In the second chapter James recurs to the discussion of the democracy of faith found in1:9-11. In fact, it had never been very far in the background. The use of “my brethren” is eminently appropriate here, since he is urging the readers to brotherly kindness (Mayor).
This is a very hard verse to translate at once, for we must decide three disputed questions. One is whether the verb is imperative or interrogative. It is taken as imperative in most versions, and so most interpreters hold, but Hort urges that it is a tame conception compared with the indignant query expecting the answer no. There is force in this point, as thus James would be expressing vehement surprise that such partiality could exist among the Jewish Christians. Still, the prohibition against such partiality makes good sense.
There is little doubt that “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” should be rendered “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is objective, not subjective, genitive. For a similar use of the objective genitive with faith one may noteMark 11:22andActs 3:16. It is not the faith of Jesus that is under discussion but the faith of the readers in Jesus Christ our Lord. This interpretation commits James to the worship of Jesus as Lord and Messiah, but that is surely what would be expectedin one who claimed to be a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). It is true that the standpoint of James is nearer to that of the Old Testament than is true of Peter, John, and Paul, but after the great Pentecost there seems to be no wavering on the great fundamentals of Christianity, though there is rich development and enlargement.
The essence of the Christology of James is precisely that of Paul, though James does not amplify his implications as Paul does. James, though very Jewish in background, is thoroughly Christian. The heart of Christianity, the worship of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is here, though chronologically the Epistle of James precedes the teaching of Paul and John in their writings. It is like the child and the man (Plummer), not a retrograde movement. It is the outlook of Jerusalem, not that of Antioch. What James is discussing is not the personal religion of Jesus but the reader’s faith in Jesus.
The third disputed point in the verse is the word “glory.” The English versions generally insert the words “the Lord” and make it “the Lord of glory,” but Bengel makes “the glory”ipse Christus. In this he is followed by Mayor, Hort, and Oesterley; and it is almost certainly true that by “glory” James has in mind the Shekinah. In the Septuagint forLeviticus 26:11the word for Shekinah is just that used inRevelation 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men.” InJohn 1:14we read: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father).” Add to thisHebrews 1:3, “who, being the effulgence of his glory,” and the case seems made out. InPirke Abothiii. 3 we note: “Two that sit together and are occupied in words of Thorah have the Shekinah among them.”
Jesus claimed, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20).Jesus is thus not only the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Resurrection but also the Glory. James may have in mind the resurrection glory of Jesus as he appeared to him. InLuke 2:32Simeon says: “The glory of thy people Israel.”
But all this is by way of emphasis for the main point. One who has faith in such a Lord as Jesus should not be guilty of “acts of partiality” (Hort). The meaning of the phrase is clear, though the origin is obscure.[65]The Greek use of the word for mask is illustrated by the word for hypocrite. InLeviticus 19:15we see the full force of the idiom: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.” SeeActs 10:34, where Peter learns that God is no respecter of persons.
God does not accept the outside appearance for the inner reality—nor should we. God is the God of reality. (CompareHeb. 4:12 f.) A just judge must not be influenced by the bias of personal preference, prejudice, rank, power, money (Mayor). He must decide the case on its merits. There is no room for class prejudice or for the caste system in Christianity, as there is none in the heart of God. Christianity is democratic to the core, that is, real Christianity. Organized Christianity has sometimes been the very thing that James here condemns. Even in the single church little rifts and cliques easily develop.
Already the Jewish Christians were in peril from this evil. It is, in particular, a sin of ushers who show respect of personsin seating strangers. But pastors are in constant danger of the same sin in general church relations. The word here for synagogue may mean place of worship or the assembly itself, as inHebrews 10:25, “the assembling of yourselves together.” The word for church does not occur in the apostolic period (Hort) for place of meeting, but synagogue was already in common use in both senses. But it is not necessary to suppose that James has in mind simply a Jewish synagogue, though it is quite possible that the Jewish Christians still attended worship and heard Moses read in the synagogue (Acts 15:21), as Christians belonged to the synagogue of the Libertines (Acts 6:9) and the early Christians worshiped still in the Temple.
The use of “your” seems to mean that it is at least a Christian gathering that James refers to, whether meeting in the Jewish synagogue or elsewhere. “The growth of the Gentile element in the church excited the active hostility of the Jews against the whole body of Christians, as it troubled the Jewish converts themselves” (Westcott on Hebrews, p. xxxviii). Finally the Christians had to set up for themselves, as in Corinth (Acts 18:7) and in Ephesus (Acts 19:8 f.). We do not know the precise stage reached by the Jewish Christians here. James may mean some particular instance of trouble in the dispersion that came to his notice, or he may have in mind any Christian gathering in the dispersion. The Gentiles often attended the worship of the Jews in the synagogues (Acts 13:16, 43). The use of “synagogue” for Christian worship occurs rarely, as in Hermas,Mand.xi. 9.The time came when synagogue was used only for Jews or heretics. Epiphanius (Haer.xxx. 18) says that the Ebionites call their meeting “synagogue,” not “church.” One may note also John’s use of the term “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).
The picture of the two strangers at church is drawn with bold lines and in few words by James; yet it is remarkablyclear and picturesque. The man with a gold ring probably makes a display of his ring. If he preached, he would make most of his gestures with that hand. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Mayor quotes Epictetus (Diss.1. 22) as speaking of an “old man with gold fingers.” The “fine clothing” is literally “brilliant clothing,” “new glossy clothes” (Hort), “the fine white garment worn by wealthy Jews” (Oesterley), like that in which Herod Antipas clad Jesus when he sent him back to Pilate. One can easily see the distinguished-looking stranger as he steps in at the same time as “a poor man in vile clothing,” “in dirty clothes” (Moffatt), “old shabby clothes” (Hort). SeeRevelation 22:11for the same adjective for “filthy.” InJames 1:21we had “filthiness.”
We have no means of knowing whether these two men who suddenly enter church are Christians or simply Jews. Both seem to be strangers. The courtesies extended are based purely on the appearance of these two as to dress, not on race or ecclesiastical standing.
The poor man may be one reduced to beggary—a tramp or hobo. He may be a poor working man. He stands in marked contrast with the rich man, as in1:9-11. Probably the poor man had on the best clothes that he had. Should a man like that come to our churches? Would he be welcome in our pews? To be sure, cases occur when a bath would help matters and when plain, but clean, clothes could be provided by Christian people so as to make attendance at church free from embarrassment. But there are people, especially children, who stay away from both Sunday school and church because they do not possess decent clothes in which to come. They fear the critical eyes and comments of the people at church.
It is easy to say that people should rise above such unfavorable circumstances and come on to church to worshipGod, who reads the heart and does not judge men by their clothes. Yes, but a man may conclude that he can worship God just as acceptably and more comfortably in some other church where the usher does not seem so ashamed of his coming or embarrassed by his presence that, in spite of plenty of empty pews in the grand temple of worship, he finds a back seat for him under the gallery or in the gallery on a footstool (literally, “under my footstool,” probably “on the floor by my footstool”), in a corner, or a place to stand against the wall. Meanwhile, the poor man has seen the attentions paid the man in fine clothes; he is ushered to a good seat with the air of a prince.
The soul of the poor man is all the more embittered, since he came perhaps in a sort of desperation from the hardness of the world outside, a world that has economic and social laws that make the battle a difficult one. And now in the temple of God the worshipers of Jesus show the same pride of wealth and station as at a social function. The preacher talks of forgiveness of sins and the comfort of the Holy Spirit; but he and the ushers keep a sharp eye upon the man who wears the fine clothes, pompous and self-conscious as that man probably feels. The soul of the poor man is made more bitter still as he leaves the church of the rich and the proud to see if he can find God at home or the devil in the saloon or other den of iniquity.
One pity of it all is that so many churches have fine, empty, cushioned seats, while the strangers who could fill them are not sought for or not properly welcomed if they come. It is a pathetic picture that James here gives us—that of the stranger at the door of the church. Most strangers pass the door of the church by with indifference or disgust. The church must win the strangers outside unless it is to degenerate into a social club of a few select families. A church that only holds its own will soon lose that standing.The task of the church is to win the world to Christ. And then when the poor of earth enter, it is worse than folly to push them to one side and out of doors, back into the street.
This touch of life is one of many modern notes in the Epistle of James. The embarrassment of the usher in the presence of two such incongruous strangers at once is probably due to the fact that he knows full well the atmosphere or tone of the church. It is aristocratic or select; evangelical and orthodox, not evangelistic or missionary; a haven of rest for the stately pious, not a rescue station for the lost. The officers of the church thus make distinctions between the attendants at church and sort out the congregation according to worldly standards. They are “judges of evil thoughts” and act with partiality in bestowing courtesies on strangers in the house of God. All this is in such marked contrast to the spirit and conduct of Jesus that one can hardly credit his eyes when he sees it happen in church. It is increasingly difficult to get the poor to come to some of the churches. The churches themselves may sometimes become suspicious that the very poor come to church to receive financial help. So the breach widens.
James now has fewer maxims and a more argumentative style, like that of Paul. He makes a passionate appeal for attention: “Hearken, my beloved brethren.” He writes as an impassioned speaker speaks (cf.1:16; 4:13). God’s choice of the people of Israel seems to be in the background (Deut. 14:1 f.). The Jews had come in many cases to look on earthly prosperity as a mark of divine favor and poverty as a sign of God’s disfavor (cf.Psalm 73).
The Pharisees were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). But the troubles of the Jews, in spite of many wealthy Pharisees and Sadducees, had led many of them to see a blessing in poverty.See Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gad. vii. 6: “For the poor man, if, free from envy, he pleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men.” Oesterley (in loco) quotesChag.9bas saying that poverty is the quality that above all befits Israel as the Chosen People. Epictetus (bk. IV, chap. i, 43) says: “Another (thinks the cause of his evils to be) that he is poor.” Epictetus (Stob. 10) says further: “Riches are not among the things that are good.”Luke 6:20has: “Blessed are ye poor,” whereMatthew 5:3has “poor in spirit.”
It is certain that the gospel made a powerful appeal to the poorer classes of society among Jews and Gentiles. Jesus claimed it as part of his messianic mission “to preach good tidings to the poor” (Luke 4:18), as Isaiah (60:1 f.) had foretold. He asked the messengers of John the Baptist to take back to Macherus the news that “the poor have the good tidings preached to them” (Luke 7:22) as one proof of his messiahship. Paul enlarges on the choice (1 Cor. 1:27 f.) by God of the foolish, the weak, the despised classes to add to his own glory. The early churches were gathered largely from the proletariat. Slaves and masters, rich and poor, mingled together in fellowship and brotherly love.
The papyri discoveries have shown us the world of Jesus and of Paul “in the workaday clothes of their calling.”[66]Deissmann adds: “We should be sorry indeed not to have been told that Jesus came from an artisan’s home in country surroundings.”[67]The fact that Jesus was a carpenter, a workingman in the modern sense of that term, should enlist the sympathy and the interest of all workingmen. They should heed the call of the Carpenter.
Here James boldly champions the cause of the poor as against certain rich Jews, probably not members of thechurch, who have oppressed the Christians and dragged them before courts of justice. With their own hand these rich Jews had dragged Christians before tribunals. Rich Sadducees had done this with Peter and John (Acts 4:1). As one of these potentates, yea, as a tyrant, Paul had once dragged men and women before the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:3; 22:4). He had even tried to make them blaspheme (Acts 26:11). It was not necessary to have special laws against the Christians. As objects of dislike it was easy enough, as Paul found out, to hale them into court. Paul came to know only too well how the tables could be turned on him when he became a Christian. He had to take his own medicine (Acts 13:50; 16:19). Jesus indeed had foretold that just this fate would befall his disciples before the courts of Jews and Gentiles (Matt. 10:17 f.;John 16:2).
The anger of these rich Jews against Jesus and Christians leads them actually to blaspheme the name of Christ. The Sadducees will not even call the name of Jesus when they discuss the case of Peter and John. They refer with contempt to “this name” (Acts 4:17), though in the threat they have to name Jesus (v. 18). The disciples rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (Acts 5:41). So “the honorable name,” “the beautiful name,” “the noble Name” (Moffatt) came to be the shibboleth of the believers in Jesus. His name was to be “the name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9 f.). It was already the only name with power to save (Acts 4:12), as Peter boldly informed the Sanhedrin. That was the meaning of the name Jesus (Matt. 1:21).
Here one sees afresh the Christology of James. The honorable name is the name of Jesus, with a possible reference to the use of it in the baptismal formula—“by which ye are called,” “which is called upon you.” At any rate, they bear the name of Christian, given probably as a reproach (Acts 11:26; 26:28;1 Peter 4:14, 16). This name is now their badge of honor and glory. When called upon to say, “Anathema be Jesus,” they reply, “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3). Certainly the early Jewish Christians had everything to make them fear the powerful rich who had frowned upon Jesus and his cause.
And yet James dares to say to the Jewish Christians: “But ye have dishonored the poor man,” “now you insult the poor” (Moffatt). They had done it out of cringing fear of the rich Jews with all their power, or out of anxiety to please the rich so as to win them with fawning flattery. We are not to think that all the Jewish Christians had shown such narrowness or such cowardice, but some instances had come to the notice of James. Per contra note the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who wished to gain credit for great liberality to the poor by the use of part of the wealth, keeping back half though pretending to give all. All the early Christians were not poor. The cases of Barnabas, Joseph of Arimathea, and Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary occur to one at once. Jesus did not denounce rich men per se, though he did point out with great power the peril of wealth.
James is not to be understood as denouncing the rich in a wholesale fashion. Consecration is what sanctifies riches—the use of money for the glory of God and the blessing of mankind. A man is not a child of the devil just because he is rich or poor. God deals with men in the raw manhood. “A man’s a man for a’ that.” The distinction between the upper and the lower classes is partly fictitious and is not a stable condition. The slums are a dreadful fact and a disgrace to modern civilization. People should have decent homes, good food, fresh air, and clean clothes. Extreme poverty is a peril to a man’s soul, as is great wealth. It is not a sin to be rich, but dangerous, though most of us are willing to take the risk. Epictetus (Stob. 10) says: “It is difficult for a rich person tobe right-minded or a right-minded person rich.” Riches and poverty are not essential criteria of character. Over against the slums in our cities one may place the pious poor of Scotland, as seen in “The Cotter’s Saturday Night.” Over against the wild and recklessnouveaux richesone may note the generous givers of millions to missions and to education.
One must learn to be just to all classes and to do justice to all. A person needs full knowledge of the social conditions about him and the courage to apply the gospel of Christ to these conditions. But let no one imagine that sociology can take the place of the gospel of Jesus. Christianity is sociological, but sociology is not necessarily Christian. We need intelligent sympathy, but most of all we need the love and grace of God in the heart. But minister and man must be independent of bondage to either rich or poor and stand in the freedom of Christ.
Prof. H. C. Vedder makes a very serious charge against modern ministers: “This attitude of the clergy can be explained only on the ground of their economic dependence upon the privileged classes. They are the hirelings of capitalism, and, to do them justice, they earn their wages.”[68]This is a bitter attack upon the ministry for always championing the cause of capital whenever labor and capital clash. The charge is not always true, as anyone who observes should know. Organized labor is sometimes in the wrong. Corporations that are unjust to labor are often denounced in the pulpit. Let every case be met on its merits. Certainly the minister of Christ should be on the side of manhood against mere money. A man’s life is more than money.
James reminds his readers that God is not ashamed of the poor. In fact, he often calls the poor, as the world regardsthem, to be rich in faith. After all, the riches of the spirit and of fellowship with God are the true riches. So often a turn in the wheel of life leaves a man poor today who was rich yesterday. And death will separate one from all his wealth, save what he has given away. The wicked rich man may scout the poor saint here, but Lazarus will rest in Abraham’s bosom while the wicked rich man is in torment in hades.
But even here the pious poor stand high with God, while the wicked rich are despised. The poor may be heirs of the kingdom. Think of that—heirs of the kingdom of God, the glorious messianic kingdom promised of old and now begun, the fulness of which is in the future with God, the heavenly kingdom. But even here and now the poor saint is a child of the King and has riches untold. He has love and joy in his heart, a superiority to adversity, an elevation of spirit, the peace of God that passes all understanding; and that is worth more than all the gold of Ophir.
It is not mere pious platitude on the part of James when he writes thus. He is but interpreting the soul of mystic Christianity, real Christianity, as set forth by Jesus in the Beatitudes, where those only are felicitated who have the joy of the spirit independent of outward condition or circumstance. After all, the piety of the poor is a nation’s best asset. The poor will someday, many of them, be rich. May they still be pious! The upper classes run down and run out, alas, and have to be recruited constantly from the lower classes. It is the law of life. If we save the masses, we may save the classes. At any rate, it is a pitiful business to see a church of Jesus Christ ashamed of the poor, as the world regards them, for Jesus our Lord was himself poor for our sakes, voluntarily poor. “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9)—rich in God’s mercy and grace, rich in character, in likeness to Jesus.
The poise of James appears again. He has no wish to stir the passions and prejudices of the poor against the rich. Surely it is not a sin to love rich people. They are entitled to the same love as other people, many far more because of the noble use made of their wealth. If you really fulfil the royal law—a law fit for kings or such as a king will be sure to follow (cf.Psalm 72;Zech. 9:9) and supreme over other laws (Matt. 22:40)—you do well. We should love both rich and poor alike. This royal law was in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) and is here quoted. It was sanctioned by Jesus (Matt. 19:18 f.) as one of the two chief commandments on which hang the whole law and the prophets (Matt. 22:38-40). Love of God and man covers all else. One may compare also the Golden Rule as given by Jesus inMatthew 7:12, which is just another way of stating the royal law of loving one’s neighbor (one near in need, whether in proximity or not) as oneself, a very high standard for most people.
The royal law forbids the partiality in church of which James has been speaking, this respect of persons. It is more than an error of judgment or a breach of etiquette. It is an act of sin, a slip in ethics, a missing of the mark that is fraught with grave consequences. It is bad enough to be convicted by the law as transgressors by this servile regard for the rich. It is worse to note the evil effect on the church and the community. A church of a clique is doomed. A church is only of use when it is open to the people who need the help of the gospel. The church opens its doors to let people in, does not put up bars to keep them out.
At first blush it seems that James has Draconian severity in these verses, but it is not the severe punishment of smallcrimes or venial offenses. The long list of capital crimes in ancient England shows how slowly men have learned to temper justice with mercy. Some of the Stoics said that the theft of a penny was as bad as parricide. The “blue laws” of Connecticut come to mind also. James does not say that all sins are equal, that one sin is as bad as another. As a matter of fact, each man discounts his own sins. The rake looks with scorn on the grafter. The man guilty of spiritual pride scouts the drunkard. It is a hard task to convince a man that he is guilty of his own sin.
The burden of the law was very heavy. The curse of the law (Gal. 3:13) was more than violation of particular precepts, though that was true to the last detail (Deut. 11:26, 28, 32; 27:26), as Jesus explained (Matt. 5:18 f.). The Jewish fathers put a hedge or fence about the law (Pirke Abothi. 1) and made it very difficult to keep all of it (the law as a whole, hard enough as it was), plus the traditions of the elders, which often contradicted and set at naught the commandment of God (Mark 7:8 f.). CompareSirach 27:12. Rabbi Hunnah, in a midrash onNumbers 5:14, taught that he who committed adultery broke all commandments, and some of the rabbis placed the sabbath above all else and held that if one profaned it, he had broken all the commandments. Mayor, per contra, quotes some of the rabbis as saying that to keep the law about fringes and phylacteries was to keep the whole law. There was a constant tendency to make the ceremonial cover up moral and spiritual lapses.
Augustine (Epistle to Jerome, 167) compares this teaching of James with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices as mentioned. But certainly James has a higher view than these hair-splitting punctilios. Paul saw that the essence of sin lies in the motive (Rom. 14:23) and that desire to glorify God should pervade all our acts (1 Cor. 10:31). It seems hard to hold someone who makes one slip tostrict account and hold him guilty of all. That is true only in the sense that James proceeds to explain that any violation of law makes one a lawbreaker.[69]
One does not have to break all the laws to become a lawbreaker. One offense places him in that category. The matter is put with this sharp emphasis because of the complacent self-satisfaction of the perfunctory ceremonialist (James 1:26), who may yet commit the sin of partiality in church. James is seeking to convict such “pious” sinners of their guilt, to rouse them out of their smug self-satisfaction.
It is quite possible that those who were guilty of spiritual pride and other sins of the spirit boasted of their freedom from adultery and murder (Hort). At any rate, we must not forget that out of the heart are the issues of life, that murder springs out of hate and that all of God’s laws come from the same will (Mayor). It is disobedience to the will of God that constitutes the essence of sin. It is not a light matter to be guilty of any sin. Our only hope is in the grace and forgiveness of God. There is no room for pride on the part of sinners, setting up one sin against another sin.
But James is not a pharisaic legalist nor a Judaizer. He adds these verses to make it plain that he does not have in mind the painful observance of separate rules and details. The spirit is greater than the letter. Our words and deeds are to be judged by “a law of liberty” (cf.1:25), not of bondage. We are under grace, not the old law. We live in an atmosphere of love and liberty, not of repression and slavery. Godwatches the real motive in our conduct toward the rich and the poor as in all things. “Mercy glorieth against judgment”; mercy triumphs over judgment. God shows mercy to us in spite of our shortcomings, for Jesus is the pledge of our fidelity and our hope.
We make so many mistakes that we should have no heart to go on if we had to be held to strict account every time we stumbled in one point. Still, we must not overlook the fact that we did stumble. It is our duty not to stumble at that point again. So we go on our stumbling way toward that goal of perfection which is ever before us. It was Jesus who said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). James seems to know this saying, as he lays emphasis on the spirit and motive in holy living.
We now come to the famous passage that is supposed by some scholars to be an attack on Paul’s doctrine of salvation by faith instead of works. James is interpreted by many to be a champion of works as against Paul’s theory of grace. It is an old controversy and is the occasion of Martin Luther’s slighting allusion to the Epistle of James as “a veritable epistle of straw.” He thought it contradicted the Epistle of Galatians, which he loved dearly as his “wife.” It is necessary, therefore, to clear the atmosphere a bit before proceeding to the exposition.
This depends on the date of the epistle. (For the discussion of this question, seechapter I.) It is here assumed that James wrote before the Jerusalem Conference, beforeA.D.50.
Paul wrote Galatians and Romans, as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians, in the heat of the Judaizing controversy, to answer the contention that circumcision was essential to the salvation of the Gentiles, that Christianity alone was not sufficient but must be supplemented by Judaism. No issue ever stirred Paul’s nature like this. It is possible that Paul may have had in mind a misuse ofJames 2:14-26by the Judaizers when he wrote, knowing that James in reality agreed with him in the matter (Acts 15:14-21;Gal. 2:1-10). But James clearly is not attacking Paul or Paul’s theory of grace. He rather has inview a perversion of the Christian emphasis on the spiritual side as opposed to the ceremonial ritualism of the Pharisees.
The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other. The Jews had laid too much emphasis on religious duties (cf.James 1:26), and some of the Christians went to the extreme of thinking that no works at all were needed in the Christian life. Some of the Jews, on the other hand, had already gone so far as to consider creed alone essential. “As soon as a man has mastered the thirteen heads of the faith, firmly believing therein ... though he may have sinned in every possible way ... still he inherits eternal life.”[70]This Jewish unconcern for real piety in life is reflected in the lives of some of the Jewish Christians and is the occasion of the remarks of James.
James’s use of righteousness or justification is in the sense of actual goodness as Jesus uses it in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:1) and of sanctification as Paul has it in Romans 6 to 8. It is not the “imputed righteousness” of Paul in Romans 3 and 4. James has a practical purpose, not a theological one. He is not discussing the question as to how Abraham was set right with God, how faith was reckoned as righteousness, the point seized on by Paul in the verse. James quotes the whole verse (Gen. 15:6), as Paul does, but he is concerned with it as proof that when put to the test, Abraham lived up to his faith in that he actually “offered up Isaac his son upon the altar” (James 2:21). It is the deed as proof of faith that James emphasizes, though both points are in the narrative.
James looks upon works as proof of faith, not as means of salvation. John the Baptist had demanded “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). Jesus had said, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). Paul will discuss death to sinon the part of the believer (Rom. 6:1-11). Peter will show how the life will make the calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is a clarion call to hold fast the confession of faith to the end. John will insist that those who say they are in the light do not walk in darkness (1 John 1:6; 2:9). Certainly then, James is in harmony with the full drift of the gospel message in his insistence on works as proof of the new life.
Paul, in his contrast between faith and works, has in mind the Jewish doctrine of works as means of salvation. See2 Esdras 9:7 f.: “Whoever shall be able to escape either by his works or by his faith shall see my salvation.” And even here “by faith” does not mean what Paul has in mind, saving trust, but rather creed. The Pharisees taught the value of works of supererogation, the “merit” of the fathers, in particular, the merit of Abraham, whose faith and works were a storehouse for the Jews. “We have Abraham to our father.” That was enough. So the Roman Catholics hold that the saints may help us out of purgatory if we pay enough for their intercession. Prayer itself becomes anopus operatum, a credit in the balance sheet with God. Most Jews held works alone to be the means of salvation. The point was keenly discussed in the Jewish schools in Jerusalem and Alexandria.
As to faith, in this passage he is thinking of mere intellectual assent to the unity of God or other theological tenets. This was the use of “faith” by many of the Jews. After some of them became Christians, they got no further. It is this idle and empty faith that James is condemning. James does have the other sense of trust for the word, as in2:1, “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” the sense in which Paul uses the term when he contrasts it with works (Rom. 3:20-30). It is quite important to note this distinction.
The antithesis in James is not, in reality, between faith and works but between live faith and dead faith, the two uses ofthe term just mentioned. Inverse 18the point is made absolutely clear. It is not personal trust in Christ that James ridicules but an empty theological tenet that does not stand the test of actual life. So then, James and Paul go off at tangents when the same words occur, for they are talking about different things.
Once more James corrects a possible misapprehension. He properly places mercy above justice, but no one need think for a moment that good deeds do not matter. God is full of mercy, but there is a limit even with God. He demands some performance, not mere profession. “What doth it profit?” James pointedly asks.Cui bono?What is the use? What good is it for a man to say he has faith who has no works to prove his faith? How can men know that he has any faith? The mere assertion is all that men have at first. In the beginning the claim to faith is accepted, but the life must confirm the claim if men are to continue to believe it. God can read the heart, but even God demands that the life show the change of heart. The life must give expression to what the heart has felt.
James asks again: “Can that faith[71]save him?” He does not scoff at faith but at such hollow “faith” as this. James here speaks for the practical man of the present day who wishes to see some real difference in the life of a man who becomes a Christian. It is an old demand, as we see in1 John 1 and 2. There is no escape from this appeal to life, nor ought there to be. Men are judged by their conduct in business during the week as much as by their attendance at church on Sunday. James does not say that a Christian has no faults andnever sins or is a hypocrite if he sins once. He does say that he should have some faith.
His illustration inverses 15 and 16is very forcible and shows that he was probably a striking and popular preacher (Oesterley). It is a problem that is constantly presented to our modern Christians and churches. A brother or sister is in need of food and clothing. They are out of work because of the economic conditions beyond their control. They are not professional beggars. One may pause to admit the serious difficulty of knowing how to render real assistance to those who come to our doors for help. The modern social workers tell us not to give money and clothing but to investigate the case or to have the charity organization or some of the rescue workers to do it for us. The great number of tramps and professional beggars with false stories tends to harden our hearts to the many cases of real need all about us. Some of these are too proud to make their real condition known and actually starve to death or perish from disease and cold.
James here assumes that the case is one of real need that deserves sympathy and help. The man who prides himself upon the correctness of his professional creed and pious standing bestows kind words of sympathy and nothing else, sending the suffering brother or sister, “ill-clad and short of daily food” (Moffatt), out into the bitter cold and shutting the door with a sense of satisfaction after such pious platitudes as, “Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled.” He calls his cheap words Christian sympathy. It is enough to make demons laugh. The irony of James is keen. “The things needful to the body,” the ordinary necessities of life, now become rare luxuries to the poor brother or sister. So James repeats his query: “What doth it profit?”
It is pertinent per contra to quote Paul on the necessity of love even in beneficence: “And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but havenot love, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3). What, indeed! One recalls the compassion of Jesus for the hungry multitudes whom he fed. His heart was not hardened. He did not ask them to be satisfied with honeyed words and the aroma of dinner. The pious pretenders actually think that the needy should be grateful for kind advice when sent away without a mouthful to eat. James applies his illustration to the point discussed (v. 17). Mere professional faith that talks and does not “is dead in itself.” There is no life in it, no reality. It is dead on the inside and is a mere empty shell of pious pretense. There are people who today turn to our churches for help in the hour of need and get only empty words. It will be in vain then to speak about the grace of God.
It is extremely difficult to follow the thought of James inverse 18. He is usually wonderfully perspicuous, but here we are in doubt as to the punctuation and the reference in “a man.” Some scholars think that it is a delicate way that James has of referring to himself, but then James is emphasizing works, not mere faith.
Is the sentence a question or an assertion? Shall we say “but” or “yea”? Hort has shown a way out that is partly followed by Moffatt. Take the “man” as an objector, but let his objection cover only the first sentence, the point being to challenge the faith of James, since he has put such accent on works. “Thou, James, hast thou faith? I also (as well as thou) have works.” The objector thus claims to have both faith and works but implies that James has only works and no faith.
The rest of the verse is then the reply of James to the objector.[72]James bursts in with the answer to the challengeand rests his claim to faith on works as proof. “Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.” Here James pits over against each other the two sorts of faith—the true faith which James claims to possess and which is proved by works and the false faith which is mere profession and entirely apart from works. The antithesis is complete. The dispute turns on how one knows that he has faith. James rests his case on his works and in turn challenges the objector to prove his faith apart from works.
Now James is ready to drive the point home. He proceeds to show that such an empty faith as his objector has is mere intellectual assent to propositions and is not saving trust that bears fruit in the life. “Thou believest that God is one.” This is one of the statements of the unity of God. The usual formula occurs inDeuteronomy 6:4and inMark 12:29(“The Lord our God, the Lord is one”). The recitation of this phrase was not merely the orthodox creed but was supposed to have saving efficacy (cf. the Moslem repetition of “Allah”). From the time of the exile the repetition of theShema(Deut. 6:4 ff.) each morning and evening was the duty of every pious Israelite. “Whoever reads theShemaupon his couch is as one that defends himself with a two-edged sword” (Meg. 3a). “They cool the flames of Gehinnom for him who reads theShema” (Ber. 15b). Oesterley (in loco) adds that “the very parchment on which theShemais written is efficacious in keeping demons at a distance.”
These statements will help us to understand the atmosphere from which James draws his illustration. And yet James does not ridicule this mental assent to the oneness of God. “Thou doest well.” Orthodoxy is better than heresy. Orthodoxy is “thinking straight,” and that is what we all need to do. Every man is right in his own eyes, and the rest are a bit “off.” But good as monotheism is, it is not enough (cf. Mohammedanism again).
What James criticizes is mere intellectual assent with no vital union with God. “The demons also believe,” as well as you. The demons know only too well that God is and that he is one. They are monotheists, not polytheists. They recognized Jesus: “What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). CompareMatthew 8:29andLuke 4:41. The demons are thoroughly orthodox on this point, have intellectual assent (“faith”), but they are still demons. They even shudder at the fact and the power of God as they feared Jesus (Mark 1:24;Luke 8:29). The word means to “bristle,” like the Latinhorreo, with the hair standing on end. “Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up” (Job 4:15). So Daniel (7:15) says, “My spirit was grieved.” The argument is as complete as it can be.
But James applies his illustration again. He hammers the objector while he has him. “But wilt thou know, O vain man?” (“you senseless fellow,” Moffatt). The word is used like the Latinvanusof boasters or impostors, men whose word cannot be depended upon. You can know, if you wish to know,[73]“that faith apart from works is barren,” “faith without deeds is dead” (Moffatt), according to some manuscripts. One may note2 Peter 1:8, “not idle nor unfruitful.” Faith without works is like a barren woman, without children to comfort her. “Children” and “works” are sometimes used as parallel. “Wisdom is justified by her works” (Matt. 11:19); “wisdom is justified of all her children” (Luke 7:35).
James thus shows irritation at the dulness of his objector,but he hopes to make even such a man see the point by appealing to the axiomatic case of Abraham. The faith of Abraham was one of the commonplaces of theological discussion in the rabbinical schools (Oesterley). SeeSirach 44:20 ff.;Wisdom 10:5. It is no wonder that Paul (Rom. 4;Gal. 3:7) makes use of the case of Abraham. He considers it so important that in Romans he devotes a whole chapter to the subject. Paul lays chief emphasis (Rom. 4:17-21) on Abraham’s faith in the promise of a son. Paul also proves that Abraham had the justifying faith before he was circumcised. James shows that Abraham lived up to his faith when put to the test. Both points are true.
There was abuse of the faith of Abraham. Thus Rabbi Nehemiah (MechiltaonEx. 14:31) says: “So Abraham, solely for the merit of his faith, whereby he believed in the Lord, inherited this world and the other.” The Jews came to rely so much on the “merit” of Abraham’s faith that they felt that all they had to do was to say, “We have Abraham to our father” (Matt. 3:9). They leaned[74]on “Father Abraham.” In1 Maccabees 2:52the same use is made of the case of Abraham that we have in James: “Was not Abraham found faithful in trial, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness?” InHebrews 11the same exposition of faith is set forth by the glorious list of heroes who exemplified faith. Among these heroes is Abraham, who obeyed to go out (11:8) to a distant land and who offered up his only begotten son (11:17).
James appeals confidently, therefore, to the example of Abraham in offering up Isaac upon the altar (cf.Gen. 22:9). He had shown that he served God from love and not merely from fear. His faith had stood the severest of all tests—believing that God would go with him down into the darknessof death and make plain his command that was so hard to obey.
James interprets the case of Abraham with his usual pungency. “Thou seest,” or at least, “thou oughtest to see.” The deduction is inevitable. “Faith wrought with his works,” “faith cooperated with deeds” (Moffatt), just the opposite of “apart from works.” It is thus clear that James did not mean to say that Abraham had only works and not faith. It is faith and works with Abraham, as he had contended inverse 18. It is like Paul’s “faith working through love,” energetic faith. So James adds: “by works was faith made perfect,” “completed by deeds” (Moffatt).
Thus with Abraham faith was shown to be alive, not dead; fruitful, not barren; brought to a good result or end, not cut short with mere profession or promise. So the Scripture was fulfilled (made full or complete) in the case of Abraham: “And Abraham believed God, and it [the faith] was reckoned [set down to his credit] unto him for righteousness.” Paul inRomans 4lays emphasis on the verb “believed,” and James stresses the obedience which proves the reality of the trust.
Both points are justly made. In each instance faith precedes the works. We are set right with God by trust, but the life must correspond to the new relation with God. It was so with Abraham. He was called “the friend of God.” Compare2 Chronicles 20:7. “Shall I hide from Abraham that which I do?” (Gen. 18:17). With the Arabs the term “Khalil Allah” (Friend of God) is the current name for Abraham. Epictetus (bk. II, chap, xvii, § 29) speaks of looking “up into heaven as the friend of God.” Plato calls the righteous man “on terms of friendship with God.” Jesus calls his disciples “friends,” no longer “servants,” inJohn 15:14 f.There cannot be such friendship without trust of the most absolute kind, a trust that means loyalty to the end.