ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.
This chapter is evidently made up of three parts, or three subjects
are discussed:--
I. The duty of impartiality in the treatment of others, verses 1-9.
There was to be no favouritism on account of rank, birth, wealth, or
apparel. The case to which the apostle refers for an illustration of
this, is that where two persons should come into an assembly of
Christian worshippers, one elegantly dressed, and the other meanly
clad, and they should show special favour to the former, and should
assign to the latter a more humble place. The reasons which the
apostle assigns why they should not do this are,
(a) that God has chosen the poor for his own people, having selected
his friends mainly from them;
(b) because rich men in fact oppressed them, and showed that they
were worthy of no special regard;
(c) because they were often found among revilers, and in fact despised
their
religion; and
(d) because the law required that they should love their neighbours as
themselves, and if they did this, it was all that was demanded; that is,
that the love of the man was not to be set aside by the love of
splendid
apparel.
II. The duty of yielding obedience to the whole law in order to
have evidence of true religion, verses 10-13. This subject seems to
have been introduced in accordance with the general principles and
aims of James, (See Barnes "James 1:1", the Introduction) that
religion consists in obeying the law of God, and that there can be
none when this is not done. It is not improbable that, among those to
whom he wrote, there were some who denied this, or who had embraced
some views of religion which led them to doubt it. He therefore enforces
the duty by the following considerations:
(1.) That if a man should obey every part of the law, and yet be guilty
of offending in one point, he was in fact guilty of all; for he showed
that he had no genuine principle of obedience, and was guilty of violating
the law as a whole, James 2:10.
(2.) Every part of the law rests on the same authority, and one
part, therefore, is as binding as another. The same God that has
forbidden murder, has also forbidden adultery; and he who does the
one as really violates the law as he who does the other, James 2:11.
(3.) The judgment is before us, and we shall be tried on impartial
principles, not with reference to obeying one part of the law, but
with reference to its whole claim; and we should so act as becomes
those who expect to be judged by the whole law, or on the question
whether we have conformed to every part of it, James 2:12-13.
III. The subject of justification, showing that works are necessary
in order that a man may be justified, or esteemed righteous
before God, James 2:14-26. For a general view of the design of this
part of the epistle, See Barnes "James 5:1", Introduction to Chapter
5.
The object here is to show that in fact no one can be regarded as truly
righteous before God who does not lead an upright life; and that if a
man professes to have faith, and has not works, he cannot be justified;
or that if he have real faith, it will be shown by his works. If it is
not shown by works corresponding to its nature, it will be certain that
there is no true religion, or that his professed faith is worth nothing.
The
"stand point" from which James views the subject, is not that
faith is unnecessary or worthless, or that a man is not justified by
faith rather than by his own works, in the sense of its being the
ground of acceptance with God; or, in other words, the place where
the apostle takes his position, and which is the point from which he
views the subject, is not before a man is justified, to inquire in what
way he may be accepted of God, but it is after the act of
justification
by faith, to show that if faith does not lead to good works it is
"dead," or is of no value; and that in fact, therefore, the evidence
of justification is to be found in good living, and that when this is
not manifest, all a man's professed religion is worth nothing. In
doing this, he
(a) makes the general statement, by a pointed interrogatory, that
faith cannot profit, that is, cannot save a man, unless
there be also works, James 2:14. He then
(b) appeals, for an illustration, to the case of one who is hungry
or naked, and asks what mere faith could do in his case, if it were
not accompanied with proper acts of benevolence, James 2:15-17. He then,
(c) by a strong supposable case, says that real faith will be evinced
by works, or that works are the proper evidence of its existence,
James 2:18. He then
(d) shows that there is a kind of faith which even the devils
have on one of the most important doctrines of religion, and which
can be of no value; showing that it cannot be by mere faith,
irrespective
of the question of what sort the faith is, that a man is to be
saved, James 2:19. He then
(e) appeals to the case of Abraham, showing that in fact works
performed
an important part in his acceptance with God; or that if it had not
been for his works--that is, if there no evidence that he was justified,
or that his works were the proper carrying out or fulfilment of his
faith, James 2:20-24. He then
(f) shows that the same thing was true of another case recorded in the
Old Testament--that of Rahab, (James 2:25;) and then observes,
(James 2:26,) that faith without works would have no more claim to
being true religion than a dead body, without a soul, would be regarded
as a living man.
Verse 1. My brethren. Perhaps meaning brethren in two respects--as
Jews, and as Christians. In both respects the form of address
would be proper.
Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is the
distinguishing thing in the Christian religion, for it is this by which man
is justified, and hence it comes to be put for religion itself.
See Barnes "1 Timothy 3:9". The meaning here is, "Do not hold such views
of the religion of Christ, as to lead you to manifest partiality to others
on account of their difference of rank or outward circumstances."
The Lord of glory. The glorious Lord; he who is glorious
himself, and who is encompassed with glory. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 2:8".
The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord
should be in no way dishonoured.
With respect of persons. That is, you are not to show respect of
persons, or to evince partiality to others on account of their rank,
wealth, apparel, etc. Compare Proverbs 24:23;; 28:21;; Leviticus 19:15;; Deuteronomy 1:17;
\\De 10:17; 2Ch 19:7; Ps 40:4\\. See Barnes " :"; and
See Barnes " :" to see the subject explained.
{a} "respect of persons" Proverbs 28:21;; Jude 16
Verse 2. For if there come unto your assembly. Marg., as in Gr.,
synagogue. It is remarkable that this is the only place in the New
Testament where the word synagogue is applied to the Christian church.
It is probably employed here because the apostle was writing to those
who had been Jews; and it is to be presumed that the word synagogue
would be naturally used by the early converts from Judaism
to designate a Christian place of worship, or a Christian congregation,
and it was probably so employed until it was superseded by a
word which the Gentile converts would be more likely to employ
and which would, in fact, be better and more expressive--the word
church. The word synagogue (\~sunagwghn\~) would properly refer to
the whole congregation, considered as assembled together, without
respect to the question whether all were truly pious or not; the
word church (\~ekklhsia\~) would refer to the assembly convened for
worship as called out, referring to the fact that they were called out
from the world, and convened as worshippers of God, and would,
therefore, be more applicable to a body of spiritual worshippers. It
is probable that the Christian church was modelled, in its general
arrangements, after the Jewish synagogue; but there would be
obviously some disadvantages in retaining the name, as applicable
to Christian worship. It would be difficult to avoid the associations
connected with the name, and hence it was better to adopt
some other name which would be free from this disadvantage, and
on which might be engrafted all the ideas which it was necessary to
connect with the notion of the Christian organization. Hence the
word church, liable to no such objection as that of synagogue, was
soon adopted, and ultimately prevailed, though the passage before
us shows that the word synagogue would be in some places, and for
a time, employed to designate a Christian congregation. We should
express the idea here by saying, "If a man of this description
should come into the church."
A man with, a gold ring. Indicative of rank or property. Rings were
common ornaments of the rich; and probably then, as now, of those who
desired to be esteemed to be rich. For proof that they were commonly
worn, see the quotations in Wetstein, in loc.
In goodly apparel. Rich and splendid dress. Compare Luke 16:19.
A poor man in vile raiment. The Greek here is, filthy, foul;
the meaning of the passage is, in sordid, shabby clothes. The reference
here seems to be, not to those who commonly attended on public worship,
or who were members of the church, but to those who might accidentally
drop in to witness the services of Christians. See 1 Corinthians 14:24.
{+} "assembly" or, "synagogue"
{*} "goodly" or, "gorgeous"
Verse 3. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing. If
you show him superior attention on account of his rich and gay apparel,
giving him a seat by himself, and treating others with neglect or
contempt. Religion does not forbid proper respect to rank, to office,
to age, or to distinguished talents and services, though even in such
cages it does not require that we should feel that such persons have
any peculiar claims to salvation, or that they are not on a level with
all others, as sinners before God; it does not forbid that a man who
has the means of procuring for himself an eligible pew in a church
should be permitted to do so; but it requires that men shall be
regarded and treated according to their moral worth, and not according
to their external adorning; that all shall be considered as in
fact on a level before God, and entitled to the privileges which grow
out of the worship of the Creator. A stranger coming into any
place of worship, no matter what his rank, dress, or complexion,
should be treated with respect, and everything should be done that
can be to win his heart to the service of God.
And say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place. Marg., as in Gr.,
well, or seemly; that is, in an honourable place near the pulpit; or
in some elevated place where he would be conspicuous. The meaning is,
you treat him with distinguished marks of respect on the first appearance,
merely from the indications that he is a rich man, without knowing anything
about his character.
And say to the poor, Stand thou there. Without even the civility of
offering him a seat at all. This may be presumed not often to occur in
a Christian church; yet it practically does sometimes, when no disposition
is evinced to furnish a stranger with a seat.
Or sit here under my footstool. Perhaps some seats in the places
of worship were raised, so that even the footstool would be elevated
above a lower seat. The meaning is, that he would be treated as if he
were not worth the least attention.
{+} "in a good place" or, "well" or, "seemly"
Verse 4. Are ye not then partial in yourselves? Among yourselves.
Do you not show that you are partial?
And are become judges of evil thoughts. There has been considerable
difference of opinion respecting this passage, yet the sense seems not
to be difficult. There are two ideas in it: one is, that they showed
by this conduct that they took it upon themselves to be judges, to
pronounce on the character of men who were strangers, and on their claims
to respect, (compare Matthew 7:1;) the other is, that in doing this,
they were not guided by just rules, but that they did it under the
influence of improper "thoughts." They did it not from benevolence; not
from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character;
but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honour to
men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real
worth. The wrong in the case was in their presuming to "judge"
these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction,
and then by doing it under the influence of such an unjust rule
of judgment. The sense is, that we have no right to form a decisive
judgment of men on their first appearance, as we do when we
treat one with respect and the other not; and that when we make
up our opinion in regard to them, it should be by some other means
of judging than the question whether they can wear gold rings, and
dress well, or not. Beza and Doddridge render this, "ye become
judges who reason ill."
{+} "judges of evil thoughts" or, "judges who reason ill"
Verse 5. Hearken, my beloved brethren. The apostle now proceeds to
show that the rich, as such, had no special claim on their favor, and
that the poor in fact might be made more entitled to esteem than
they were. For a view of the arguments by which he does this,
compare the analysis of the chapter. (See Barnes "James 2:1")
Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? Those who are poor
so far as this world is concerned, or those who have not wealth. This
is the first argument the apostle suggests why the poor should not be
treated with neglect. It is, that God has had special reference to them in
choosing those who should be his children. The meaning is not
that he is not as willing to save the rich as the poor, for he has no
partiality; but that there are circumstances in the condition of the
poor which make it more likely that they will embrace the offers of
the gospel than the rich; and that in fact the great mass of believers
is taken from those who are in comparatively humble life.
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 1:26-28". The fact that God has chosen one to be
an "heir of the kingdom" is as good a reason now why he should
not be treated with neglect, as it was in the times of the apostles.
Rich in faith. Though poor in this world's goods, they are rich
in a higher and more important sense. They have faith in God
their Saviour; and in this world of trial and of sin, that is a more
valuable possession than piles of hoarded silver or gold. A man
who has that is sure that he will have all that is truly needful for
him in this world and the next; a man who has it not, though he
may have the wealth of Croesus, will be utterly without resources
in respect to the great wants of his existence.
"Give what thou wilt, without thee we are poor;
And with thee rich, take what thou wilt away."
Faith in God the Saviour will answer more purposes, and accomplish more
valuable ends for man, than the wealth of the Indies
could: and this the poor may have as well as the rich. Compare Revelation 2:9.
And heirs of the kingdom, etc. Marg., that.
See Barnes "Matthew 5:3".
{a} "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world" 1 Corinthians 1:26-28
{b} "rich in faith" Revelation 2:9
{+} "the kingdom" or, "that kingdom"
{c} "the kingdom which he hath promised" Matthew 5:3;; Luke 12:32;; 22:29
Verse 6. But ye have despised the poor. Koppe reads this as an
interrogation: "Do ye despise the poor?" Perhaps it might be understood
somewhat ironically: "You despise the poor, do you, and are
disposed to honour the rich! Look then, and see how the rich treat
you, and see whether you have so much occasion to regard them
with any peculiar respect." The object of the apostle is to fix the
attention on the impropriety of that partiality which many were
disposed to show to the rich, by reminding them that the rich had
never evinced towards them any such treatment as to lay the foundation
of a claim to the honour which they were disposed to render
them.
Do not rich men oppress you? Referring probably to something in
their conduct which existed particularly then. The meaning
is not that they oppressed the poor as such, but that they oppressed
those whom James addressed. It is probable that then, as since, a
considerable portion of those who were Christians were in fact poor,
and that this would have all the force of a personal appeal; but still
the particular thought is, that it was a characteristic of the rich and
the great, whom they were disposed peculiarly to honour, to oppress
and crush the poor. The Greek here is very expressive: "Do
they not imperiously lord it over you?" The statement here will
apply with too much force to the rich in every age.
And draw you before the judgment-seats. That is, they are your
persecutors rather than your friends. It was undoubtedly the case that many
of the rich were engaged in persecuting Christians, and that on
various pretenses they dragged them before the judicial tribunals.
Verse 7. Do they not blaspheme that worthy name. This is another
argument to show that the rich had no special claim to the honour
which they were disposed to show them. The "worthy name"
here referred to is, doubtless, the name of the Saviour. The thing
here affirmed would, of course, accompany persecution. They who
persecuted Christians, would revile the name which they bore. This
has always occurred. But besides this, it is no improbable supposition
that many of those who were not disposed to engage in open
persecution, would revile the name of Christ, by speaking contemptuously
of him and his religion. This has been sufficiently
common in every age of the world, to make the description here not
improper. And yet nothing has been more remarkable than the
very thing adverted to here by James, that notwithstanding this,
many who profess to be Christians have been more disposed to treat
even such persons with respect and attention than they have their
own brethren, if they were poor; that they have cultivated the
favour, sought the friendship, desired the smiles, aped the manners,
and coveted the society of such persons, rather than the friendship
and the favour of their poorer Christian brethren. Even though
they are known to despise religion in their hearts, and not to be
sparing of their words of reproach and scorn towards Christianity;
though they are known to be blasphemers, and to have the most
thorough contempt for serious, spiritual religion, yet there is many
a professing Christian who would prefer to be at a party given by
such persons than at a prayer-meeting where their poorer brethren
are assembled; who would rather be known by the world to be the
associates and friends of such persons, than of those humble believers
who can make no boast of rank or wealth, and who are looked down
upon with contempt by the great and the gay.
{a} "that worthy name" Psalms 111:9
Verse 8. If ye fulfil the royal law. That is, the law which he
immediately mentions requiring us to love our neighbour as ourselves. It
is called a "royal law," or kingly law, on account of its
excellence or nobleness; not because it is ordained by God
as a king, but because it has some such prominence and
importance among other laws as a king has among other men; that is, it
is majestic, noble, worthy of veneration. It is a law which ought to
govern and direct us in all our intercourse with men--as a king rules
his subjects.
According to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Leviticus 19:18. Compare Matthew 19:19. See it explained by the Saviour, in
the parable of the good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37. In regard to
its meaning, See Barnes "Matthew 19:19".
Ye do well. That is, "if you fairly comply with the spirit of this
law, you do all that is required of you in regulating your intercourse
with others. You are to regard all persons as your neighbours, and are to
treat them according to their real worth; you are not to be influenced in
judging of them, or in your treatment of them, by their apparel, or their
complexion, or the circumstances of their birth, but by the fact that
they are fellow-beings." This is another reason why they should
not show partiality in their treatment of others, for if, in the true
sense, they regarded all others as "neighbours," they would treat
no one with neglect or contempt.
{a} "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" Leviticus 19:18
Verse 9. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin. You
transgress the plain law of God, and do wrong. See the references
on James 2:1.
And are convinced of the law as transgressors. Gr., "By the law."
The word convinced is now used in a somewhat different sense from
what it was formerly. It now commonly refers to the impression
made on a man's mind by showing him the truth of a thing which
before was doubted, or in respect to which the evidence was not
clear. A man who doubted the truth of a report or a proposition may
be convinced or satisfied of its truth; a man who has done wrong,
though he supposed he was doing what was proper, may be convinced
of his error. So a man may be convinced that he is a sinner, though
before he had no belief of it, and no concern about it; and this may
produce in his mind the feeling which is technically known as
conviction, producing deep distress and anguish.
See Barnes "John 16:8". Here, however, the word
does not refer so much to the effect produced on the mind itself, as to
the fact that the law would hold such an one to be guilty; that is, the
law pronounces what is done to be wrong. Whether they would be
personally convinced of it, and troubled about it as convicted
sinners, would be a different question, and one to which the apostle
does not refer; for his object is not to show that they would be
troubled about it, but to show that the law of God condemned
this course, and would hold them to be guilty. The argument here
is not from the personal distress which this course would
produce in their own minds, but from the fact that the law of God
condemned it.
{a} "respect to persons" James 2:1
Verse 10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law. All except the single
point referred to. The apostle does not say that this in fact ever did
occur, but he says that if it should, and yet a man should have failed
in only one particular, he must be judged to be guilty. The case supposed
seems to be that of one who claimed that he had kept the whole
law. The apostle says that even if this should be admitted for the
time to be true in all other respects, yet, if he had failed in any one
particular--in showing respect to persons, or in anything else--he
could not but be held to be a transgressor. The design of this is to
show the importance of yielding universal obedience, and to impress
upon the mind a sense of the enormity of sin from the fact that the
violation of any one precept is in fact an offence against the whole
law of God. The whole law here means all the law of God; all that
he has required; all that he has given to regulate us in our lives.
And yet offend in one point. In one respect; or shall violate any
one of the commands included in the general word law. The word
offend here means, properly, to stumble, to fall; then to err or fail
in duty. See Barnes "Matthew 5:29";
See Barnes "Matthew 26:31".
He is guilty of all. He is guilty of violating the law as a whole,
or of violating the law of God as such; he has rendered it impossible
that he should be justified and saved by the law. This does not affirm
that he is as guilty as if he had violated every law of God; or
that
all sinners are of equal grade because all have violated some one or
more of the laws of God; but the meaning is, that he is guilty of violating
the law of God as such; he shows that he has not the true spirit of
obedience; he has exposed himself to the penalty of the law, and made
it impossible now to be saved by it. His acts of obedience in other
respects, no matter how many, will not screen him from the charge
of being a violator of the law, or from its penalty. He must be held
and treated as a transgressor for that offence, however upright he
may be in other respects, and must meet the penalty of the law as
certainly as though he had violated every commandment. One
portion of the law is as much binding as another, and if a man violates
any one plain commandment, he sets at nought the authority of God.
This is a simple principle which is everywhere recognised, and the
apostle means no more by it than occurs every day. A man who
has stolen a horse is held to be a violator of the law, no matter in
how many other respects he has kept it, and the law condemns him
for it. He cannot plead his obedience to the law in other things as a
reason why he should not be punished for this sin; but however
upright he may have been in general, even though it may have been
through a long life, the law holds him to be a transgressor, and condemns
him. He is as really condemned, and as much thrown from
the protection of law, as though he had violated every command. So of
murder, arson, treason, or ally other crime. The law judges a man for
what he has done in this specific case, and he cannot plead in
justification of it that he has been obedient in other things. It follows,
therefore, that if a man has been guilty of violating the law of God
in any one instance, or is not perfectly holy, he cannot be justified
and saved by it, though he should have obeyed it in every other respect,
any more than a man who has been guilty of murder can be
saved from the gallows because he has, in other respects, been a good
citizen, a kind father, an honest neighbour, or has been compassionate
to the poor and the needy. He cannot plead his act of truth in one
case as an offset to the sin of falsehood in another; he cannot defend
himself from the charge of dishonesty in one instance by the plea
that he has been honest in another; he cannot urge the fact that he
has done a good thing as a reason why he should not be punished
for a bad one. He must answer for the specific charge against him,
and none of these other things can be an offset against this one act
of wrong. Let it be remarked, also, in respect to our being justified
by obedience to the law, that no man can plead before God that he
has kept all his law except in one point. Who is there that has not,
in spirit at least, broken each one of the ten commandments? The
sentiment here expressed by James was not new with him. It was
often expressed by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been an
admitted principle among the Jews. See Wetstein, in loc, for
examples.
{a} "he is guilty of all" Deuteronomy 27:26
Verse 11. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not
kill. That is, these are parts of the same law of God, and one
is as obligatory as the other. If, therefore, you violate either of
these precepts, you transgress the law of God as such, and must be held
to be guilty of violating it as a whole. The penalty of the law will be
incurred, whatever precept you violate.
{+} "For he that said" or, "that law which said"
{a} "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill" Exodus 20:13-14
Verse 12. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by
the law of liberty. On the phrase, "the law of liberty,"
See Barnes "James 1:26"; and See Barnes "James 4:11". The
meaning is, that in all our conduct we are to act under the constant
impression of the truth that we are soon to be brought into judgment,
and that the law by which we are to be judged is that by which it is
contemplated that we shall be set free from the dominion of sin. In the
rule which God has laid down in his word, called "the law of liberty,"
or the rule by which true freedom is to be secured, a system of
religion is revealed by which it is designed that man shall be
emancipated not only from one sin, but from all. Now, it is with
reference to such a law that we are to be judged; that is, we shall not
be able to plead on our trial that we were under a necessity of sinning,
but we shall be judged under that law by which the arrangement was made
that we might be free from sin. If we might be free from sin; if an
arrangement was made by which we could have led holy lives, then it will
be proper that we shall be judged and condemned if we are not righteous.
The sense is, "In all your conduct, whatever you do or say, remember
that you are to be judged, or that you are to give an impartial
account; and remember also that the rule by which you are to be
judged is that by which provision is made for being delivered from the
dominion of sin, and brought into the freedom of the gospel." The
argument here seems to be, that he who habitually feels that he is soon
to be judged by a law under which it was contemplated that he might be,
and should be, free from the bondage of sin, has one of the
strongest of all inducements to lead a holy life.
{a} "law of liberty" James 1:25
Verse 13. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed
no mercy. This is obviously an equitable principle, and is one which
is everywhere found in the Bible. Proverbs 21:13, "Whoso stoppeth
his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but will not
be heard." 2 Samuel 22:26-27, "With the merciful thou wilt show
thyself merciful, and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavoury".
Compare Psalms 18:25-26;; Matthew 6:15;; 7:1-2. The
idea which the apostle seems to design to convey here is, that there
will certainly be a judgment, and that we must expect that it will be
conducted on equitable principles; that no mercy is to be shown
when the character is not such that it will be proper that it should
be; and that we should habitually feel in our conduct that God will
be impartial, and should frame our lives accordingly.
And mercy rejoiceth against judgment. Marg., glorieth. Gr.,
Boasts, glories, or exults. The idea is that of glorying over, as where one
is superior to another, or has gained a victory over another. The reference
all along here is to the judgment, the trial of the great day; and the
apostle is stating the principles on which the trial at that day will
be conducted--on which one class shall be condemned and the other
acquitted and saved. In reference to one class, the wicked, he says
that where there has been no mercy shown to others--referring to
this as one evidence of piety--that is, where there is no true piety,
there will be judgment without mercy; in the other case there will
be, as it were, a triumph of mercy, or mercy will appear to have
gained a victory over judgment. Strict justice would indeed plead
for their condemnation, but the attribute of mercy will triumph, and
they will be acquitted. The attributes of mercy and justice would
seem to come in conflict, but mercy would prevail. This is a true
statement of the plan of salvation, and of what actually occurs in the
redemption of a sinner. Justice demands, as what is her due, that the
sinner should be condemned; mercy pleads that he may be saved--
and mercy prevails. It is not uncommon that there seems to be a
conflict between the two. In the dispensations of justice before
human tribunals, this often occurs. Strict justice demands the
punishment of the offender; and yet there are cases when mercy
pleads, and when every man feels that it would be desirable that
pardon should be extended to the guilty, and when we always rejoice
if mercy triumphs. In such a case, for example, as that of Major
Andre, this is strikingly seen. On the one hand, there was the
undoubted proof that he was guilty; that he had been taken as a
spy; that by the laws of war he ought to be put to death; that as
what he had done had tended to the ruin of the American cause,
and as such an act, if unpunished, would always expose an army to
surprise and destruction, he ought, in accordance with the law of
nations, to die. On the other hand, there were his youth, his high
attainments, his honourable connexions, his brilliant hopes, all
pleading that he might live, and that he might be pardoned. In the
bosom of Washington, the promptings of justice and mercy thus
came into collision. Both could not be gratified, and there seemed
to be but one course to be pursued. His sense of justice was shown
in the act by which he signed the death-warrant; his feelings of
compassion in the fact that when he did it his eyes poured forth a
flood of tears. How every generous feeling of our nature would
have been gratified if mercy could have triumphed, and the youthful
and accomplished officer could have been spared! In the plan of
salvation, this does occur. Respect is done to justice, but mercy
triumphs. Justice indeed pleaded for the condemnation of the sinner,
but mercy interposed, and he is saved. Justice is not disregarded,
for the great Redeemer of mankind has done all that is needful to
uphold it; but there is the most free and full exercise of mercy, and,
while the justice of God is maintained, every benevolent feeling in
the breast of all holy beings can be gratified in the salvation of
countless thousands.
{a} "he shall have judgement without mercy" Proverbs 21:13;; Matthew 6:15;; 7:1-2
{b} "Rejoiceth against judgement" Psalms 85:10
{+} "rejoiceth" or, "glorieth"
{++} "rejoiceth against" or, "exults over"
Verse 14. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he
hath faith? The apostle here returns to the subject adverted to in
James 1:22-27, the importance of a practical attention to the duties
of religion, and the assurance that men cannot be saved by a mere opinion,
speculative or merely by holding correct sentiments. He doubtless had in
his eye those who abused the doctrine of justification by faith, by
holding that good works are unnecessary to salvation, provided they
maintain an orthodox belief. As this abuse probably existed in the time
of the apostles, and as the Holy Ghost saw that there would be danger
that in later times the great and glorious doctrine of justification by
faith would be thus abused, it was important that the error should be
rebuked, and that the doctrine should be distinctly laid down that good
works are necessary to salvation. The apostle, therefore, in the
question before us, implicitly asserts that faith would not "profit" at
all unless accompanied with a holy life, and this doctrine he proceeds
to illustrate in the following verses. See Barnes "James 2:1",
the analysis of this chapter; and See Barnes "James 5:1", the
Introduction to chapter 5, (2.). In order to a proper interpretation of
this passage, it should be observed that the stand-point from
which the apostle views this subject is not before a man is
converted, inquiring in what way he may be justified before God,
or on what ground his sins may be forgiven; but it is after a
man is converted, showing that that faith can have no value which is not
followed by good works; that is, that it is not real faith, and
that good works are necessary if a man would have evidence that he
is justified. Thus understood, all that James says is in entire
accordance with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament.
Can faith save him? It is implied in this question that faith
cannot save him, for very often the most emphatic way of making an
affirmation is by asking a question. 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.
{a} "What doth it profit" Matthew 7:26
{*} "faith" or, "this faith"
Verses 15-17. If a brother or sister be naked, etc. The comparison in
these verses is very obvious and striking. The sense is, that faith
in itself, without the acts that correspond to it, and to which it
would prompt, is as cold, and heartless, and unmeaning, and useless,
as it would be to say to one who was destitute of the necessaries of
life, "depart in peace." In itself considered, it might seem to have
something that was good; but it would answer none of the purposes
of faith unless it should prompt to action. In the case of one who
was hungry or naked, what he wanted was not good wishes or kind
words merely, but the acts to which good wishes and kind words
prompt. And so in religion, what is wanted is not merely the abstract
state of mind which would be indicated by faith, but the life
of goodness to which it ought to lead. Good wishes and kind words,
in order to make them what they should be for the welfare of the
world, should be accompanied with corresponding action. So it is
with faith. It is not enough for salvation without the benevolent
and holy acts to which it would prompt, any more than the good
wishes and kind words of the benevolent are enough to satisfy the
wants of the hungry, and to clothe the naked, without correspondent
action. Faith is not and cannot be shown to be genuine, unless it
is accompanied with corresponding acts; as our good wishes for the
poor and needy can be shown to be genuine, when we have the
means of aiding them, only by actually ministering to their necessities.
In the one case, our wishes would be shown to he unmeaning and heartless;
in the other, our faith would be equally so. In
regard to this passage, therefore, it may be observed,
(1,) that in fact faith is of no more value, and has no more evidence
of genuineness when it is unaccompanied with good works, than such empty
wishes for the welfare of the poor would be when unaccompanied
with the means of relieving their wants. Faith is designed to lead
to good works. It is intended to produce a holy life; a life of
activity in the service of the Saviour. This is its very essence; it is
what it always produces when it is genuine. Religion is not designed
to be a cold abstraction; it is to be a living and vivifying
principle.
(2.) There is a great deal of that kindness and charity in the world
which is expressed by mere good wishes. If we really
have not the means of relieving the poor and the needy, then the
expression of a kind wish may be in itself an alleviation to their
Sorrows, for even sympathy in such a case is of value, and it is much
to us to know that others feel for us; but if we have the means,
and
the object is a worthy one, then such expressions are mere mockery,
and aggravate rather than soothe the feelings of the sufferer. Such
wishes will neither clothe nor feed them; and they will only make
deeper the sorrows which we ought to heal. But how much of this
is there in the world, when the sufferer cannot but feel that all these
wishes, however kindly expressed, are hollow and false, and when
he cannot but feel that relief would be easy!
(3.) In like manner there is much of this same kind of worthless faith
in the world--faith that is dead; faith that produces no good works; faith
that exerts no practical influence whatever on the life. The individual
professes indeed to believe the truths of the gospel; he may be in the
church of Christ; he would esteem it a gross calumny to be spoken
of as an infidel; but as to any influence which his faith exerts over
him, his life would be the same if he had never heard of the gospel.
There is not one of the truths of religion which is bodied forth in
his life; not a deed to which he is prompted by religion; not an act
which could not be accounted for on the supposition that he has no
true piety. In such a case, faith may with propriety be said to be
dead.
Being alone. Marg., 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 bodies itself forth, produces
effects, makes itself visible; that which is dead produces no
effect, and is as if it were not.
See Barnes "James 2:15".
{a} "what doth it profit" 1 John 3:18
See Barnes "James 2:15".
{+} "alone" or, "by itself"
Verse 18. Yea, a man may say, etc. The word which is rendered
"yea," (\~alla\~) would be better rendered by but. The apostle designs
to introduce an objection, not to make an affirmation. The sense is,
"someone might say," or, "to this it might be urged in reply."
That is, it might perhaps be said that religion is not always manifested
in the same way, or we should not suppose that, because it is
not always exhibited in the same form, it does not exist. One man
may manifest it in one way, and another in another, and still both
have true piety. One may be distinguished for his faith, and another
for his works, and both may have real religion. This objection
would certainly have some plausibility, and it was important to
meet it. It would seem that all religion was not to be manifested in
the same way, as all virtue is not; and that it might occur that one
man might be particularly eminent for one form of religion, and another for
another; as one man may be distinguished for zeal, and another for
meekness, and another for integrity, and another for truth, and another
for his gifts in prayer, and another for his large-hearted benevolence.
To this the apostle replies, that the two things referred to, faith and
works, were not independent things, which could exist separately,
without the one materially influencing another--as, for example,
charity and chastity, zeal and meekness; but that the one was the
germ or source of the other, and that the existence of the one was
to be known only by its developing itself in the form of the other.
A man could not show that he possessed the one unless it developed
itself in the form of the other. In proof of this, he could boldly
appeal to any one to show a case where faith existed without works.
He was himself willing to submit to this just trial in regard to this
point, and to demonstrate the existence of his own faith by his works.
Thou hast faith, and I have works. You have one form or manifestation
of religion in an eminent or prominent degree, and I have
another. You are characterized particularly for one of the virtues
of religion, and I am for another; as one man may be particularly
eminent for meekness, and another for zeal, and another for benevolence,
and each be a virtuous man. The expression here is equivalent to saying,
"One may have faith, and another works."
Shew me thy faith without thy works. That is, you who maintain that
faith is enough to prove the existence of religion; that a man may be
justified and saved by that alone, or where it does not develope
itself in holy living; or that all that is necessary in order to be saved
is merely to believe. Let the reality of any such faith as that be
shown, if it can be; let any real faith be shown to exist without a
life of good works, and the point will be settled. I, says the apostle,
will undertake to exhibit the evidence of my faith in a different way--
in a way about which there can be no doubt, and which is the
appropriate method. It is clear, if the common reading here is correct,
that the apostle meant to deny that true faith could be evinced without
appropriate works. It should be said, however, that there is a
difference of reading here of considerable importance. Many manuscripts
and printed editions of the New Testament, instead of without
[works--\~cwriv\~], read from or by, (\~ek\~,) as in the other part
of the verse, "show me thy faith by thy works, and I will show thee my
faith by my works." This reading is found in Walton, Wetstein,
Mill, and in the received text generally; the other [without] is found
in many Mss., and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, English, and
Armenian versions; and is adopted by Beza, Castalio, Grotius,
Bengel, Hammond, Whitby, Drusius, Griesbach, Tittman, and
Hahn, and is now commonly received as the correct reading. It
may be added that this reading seems to be demanded by the similar
teaching in James 2:20, "But wilt thou know that faith without works
(\~cwriv twn ergwn\~) is dead," evidently implying that something had
been said before about "faith without works." This reading also
is so natural, and makes so good sense in the connexion, that it would
seem to be demanded. Doddridge felt the difficulty in the other
reading, and has given a version of the passage which showed his
great perplexity, and which is one of the most unhappy that he ever
made.
And I will show thee my faith by my works. I will furnish
in this way the best and most certain proof of the existence of faith.
It is implied here that true faith is adapted to lead to a holy life, and
that such a life would be the appropriate evidence of the existence
of faith. By their fruits the principles held by men are known.
See Barnes "Matthew 7:16".
{+} "without" or, "by"
{a} "I will shew thee my faith" James 3:13
Verse 19. Thou believest that there is one God. One of the great and
cardinal doctrines of religion is here selected as an illustration of all.
The design of the apostle seems to have been to select one of the
doctrines of religion, the belief of which would--if mere belief in
any doctrine could--save the soul; and to show that even this might
be held as an article of faith by those who could be supposed by no s
one to have any claim to the name of Christian. He selects therefore,
the great fundamental doctrine of all religion--the doctrine of
the existence of one Supreme Being--and shows that if even this
were held in such a way as it might be, and as it was held by devils,
it could not save men. The apostle here is not to be supposed to
be addressing such an one as Paul, who held to the doctrine that we
are justified by faith; nor is he to be supposed to be combating the
doctrine of Paul, as some have maintained, (See Barnes "James 2:1",
the Introduction;) but he is to be regarded as addressing one who held,
in the broadest and most unqualified sense, that provided there was
faith, a man would be saved. To this he replies, that even the devils
might have faith of a certain sort, and faith that would produce sensible
effects on them of a certain kind, and still it could not be supposed that
they had true religion, or that they would be saved. Why might
not the same thing occur in regard to man?
Thou doest well. So far as this is concerned, or so far as it goes.
It is a doctrine which ought to be held, for it is one of the great
fundamental truths of religion.
The devils. The demons, (\~ta daimonia\~.) There is, properly, but
one being spoken of in the New Testament as the devil--\~o diabolov\~, and
\~o satan\~--though demons are frequently spoken of in the plural
number. They are represented as evil spirits, subject to Satan, or under
his control, and engaged with him in carrying out his plans of wickedness.
These spirits or demons were supposed to wander in desert and desolate
places, (Matthew 12:43,) or to dwell in the atmosphere,
(See Barnes "Ephesians 2:2";) they were thought to have the power of
working miracles, but not for good, (Revelation 16:14; compare
John 10:21;) to be hostile to mankind, (John 8:44;) to
utter the heathen oracles, (Acts 16:17;) to lurk in the idols of
the heathen, (1 Corinthians 10:20;) and to take up their abodes in the bodies
of men, afflicting them with various kinds of diseases, Matthew 7:22;; 9:34;
Matthew 10:8;; 17:18;; Mark 7:29-30;; Luke 4:33;; 8:27,30, et sape.
It is of these evil spirits that the apostle speaks when he says this
they believe.
Also, believe. That is, particularly, they believe in
the existence of the one God. How far their knowledge may extend
respecting God, we cannot know; but they are never represented
in the Scriptures as denying his existence, or as doubting the great
truths of religion. They are never described as atheists. That is a
sin of this world only. They are not represented as skeptics. That,
too, is a peculiar sin of the earth; and probably, in all the universe
besides, there are no beings but those who dwell on this globe, who
doubt or deny the existence of God, or the other great truths of
religion.
And tremble. The word here used (\~frissw\~) 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. Here the meaning is,
that there was much more in the case referred to than mere speculative
faith. 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, but it made it manifest that there was faith; and, consequently,
it followed that the existence of mere faith was not all that was necessary
to save men, or to make it certain that they would be secure, unless it
were held that the devils would be justified and saved by it. If they
might hold such faith, and still remain in perdition, men might hold
it, and go to perdition. 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.
{a} "the devils also believe" Mark 1:24;; 5:7
{+} "devils" or, "demons"
Verse 20. But wilt thou know. Will you have a full demonstration of it;
will you have the clearest proof in the case. The apostle evidently
felt that the instances to which he was about to refer, those of
Abraham and Rahab, were decisive.
O vain man. The reference by this language is to a man who held
an opinion that could not be defended. The word vain here used,
(\~kenov\~,) means properly empty, as opposed to full--as empty
hands, having nothing in them; then fruitless, or without utility or
success; then false, fallacious. The meaning here, properly, would be
"empty," in the sense of being void of understanding; and this would be a
mild and gentle way of saying of one that he was foolish, or that he to
maintained an argument that was without sense. James means,
doubtless, represent it as a perfectly plain matter, a matter about
which no man of sense could have any reasonable doubt. If we
must call a man foolish, as is sometimes necessary, let us
use as mild and inoffensive a term as possible--a term which, while it
will convey our meaning, will not unnecessarily wound
and irritate. That faith without works is dead. That the faith
which does not produce good works is useless in the matter of salvation,
he does not mean to say that it would produce no effect, for in
the case of the demons it did produce trembling and alarm; but
that it would be valueless in the matter of salvation. The faith of
Abraham and of Rahab was entirely different from this.
Verse 21. Was not Abraham our father. Our progenitor, our ancestor;
using the word father, as frequently occurs in the Bible, to denote a
remote ancestor. See Barnes "Matthew 1:1". A reference to his
and probably most of those to whom this epistle was addressed were
of this character. See Barnes "James 2:1", the Introduction.
Justified by works. That is, in the sense in which James is
maintaining that a man professing religion is to be justified by his
works. He does not affirm that the ground of acceptance with God is
that we keep the law, or are perfect; or that our good works make an
atonement for our sins, and that it is on their account that we are
pardoned; nor does he deny that it is necessary that a man should
believe in order to be saved. In this sense he does not deny
that men are justified by faith; and thus he does not contradict the
doctrine of the apostle Paul. But he does teach that where there
are no good works, or where there is not a holy life, there is no true
religion; that that faith which is not productive of good works is of no
value; that if a man has that faith only, it would be impossible that he
could be regarded as justified, or could be saved; and that
consequently, in that large sense, a man is justified by his works; that
is, they are the evidence that he is a justified man, or is regarded and
treated as righteous by his Maker. The point on which the apostle has
his eye is the nature of saving faith; and his design is to show that a
mere faith which would produce no more effect than that of the demons
did, could not save. In this he states no doctrine which contradicts
that of Paul. The evidence to which he appeals in regard to
faith, is good works and a holy life; and where that exists it shows
that the faith is genuine. The case of Abraham is one directly in point.
He showed that he had that kind of faith which was not dead. he
gave the most affecting evidence that his faith was of such a kind as to
lead him to implicit obedience, and to painful sacrifices. Such an act
as that referred to--the act of offering up his son--demonstrated, if
anything could, that his faith was genuine, and that his religion was
deep and pure. In the sight of heaven and earth it would justify
him as a righteous man, or would prove that he was a
righteous man. In regard to the strength of his faith, and the nature of
his obedience in this sacrifice, See Barnes "Hebrews 11:19". That
the apostle here cannot refer to the act of justification as the term is
commonly understood, referring by that to the moment when he was
accepted of God as a righteous man, is clear from the fact that in a
passage of the Scriptures which he himself quotes, that is declared to
be consequent on his believing: "Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness." The act here referred to
occurred long subsequent to that, and was thus a fulfilment or
Confirmation of the declaration of Scripture, which says that "he
believed God." It showed that his faith was not merely
speculative, but was an active principle, leading to
holy living. See Barnes "James 2:23". This demonstrates that
what the apostle refers to here is the evidence by which it is shown
that a man's faith is genuine, and that he does not refer to the
question whether the act of justification, where a sinner is converted,
is solely in consequence of believing. Thus the case proves what James
purposes to prove, that the faith which justifies is only that which
leads to good works.
When he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar. This was long
after he believed, and was an act which, if any could, would show
that his faith was genuine and sincere. On the meaning of this
passage, See Barnes "Hebrews 11:17".
{a} "when he had offered Isaac his son" Genesis 22:9,12
Verse 22. Seest thou. Marg., Thou seest. Either rendering is
correct, and the sense is the same. The apostle means to say that this was
so plain that they could not but see it.
How faith wrought with his works. \~sunhrgei\~. Co-operated with. The
meaning of the word is, to work together with any one; to co-operate,
(1 Corinthians 16:16;; 2 Corinthians 6:1;) then to aid, or help, (Mark 16:20;) to
contribute to the production of any result, where two or more persons
or agents are united. Compare Romans 8:28. The idea here is, that the
result in the case of Abraham, that is, his salvation, or his religion, was
secured, not by one of these things alone, but that both with
contributed to it. The result which was reached, to wit, his acceptance
God, could not have been obtained by either one of them
separately, but both, in some sense, entered into it. The apostle does
not say that, in regard to the merit which justifies, they came
in for an equal share, for he makes no affirmation on that point; he
does not deny that in the sight of God, who foresees and knows all
things, he was regarded as a justified man the moment he believed, but
he looks at the result as it was, at Abraham as he appeared
under the trial of his faith, and says that in that result there was to
be seen the co-operation of faith and good works. Both
contributed to the end, as they do now in all cases where there is
true religion.
And by works was faith made perfect. Made complete, finished, or
entire. It was so carried out as to show its legitimate and fair
results. This does not mean that the faith in itself was defective before
this, and that the defect was remedied by good works; or that there is
any deficiency in what the right kind of faith can do in the matter of
justification, which is to be helped out by good works; but that there
was that kind of completion which a thing has when it is fully
developed, or is fairly carried out.
{+} "Seest thou" or, "Thou seest"
{a} "faith wrought with his works" Hebrews 11:17
Verse 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith. That is,
the fair and full meaning of the language of Scripture was expressed by
this act, showing in the highest sense that his faith was genuine; or
the declaration that he truly believed, was confirmed or
established by this act. His faith was shown to be genuine; and
the fair meaning of the declaration that he believed God was
carried out in the subsequent act. The passage here referred to occurs
in Genesis 15:6. That which it is said Abraham believed, or in which
he believed God, was this: "This shall not be thine heir, (viz., Eliezer
of Damascus,) but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels,
shall be thine heir." And again, "Look now toward heaven, and tell the
stars, if thou be able to number them. And he said unto him, So shall
thy seed be," Genesis 15:3-5. The act of confiding in these
promises, was that act of which it is said that "he believed in the
Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." The act of offering
his son on the altar, by which James says the Scripture was fulfilled,
occurred some twenty years afterwards. That act confirmed or fulfilled
the declaration. It showed that his faith was genuine, and that the
declaration that he believed in God was true; for what could do more to
confirm that, than a readiness to offer his own son at the command of
God? It cannot be supposed that James meant to say that Abraham was
justified by works without respect to faith, or to deny that the
primary ground of his justification in the sight of God was
faith, for the very passage which he quotes shows that faith was
the primary consideration: "Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed," etc. The meaning, therefore, can only be, that this
declaration received its fair and full expression when Abraham, by an
act of obedience of the most striking character, long after he first
exercised that faith by which he was accepted of God, showed that his
faith was genuine. If he had not thus obeyed, his faith would have been
inoperative and of no value. As it was, his act showed that the
declaration of the Scripture that, he "believed," was
well founded.
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed, etc.
See Barnes "Romans 4:3" for a full explanation of this passage.
And he was called the Friend of God. In virtue of his
strong faith and obedience. See 2 Chronicles 20:7: "Art not thou
our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy
people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for
ever?" Isaiah 41:8, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom
I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." This was a most
honourable appellation; but it is one which, in all eases, will result
from true faith and obedience.
{a} "Abraham believed God" ; Genesis 15:6
{+} "imputed" or, "counted"
{b} "called the Friend of God" 2 Chronicles 15:7;; Isaiah 41:8
Verse 24. Ye see then. From the course of reasoning pursued, and the
example referred to.
How that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Not
by a cold, abstract, inoperative faith. It must be by a faith that shall
produce good works, and whose existence will be shown to men by good
works. As justification takes place in the sight of God, it is by faith,
for he sees that the faith is genuine, and that it will produce good
works if the individual who exercises faith shall live; and he justifies
men in view of that faith, and of no other. If he sees that the faith is
merely speculative; that it is cold and dead, and would not produce
good works, the man is not justified in his sight. As a matter of fact,
therefore, it is only the faith that produces good works that justifies;
and good works, therefore, as the proper expression of the nature of faith,
foreseen by God as the certain result of faith, and actually as seen by
performed men, are necessary in order to justification. In other
words, no man will be justified who has not a faith which will produce
good works, and which is of an operative and practical character.
The ground of justification in the case is faith, and that only;
the evidence of it, the carrying it out, the proof of the
existence of the faith, is good works; and thus men are justified and
saved not by mere abstract and cold faith, but by a faith necessarily
connected with good works, and where good works perform an
important part. James, therefore, does not contradict Paul, but he
contradicts a false explanation of Paul's doctrine, he does not deny
that a man is justified in the sight of God by faith, for the very
passage which he quotes shows that he believes that; but he does
deny that a man is justified by a faith which would not produce good
works, and which is not expressed by good works; and thus he maintains,
as Paul always did, that nothing else than a holy life can show that a
man is a true Christian, and is accepted of God.
{a} "by works a man is justified" Revelation 20:12
{+} "faith only" or, "Faith which is alone."
Verse 25. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works?
In the same sense in which Abraham was, as explained above--showing
by her act that her faith was genuine, and that it was not a mere
cold and speculative assent to the truths of religion. Her act
showed that she truly believed God. If that act had not been performed,
the fact would have shown that her faith was not genuine,
and she could not have been justified. God saw her faith as it
was; he saw that it would produce acts of obedience, and he accepted
her as righteous. The act which she performed was the public
manifestation of her faith, the evidence that she was justified.
See Barnes "Hebrews 11:31" for a full explanation of the case of Rahab.
It may be observed here, that we are not to suppose that everything in
the life and character of this woman is commended. She is commended
for her faith, and for the fair expression of it; a faith which,
as it induced her to receive the messengers of the true God, and to
send them forth in peace, and as it led her to identify herself with
the people of God, was also influential, we have every reason to
suppose, in inducing her to abandon her former course of life. When
we commend the faith of a man who has been a profane swearer, or
an adulterer, or a robber, or a drunkard, we do not commend his
former life, or give a sanction to it. We commend that which has
induced him to abandon his evil course, and to turn to the ways of
righteousness. The more evil his former course has been, the more
wonderful, and the more worthy of commendation, is that faith by
which he is reformed and saved.
{a} "Rahab the harlot justified by works" Joshua 2:1
Verse 26. For as the body without the spirit is dead.
Marg., breath. The Greek word \~pneuma\~ is commonly used to
denote spirit or soul, as referring to the
intelligent nature. The meaning here is the obvious one, that the body
is animated or kept alive by the presence of the soul, and that when
that is withdrawn, hope departs. The body has no life independent of the
presence of the soul.
So faith without works is dead also. There is as much necessity that
faith and works should be united to constitute true religion, as there is
that the body and soul should be united to constitute a living man.
If good works do not follow, it is clear that there is no true and
proper faith; none that justifies and saves. If faith produces no
fruit of good living, that fact proves that it is dead, that it has no
power, and that it is of no value. This shows that James was not
arguing against real and genuine faith, nor against its importance in
justification, but against the supposition that mere faith was all that
was necessary to save a man, whether it was accompanied by good
works or not. He maintains that if there is genuine faith it will
always be accompanied by good works, and that it is only that faith
which can justify and save. If it leads to no practical holiness of
life, it is like the body without the soul, and is of no value whatever.
James and Paul both agree in the necessity of true faith in order to
salvation; they both agree that the tendency of true faith is to
produce a holy life; they both agree that where there is not a holy
life there is no true religion, and that a man cannot be saved. We
may learn, then, from the whole doctrine of the New Testament on
the subject, that unless we believe in the Lord Jesus we cannot be
justified before God; and that unless our faith is of that kind which
will produce holy living, it has no more of the characteristics of
true religion than a dead body has of a living man.
{+} "the spirit" or, "breath"
RECONCILIATION OF PAUL AND JAMES.
At the close of the exposition of this chapter, it may be proper to
make a few additional remarks on the question in what way the
statements of James can be reconciled with those of Paul, on the
subject of justification. A difficulty has always been felt to exist
on the subject; and there are, perhaps, no readers of the New
Testament who are not perplexed with it. Infidels, and particularly
Voltaire, have seized the occasion which they supposed they found
here to sneer against the Scriptures, and to pronounce them to be
contradictory. Luther felt the difficulty to be so great that, in the
early part of his career, he regarded it as insuperable, and denied
the inspiration of James, though he afterwards changed his opinion,
and believed that his epistle was a part of the inspired canon; and
one of Luther's followers was so displeased with the statements of
James, as to charge him with wilful falsehood.--Dr. Dwight's Theology,
Serra. lxviii. The question is, whether their statements can be
so reconciled, or can be shown to be so consistent with each other, that
it is proper to regard them both as inspired men? Or, are their statements
so opposite and contradictory, that it cannot be believed that
both were under the influences of an infallible Spirit? In order
to answer these questions, there are two points to be considered:
first, what the real difficulty is; and, secondly, how the statements
of the two writers can be reconciled, or whether there is any way
of explanation which will remove the difficulty.
I. What the difficulty is. This relates to two points--that James
Seems to contradict Paul in express terms, and that both writers
make use of the same case to illustrate their opposite sentiments.
(1.) That James seems to contradict Paul in express terms. The
doctrine of Paul on the subject of justification is stated in such
language as the following: "By the deeds of the law there shall no
flesh be justified in his sight," Romans 3:20. "We conclude that a
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," Romans 3:28.
"Being justified by faith," Romans 5:1. "Knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ," Galatians 2:16. Compare Romans 3:24-26;; Galatians 3:11;; Titus 3:5,6.
On the other hand, the statement of James seems to be
equally explicit that a man is not justified by faith only, but that
good works come in for an important share in the matter. "Was
not Abraham our father justified by works?" James 2:21. "Seest thou
how faith wrought with his works?" James 2:22. "Ye see then how
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," James 2:24.
(2.) Both writers refer to the same case to illustrate their views--
the case of Abraham. Thus Paul (Romans 4:1-3) refers to it to
prove that justification is wholly by faith. "For if Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed unto him for righteousness." And thus James (James 2:21-22)
refers to it to prove that justification is by works: "Was not
Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar?"
The difficulty of reconciling these statements would be more clearly
seen if they occurred in the writings of the same author; by supposing,
for example, that the statements of James were appended to the
fourth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and were to be read in
connexion with that chapter. Who, the infidel would ask, would
not be struck with the contradiction? Who would undertake to
harmonize statements so contradictory? Yet the statements are
equally contradictory, though they occur in different writers, and
especially when it is claimed for both that they wrote under the influence
of inspiration.
II. The inquiry then is, how these apparently contradictory statements
may be reconciled, or whether there is any way of explanation
that will remove the difficulty. This inquiry resolves itself into two
--whether there is any theory that can be proposed that would relieve
the difficulty, and whether that theory can be shown to be
well founded.
(1.) Is there any theory which would remove the difficulty--any
explanation which can be given on this point which, if true, would
show that the two statements may be in accordance with each other
and with truth?
Before suggesting such an explanation, it may be further observed,
that, as all history has shown, the statements of Paul on the subject
of justification are liable to great abuse. All the forms of Antinomianism
have grown out of such abuse, and are only perverted statements of his
doctrine. It has been said, that if Christ has freed us
from the necessity of obeying the law in order to justification; if he
has fulfilled it in our stead, and borne its penalty, then the law is
no longer binding on those who are justified, and they are at liberty
to live as they please. It has been further said, that if we are saved
by faith alone, a man is safe the moment he believes, and good works
are therefore not necessary. It is possible that such views as these
began to prevail as early as the time of James, and, if so, it was
proper that there should be an authoritative apostolic statement to
correct them, and to cheek these growing abuses. If, therefore,
James had, as it has been supposed he had, any reference to the
sentiments of Paul, it was not to correct his sentiments, or to controvert
them, but it was to correct the abuses which began already to
flow from his doctrines, and to show that the alleged inferences did
not properly follow from the opinions which he held; or, in other
words, to show that the Christian religion required men to lead holy
lives, and that the faith by which it was acknowledged that the
sinner must be justified, was a faith which was productive of good
works.
Now, all that is necessary to reconcile the statements of Paul sad
James, is to suppose that they contemplate the subject of justification
from different points of view, and with reference to different inquiries.
Paul looks at it before a man is converted, with reference
to the question how a sinner may be justified before God; James
after a man is converted, with reference to the question how he may
show that he has the genuine faith which justifies. Paul affirms
that the sinner is justified before God only by faith in the Lord Jesus,
and not by his own works; James affirms that it is not a mere
speculative or dead faith which justifies, but only a faith that is
productive
of good works, and that its genuineness is seen only by good
works. Paul affirms that whatever else a man has, if he have not
faith in the Lord Jesus, he cannot be justified; James affirms that
no matter what pretended faith a man has, if it is not a faith which
is adapted to produce good works, it is of no value in the matter of
justification. Supposing this to be the true explanation, and that
these are the "stand-points" from which they view the subject, the
reconciliation of these two writers is easy: for it was and is still
true, that if the question is asked how a sinner is to be justified before
God, the answer is to be that of Paul, that it is by faith alone,
"without the works of the law;" if the question be asked, how it
can be shown what is the kind of faith that justifies, the answer is
that of James, that it is only that which is productive of holy living
and practical obedience.
(2.) Is this a true theory? Can it be shown to be in accordance
with the statements of the two writers? Would it be a proper explanation
if the same statements had been made by the same writer?
That it is a correct theory, or that it is an explanation founded in
truth, will be apparent, if
(a) the language used by the two writers will warrant it;
(b) if it accords with a fair interpretation of the declarations of
both writers; and
(c) if, in fact, each of the two writers held respectively the same
doctrine on the subject.
(a) Will the language bear this explanation? That is, will the
word justify, as used by the two writers, admit of this explanation?
That it will, there need be no reasonable doubt; for both are speaking
of the way in which man, who is a sinner, may be regarded and
treated by God as if he were righteous--the true notion of
justification.
It is not of justification in the sight of men that they speak,
but of justification in the sight of God. Both use the word justify
in this sense---Paul as affirming that it is only by faith that it can
be done; James as affirming, in addition, not in contradiction,
that
it is by a faith that produces holiness, and no other.
(b) Does this view accord with the fair interpretation of the
declarations of both writers?
In regard to Paul, there can be no doubt that this is the point
from which he contemplates the subject, to wit, with reference to
the question how a sinner may be justified. Thus, in the epistle to
the Romans, where his principal statements on the subject occur, he
shows, first, that the Gentiles cannot be justified by the works of the
Law, (Romans 1) and then that the same thing is true in regard to the
Jews, (Romans 2;; 3) by demonstrating that both had violated
the law given them, and were transgressors, and then (Romans 3:20)
draws his conclusion "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall
no flesh be justified in his sight"--the whole argument showing
conclusively that he is contemplating the subject before a man is
justified, and with reference to the question how he may be.
In regard to James, there can be as little doubt that the point of
view from which he contemplates the subject, is after a man professes
to have been justified by faith, with reference to the question
what kind of faith justifies, or how it may be shown that faith is
genuine. This is clear,
(a) because the whole question is introduced by him
with almost express reference to that inquiry: "What doth it
profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not
works? Can faith save him? " \\Ro 2:14\\. That is, can such faith--
can this faith (\~h pistiv\~) save him? In other words, he must have a
different kind of faith in order to save him. The point of James'
denial is not that faith, if genuine, would save; but it is, that such
a faith, or a faith without works, would save.
(b) That this is the very point which he discusses, is further shown
by his illustrations, James 2:15-16,19. He shows (James 2:15-16)
that mere faith in religion would be of no more value in regard to
salvation, than if one were naked and destitute of food, it would meet
his wants to say, "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;" and then,
(James 2:19,) that even the demons had a certain kind of faith in
one of the cardinal doctrines of religion, but that it was a faith
which was valueless--thus showing that his mind was on the question
what is true and genuine faith.
(c) Then he shows by the case to which he refers,
(James 2:21-23,) the case of Abraham, that this was the question before
his mind. He refers not to the act when Abraham first believed
--the act by which as a sinner he was justified before God; but to
an act that occurred twenty years after--the offering up of his son
Isaac. See Barnes "James 2:21" and through verse 23. He affirms
that the faith of Abraham was of such a kind that it led him to obey the
will of God; that is, to good works. Though, as is implied in the objection
referred to above, he does not refer to the same case to which Paul
referred-- the case of Abraham--yet it is not to the same act in
Abraham. Paul (Romans 4:1-3) refers to him when he first believed,
affirming that he was then justified by faith; James refers indeed to an
act of the same man, but occurring twenty years after, showing that the
faith by which he had been justified was genuine. Abraham was,
in fact, according to Paul, justified when he believed, and, had he
died then, he would have been saved; but according to James, the
faith which justified him was not a dead faith, but was living and
operative, as was shown by his readiness to offer his son on the altar.
(d) 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 auto 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. If these things are so, then these two
writers have not contradicted each other, but, viewing the subject
from different points, they have together stated important truths
which might have been made by any one writer without contradiction;
first, that it is only by faith that a sinner can be justified--and
second, that the faith which justifies is that only which leads to a
holy life, and that no other is of value in saving the soul. Thus, on
the one hand, men would be guarded from depending on their own
righteousness for eternal life; and, on the other, from all the evils of
Antinomianism. The great object of religion would be secured--the
sinner would be justified, and would become personally holy.
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP