From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Book of
James Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2017
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 2
2:1 Translations
WEB: My
brothers, don't hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with
partiality.
Young’s: My
brethren, hold not, in respect of persons, the faith of the glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Conte (RC): My
brothers, within the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, do not choose to
show favoritism toward persons.
2:1 My
brethren. The equality of Christians, as indicated by
the name of brethren, is the basis of this admonition. [26]
The connection [with
the preceding] appears to be: As the
true service of God consists in active benevolence, exercised especially toward
the poor and afflicted, St. James takes occasion to reprove his readers for a
practice which was in direct contradiction to this, namely, showing partiality
to the rich, and despising the poor. [51]
have not the faith
of our Lord Jesus Christ. i.e. faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ; not the author but the object of faith is meant, as
Galatians 2:20, Galatians 3:22, Philippians 3:9. [28]
Or: It
is the only one in the Epistle in which, as far as I remember, mention is made
of holding the faith—i.e., the one
faith (Ephesians 4:5), “the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.” St. James has been commented upon as not
bringing forward the objective faith, as
the Lord of glory. Faith in
so glorious a “Lord” is not in consistency with respect of
persons.
Respect of persons means to regard a man
for his rank, personal appearance, or any other reason than his true
deserts or value. [39]
The words ‘the Lord’
are in italics, and not in the original; all that is in the Greek are the words
‘of glory.’ Accordingly, different
meanings have been attached to this phrase.
[1] Some construe it with ‘respect of person,’ and translate it
‘according to your estimate or opinion;’ thus Calvin: ‘Have not the faith of
our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons, on account of esteem;’ that is,
placing a false and unchristian value on riches. [2] Others attach it to Christ: ‘the faith of
our Lord Jesus, the Christ, or the Messiah, of glory.’ [3] Others consider it as governed by faith,
but give different meanings: ‘the
glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ;’ or ‘faith in the glory or exaltation
of Christ;’ or ‘the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in the glory,’ namely, in
that glory which is reserved for the saints.
[4] Others suppose that glory is a personal appellation of Christ: ‘our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory,’ equivalent to the Shechinah
of the Jewish Church. This is certainly
the simplest reading; but there is no proof from the New Testament that such an
epithet was applied to our Lord. Our
version, by supplying the words ‘the Lord’ from the former clause, is the least
objectionable: ‘the Lord of glory.’ The clause is inserted to show the vanity of
earthly riches, as contrasted with the glory of Christ. [51]
with respect of
persons. Let not the outward condition of persons
regulate your judgment of their character, or your treatment of them. [14]
That
is, honor none, merely for being rich; despise none, merely for being
poor. [15]
Here James refers to
one form of the transgression of the spirit of true religion. In spiritual matters, no partiality is
to be shown on account of worldly distinctions, whether at the administration
of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians
The same danger of unjustified preferential treatment exists
in how different preachers are treated: Zanchy relates
about a certain Frenchman, a friend of his, and a constant hearer of Calvin at
Geneva, that being solicited by him to hear Viret, an
excellent preacher, who preached at the same time that Calvin did, he answered,
If St Paul himself should preach here at the same hour with Calvin, I would not
leave Calvin to hear Paul. This is not
only partiality, but anthropolatry or man worship, saith he. [29]
A practical test of the mind frame: A rich man comes in and I feel like I
wish I had another sermon this morning.
Well, then, James is talking to you. [43]
2:1 is a “logical jump or development” from the principle
laid down in the previous verse:
The mention in
In depth: Argument that the assembly is a judicial
rather than religious one [12]. James
here speaks of it as it was committed in the assemblies, by which many
understand the meetings of Christians, in synagogues and places where they
celebrated the divine service, or met to keep the charitable feast, called
Agape. Others expound it of meetings
where causes were judged. If it be meant
of Church meetings, the apostle might have even greater reason to condemn such
a partiality at that time than at present; for when the poorer sort of people,
of which was the greatest number of converts, saw themselves so neglected and
despised, and any rich man when he came thither so caressed and honored, this
might prove a discouragement to the [poorer] sort of people, and an obstacle to
their conversion.
But if we expound it of meetings where causes were
judged betwixt the rich and others of a lower condition, (which exposition the
text seems to favor) the fault might be still greater, when the judges gave
sentence in favor of great and rich men, biased thereunto by the unjust regard
they had for men rich and powerful. This
was a transgression of the law: (Lev.
And [18]: There come in also a poor
man [verse 2)]: In ancient times petty
courts of judicature were held in the synagogues, as “Vitringa”
has sufficiently proved, “De Vet. Syn.” 1. 3, p. 1, c. 11;
and it is probable that the case here adduced was one of a judicial kind,
where, of the two “parties,” one was “rich” and the other “poor;” and the
master or ruler of the synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid
particular deference to the rich man, and neglected the poor man; though, as
“plaintiff” and “defendant,” they were equal in the eye of justice, and should
have been considered so by an
impartial judge.
In depth: Argument
that the assembly is the regular religious gathering rather that a “judicial” one
in any sense [20]. Had the apostle intended to point out
so gross an iniquity, he would doubtless have spoken of it with far more
decided severity. If such partiality
were used in the determinations of those matters, which came before the
churches, it would certainly be condemned by what he said; yet the language
does not at all relate to judicial proceedings of any kind; but to an improper
respect shown towards some, and contempt expressed towards others, merely on
account of external appearance. (Scott)
2:2 Translations
WEB: For
if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your synagogue, and a
poor man in filthy clothing also comes in.
Young’s: for if
there may come into your synagogue a man with gold ring, in gay raiment, and
there may come in also a poor man in vile raiment.
Conte (RC): For if a
man has entered your assembly having a gold ring and splendid apparel, and if a
poor man has also entered, in dirty clothing.
2:2 For if there come. St.
James does not here mention a mere hypothetical case, but what must frequently
have occurred. [51]
unto your assembly. The assembly for public worship. [34
Assembly (συναγωγὴν): The word synagogue is a transcript of
this. From σύν, together, and ἄγω, to bring.
Hence, literally,
a gathering or congregation, in which sense the word is common in
the Septuagint, not only of assemblies for worship, but of gatherings for other
public purposes. From the meeting itself
the transition is easy to the place of meeting, the synagogue; and in
this sense the term is used throughout the New Testament, with the following
exceptions: In Acts 13:43, it is
rendered congregation by the A.V., though Rev. gives synagogue;
and in Apoc. 2:9; 3:9, the unbelieving Jews, as
distinctively Jewish assembly or place of worship it was more sharply
emphasized by the adoption of the word ἐκκλησία,
ecclesia, to denote the Christian church. In this passage alone the word designates the
place of meeting for the Christian body, James using the word most
familiar to the Jewish Christians; an explanation which receives countenance
from the fact that, as Huther observes, “the Jewish Christians regarded themselves as still an
integral part of the Jewish nation, as the chosen people of God.” As such a portion they had their special
synagogue. From Acts 6:9, we learn that
there were numerous synagogues in
It
cannot be inferred from the usual signification of the word that a Jewish
synagogue is here meant (Semler, Schneckenburger,
Bouman); the Christians would certainly not
have the right to show seats to those who entered into such a place of
worship. [8]
a man with a
gold ring. Only here in New Testament. Not a man wearing a single gold ring (as A.V.
and Rev.), which would not attract attention in an assembly where most persons
wore a ring, but a gold-ringed man, having his hands conspicuously
loaded with rings and jewels. The ring
was regarded as an indispensable article of a Hebrew’s attire, since it
contained his signet; and the name of the ring, tabbath,
was derived from a root signifying to impress a seal. It was a proverbial expression for a most
valued object. See Isa.
22:24; Hag. 2:23. [2]
in goodly [fine,
NKJV] apparel. “Goodly apparel” is, rather,
gorgeous—splendid in color or ornament; the same two words are translated “gay
clothing” in the following verse. [46]
The two
attributes of gold rings and expensive clothing went, logically,
hand-in-hand: The person who could
afford one would be the only kind of person who could reasonably be expected to
have the other. [rw]
and there come in
also a poor man. The description is in St. James’
graphic style. Into their place for
religious assembly two men entered, the one gorgeously arrayed with jeweled
fingers and a great display of riches; the other a poor man in shabby apparel,
soiled with his daily manual occupations.
[51]
in vile raiment
[filthy clothes, NKJV]. We need not decide whether these
two men are Christians or not. In each
case we must suppose the man is a stranger, and each has his place assigned to
him simply on the ground of the appearance of his clothing, whether it is
“fine” or “shabby.” [50]
In depth: Ring wearing in
first century society [2]. The
Greeks and Romans wore them in a great profusion.
Martial says of one Charinus
that he wore six on each finger, and never laid them aside, either at night or
when bathing. The fops had rings of
different sizes for summer and winter.
Aristophanes distinguishes between the populace and those who wear
rings, and in his comedy of
“The Clonds” uses the formidable word σφραγιδονυχαργοκομῆται, lazy,
long-haired fops, with rings and well-trimmed nails. Demosthenes was so conspicuous for this kind
of ornament that, at a time of public disaster, it was stigmatized as unbecoming
vanity.
Frequent mention is made of their enormous cost. They were of gold and silver, sometimes of
both, sometimes of iron inlaid with gold.
The possible beauty of these latter will be appreciated by those who
have seen the elegant gold and iron jewelry made at
The practice of wearing rings was adopted by the
Christians. Many of their rings were
adorned with the symbols of the faith--the cross, the anchor, the monogram of
Christ, etc. Among the rings found in
the catacombs are some with a key, and some with both
a key and a seal, for both locking and sealing a casket.
In depth: Evidence the rich
visitor is a non-Christian [8]. Are
Christians or non-Christians meant by these incomers? Most expositors consider them to be
Christians only, whether they belonged to the congregation or came there as
[guests]. But the following reasons
decide against this view: 1. They are
distinguished by James from the brethren addressed, and are not indicated as
brethren, which yet, particularly in reference to the poor (ver.
5), would readily have suggested itself as a strong confirmation of their
fault. 2. In vv. 6, 7, the rich are evidently opposed
to Christians, and reprimanded for their conduct towards Christians (not merely
toward the poor), which, if rich Christians had been guilty of it, would
certainly have been indicated as an offence against their Christian
calling. That those who were not
Christians might and did come into the Christian religious assemblies, is a
well-known fact; see 1 Cor.
2:3 Translations
WEB: and
you pay special attention to him who wears the fine clothing, and say,
"Sit here in a good place;" and you tell the poor man, "Stand
there," or "Sit by my footstool."
Young’s: and ye
may look upon him bearing the gay raiment, and may say to him, 'Thou -- sit
thou here well,' and to the poor man may say, 'Thou -- stand thou there, or,
Sit thou here under my footstool,' --
Conte (RC): and if
you are then attentive to the one who is clothed in excellent apparel, so that
you say to him, “You may sit in this good place,” but you say to the poor man,
“You stand over there,” or, “Sit below my footstool.”
2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth
the gay [fine, NKJV] clothing. Show respect not to the character but to
the clothes. [22]
In these verses
there is in our English version a needless variation in the renderings of the
same Greek word; the words apparel, raiment, and clothing are all in the
original expressed by the same term. [51]
and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place. A place
of consequence and comfort: literally,
‘Be well seated.’ As in the Jewish
synagogues, so in the Christian, there would be a diversity of seats. Thus we read of the scribes and Pharisees who
‘loved the chief seats in the synagogues’ (Matthew 23:6). [51]
As regards the matter itself, the fault is not
directed against the rulers of the congregation,--the presbyters and
deacons (Grotius, Pott, Schulthess, Hottinger),--but, as
the address [in Greek in verse 1] shows, it is entirely general. The instance which James states is, as
regards the matter, not a hypothetical assumption, but a fact; and certainly
not to be regarded as a solitary instance which only once took place, but as something
which often occurred, that even in their religious assemblies the rich were
treated with distinction, and the poor with disdain. It is not surprising that James in the
description employed the aorist, since he generally uses that tense to represent
that which is habitually repeated as a single fact which has taken
place; see chap. 1:11, 24. [8]
and say to the poor, Stand thou there. With
the implicit message, “You aren’t worthy of a seat since you are poor.” [rw]
or sit here under my footstool. With
the implicit message that, “While I am fully deserving of a seat, all
you are worthy of is sitting on the floor.”
[rw]
2:4 Translations
WEB: haven't
you shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
Young’s: ye did
not judge fully in yourselves, and did become ill-reasoning judges.
Conte (RC): are you
not judging within yourselves, and have you not become judges with unjust thoughts?
2:4 Are ye not then partial in [among, NKJV] yourselves. “Are ye not divided in your own mind?” If we translate this difficult passage so, the thought is, you have not a single eye, you are double-minded (1:8), you are influenced by worldly considerations, and look to the world, and not to Christ only; you have fallen into a contradiction with your faith (2:1). A more natural translation is the one given in the margin of the R.V., “Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?” [50]
On the different ways the words can be translated: This verse has given rise to a great variety of
interpretation, owing to the uncertainty of its correct translation. Are ye not partial
in yourselves? This version is
hardly correct. Some render the
words: ‘Did you not judge among
yourselves,’ by thus determining that the rich are to be preferred to the
poor? Others: ‘Did you not discriminate or make a
distinction’ among those who as Christians are equal? Others:
‘Were ye not contentious among yourselves?’ did ye not thus become
litigants among yourselves? And others:
‘Did ye not doubt among yourselves’—become wavering and unsettled in your
faith? The verb in the original is the same
which in the former chapter is translated to doubt or to waver (James 1:6); and
therefore, although it may also admit of the above significations, it is best
to give a preference to that sense in which St. James has already used it. Hence, literally
translated, ‘Did you not doubt in yourselves?’ Did you not, in showing this respect of
persons, waver between God with whom there is no respect of persons and the
world, and thus become double-minded?
Did you not contradict your faith, according to which the external
distinction between rich and poor is nothing?
For to hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with
respect to persons is a contradiction in terms.
The Revised Version has, ‘Are ye not divided in your own mind?’ [51]
and are become
judges of [with, NKJV] evil thoughts? Under the influence of
evil thoughts. [14]
That is, you are judges according to those unjust estimations and corrupt opinions which you have formed to yourselves. [5]
Their actions[s] implied a judgment as to the relative worth of the two men. This was wrong because the men were strangers, of whom too little was known to warrant any such judging. Moreover, they judged “with evil thoughts” on the principle that the costliness of a man’s dress showed that he was a desirable associate. The A.V., “judges of evil thoughts,” was probably intended to convey the same meaning. [45]
2:5 Translations
WEB: Listen,
my beloved brothers. Didn't God choose those who are poor in this world to be
rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he promised to those who love
him?
Young’s: Hearken,
my brethren beloved, did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith,
and heirs of the reign that He promised to those loving Him?
Conte (RC): My most
beloved brothers, listen. Has not God chosen the poor in this world to be rich
in faith and heirs of the kingdom that God has promised to those who love him?
2:5 Hearken. Pay attention; be alert to what I'm about to
say. [rw]
my beloved
brethren.
James’ way of saying
both “even though you are making a horrible blunder, I still love you” and
“I give this severe a criticism not because I hate you but because I deeply
love you and want you to do the right thing.”
[rw]
Hath not God.
James does not say that only the poor were chosen. In some books of the O.T., however, “poor”
and “godly” are almost synonymous. [45]
Perhaps out of the recognition that in a sufficiently decayed society,
that wealthiness is almost never going to seek out
service and submission to One who prohibits behavior that is financially and
personally beneficial to themselves. [rw]
chosen the poor of
this world [in the eyes of the world, NIV]. To be his disciples
more often than the rich. [14]
Not that God
hath chosen all the poor in the world, but his choice is chiefly of them, 1
Corinthians
“Blessed be ye poor, for
yours is the
[to be, NKJV] rich in faith. Faith is
not the quality in which they are to be rich, but the sphere or element;
rich in their position as believers. [2]
Luke 12:21, “Rich toward God.” 1 Timothy 6:18, “Rich in good works” (Revelation 2:9;
cf. 2 Corinthians 2:9). [21]
Either in the greatness and abundance of their faith,
Matthew 15:28, Romans 4:20; or rather, rich in those privileges and hopes to
which by faith they have a title. [28]
and heirs of the
kingdom.
Not the spiritual
A unique phrase. An inheritance as a figure for the privileges
of believers is an O.T. idea (Ezekiel 44:28, &c.) frequently used by Paul
(Romans
which he hath
promised to them that love him? The love of God
being the essence of true piety.
St. James did not require to prove the truth of
this statement; the condition of the Jewish Christians of the dispersion, to
whom he wrote, was proof sufficient that although there were a few rich among
them, yet they were mostly chosen from among the poor. Compare with this the words of
2:6 Translations
WEB: But
you have dishonored the poor man. Don't the rich oppress you, and personally
drag you before the courts?
Young’s: and ye
did dishonour the poor one; do not the rich oppress
you and themselves draw you to judgment-seats.
Conte (RC): But you
have dishonored the poor. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you through
power? And are not they the ones who drag you to judgment?
2:6 But ye. This
statement appears to point to local conditions known by the writer. [16]
The pronoun is
emphatic, “God chose the poor, ye
put them to shame.” [38]
have despised [dishonored,
NKJV] the poor. Those
whom God accepts you reject. [22]
Instead of showing love and respect, causing him to
forget his earthly surroundings, you have openly put him to shame. [50]
Not so much the poor generally, as the poor among
Christians. Now follows a second
consideration; that by showing respect to the rich, they give a preference to
those who were the enemies both of themselves and of Christ. [51]
Do not rich men. Unbelieving rich men: as much as to say, Why
show such partiality to the rich? Are
not they your chief persecutors? [14]
Not all the rich, but many of them, and none but
they; for the poor have not the power, even if they wished. The apostle mentions this, not to excite the
godly to envy, but to show the unworthiness of the rich. [26]
oppress you. Josephus
(Antiquities, 28.8) speaks of the cruelty of the rich Sadducees to the
poor in
and draw you. “Draw:” Not
strong enough. The word implies violence. Hence, better, as Rev., drag. Compare Livy’s
phrase, “a lictoribus trahi, to be
dragged by the lictors to judgment;” Acts 8:3, of
Saul haling or hauling men and women to prison; and Luke
before the judgment
seats? Only here and 1 Cor. 6:24. [2]
Are not most of the rich men your persecutors, rather
than your friends? [47]
Or: If these forms of injury be regarded as
inflicted in matters of money on account of debt, etc., it is not necessary to
suppose that “the rich” were thought of as outside the churches. [16]
Those who suppose that by the rich here mentioned
Christians are intended, think that the reference is not to persecution, but to
litigation, similar to the abuses which occurred in the Corinthian Church (1
Corinthians 6:6). [51]
2:7 Translations
WEB: Don't
they blaspheme the honorable name by which you are called?
Young’s: do
they not themselves speak evil of the good name that was called upon you?
Conte (RC): Are not
they the ones who blaspheme the good name which has been invoked over you?
2:7 Do not they
blaspheme. That is, by their unchristian conduct in
oppressing the poor. [16]
In support of the hypothesis that the rich are
Christians, many expositors (also Bruckner and Wiesinger) here arbitrarily explain [the Greek] of indirect
blasphemy i.e., of such as takes place not by words, but by works; but [the
term] is never thus used in the Holy Scriptures; not one of the passages which Wiesinger cites proves that for which he adduces them; [it]
always denotes blasphemy by word. [8]
that worthy name. The name of Christ.
There is an allusion either to the fact that they were already called
Christians, or that they were baptized in his name. [22]
Where it had
not yet found its way, it was probable enough that the disciples of Jesus would
be known by the name out of which “Christian” sprang, as οἱ
Χριστοῦ,
“Christ’s people,” “Christ’s followers.”
The description reminds us of the account
by the which ye
are called? See Deut.
xxviii. 10, where the Septuagint reads that the name of
the Lord has been called upon thee.
Also, 2 Chron. 7:14; Isa.
4:1. Compare Acts
2:8 Translations
WEB: However,
if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, "You shall love
your neighbor as yourself," you do well.
Young’s: If,
indeed, royal law ye complete, according to the Writing, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself,' -- ye do well.
Conte (RC): So if
you perfect the regal law, according to the Scriptures, “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself,” then you do well.
2:8 If ye fulfil. The connection [with the
preceding] has been variously understood.
Some suppose that St. James is anticipating an objection of his readers,
that by showing respect of persons to the rich, they were obeying the royal
law, in loving their neighbor as themselves; others think that he is guarding
his own argument from misinterpretation.
[51]
the royal law. It is
called “the royal law” because it is superior to all others and because it
makes those who obey it regal and kingly.
[7]
The law of love, called royal by way of
preeminence. Compare Matt. 22:37-40. [14]
Not so much because it is the law of Christ, our
king, it being a law of the Old Testament, as because it is the law which, of
all laws which concern our neighbor, is most excellent, and which governs and
moderates other laws. [4]
Overview of major
interpretive options: The phrase, νομος βασιλικος,
royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st,
As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it
may mean an excellent law.
2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called
the laws of the kings of Persia, βασιλικοι νομοι,
royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our
King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to
love our neighbor, may be called the royal law, because it inspires
us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in
benevolence and clemency. [47]
according to the
scripture.
Here not according to the Gospel—the words of Jesus; but
according to the law of Moses (Leviticus
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. Lest any
should think James had been pleading for the poor so as to throw contempt on
the rich, he now lets them know that he did not design to encourage improper
conduct towards any; they must not hate nor be rude to the rich, any more than
despise the poor; but as the Scripture teaches us to love all our
neighbors, be they rich or poor, as ourselves, so, in our having a steady
regard to this rule, “we shall do well.”
[5]
Ye are not to be blamed, but
commended. The apostle seems here to
answer an objection they might make in their own defence;
that in the respect they gave to rich men, they did but act according to the
law which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves: to this he replies
partly in this verse by way of concession, or on supposition; that if
the respect they gave to rich men were indeed in obedience to the law of
charity, which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, then they did
well, and he found no fault with them; but [it is outright sinful if they do so
out of a different motive, as] he shows in the next verse. [28]
The
law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to
such perfection, as it was to be practised among his
followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new
commandment, John 13:34;
and his commandment, John 15:12. [47]
2:9 Translations
WEB: But
if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as
transgressors.
Young’s: and if
ye accept persons, sin ye do work, being convicted by the law as transgressors.
Conte (RC): But if
you show favoritism to persons, then you commit a sin, having been convicted
again by the law as transgressors.
2:9 But if ye have
respect to persons. The second part of the apostle’s answer, in
which he sets persons in opposition [= contrast] to neighbor: q.d., If you, instead of loving your neighbor, which
excludes no sort of men, poor no more than rich, choose and single out (as ye
do) only some few (viz. rich men) to whom ye give respect, despising others, ye
are so far from fulfilling the royal law, that ye sin against it. [28]
ye commit sin. Ye
violate this royal law. [51]
and are convinced
[convicted, NKJV] of the law as transgressors. By that very law. [15]
Because such a respect of persons is contrary and opposed to a
disinterested and universal love to others. [51]
WEB: For
whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become
guilty of all.
Young’s: for whoever the whole law shall keep, and shall stumble in one
point, he hath become guilty of all.
Conte (RC): Now
whoever has observed the whole law, yet who offends in one matter, has become
guilty of all.
shall keep the whole law. Barring sinlessness—which is not a human option—no one will every fully do so. But one can try to do so and one can so fully do so that nothing obvious is out of place. From the practical standpoint such a person observes “the whole law” in spite of their human failures. [rw]
Or: This is not an assertion, that any man doth
keep the whole law so as to offend but in one point, but a supposition that if,
or admitting, such a one were. [28]
Better, have kept the whole Law, but shall have
offended in one, has become guilty of all.
As a chain is snapped by failure of the weakest link, so the whole Law,
in its harmony and completeness as beheld by God, is broken by one offence of
one man; and the penalty falls, of its own natural weight and incidence, on the
culprit. [46]
and yet offend
[stumble, NKJV] in one point. That is, deliberately and
habitually. [34]
Such a little in comparison with the behavior that
is their norm! [rw]
What alone he means is, that
God will not be honored with exceptions, nor will he allow us to cut off from
his law what is less pleasing to us. [35]
he is guilty of all. Literally, “is answerable for all.” We cannot therefore comfort or excuse ourselves for the transgression of one commandment by alleging that we have kept the rest, or some of them; for the transgression of a single commandment presupposes a frame of mind from which the transgression of all (were opportunity enlarged) might proceed. [6]
He
does not mean that all sin is equally great, or that it is as serious to break
one commandment as to break all. Breaking one commandment puts the offender in
the class of transgressors. It
also shows that he is indifferent to law, and so to the will of God expressed
in all the commandments, and that it is but accident or fear or the absence of
temptation that prevents him from breaking the other commandments. [7]
The “royal law” is a unit; you cannot violate a part of
it alone. There may be different degrees
of violation, but if you have done a loveless act no part of the law acquits
you; the whole law of love has been violated, and condemns you. [39]
WEB: For
he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit
murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a
transgressor of the law.
Young’s: for He
who is saying, 'Thou mayest not commit adultery,'
said also, 'Thou mayest do no murder;' and if thou shalt not commit adultery, and shalt
commit murder, thou hast become a transgressor of law.
Conte (RC): For he
who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not kill.” So
if you do not commit adultery, but you kill, you have become a transgressor of
the law.
There
is the same divine authority for one commandment as another, Exodus 20:1. [29]
He that said. The same
one undivided divine Authority is promulgator of the one
law, which so branches into ten
specifications. Violating any one
specification impinges against that entire authority. It denies the supremacy of God. It is treason against the government of the
universe. [39]
He that said. . . also said. Selected as being the most
glaring cases of violation of duty towards one’s neighbor. [21]
Or: The reason is rather because these two
commandments are the first of those which refer to our duties to our neighbor
(thus Bruckner).
[8]
It is not meant that you have committed each and
every mentionable act of transgression.
The ten commandments are but so many
specifications under the one law of love; they are but specifications of
various ways in which that one “whole law” can
be violated. Every specific
violation is a violation of that one whole law. [39]
Do not commit
adultery said also, Do not kill. Part
of the same Divine law code. That it is a different specific commandment in no way
removes it from that code nor makes it proper to ignore it. [rw]
Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art
become a transgressor of the law. Since the law is the expression of the
will of Him who gave it, the transgression of a single portion is disobedience
to the one will, and consequently a transgression of the whole law. James might, indeed, have confirmed the idea
by the internal connection of all commands, and by
pointing out that the transgression of one commandment reveals a want
which makes the fulfillment of the other commandments impossible; but as he does
not do so, these considerations are not to be arbitrarily introduced into his
words. [8]
In depth: the common
attitude among first century Jews that superior obedience to one part of the Law compensated for
laxity on others—a mindframe far from abandoned by
many “Christians” who came afterwards [40]. The censure of the apostle was aimed at a
habit of the Jews to single out the observance of some principal commandment,
as making satisfaction for neglect or disobedience of the others.
“The law is
one seamless garment, which is rent if you but rend a part; or a musical
harmony, which is spoiled if there be one discordant note; or a golden chain,
whose completeness is broken if you break one link. Thus you break the whole law, though not the
whole of the law, because you offend against love which is the
fulfilling of the law.”
WEB: So
speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom.
Young’s: so
speak ye and so do, as about by a law of liberty to be judged,
Conte (RC): So speak
and act just as you are beginning to be judged, by the law of liberty.
as they that
shall be judged. You will be judged, even though the law
is a law of liberty. [13]
by the law of
liberty. I.e. by the new law and
doctrine of Christ. [12]
It
is called the “law of liberty” for it sets men free from sin and self. [7]
‘Law’—merely
‘law’—‘law’ only—is a bondage harsh and severe. ‘
WEB: For
judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over
judgment.
Young’s: for
the judgment without kindness is to him not having done kindness, and exult
doth kindness over judgment.
Conte (RC): For
judgment is without mercy toward him who has not shown mercy. But mercy exalts
itself above judgment.
that hath shewed no mercy. To others in distress,
will have no mercy shown to him. [14]
We have here the echo of two sayings of the Lord, each one dealing with different aspects of mercy. Mercy may be taken as signifying
forgiveness. Now in the parable of
the unmerciful servant, after the wretched man had been delivered to the
tormentors till he should pay all that was required of him, the Lord concludes
with the words: “So likewise shall my
heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every man
his brother their trespasses” (Matthew 28:35).
And mercy may [also] be taken as signifying kindness, benevolence,
and sympathy. For the Lord in
describing His procedure at the general judgment, says that He will say to
those on his left hand: “Depart, ye
cursed, for I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat,
I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink. . . . sick, and
in prison, was ye visited me not” (Matthew 25:42-43). [41]
Ancient Jewish thought
on the matter: Test. of
the Twelve Patriarchs, Zeb. viii.
1–3: “Have, therefore, yourselves
also, my children, compassion towards every man with mercy, that the Lord also
may have compassion and mercy upon you.
Because also in the last days God will send His compassion on the earth,
and wheresoever He findeth
bowels of mercy He dwelleth in him. For in the degree in which a man hath
compassion upon his neighbors, in the same degree hath the Lord also upon him”
(Charles); cf. also vi. 4–6.
Shabbath, 127b: “He who thus judges others will thus himself
be judged”. Ibid., 151b: “He that hath mercy on his neighbors will
receive mercy from heaven; and he that hath not mercy on his neighbors will not
receive mercy from heaven”. [36]
and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. The
meaning of the last phrase probably is, The unmerciful
and unloving man is condemned without pity (Matthew
Mercy and judgment are here
personified; judgment threatens to condemn the sinner, but mercy
interposes and overcomes judgment. The
saying is general, and not to be limited either to God or to man; mercy
prevails against judgment. ‘Mercy,’ says
St. Chrysostom, ‘is dear to God, and intercedes for
the sinner, and breaks his chains, and dissipates the darkness, and quenches
the fire of hell, and destroys the worm, and rescues from the gnashing of
teeth. To her the gates of heaven are
opened. She is the queen of virtues, and
makes men like to God; for it is written, Be ye merciful, as your Father also
is merciful. She has silver wings like
the dove, and feathers of gold, and soars aloft, and is clothed with the Divine
glory, and stands by the throne of God; when we are in danger of being
condemned, she rises up and pleads for us, and covers us with her defense, and
enfolds us with her wings. God loves
mercy more than sacrifice.’ Compare with
this Shakespeare’s celebrated lines on the quality of mercy. [51]
WEB: What
good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can
faith save him?
Young’s: What
is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he
may not have? is that faith able to save him?
Conte (RC): My
brothers, what benefit is there if someone claims to have faith, but he does
not have works? How would faith be able to save him?
Literally, ‘What is
the use?’ Faith without works will not
profit at the judgment; it will not be conducive to the saving of the
soul. [51]
my brethren. I'm not saying this to outsiders. I'm saying this to those who should already
know this. [rw]
though a man say he
hath faith. That kind of faith which is inactive,
dead, and never does good? No. [14]
Why should a man say
he hath faith? Some expositors draw
attention to the fact that the Apostle does not indicate faith in the man in question, but only that he
says he has faith. And there seems some truth at the bottom of
this. A man who desires to profess his Christianity
must show something. If he is careless
about holy living he very likely makes up for it by talking. [41]
and have not
works? The “works” of
which he speaks are, as the next verse shows, emphatically, not ceremonial, nor
ascetic, but those of an active benevolence.
[38]
As is evident from the context, James means those
works which are the fruits and effects of faith—evangelical works which arise
from faith; hence, then, not mere ceremonial works, nor even moral or legal
works done previous to and apart from faith.
[51]
can faith save
him? Can such a professed
faith save him at the day of judgment, when “judgment
is without mercy to him that hath shewed no mercy” (
The meaning here is, that that faith which does not
produce good works, or which would not produce holy living if fairly acted out,
will save no man, for it is not genuine faith. [31]
This question implies that the writer had some person
or persons in mind who maintained the proposition that faith without works was
sufficient for salvation. The way in
which the terms “faith” and “works” are introduced cannot but give the
impression that they were well known, and that the writer assumed his readers
to have been familiar with them in their relation to each other. [16]
From
chap.
A related approach showing the consistency between James
and Paul: In order to understand this passage we must
bear in mind that St. James is here using the word “faith” in a sense opposite
to that of James 1:3, 6, and different also from that in which
WEB: And
if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food.
Young’s: and if
a brother or sister may be naked, and may be destitute of the daily food.
Conte (RC): So if a
brother or sister is naked and daily in need of food.
be naked and
destitute of daily food. Be reduced to a state of extreme destitution. By daily food is meant
the food necessary for each day. [51]
WEB: and
one of you tells them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled;" and yet
you didn't give them the things the body needs, what good is it?
Young’s: and
any one of you may say to them, 'Depart ye in peace,
be warmed, and be filled,' and may not give to them the things needful for the
body, what is the profit?
Conte (RC): and if
anyone of you were to say to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and nourished,” and
yet not give them the things that are necessary for the body, of what benefit
is this?
Depart in peace. Go in peace--A form of repulse
even now in use [=1700s] : God help you, that
is, expect no help from me. [26]
be ye warmed and filled. The
Greek verbs may be either in the imperative or indicative, “Get
yourselves warmed and filled,” or “Ye are warming and filling yourselves.” The former is the more generally received
interpretation, and represents the kind of benevolence which shows itself in
good advice. [38]
Warmed in reference to their being
naked, and filled in reference to their being destitute of daily food. Expressions of kind wishes toward the
destitute; mere words, but no actions.
The words are such as, if sincere, would have been followed by
corresponding actions. [51]
notwithstanding ye give them
not those things which are needful to the body. The right words are there, but nothing
has been done to turn the "best wishes" into a living reality. [rw]
what doth it profit? We have
here a concrete illustration of the abstract principle stated in verse 14. John makes the same application (1 John
3:17: “But whoso hath this world's good,
and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth
the love of God in him?]). [50]
WEB: Even so faith, if it has no works,
is dead in itself.
Young’s: so
also the faith, if it may not have works, is dead by itself.
Conte (RC): Thus
even faith, if it does not have works, is dead, in and of itself.
is dead. The title dead strikes us with horror. Though the abstract word is used, the
concrete is meant. Faith is dead; that is, the man who says that he has faith, has not that life, which is faith itself. [26]
being alone. Margin, “by itself.” The sense is, “being by itself:” that
is, destitute of any accompanying fruits or results, it shows that it is dead.
That which is alive produces effects, makes itself
visible; that which is dead produces no effect, and is as if it were not. [31]
Deeds, and deeds alone, show the vitality of faith,
and the converse is also true, that faith, and faith alone, gives life and
acceptance to the deeds. [41]
WEB: Yes,
a man will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your
faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
Young’s: But
say may some one, Thou hast faith, and I have works, shew
me thy faith out of thy works, and I will shew thee
out of my works my faith.
Conte (RC): Now
someone may say: “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without
works! But I will show you my faith by means of works.
and I have works. In effect, "There are two options available. You chose one, faith, and that is
admirable. I chose a different option,
works, and that is at least just as admirable.
What is there to complain about?"
[rw]
shew me thy faith
without thy works. If thou canst. [47]
A faith without works is incapable of being
proved. To show faith without works is
simply an impossibility. If it exist at all
in such a state, it exists in a passive or latent form in a man’s mind, and
cannot be shown to others. Faith is not
entirely denied to the man, but living faith is; if faith does not prove
itself by works it is dead, and of no value as regards salvation. [51]
and I will shew thee my faith by my works. You
cannot at all prove to me that you really have this faith, unless you can prove
it to me from the works which are the fruit of faith. But I can prove from my works, that I do not
lack faith, without which such works could not be present. It certainly follows from its very character
that mere faith, as such, cannot do any good.
[9]
WEB: You believe that God is one. You
do well. The demons also believe, and shudder.
Young’s: thou
-- thou dost believe that God is one; thou dost well, and the demons believe,
and they shudder!
Conte (RC): You
believe that there is one God. You do well. But the demons also believe, and
they tremble greatly.
thou doest well. It is praiseworthy. [rw]
So far good. There is a certain touch of irony in the
language; but the irony does not lie in the words, ‘Thou doest well,’ but in
the whole statement—that a theoretical faith in the unity of God, though in
itself good, yet does not essentially differ from the belief of devils. [51]
the devils also
believe. I [concede your faith]. But this proves only, that thou hast the same
faith with the devils. [15]
The word believe is here used in a very wide
sense; for the devils perceive, and understand, and remember, that there is a
God, and one only. [26]
In the New Testament, the demons are spoken of as spiritual beings, at enmity with God, and
having power to afflict man, not only with disease, but, as marked by the
frequent epithet “unclean,” with spiritual pollution also. In Acts 19:12-13, they are defined as the
“evil spirits.” There is but one Devil
and the demons are “the angels of the devil” (Matthew 25:41). [50]
and tremble. The word
here used (φρίσσουσιν phrissousin) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, to be rough, uneven,
jaggy, sc., with bristling hair; to bristle, to stand on end, as the hair does in a fright; and then
to shudder or quake with fear, etc.
There was a faith that produced some effect, and an effect of a
very decided character. It did not,
indeed, produce good works, or a holy life.
A man should not infer, therefore, because he has faith, even that faith
in God which will fill him with alarm, that therefore he is safe. He must have a faith which will produce
another effect altogether - that which will lead to a holy life. [31]
They not only believe, but tremble--At the
dreadful expectation of eternal torments.
So far is that faith from either justifying or saving them that have
it. [15]
Even the evil spirits have a kind of “faith”; and
their faith bears fruit of a sort. It causes them profound fear: Mark 1:24; Luke 8:28. No doubt St. James has in his mind these
incidents recorded in the Gospels. [24]
Or: The
word tremble is commonly looked upon as denoting a good effect of faith; but
here it may rather be taken as a bad effect, when applied to the faith of
devils. They tremble, not out of
reverence, but hatred and opposition to that one God on whom they believe. [5]
WEB: But
do you want to know, vain man, that faith apart from works is dead?
Young’s: And
dost thou wish to know, O vain man, that the faith apart from the works is
dead?
Conte (RC): So then,
are you willing to understand, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
O vain man. The term, as applied to men, is not found
elsewhere in the New Testament, but is used with something of the same
significance in the LXX of Judges 9:4.
The idea is primarily that of “emptiness,” and the Greek adjective is
almost literally the equivalent of our empty-headed, as
a term of contempt. [38]
That is, O empty man, puffed up with pride, trusting
to thy outward privileges, but without seriousness and spiritual life. [51]
that faith without
works is dead? And so is
not properly faith, as a dead
carcass is not a man. [15]
Or: St. James
means a faith which, because it has no influence on a man’s actions, is as
incapable to justify him, as a dead carcass is to perform the offices of a
living man. [47]
The manuscripts vary between “dead” and the adjective
rendered “idle” in Matthew 12:36; 20:3.
The meaning is substantially the same.
That which is without life is without the activity which is the one
proof of life. [38]
WEB: Wasn't Abraham our father
justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
Young’s: Abraham
our father -- was not he declared righteous out of works, having brought up
Isaac his son upon the altar?
Conte (RC): Was not
our father Abraham justified by means of works, by offering his son Isaac upon
the altar?
our father. Our
progenitor, our ancestor; using the word “father,” as frequently occurs in the
Bible, to denote a remote ancestor. A
reference to his case would have great weight with those who were Jews by
birth, and probably most of those to whom this Epistle was addressed were of
this character. [31]
justified by works. By a
faith which showed itself in works. This is the argument of James, that faith
is of no avail unless accompanied by works. Of this all Abraham's life was a
demonstration. He was told when in
The plural works, whereas
only one work is mentioned, is explained from the fact that the class is named
to which the offering up of Isaac belongs.
[51]
when he had offered
Isaac his son upon the altar?
This shows the settled purpose of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, when
he proceeded so far as to bind him, and lay him upon the altar; for that
argues, that he expected and intended nothing but his death, which was wont to
follow in sacrifices when once laid upon the altar. [28]
WEB: You
see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected.
Young’s: dost
thou see that the faith was working with his works, and out of the works the
faith was perfected?
Conte (RC): Do you
see that faith was cooperating with his works, and that by means of works faith
was brought to fulfillment?
how faith wrought
with [was working together with, NKJV]. For by faith Abraham offered up Isaac,
Hebrews 11:17. [15]
wrought with. συνήργει sunērgei. Cooperated with.
The meaning of the word is, “to work together with anyone; to co operate,” 1
Corinthians
his works, and by
works was faith made perfect? Shown to be complete, of the right
kind, by producing its appropriate fruit.
[14]
WEB: and
the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him as righteousness;" and he was called the friend of God.
Young’s: and
fulfilled was the Writing that is saying, 'And Abraham did believe God, and it
was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;' and, 'Friend of God' he was called.
Conte (RC): And so
the Scripture was fulfilled which says: “Abraham believed God, and it was
reputed to him unto justice.” And so he was called the friend of God.
was fulfilled. For only
in this way was the word of Genesis 15:6, fulfilled. If it is stated there, that the faith of
Abraham was counted to him for righteousness, this certainly was like a
prophecy, which was really only fulfilled, when as a matter of fact his faith
produced the work which made him pleasing to God. [9]
which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness. The sense is here anticipated by
Prolepsis, for it was fulfilled before it was written: but at
what part of Abraham’s time was it fulfilled?
When he first believed, or afterwards, when he offered his son? At both times: but James especially
refers to the time of the offering, since he is speaking of the state of
Abraham after his justification: and to this the expression, he was called
the friend of God, has reference; but from this he proves justification by
works; from the former expression, justification by faith. [26]
and he was called
the Friend of God. So in the Hebrew—Isaiah
41:8, God being the speaker, “Abraham, my friend;” LXX, “Abraham whom I loved. 2 Chronicles 20:7, God
being addressed, “Abraham thy friend;” LXX, “thy beloved.” Philo, however, quotes Genesis 18:7
thus—“Shall I hide (this) from Abraham my friend?” This reading is not found in any other
authority—the Hebrew has simply “from Abraham;” the LXX and Syriac,
“from Abraham my servant”--but it was probably once current in some manuscripts
of the LXX; and Genesis
WEB: You
see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.
Young’s: Ye
see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith
only.
Conte (RC): Do you
see that a man is justified by means of works, and not by faith alone?
This line of evidence makes plain this fact. [rw]
how that by works
a man is justified, and not by faith only. St. Paul,
on the other hand, declares, a man is justified by
faith, and not by works, Rom. 3:28. And
yet there is no contradiction between the apostles; because, 1. They do not speak of the same faith;
is justified. Declared
to be righteous, or approved as such, and acquitted from the guilt of
hypocrisy. [28]
WEB: In
the same way, wasn't Rahab the prostitute also
justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out
another way?
Young’s: and in
like manner also Rahab the harlot -- was she not out
of works declared righteous, having received the messengers, and by another way
having sent forth?
Conte (RC): Similarly
also, Rahab, the harlot, was she not justified by
works, by receiving the messengers and sending them out through another way?
was not Rahab. Rahab became
the wife of Salmon, and the ancestress of Boaz, Jesse’s grandfather. Some have supposed that Salmon was one of the
spies whose life she saved. At any rate,
she became the mother of the line of David and of Christ, and is so recorded in
Matthew’s genealogy of our Lord, in which only four women are named. [2]
the harlot. As far different from
Abraham as you could possibly get: the
wealthy, prosperous and righteous patriarch verses the woman whose very
"career" was inherently immoral and self-condemning. Yet
both extremes--and all points in between--come to God the same way . . . by
their actions. [rw]
justified by works. They
proved that she had faith. [14]
when she had
received the messengers, and had sent them
out another way? Telling us what the “works” were. [rw]
This was certainly a work springing from her faith;
it arose from her firm belief in the God of Israel. Indeed, Rahab
herself gives this as the reason of her conduct: ‘I know that the Lord hath given you the
land, and that your terror is fallen upon as, and that all the inhabitants of
the land faint because of you. The Lord
your God, He is God in heaven above and in the earth beneath’ (Joshua 1:9,
11). Her receiving the messengers, and
sending them out another way, was therefore a proof that her faith was real and
living. ‘By faith,’ says the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, ‘the harlot Rahab
perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with
peace’ (Hebrews
In depth: Why was Rahab selected as an example of faith [38]? The question meets us: What led St James to select this
example?
In the mention of Rahab by Clement of Rome (i. 12) we have an obvious echo from the Epistle just named, with the additional element of a typical interpretation of the scarlet thread as the symbol of the blood of Christ, by which those of all nations, even the harlots and the unrighteous, obtained salvation. A more probable explanation is found in the connexion of St James with the Gospel according to St Matthew. The genealogy of the Christ given in ch. 1 of that Gospel must have been known to “the brother of the Lord,” and in it the name of Rahab appeared as having married Salmon, the then “prince” of the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:5; 1 Chronicles 2:50-51; Ruth 4:20-21).
The prominence thus given to her name would naturally
lead him and others to think of her history and ask what lessons it had to
teach them. If “harlots” as well as
“publicans” were among those who listened to the warnings of the Baptist and
welcomed the gracious words of Christ (Matthew
A rabbinic tradition makes her become the wife of
Joshua and the ancestress of eight distinguished priests and prophets, ending
in Huldah the Prophetess (2 Kings
Another ground of selection may well have been that Rahab was by her position in the history the first
representative instance of the deliverance of one outside the limits of the
chosen people. In this instance also, St
James urges, the faith would have been dead had it been only an assent to the
truth that the God of Israel was indeed God, without passing into action. The “messengers” are described in Joshua 6:23
as “young men,” in Hebrews 11:31 as “spies”.
WEB: For
as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is
dead.
Young’s: or as
the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works
is dead.
Conte (RC): For just
as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
so faith without
works is dead also. According to him, a faith without
works is like a body from which the living principle has departed; works are
the evidences of life, and if these be absent, the faith is dead. A mere system of doctrine, however correct,
is a mere dead body, unless it be animated by a living
working spirit. We must not, however,
press the metaphor too far. Strictly
speaking, the works do not correspond to the spirit, but are only the outward
manifestations of an internal living principle—the proof that there is
life. An unproductive faith is a body
without the spirit; a productive faith is the living body. [51]
In depth: Paul and James
on relationship of faith and works [5]. 1. When Paul says that a man is justified by
faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom.
2. Paul not
only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks
of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged
and intended. Paul had to do with those
who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might
well make them of no manner of account.
James had to so with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works
to be used even as evidences; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient
to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast
importance of good works.
As we must not break one table of the law, by dashing
it against the other, so neither must we break in pieces the law and the
gospel, by making them clash with one another:
those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who
cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong; for we
must take our work before us; there must be both faith in Jesus Christ and good
works the fruit of faith.
In depth: Paul and
James embraced the same doctrine of the importance of both faith and Divinely demanded “works” (actions/behavior) [31].
Did each of these two writers in reality hold
the same doctrine on the subject? This will be seen, if it can be shown that
James held to the doctrine of justification by faith, as really as Paul did;
and that Paul held that good works were necessary to show the genuineness of
faith, as really as James did.
(1) They both agreed in holding the doctrine of
justification by faith. Of Paul‘s belief there can be no doubt. That James held the doctrine is apparent from
the fact that he quotes the very passage in Genesis, Genesis 15:6, and the one
on which Paul relies, Romans 4:1-3, as expressing his own views--“Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” The truth of this, James does not deny, but
affirms that the Scripture which made this declaration was fulfilled or
confirmed by the act to which he refers.
(2) They
both agreed in holding that good works are necessary to show the genuineness of
faith. Of James” views on that point
there can be no doubt. That Paul held
the same opinion is clear: (a) from his
own life, no man ever having been more solicitous to keep the whole law of God
than he was.
(b)
From his constant exhortations and declarations, such as these: “Created in
Christ Jesus unto good works,” Ephesians 2:10; “Charge them that are rich, that
they be rich in good works,” 1 Timothy 6:17-18; “In all things showing thyself
a pattern of good works,” Titus 2:7; “Who gave himself for us, that he might
purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,” Titus 2:14;
“These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed
in God might be careful to maintain good works,” Titus 3:8.
(c)
It appears from the fact that Paul believed that the rewards of heaven are to
be apportioned according to our good works, or according to our character and
our attainments in the divine life. The
title indeed to eternal life is, according to him, in consequence of faith; the
measure of the reward is to be our holiness, or what we do. Thus he says, 2 Corinthians 5:10, “For we
must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive
the things done in his body.” Thus also
he says, 2 Corinthians 9:6, “He which soweth
sparingly. shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully.” And thus also he says, Romans 2:6, that God “will render to every man according to his
deeds.” See also the influence which
faith had on Paul personally, as described in the third chapter of his Epistle
to the Philippians.
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES UTILIZED
IN THIS STUDY:
1 [Anonymous]. Teacher’s Testament/Nelson’s Explanatory
Testament
Thomas
Nelson & Sons;
2 Marvin
R. Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
Charles
Scribner’s Sons;
3 Robert
Young. Commentary
on the Holy Bible. A. Fullarton & Co;
4 Daniel
Whitby, D.D. and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase
on the New Testament. Carey Hart,
5 Matthew
Henry. Vol. IV: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.
6 Rev. Dr
C. G. Barth. The Bible Manual.
1865
7 Charles
R. Erdman. The
General Epistles.
Press, 1918.
8 Joh. Ed. Huther, Th. D., Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
General
Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude
[Meyer’s Commentary
on the New Testament].
9 Professor
Bernhard Weiss, D.D. A
Commentary of the New Testament Vol. IV.
10 Charles
Simeon, M.A. Horae
Homileticae Vol. XX.
and Ball, 1833.
11 Rev. S.
T. Bloomfield, M.A. Recensio
Symoptica Annotations Sacrae
[
12 George
Leo Haydock. Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary
UTS,
13 Howard
Crosby, D.D. New
Testament, With Brief Explanatory Notes. New
14 Anonymous [Justin
Edwards]. The New
Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This edition has more notes, but Edwards’ name is
attached to a shorter
edition of the
same material at UTS,
15 John
Wesley, M.A. Explanatory Notes upon
the New Testament.
16 Orello Cone, D.D. International Handbooks to the N.T. Vol. 3:
The Epistles. New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons / Knickerbocker Press,
1901.
17 Philip
Doddridge, D.D. The Family Expositor
(Paraphrase and Version of
the New
Testament [American edition]).
Amherst, Ms.: J. S. & C.
Adams,
and L. Boltwood;
18 Adam
Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., etc.
The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ Vol. VI.
19 Donald
Fraser, M.A., D.D. Synoptical
Lectures of the Books of Holy Scripture Vol.
II.
20 Rev. William
Jenks, D.D. The Conprehensive
Commentary of the Holy
Bible. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott
& Co., 1838 copyright; 1847 printing.
21 Rev. Robert Jamieson, D.D., Rev. A. R. Fausset, A.M., Rev. David Brown, D.D. A Commentary, Critical and explanatory, on
the Old and New Testaments
Vol. II.
22 Barton
W. Johnson. People’s New Testament. 1891.
23 Arno Gaebelein. Annotated Bible. 1920s.
24 John R. Dummelow. Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible.
1909.
25 Robert Hawker. Poor Man’s Commentary. 1828.
26 Johann
A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. 1742.
27 Alexander
MacLaren. Exposition of the Holy Scriptures. 18--.
28 Matthew
Poole. English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
1685.
29 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Written 1600s; 1865-1868 edition.
30 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1835.
31 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. 1870.
32 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. 1897-1910.
33 F.
B. Meyer. Thru The
Bible (Commentary). 1914 edition.
34 John and Jacob Abbott. Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament. 1878.
35 John Calvin. Commentaries. Written in 1500s. Printing:
1840-1857.
36 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. 1897-1910.
37
38
E. M. Plumptre. 1890.
39 D. (Daniel) D. Whedon. Commentary on the New Testament;
volume 5:
Titus to Revelation.
40 Ariel A. Livermore. The Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistles
of James,
Peter, John, and Jude and the Revelation of John the Divine[:] Commentary
and Essays.
41 M[ichael] F.
Sadler. The General Epistles of SS.
James, Peter, John, and
Jude. Second
Edition.
42 Robert S. Hunt. The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
In
the Cottage Commentary series.
43 A. T. Robertson. New Testament Interpretation (Matthew to
Revelation):
Notes on
Lectures. Taken
stenographically. Revised Edition by William
M.
Fouts and Alice M. Fouts.
44 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the Revised Version of the
New
Testament.
45 W. H. Bennett. The General Epistles: James, Peter, John and Jude. In the
Century Bible series.
46 E. G. Punchard. “James” in Ellicott’s New Testament
Commentary for
English Readers.
1884.
47 Joseph Benson. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1811-1815.
48 William B. Godbey. Commentary on the New
Testament. 1896-1900.
At:
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ges/
49 James Nisbett,
editor. Church
Pulpit Commentary. 1876. [Note:
this is not
“The Pulpit
Commentary.”] At:
http://www.studylight.org/ commentaries/cpc/
50 Revere F. Weidner. Annotations on the General Epistles of
James, Peter,
John,
and Jude. In the Lutheran
Commentary series.
Literature Company, 1897.
51 Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
1879-1890.
At: http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/