forgiven, we must forgive others; to avoid condemnation, we must not exercise adverse judgment toward others. (Matthew 6:15; Matthew 7:1.) The debtor, forgiven of his great and hopeless debt, need not expect God, at the last day, to lift his own tremendous obligation, if he will not mark off an insignificant debt (of sin) owed him by one of his brothers. (Matthew 18:23-25.) This principle the text teaches with great clarity. Indeed, the Greek’. is even more emphatic than the English translation, signifying, "For the judgment shall be merciless to him that worked no mercy." Here, again, there is obvious reference to our Lord’s teaching in the mountain instruction (Matthew 5, 6, 7), to which James so often reverts.

mercy glorieth against judgment.--- For "glorieth," some translations have "rejoiceth," "triumphs," "exults over," and the like, all of which point to the fact that where mercy can express itself, it always transcends judgment. Mercy cancels out judgment (condemnation) ; those who have been merciful, may properly exult in the mercy which they shall receive at the judgment. None of us can hope to stand before God on our own merit; we all are in need of the divine mercy. But, to enjoy it ourselves, we must show it to others. Mercilessness in us toward others, whether rich or poor, will effectively close the door of mercy to us when we need it most. Let us, at this moment, memorize the following words, and make them a part of our daily devotions: "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7.)

Verses 14-17

Jas 2:14-17

SECTION 5
James 2:14-26

FAITH, WITHOUT WORKS, IS DEAD
James 2:14-17

14 What doth it profit, my brethren,---We have had occasion to observe quite often in these notes that it was James’ design to emphasize the practical aspects of Christianity in his Epistle, and to teach his readers that it is the doer and not the hearer alonp. who enjoys the approbation of God. It is from the eminently practical character of the Epistle that it has been styled "The Gospel of Common Sense." In the verses immediately preceding it was shown that one who loves his neighbor as himself will show mercy to his neighbor though the neighbor be poor and not rich; and, here it is demonstrated that where one is indifferent to the needs of those about him such is clear proof of the want of true faith on the part of the one exhibiting such indifference.

For centuries James 2:14-26, has been the occasion of much controversy; and, it was this passage which prompted Martin Luther to regard the Epistle of James with considerable contempt, and to describe it as "a right strawy one." Others, who entertain no doubts regarding the inspiration of the book and passage, have nevertheless engaged in much useless and vain speculation thereon in an effort to harmonize an alleged conflict of teaching between James and Paul! There are those who believe that Paul, in Romans 4:1-6, teaches that justification is by faith without works of any kind; and, inasmuch as James, in this passage (James 2:14-26), quite obviously affirms that there is no justification apart from works, it poses quite a problem for the advocates of the doctrine of salvation by faith only. Moreover, Paul, in Ephesians 2:8-9, wrote: "For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works that no man should glory." Yet, James asserted: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect." (James 2:21-22.)

It should be apparent to the most casual reader that Paul and James are discussing two different kinds of works in these passages. Paul refers to works which are excluded from God’s plan to save; James discusses works which are included in it. Each writer gives the characteristics of the works under consideration. Those excluded, discussed by Paul, are works in which one might glory (exult in, boast of); the works included (mentioned by James, are those which perfect faith. Of the first category, works of which a man might boast and in which he might glory, are human, meritorious works, works of human achievement, works the design of which is to earn salvation. Were it possible for man to devise a plan by which he could save himself, he could dispense with grace, accomplish his own deliverance from sin, and glory in God’s presence. Such of course, is utterly impossible. All such works are excluded. The works included, and discussed by James, are the ccmunandments of the Lord, obedience to which is absolutely essential to salvation. ( 1 John 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.) Humble submission to the will of God as expressed in his commandments, far from involving works of the type excluded, demonstrate complete reliance upon God, and not upon one’s self. Only those who seek to exclude all work, even the commandments of the Lord, such as baptism in water for the remission of sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38), have any difficulty in harmonizing Paul and James ! Paul taught the necessity of obedience to the commands of Christ as plainly, positively and emphatically as did James. (Romans 6:3-4.)

The alleged difficulties in this section are not of the inspired writer’s making, but stem from the erroneous view that salvation is by faith alone, before and without other acts of obedience. Because James teaches that faith, apart from works, is dead, the passage does indeed pose a serious problems for those who teach that "the doctrine of faith, and faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." (Methodist Disciple, Art. 9.) We shall have occasion, in these notes, to observe some of the efforts put forth by denominational theologians to avoid the obvious difficulty which they face here.

if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?--- Two questions are raised: (1) Of what profit is there to a man who says he has faith, but does not have works? (2) Can that faith save him? "Profit," is from ophelos, increase; and, as here used, denotes advantage, blessing, good, etc. What good is to be derived by the man who has faith but not works? Can that faith save him? It should be carefully noted that James does not minimize the importance of faith. The doctrine of salvation by faith is clearly and repeatedly taught in the New Testament. (Romans 5:1; 1 John 5:1; John 3:16; John 3:36.) In none of these passages, nor elsewhere in the Testament, is the doctrine of salvation by faith otuy taught. Inasmuch as faith is the great principle of salvation on the basis of which its possessor is led to do the will of God, it is often made to stand for all of the conditions of salvation,-indeed for the entire Christian system. (Galatians 3:23-29.) The faith that saves is of the type which expresses itself in obedience to the commandments of the Lord; and it produces a blessing only when it so does,-a proposition which Jam es proceeds to prove.

A man says, "I have faith, but not works." James asks, "Can that faith save him?" The statement is rhetorical; it is put in question form for emphasis. The Greek sentence is me dunatai he pis tis sosai auton, and is so constructed (with me) that a negative answer is expected. The meaning is, That faith cannot save him! Note that James does not deny the efficacy of faith. Under consideration is a special kind of faith. What kind is it? That which is without works. James picks out this particular kind of faith and says that it cannot save. Note the use of the demonstrative that. That what? That faith! What kind of faith is that? The kind of faith that is without works. What is affirmed of it? It cannot save. What cannot save? Faith without works. What works? The commandments of the Lord! This is decisive of the matter in issue. It makes clear the fact that faith, apart from, and without works, is profitless, barren, vain and dead, all of which James later affirms. (Verses 17, 20, 26.)

It is noteworthy that the verbs in the statement, "If a man say he hath faith and have not works," are present active subjunctives, thus, "If one keeps on saying he has faith, but keeps on not having works .... " Mere profession, without obedience to God’s commands, is worthless. Chapter eleven, of Hebrews, is Inspiration’s Hall of Fame. There the wonderful worthies of the illustrious past are made to appear in demonstration of the tremendous faith and humble obedience which ever characterized them as they sought to discharge the will of God in their day. It will be observed that the mention of their faith is followed by a verb of action, thus evidencing the fact that faith blesses only when it leads its possessor to obedience. God has never blessed anybody, in any age or dispensation, because of faith, until the faith exhibited itself in action. Faith saves; but only when it prompts to faithful and unquestioning obedience to the will of God. Proof of this James demonstrates in the verses following.

15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,---In view of the fact that those to whom James wrote were disposed to treat with contempt the poor among them, and to show servile favoritism for the rich, it may well be that the writer, in this instance, brings forth an actual incident. It is, in any event, a practical demonstration of the principle that he is impressing in these verses; viz., that faith, apart from works (of obedience) is profitless, barren, vain, and dead. James, to illustrate his principle that faith, apart from work, cannot bless, introduces an instance of the most inexcusable kind. A "brother," or "sister," is (a) "naked," and (b) "in lack of daily food." "Naked," here does not mean utterly without clothing, but nearly so; i.e., without sufficient clothing. (Matthew 25:36; John 21:7; Acts 19:16.) "In lack of daily food," indicates that the person under consideration is in the greatest possible destitution, in a condition of want that would touch the hearts of all but the hardest. Under contemplation is "a brother," or "a sister." While these words do not require the conclusion that they were members of the body of Christ (See Acts 9:17, where Ananias addressed Saul of Tarsus, before he obeyed the gospel, as "Brother Saul . . ." because he was a brother Israelite, and compare Matthew 5:23, Acts 2:29; Acts 3:17, it is likely that they were Christians, although our obligation to assist the needy and destitute is not limited to those who are members of the church. Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia, and instructed them "to work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of faith" (Galatians 1:1 ff; Galatians 6:10), in which instance it is absurd to assume that it is wrong for churches of Christ to do what Paul commanded the churches in Galatia to do.

16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled;---The verbs of the first two clauses are quite significant, and make more vivid the lesson intended. In the first, (eipei de tis autois ex humon), the verb is an aorist active subjunctive, in effect, "Let us be done with this matter at oner.; in the second, (hupagete en eirenei), it is a present active imperative, "keep on going in peace!" This phrase translated, "Go in peace," was the usual Jewish expression of farewell. (Luke 7:50 8:48; Acts 16:36; 1 Samuel 1:17; 1 Samuel 20:42.) In the third clause, "Be ye warmed and filled," (thermainesthe kai chortazesthe), the verbs may be either middle or passive; if middle, the meaning is "Get yourselves warmed and filled"; if passive, "Be warmed and filled yourselves." The middle voice is the more probable in view of the context. It was James’ design to show the heartlessness of the disposition which bids a sister or brother to go his way, and to shift for himself; and the middle more nearly conforms to this design. Far from assisting the destitute in their distress, empty words were substituted for good deeds. Those with insufficient clothing are bidden to "Warm yourselves!" Those in need of food to "Fill yourselves !" And, with a wave of the hand and a dismissal of all responsibility, the poor are told "Farewell! Be off. Best wishes. Feed and fill your own selves."

and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body;---The "things needful to the body," include the food and clothing implied in the preceding statement. The "things" mentioned would not be limited to this, but would include whatever is essential to meet the needs of the persons under contemplation, such as medicine, professional attention, nursing care, and the like. The words, "Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled," are empty, meaningless gestures; warm words, resulting in icy rejection of duty and responsibility.

what doth it profit?---Put in question form for emphasis, the meaning is, There is no profit in such. One is not warmed by good wishes; one cannot fill an empty stomach with greetings. The application follows in the next verse.

17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.---Here the writer returns to the theme of verse 14 ("’What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save him?"). The verses which intervene are designed to illustrate the fact that there is no profit in faith without works. "Even so," means in like manner; that is. as there is no benefit whatsoever in good words, when not attended by deeds, neither is there any profit in faith, if it ’’have not works . ... " The phrase "have not works," (ean me erga Pchei), is a condition of the third class, the verb being a present active subjunctive; i.e., "if it keep on not having works .... " There is no profit in faith which is without works.

It is evident that the "works" of which James writes are the commandments of the Lord. (James 2:20-22.) It is indeed such "works" which demonstrate faith. Our confidence (faith) in our physician is evidenced by our willingness to do what he says. In like manner, he who affects to believe in the Lord, yet refusrs to do what the Lord commands, or doing it. does so on other grounds, demonstrates that his faith is vain. fruitless, dead. James affirms that "faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.·" · "In itself," is kath’ heauten, of itself, according to itself, by the utter absence of "works." Because it is lacking in that which evidences life in faith (works). it is dead. being incomplete, partial. fragmentary; no more alive than a body from which the spirit has flown. As a dead body is lacking in that which gives it liie (the spirit). so faith, without works, is dead. being deficient in that which gives life to faith. It is dead, not only with reference to outward signs of life. it is dead in itself. A rose bush, in the cold. dark days of winter exhibits no signs of life, but it is not dead in itself; when the warmth of lovely spring days falls upon it. it buds and blooms and flowers forth into life and beauty. Faith, without works, has no winter, and consequently, no flowering spnng.

The lesson is obvious. As one who is in need and hungry, cannot profit from kind words and fair speeches, neither is there any blessing in faith which does not prompt to faithful obedience of the Lord’s commandments. We prove that our good wishes for others are genuine when we translate them into golden deeds oi mercy and good will ; and we prove our faith when we are obedient to the will of him whose word prompts to faith. We should be deeply impressed with the lesson which Jam es teaches here that faith, unattended by unquestioning obedience to the Lord’s will is as worthless and vain as the expression of empty wis!-tes for the needy with no effort expended to relieve their distressed condition. There is no help for a sick, hungry family in pious platitudes, unaccompanied by assistance; and there is no blessing promised or salvation available to people on the basis of faith without works. We have earlier observed that the works under consideration are not the works of the law of Moses, or of human merit; but, the commandments of the Lord. Peter said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35.) Righteousness is the keeping of God’s commandments. (Psalms 119:172.)

Verses 18-20

Jas 2:18-20

WORKS PROVE FAITH
James 2:18-20

18 Yea, a man will say,---James, in order further to emphasize his thesis that faith, apart works is dead, and to prove that works demonstrate faith, imagines an objector to appear with an argument the design of which is to try to prove the inspired writer’s reasoning wrong. James is quite willing to listen to the objection because his position is secure. It will indeed enable him more fully to establish his contention that there is no value whatsoever in faith which does not demonstrate itself in works. What does the objector have to say?

Thou hast faith, and I have works:--- Were the New Testament to follow modem methods of punctuation, these words would be in quotation marks, thus indicating that they are the words of the objector to James’ position. It is idle to speculate whether "Thou" means James specifically; and "I" the objector: more likely the meaning is, "One person has faith, and another works ; one emphasizes the faith which he has; the other, the works which he possesses; each is good and effective; and neither should be minimized," the objector argues. It is as if James should say, "Suppose some one comes forth with the objection that one’s piety and devotion to God are not always exhibited in the same fashion; one may show his loyalty to God by faith, another by works; yet, both be equally pious and devout in God’s sight." Inasmuch as this challenge of the objector to James’ reasoning is on the ground that faith can exist apart from works, the inspired writer answers with a challenge of his own!

show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.---Faith, actually and literally, cannot be seen; its existence is evidenced only through the works which it produces. Hence, James demands of his objector that he show his faith (if he thinks it can exist in this fashion) apart from works. This, of course, was impossible; and thus constituted additional evidence of the truth of the thesis, that faith, without works, is dead. Faith and works, in the religious realm, are so related, that one cannot long exist without the other. One springs from the other, and each depends, for its effectiveness, on the other. Faith, without works, is dead; works, without faith, cannot bless, either. So the objection is invalid, in that it is based on the erroneous assumption that faith can exist apart from works,-an untrue premise. Works may be seen; these may be offered in evidence of faith which cannot be seen. Faith, however, cannot be seen; one without works cannot offer proof of the faith which he alleges to have. It follows therefore, that one who disparages works must resort to them to prove that he has any faith at all!

It seems not possible to over-emphasize these matters in our day. We should learn them well for our own good; and, that we may be able also to teach them effectively to others. In view of the fact that the denominational system alleges that salvation is by faith without works and to it multitudes about us subscribe, it is important that every member of the body of Christ should be able to explain clearly the kind of works included in the plan of salvation (the commandments of the Lord), and the kind of works excluded (those involving merit, the law of Moses, and the like). It is idle for one to expect salvation short of complete submission to God’s will. (Matthew 7:21; 1 John 2:4; Hebrews 5:9.) It is also vitally important to remember that these words are not limited to the alien sinner; faith, apart from works, whether possessed by an alien or a member of the church is powerless to bless. As Christians, we are to "work out" our own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12), and those ultimately to be privileged to enjoy the bliss of the eternal city are those who have kept his commandments (Revelation 22:13-14).

19 Thou believest that God is one;---The address here is to the objector to whom James, in verse 18, said: "Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith." This is to say, in effect, "You contend that faith, apart from works-the mere intellectual assent of the mind-is sufficient to save. Let us test your thesis. Basic among the things one must believe to be saved is that ’God is one ... .’ This, you believe. It is good that you so do. But, is this enough? Remember that the demons believe and shudder. You do not argue that demons are saved. It follows, therefore, that one may believe, and yet not be saved. Belief, unattended by good works, is no more effectual in saving the sinner (or the Christian) than the demons who exercise it."

It is clear that the verb "believest," here signifies no more than intellectual assent to the truthfulness of a proposition-in this case, that God is one. It is, in this instance, contemplated apart from love, obedience, trust, and submission- being an action of the mind alone. And, while the acceptance of the doctrine of the One True God is the fundamental premise of all genuine religion, mere lip service thereto will not suffice. Jam es selects this as an illustration of what mere belief-if it could of itself produce a blessing-might do, in saving the soul. If the simple exercise of belief is sufficient, surely those who subscribe to the basic premise of all religion worthy of the name should be saved by it. "No," the writer hastens to add; "It is not enough ; even the demons believe, and shudder at the destiny which awaits them."

That "God is one," is taught repeatedly in the Scriptures, Old and New. The Shema of Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4), uttered morning and evening by every devout Jew, and endlessly recited in the synagogues, kept this fundamental fact of all true religion constantly in the minds of the worshippers. So important was it regarded in the religion of Israel that the rabbis taught that those who prolonged the word "one" in the recitation thereof would have their days and years prolonged upon the earth!

"God," (Greek theos), denotes deity. (Thayer.) It is the Greek name of the divine nature. There is but one divine nature. Hence, there is but one God. There are, however, three Persons who possess this divine nature-the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-the Godhead. Hence all are God. Since there is but one divine nature, and this nature is named God, there is but one God. Thus, the three Persons of the Godhead constitute the One God. This is demonstrated (a) in the plural pronouns used to designate the activity of God: "And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness . . .. " (Genesis 1:26.) (b) In the designation of Christ as God: ("In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we behold his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." (John 1:1; John 1:14.) (c) In the plural form of the Hebrew word Eloheem (God) appearing in Genesis 1:1 : "In the beginning God (Eloheem, plural form of El, God), created the heavens and the earth." (d) In the reference to the Father as God : "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ .... " (1 Peter 1:3.) (e) In the reference to the Holy Spirit as God: "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit ... thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." (Acts 5:3-4.) To believe that God is one is a basic doctrine of the Bible. (Exodus 34:14; Psalms 90:1; Jer. 43:3. 10-13; John 4:24; 1 John 4:6.)

thou doest well:--- The writer is careful to make it clear that the acceptance of the premise that God is one is not under criticism. It is absolutely necessary for one to believe that God is one in order to be saved. James does not minimize the importance of the doctrine of the One True God. He is simply showing that such is not sufficient in order to salvation. "Thou doest well,’’ is in the Greek, kalos poieis. It is beautifully good for you to do this. The word for "good," (kalos), signifies a type or kind of goodness which allures, attracts, and woos; one who believes in the One God is to be commended for this if one does not rest there; it is good to do this and it is fine so far as it goes. But, it does not go far enough.

the demons also believe, and shudder.---To believe that God is one is simply not enough because the demons of the unseen reahn-the imps of Satan-do as much ; they believe so strongly in God that they tremble with fear in their contemplation of the terrible destiny which awaits them. The word "shudder," (phrissoimn, present active indicative of phrisso, to bristle up,) indicates the kind of terror which makes one’s hair to stand on end (Job 4:14-15), thus emphasizing how strongly the demons subscribed to the doctrine of One God. It should be observed that the kind of faith which the demons have is exactly that which James declares to be profitless-faith which does not express itself in humble obedience to the commands of the Lord. Demons believe, but will not obey; those exercising faith, without works, thus exhibit the same kind of profitless faith which the demons have. They know that they are lost; and they tremble at their inevitable destruction. There is no more hope for those who depend upon faith only as the basis of salvation than there is for the salvation of the demons.

Who were the demons of whom James writes? The question is not an easy one to answer; and the subject of demonology is fraught with many difficulties. The word demon, from the Greek daimon, and its derivative claimonion, is used in a variety of senses in the New Testament: (a) of idols (Acts 17:18) ; (b) angels which kept not their first estate (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7-8); (c) ministers of Satan (Luke 4:35; John 10:21); (d) Satan, the prince of demons (Matthew 9:34; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15).

Demons, in the first century, were able to enter individuals and vex them (Luke 8:30; Luke 8:32) ; interfere with their thinking and reasoning (Luke 7:33; John 7:20), and cause men to do and to think evil (Matthew 8:31; Mark 3:11).

Numerous efforts have been made to explain their existence such as (1) the allegation that demon possession was a popular superstitution without any basis of fact but at which Jesus winked, knowing better himself, thus apparently accepting a common error which, in reality, he did not believe. (a) Such a theory seriously reflects on the integrity of Christ and imputes to him deceit, hypocrisy and falsehood. (b) Moreover, it is in conflict with established facts. Jesus charged, rebuked, commanded, and cast out demons; they recognized his deity and obeyed his commands. (Mark 5:9-12; Matthew 8:29-32; Mark 1:25; Luke 4:34; Matthew 12:23-37; Luke 11:17-23.) (c) The apostles were given power to cast out demons. (Mark 3:14-15.) Thus, Jesus recognized the reality of demoniac possession and it cannot be questioned without reflection on his credibility. (2) Others have attempted to explain this strange matter as mental sickness resulting from diseased minds and bodies. This is shown to be false in the fact that people were said to be sick and demonpossessed. (Matthew 8:16; Mark 1:32, esp. verse 34.) (3) Jesus based an argument on the fact of demoniac possession in his contentions with the Jews, declaring that casting them out by the Spirit of God proved his deity. (Matthew 12:23-27; Mark 9:29.) We may be certain that our Lord would not have rested the case of his deity on a popular superstition!

We may, therefore, conclude that (a) the demons of the apostolic age were real and not fanciful; (b) they were wicked spirits (Acts 19:13-17); (c) judgment upon them was impending; they recognized the justice of such, but insisted that the time was not yet (Matthew 8:29); ( d) they were possessed of· consciousness and intelligence (Luke 4:41); (e) they acknowledged the deity of Christ; (f) they deliberately taught false doctrines, and circulated them among the early disciples (perhaps by influencing men whom they possessed, 1 Timothy 4:1 ; 1 John 4:1).

Who were they? Where did they come from? Where did they go? are questions which cannot be fully answered today. It is quite obvious, from the New Testament description of them and of their activities, that they are not eqttally active in the world today. Efforts to explain their existence have been many, none of which settles the question satisfactorily. Among the views advanced thereon are, (1) the demons were wicked angels which kept not their first estate and in some manner not known to us were suffered to come out of the place where they were restrained and to vex human beings. (Judges 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4.) (2) The demons were disembodied spirits of evil men which, after death and their descent into Hades, escaped the Hadean realm, returned to earth, and seized the minds and bodies of live people. Josephus, the Jewish historian, advanced this view. Compare, also, Thayer, under daimonion. If either view is correct, the second would appear the more probable.

As interesting as these questions are, and however much we might desire to have correct answers thereto, they are not pertinent to our study of the text of James. The meaning of the sacred writer is clear: Demons believe in the doctrine of the One True God, and tremble at the thoitght of their impending destruction. Tlieir jaith does not express itself in obedience; and is, hence, dead. But this is precisely the kind of faith that the objector (who subscribes to the doctrine of faith only) alleges to be sufficient! (Verse 18.) Therefore. the conclusion of verse 20 is obvious.

20 But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?---"But wilt thou know..." is theleis de gnonai, ingressive active aorist infinitive of ginosko, to come to know, and here in the sense of to realize, to recognize the truth of that affirmed. The conclusion which the writer is about to draw is so obvious that he calls upon the objector to acknowledge the truth of his proposition which, thus far, he has not; and is consequently, "a vain man," (literally, an empty-headed fellow) who has not properly considered the matter under consideration. He who would attempt to reason that faith, apart from works, is efficacious, is empty-headed, devoid of those qualities which are essential to proper reasoning. Faith, apart from works, is faith only. Such a faith is "barren," (arge, unproductive), because it is dead. That which is dead is incapable of producing; and is thus barren. Earlier, and in much detail, James shows that faith, without works, is dead; here, he indicates that it is without the outward evidence of life (productivity) which demonstrates that life exists. (James 2:17; James 2:20.) The kind of faith described here-faith apart from works,-is the kind which the denominational world urges is that which saves. The Scriptures, on the contrary, establish the fact that in the hands of a person exercising such faith there are no sheaves whatsoever!

Verses 21-26

Jas 2:21-26

TRUE FAITH ILLUSTRATED
James 2:21-26

(a) In The Case of Abraham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) In The Case Of Rahab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions on James Chapter Two

(The question numbers refer to the verse number.)

1. Who is addressed in this verse?
How do we “hold” faith?
What is partiality?
Is partiality another word or prejudice?
List some kinds or types of partiality in our world.
Can we have faith in Jesus and be partial?

2. What kind of partiality is illustrated?
How should we treat those who come into our assemblies?
How should we treat a person with expensive clothes and jewelry?
How should we treat a person in dirty clothes?
What is the difference in the soul of these two types of people?

3. Should we pay attention to the wealthy person?
Should we pay attention to the poor person?
Why do we show some people more attention than others?
Have you ever been on the other end – treated differently for some reason?
List some ways we show distinction in how we treat people.

4. How do we show partiality?
How do we become judges?
Is judging – right or wrong?
Are there passages that teach judging is wrong?
Read these verses: Matthew 7:1; Romans 14:10; Romans 14:13
Are there passages that suggest judging is right?
Study these passages: John 7:24; 1 Corinthians 6:2-3
How can you tell when judging is forbidden?
In what areas are we to judge others?
In what areas are we forbidden to judge others?

5. Why does James tell us to listen?
Why don’t we pay attention as we should?
Is our attention span as long as it should be?
How are the poor chosen to be rich in faith?
Is it better to be poor than rich?
Name some rich men that God blessed.
Name some poor men that God blessed.
Name some poor men that God made wealthy.
Who are heirs of the kingdom?
To whom is the kingdom promised?

6. How do we dishonor some people?
What does the term “disrespect” mean as we describe how others treat us?

How do rich people oppress us?
Why does James say that the rich drag us into courts?
Is the legal system slanted toward the rich?

7. What does the word “blaspheme” mean?
Why do some think blasphemy is an unforgivable sin?
What does Matthew 12:31-32 teach?
How do the rich blaspheme?
Whom do they blaspheme?
What is the name we are called?

8. What is the “royal law” in the Scriptures?
What “scriptures” are intended here?
Explain: Love your neighbor.
Explain: As yourself.
Who is my neighbor?
Study Luke 10:25-37.
Is our neighbor one who lives around us or one we can help?
How can we fulfill this law of God?

9. How do we show partiality to others?
What ever happened to “sin” in our language?
Why do avoid this word?
Why do we use – mistake, goof, error in judgment – instead of SIN?
Why is partiality a sin?
What does the word “transgressor” mean?

10. Who keeps the whole law?
Was it possible to keep every precept in the Law of Moses?
What does it mean to stumble?
Have you ever “tripped” over some command in the Bible?
Why is “one point” the same as violating the entire law?
Why are we guilty of all the law by failing in one point?

11. What law is quoted?
What is adultery as used in the Ten Commandments?
What is murder as used in the Ten Commandments?
When does one become a transgressor of the law?

12. How should we speak?
Why will be NOT be judged by the Law of Moses?
By what law will we be judged?

13. Is God a God of mercy?
Will there come a time when His mercy will end?
What part does our showing mercy to others have in our judgment?
How does mercy triumph over judgment?

14. Can someone claim to have faith, but not be saved?
How is the word “profit” used in this verse?
What is meant by “works” in this section?
Can faith save?
Can faith without works save?

15. How should we treat a poor brother or sister?
What does the word “benevolence” mean?
What does the word “destitute” imply?
What about a widow who is destitute? (1 Timothy 5:5)

16. Should we wish the poor well?
Should our wishes be supported by our actions?
Is there any value in well wishing without actual help?
Are there some we should NOT help?
Give a definition of the word – Help.
Are there things we do that do NOT help?

17. Can our faith be dead?
Explain how faith saves.
Are we saved by faith?
What is faith by itself?
What are the “works” mentioned in this verse?
Can our faith go up and down, have highs and lows?
Can our faith die?

18. Can we separate faith from works?
Can one have works without faith?
Can one have faith without works?
How do we demonstrate our faith?
Explain how works show our faith.

19. How many gods are there?
Does Satan believe in God?
Will Satan be saved? (Since faith saves, will Satan be saved?)
What does the word “tremble” suggest?
Why did Felix tremble in Acts 24:25?

20. Who is a foolish man?
Are men foolish or is it their actions?
Is this information important to you?
Does it make a difference if our faith is dead or not?

21. Discuss: Abraham’s faith.
Was Abraham justified by faith OR by works?
What did the sacrifice of Isaac show about the faith of Abraham?
See Romans 4:1-12.
Is there a contradiction between Romans and James?

22. How does faith function together with works?
How is faith made perfect by our works?
See Galatians 5:6 - “faith working by love”

23. What does Genesis 15:6 teach about Abraham?
What does the word “accounted” (imputed in KJV) mean?
Was Abraham righteous or was it just accounted as if he was righteous?
Why was Abraham called the “Friend of God”?

24. Is man justified by: a)faith, b) works, c) both, or d) neither?
Explain the denominational teaching of “faith only.”
How many times does this phrase occur in the New Testament?

25. Who was Rahab?
What was her “occupation”?
Why is she always connected with it?
How was she justified by works?
What do the examples of Abraham and Rahab teach us?

26. Explain the example of the body and the spirit.
What is the spirit of man?
What is the soul of man?
What is the difference between spirit and soul?
What does Hebrews 4:12 teach about spirit and soul?
How is faith dead without works?