James 2:1

The apostle is here reproving a very corrupt practice. He shows how much mischief there is in the sin of prosōpolēpsia - respect of persons, which seemed to be a very growing evil in the churches of Christ even in those early ages, and which, in these after-times, has sadly corrupted and divided Christian nations and societies. Here we have,

I. A caution against this sin laid down in general: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, Jam 2:1. Observe here, 1. The character of Christians fully implied: they are such as have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; they embrace it; they receive it; they govern themselves by it; they entertain the doctrine, and submit to the law and government, of Christ; they have it as a trust; they have it as a treasure. 2. How honorably James speaks of Jesus Christ; he calls him the Lord of glory; for he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person. 3. Christ's being the Lord of glory should teach us not to respect Christians for any thing so much as their relation and conformity to Christ. You who profess to believe the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the poorest Christian shall partake of equally with the rich, and to which all worldly glory is but vanity, you should not make men's outward and worldly advantages the measure of your respect. In professing the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, we should not show respect to men, so as to cloud or lessen the glory of our glorious Lord: how ever any may think of it, this is certainly a very heinous sin.

II. We have this sin described and cautioned against, by an instance or example of it (Jam 2:2, Jam 2:3): For if there come into your assembly a man with a gold ring, etc. Assembly here is meant of those meetings which were appointed for deciding matters of difference among the members of the church, or for determining when censures should be passed upon any, and what those censures should be; therefore the Greek word here used, sunagōgē, signifies such an assembly as that in the Jewish synagogues, when they met to do justice. Maimonides says (as I find the passage quoted by Dr. Manton) "That is was expressly provided by the Jews' constitutions that, when a poor man and a rich plead together, the rich shall not be bidden to sit down and the poor stand, or sit in a worse place, but both sit or both stand alike." To this the phrases used by the apostle have a most plain reference, and therefore the assembly here spoken of must be some such as the synagogue-assemblies of the Jews were, when they met to hear causes and to execute justice: to these the arbitrations and censures of their Christian assemblies are compared. But we must be careful not to apply what is here said to the common assemblies for worship; for in these certainly there may be appointed different places of persons according to their rank and circumstances, without sin. Those do not understand the apostle who fix his severity here upon this practice; they do not consider the word judges (used in Jam 2:4), nor what is said of their being convected as transgressors of the law, if they had such a respect of persons as is here spoken of, according to Jam 2:9. Thus, now put the case: "There comes into your assembly (when of the same nature with some of those at the synagogue) a man that is distinguished by his dress, and who makes a figure, and there comes in also a poor man in vile raiment, and you act partially, and determine wrong, merely because the one makes a better appearance, or is in better circumstances, than the other." Observe hence, 1. God has his remnant among all sorts of people, among those that wear soft and gay clothing, and among those that wear poor and vile raiment. 2. In matters of religion, rich and poor stand upon a level; no man's riches set him in the least nearer to God, nor does any man's poverty set him at a distance from God. With the Most High there is no respect of persons, and therefore in matters of conscience there should be none with us. 3. All undue honouring of worldly greatness and riches should especially be watched against in Christian societies. James does not here encourage rudeness or disorder. Civil respect must be paid, and some difference may be allowed in our carriage towards persons of different ranks; but this respect must never be such as to influence the proceedings of Christian societies in disposing of the offices of the church, or in passing the censures of the church, or in any thing that is purely a matter of religion; here we are to know no man after the flesh. It is the character of a citizen of Zion that in his eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoureth those that fear the Lord. If a poor man be a good man, we must not value him a whit the less for his poverty; and, if a rich man be a bad man (though he may have both gay clothing and a gay profession), we must not value him any whit the more for his riches. 4. Of what importance it is to take care what rule we go by in judging of men; if we allow ourselves commonly to judge by outward appearance, this will too much influence our spirits and our conduct in religious assemblies. There is many a man, whose wickedness renders him vile and despicable, who yet makes a figure in the world; and, on the other hand, there is many a humble, heavenly, good Christian, who is clothed meanly; but neither should he nor his Christianity be thought the worse of on this account.

III. We have the greatness of this sin set forth, Jam 2:4, Jam 2:5. It is great partiality, it is injustice, and it is to set ourselves against God, who has chosen the poor, and will honour and advance them (if good), let who will despise them. 1. In this sin there is shameful partiality: Are you not then partial in yourselves? The question is here put, as what could not fail of being answered by every man's conscience that would put it seriously to himself. According to the strict rendering of the original, the question is, "Have you not made a difference? And, in that difference, do you not judge by a false rule, and go upon false measures? And does not the charge of a partiality condemned by the law lie fully against you? Does not your own conscience tell you that you are guilty?" Appeals to conscience are of great advantage, when we have to do with such as make a profession, even though they may have fallen into a very corrupt state. 2. This respect of persons is owing to the evil and injustice of the thoughts. As the temper, conduct, and proceedings, are partial, so the heart and thoughts, from which all flows, are evil: "You have become judges of evil thoughts; that is, you are judges according to those unjust estimations and corrupt opinions which you have formed to yourselves. Trace your partiality till you come to those hidden thoughts which accompany and support it, and you will find those to be exceedingly evil. You secretly prefer outward pomp before inward grace, and the things that are seen before those which are not seen." The deformity of sin is never truly and fully discerned till the evil of our thoughts be disclosed: and it is this which highly aggravates the faults of our tempers and lives - that the imagination of the thoughts of the heart is evil, Gen 6:5. 3. This respect of persons is a heinous sin, because it is to show ourselves most directly contrary to God (Jam 2:5): "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith? etc. But you have despised them, Jam 2:6. God has made those heirs of a kingdom whom you make of no reputation, and has given very great and glorious promises to those to whom you can hardly give a good word or a respectful look. And is not this a monstrous iniquity in you who pretend to be the children of God and conformed to him? Hearken, my beloved brethren; by all the love I have for you, and all the regards you have to me, I beg you would consider these things. Take notice that many of the poor of this world are the chosen of God. Their being God's chosen does not prevent their being poor; their being poor does not at all prejudice the evidences of their being chosen. Mat 11:5, The poor are evangelized." God designed to recommend his holy religion to men's esteem and affection, not by the external advantages of gaiety and pomp, but by its intrinsic worth and excellency; and therefore chose the poor of this world. Again, take notice that many poor of the world are rich in faith; thus the poorest may become rich; and this is what they ought to be especially ambitious of. It is expected from those who have wealth and estates that they be rich in good works, because the more they have the more they have to do good with; but it is expected from the poor in the world that they be rich in faith, for the less they have here the more they may, and should, live in the believing expectation of better things in a better world. Take notice further, Believing Christians are rich in title, and in being heirs of a kingdom, though they may be very poor as to present possessions. What is laid out upon them is but little; what is laid up for them is unspeakably rich and great. Note again, Where any are rich in faith, there will be also divine love; faith working by love will be in all the heirs of glory. Note once more, under this head, Heaven is a kingdom, and a kingdom promised to those that love God. We read of the crown promised to those that love God, in the former chapter (Jam 2:12); we here find there is a kingdom too. And, as the crown is a crown of life, so the kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom. All these things, laid together, show how highly the poor in this world, if rich in faith, are now honoured, and shall hereafter be advanced by God; and consequently how very sinful a thing it was for them to despise the poor. After such considerations as these, the charge is cutting indeed: But you have despised the poor, Jam 2:6. 4. Respecting persons, in the sense of this place, on account of their riches or outward figure, is shown to be a very great sin, because of the mischiefs which are owing to worldly wealth and greatness, and the folly which there is in Christians' paying undue regards to those who had so little regard either to their God or them: "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seat? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called? Jam 2:7. Consider how commonly riches are the incentives of vice and mischief, of blasphemy and persecution: consider how many calamities you yourselves sustain, and how great reproaches are thrown upon your religion and your God by men of wealth, and power, and worldly greatness; and this will make your sin appear exceedingly sinful and foolish, in setting up that which tends to pull you down, and to destroy all that you are building up, and to dishonour that worthy name by which you are called." The name of Christ is a worthy name; it reflects honour, and gives worth to those who wear it.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ch. Jas_2:1-13. Respect of Persons

1. have not the faith …] Better, do not hold. The Greek for “respect of persons” (better, perhaps, acceptance of persons) is in the plural, as including all the varied forms in which the evil tendency might shew itself, and stands emphatically immediately after the negative. The name of “our Lord Jesus Christ” is used obviously with a special force. He had shewn Himself, through His whole life on earth, to be no “respecter of persons” (Mat_22:16), to have preferred the poor to the rich. There was a shameful inconsistency when those who professed to hold the faith which had Him as its object acted otherwise. To the name of the Lord Jesus is added the description “the Lord of Glory.” The first two words are not repeated in the Greek, but the structure of the English sentence requires their insertion. The motive of the addition is clear. In believing in Him who was emphatically a sharer in the Eternal Glory (Joh_17:5), who had now returned to that Glory, men ought to feel the infinite littleness of all the accidents of wealth or rank that separate man from man. This seems the most natural construction, but the position of the words “of glory” is anomalous, and some have joined it with “faith” either as a genitive of the object “faith in the future glory,” or as a characterising attribute = “the glorious faith.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jam_2:1-7

With respect of persona--

Respect of persons

I.

THE SIN AGAINST WHICH THE WARNING IS DIRECTED (Jam_2:1-4).

1. It is stated, Jam_2:1. My brethren, he begins, addressing them in a conciliatory manner, well fitted to gain their compliance. He calls on them not to hold, in a certain way, the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is this which alike determines the state and forms the character of the really religious. It is only by believing with the whole mind and heart that we are united to the Saviour, and reap the benefits of His great redemption. Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ--that is, hold it not--with respect of persons. It is more exactly in than with respect of persons, in the practice of anything so obviously opposed to its very nature. And it is strictly in respectings of persons, the plural being used to indicate the various ways of doing what is here forbidden. By it we are to understand partiality, favouritism, unduly preferring one before another, making a distinction among men, not on the ground of character or real worth, but of outward condition, of worldly position and possessions.

2. It is illustrated (Jam_2:2-4). For--this is what I mean, here is a specimen of the kind of thing I am warning you against--if there come into your assembly--that is, your congregation, or place of meeting for divine worship. It brings out the offensiveness of the proceeding, that it took place in the sanctuary, where, even more than in a court of justice, everything of the sort was most unseemly. If there come in, he says, a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel--one who appeared by these marks to be a person of superior position. With a gold ring, literally, gold-fingered, having his hands adorned probably with more than a single ring, it might be with several. In goodly apparel--having a splendid garment, as the word signifies, bright, shining, glittering, either from its colour or its ornaments. But another enters, and what a contrast! And there come in also a poor man in vile raiment. Here is one of mean condition, as shown by his attire, the dirt and rags with which he is covered. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, marking the deference paid to him by saying, Sit thou here in a good place--sit here, near the speaker, in the midst of the assembly, in a comfortable and honourable seat; while your language to the poor is, Stand thou there--stand, that is suitable and sufficient for you; and stand there, away at a distance, behind the others, it may be in some remote corner, some inconvenient position; or, Sit thou here under my footstool; if you sit at all among us let it be on the ground beneath, at my feet, in a mean, low situation of that kind. Supposing them to act in such a manner, he asks (Jam_2:4), Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Are ye not partial in yourselves? do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, or are ye not at issue with yourselves? Is not this way of acting at variance with your principles as Christians? Is there not a wide difference between the faith you profess and the course you thus pursue? Now, what is it that he condemns? Is it showing any deference to those of larger means and higher station? Certainly not. What he condemns is honouring the rich at the expense of the poor--cringing to the one and trampling on the other, and doing this, besides, in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, where all should meet on the same footing, should be viewed as standing on a common level. Favour is still shown to the rich man, where it is neither his right nor his interest to have any, but to rank along with the poorest of his brethren. This is done at times by softening down or keeping back the truth from fear of offending certain influential classes or parties. We have a noble example of the opposite in the case of Howe when acting as one of Cromwells chaplains. He found that a fanatical and dangerous notion regarding answers to prayer prevailed at court, and was held strongly by the Protector himself--a notion which some who knew better did their utmost to encourage. Regarding it with abhorrence, Howe thought himself bound, when next called to preach before Cromwell, to expose the fallacies on which it rested, and the pernicious consequences to which it led. This accordingly he did, doubtless to the no small surprise and chagrin of his audience. During his discourse, Cromwell was observed to pay marked attention; but as his custom was, when displeased, frequently knit his brows, and manifested other symptoms of uneasiness. Even the terrors of Cromwells eye, however, could not make Howe quail in the performance of an undoubted duty; and he proceeded in a strain of calm and cogent reasoning to fulfil his honourable but difficult task. When he had finished, a person of distinction came up and asked whether he knew what he had done? at the same time expressing his apprehension that he had irretrievably lost the Protectors favour. Howe coolly replied that he had discharged what he considered a duty, and could leave the issue with God. This was worthy of his sacred office, and his own noble character. The same thing is frequently done in the way of pursuing a subservient course of conduct toward the rich with the view of gaining their favour.

II. THE REASONS BY WHICH THE WARNING IS ENFORCED.

1. The poor are the special objects of the Divine regard (Jam_2:5). Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith? He has chosen them in His eternal decree; and in pursuance of this, chosen them by separating them to Himself, through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost. And whom has He thus chosen? The poor of this world--the poor in respect of it, in the things of it, the poor temporally. They constitute the class to which the man in vile raiment belonged. Rich in faith--that is, God has chosen them to be this--He has destined them to it, and made them it by His election. And heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him. The Christian is rich at present. He has large possessions, and these belong to the domain of faith. Bat be has also glorious prospects. Already he is a son, but he is also an heir. His inheritance is a kingdom, than which there is nothing greater, nobler, more coveted here below.

2. The rich had shown themselves the great enemies of Christs people and person. He appeals to his readers, Do not rich men oppress you? lord it over you, exercise their power against you--and draw you, drag you; for it implies force, violence--before the judgment-seats. They did so by vexatious law-suits, by false charges, by persecuting measures. Not only so, be asks, Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? The reference is not to the lives of inconsistent Christians, but to the foul-mouthed charges and curses of avowed enemies of the gospel. The worthy or honourable name intended is that of Christ. What title, then, had this class to such a preference? Did their relation to the Church, either in its members or its Head, call for any special favour at the hands of believers? Quite the reverse. (John Adam.)

A comprehensive admonition

I. Observe--A RELATIONSHIP. The apostle addresses them as his brethren.

1. So they were, nationally; they were Jews as well as himself.

2. They were his brethren naturally partaking of the same humanity with him.

3. They were his brethren graciously. Here a nobler relation is gendered, and this comprehends all that worship God in the Spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and who have no confidence in the flesh.

4. They were His brethren impartially, without any distraction; that is, He was regardless of everything that might seem to render them unworthy the privilege as to conditions, or gifts, or office.

II. Here is A CHARACTER. The Lord of glory. You well know to whom this belongs; and this is not the only place where this title is given; for Paul, streaking of the princes of this world, said, None of them knew, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Isaiah Isa_33:21) makes use of a similar term as applied to the blessedGod Himself. The radical idea of glory is brilliancy; the second idea is excellency displayed; and there are three ways in which this character will apply to our Lord and Saviour.

1. He is the Lord of glory because of His personal excellencies. He is fairer than the children of men; He is the chief among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely. All the glory of creatures, whether in earth or in heaven, in their aggregate, is nothing more to His glory than a drop to the ocean, or a beam to the sun.

2. He is called the Lord of glory, because He produces and confers all the excellencies possessed by creatures. By Him kings reign, and princes decree justice. When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

3. There is a world made up entirely of excellencies and glory, when nothing else is to be found, and of that world He is the only Sovereign, the only Disposer.

III. A PECULIAR ENDOWMENT. The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not that we have this faith in equal possession and exercise with Him. No, in all things He had the pre-eminence. He received the Spirit without measure, and in every one of its graces He excelled.

1. But the apostle does not speak here of the faith He possessed and exercised, but of that faith, first, of which He was the Author. He is called, The Author and the Finisher of faith, and this is as true of the graces of faith as of the doctrine of faith.

2. When the apostle speaks of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, he means, secondly, that of which He is the Object. Therefore, they that believe are said to believe in Him.

IV. A PROHIBITION Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect to persons. This regards, not its character, but its perversion; its abuse, and not its nature. Have it not, says James; that is, let it never be so seen in you, let it never be so exercised in you. Here, however, it will be necessary to observe that there is a lawful respect of persons, and there is an unlawful one. The thing, therefore, is not forbidden in every instance, and in every measure and degree. For, in the first place, it is impossible to respect some persons. You will never feel towards a Nero as you would towards a Howard. And if it were possible, it would be improper. The Scripture justifies the distinctions and inequalities of life, and rank and office are to be regarded. But the meaning here is that other things being equal, you should not show more regard to one person than to another, because of some things belonging to him which have no relation to cases of duty or conscience. Let us exemplify the thing four ways.

1. The first is judicially. In a case of this kind pending, how very improper it would be to be lenient to the rich and severe to the poor!

2. The second class we call ministerial. If God blesses the labours of a minister to your soul, you will esteem such; but you are not to make an idol of straw. You should regard all the servants of God as equal; you are to view them in reference to their Master--in reference to their commission--in reference to their place and office--as all respectable, and equally regarded by God.

3. The third class we call ecclesiastical. Here we might refer to the terms of admission into the Church of God, and to the table of the Lord. These ought not to be rigid and severe, but whatever they may be, they ought to be equally applied to the high and the low, to the rich and to the poor.

4. The last class we call denominational. All should belong to some Christian community; but you should never suppose that the party you have joined have all the truth, and that nothing is to be done without them. Let us never forbid others because they walk not with us. To conclude, let us learn then to judge of men regardless of adventitious circumstances. Let our inquiry be, What are they morally? what are they spiritually? Thus may we resemble the citizens of Zion, of whom it is said, in their view a vile person is contemned, while those who fear the Lord are honoured. (W. Jay.)

Respect of persons in religious matters

We may be guilty of this--

1. By making external things, not religion, the ground of our respect and affection. Knowing after the flesh (2Co_5:16) is to esteem any one out of secular and outward advantages. Says Tertullian: We must not judge of faith by persons, but of persons by faith.

2. When we do not carry out the measure and proportion of affection according to the measures and proportions of grace, and pitch our respects there where we find the ground of love most eminent (Psa_16:3).

3. When we can easily make greatness a cover for baseness, and excuse sin by honour, whereas that is the aggravation; the advantage of greatness makes sin the more notable.

4. When we yield religious respects, give testimonies to men for advantage, and, under pretence of religion, servilely addict ourselves to men for base Jud_1:16).

5. When Church administrations are not carried on with an indifferent and even hand to rich and poor, either by way of exhortation or censure.

6. When we despise the truths of God because of the persons that bring them to us. Matheo Langi, Archbishop of Saltzburg, told every one that the reformation of the mass was needful, the liberty of meats convenient, and to be disburthened of so many commands of men just; but that a poor monk (meaning Luther) should reform all was not to be endured. So in Christs time the question was common, Do any of the rulers believe in Him? Thus you see we are apt to despise excellent things, because of the despicableness of the instrument. The same words have a different acceptation, because of the different esteem and value of the persons engaged in them. Erasmus observed that what was accounted orthodox in the fathers, was condemned as heretical in Luther. (T. Manton.)

Respect of persons

I. The persons whom St. James admonished here are THE BRETHREN to whom he giveth this attribute, which thing he doth very conveniently, inasmuch as in the discourse he is to admonish them of a duty of love, whereunto they ought to be the more prompt. The saints of God may well here be called brethren--

1. Because they have one spiritual and Heavenly Father, which is God, who is Father of us all, of whom are all things, and we in Him.

2. As because we have one spiritual Father we are brethren, so because we have one spiritual mother, we are brethren also. Now, as God is our spiritual Father, so is the Church our mystical mother, which hath brought us forth by a new birth, in whose sweet bosom we are nursed, into whose happy lap we are gathered, and bringeth us up under the most wholesome discipline of Jesus Christ, that we might be holy and blameless before Him through love.

3. Neither that only, but they are also begotten with one seed of their new birth and regeneration, which is the immortal seed of the Word.

4. If Christ vouchsafe us the name of brethren, and so we have Him as a common brother, then are we therefore also brethren by right among ourselves.

5. Finally, inasmuch as the saints divide the same inheritance among them, therefore are they called brethren; for brethren they are as Aristotle writeth, among whom the same inheritance is divided; yea, they which divide the same lands, living, patrimony, possession. The sons and saints of God communicate the same inheritance, divide the same kingdom of their Heavenly Father among them, participate the same good things which are above as co-heirs and joint-heirs of the heavenly patrimony, eternal life; therefore are they brethren.

II. The saints whom He calleth brethren, being the persons whom He admonisheth, in the next place cometh THE THING ITSELF, WHEREOF THEY ARE ADMONISHED to be considered that they have not the faith of Christ in respect of persons, wherewith true love, true charity, true religion, cannot stand or consist.

1. What is here meant by faith? Christian religion, the true service of Christ, the profession of the gospel, whereunto respect of persons is contrary, for if pure religion and undefiled before God be this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their adversities, and to regard the poor in their miseries, as before was taught us, then contrary hereunto is the contempt of the poor and preferring of the rich, which respect of persons is here condemned.

2. Christ is called the glorious Lord in this place, sometimes to like purpose is He called the Lord of glory (Psa_24:7; Act_7:2; 1Co_2:8). Christ may be called the Lord of glory--

(1) Because He is full of majesty, power, and glory, at the right hand of God.

(2) Christ is the Lord of glory because howsoever He first came in baseness and great humility, yet at His second appearing and coming He shall come in unspeakable glory.

(3) Christ is a glorious Lord because He bringeth and advanceth

His servants to immortal glory after His appearing in glory.

3. To have this faith of Christ our glorious Lord in respect of persons is to esteem the faith, religion, and profession of Christ by the outward appearance of men.

1. What is respect of persons? It is to respect anything besides the matter and cause itself, which only ought of us to be considered, whereby we decline from the matter to the man, from the thing to the person, and swerve from righteous judgment and true estimation of things.

2. Which sin, as pernicious and perilous in all causes, in all persons, at all times, and in all places, the sacred Scripture condemneth as a thing most repugnant to equity and charity. This evil cannot stand with Christian profession, the gospel teacheth that with God is no respect of persons, but that they all which fear God and work righteousness are accepted through the joyful tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ, in whom there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, neither rich nor poor, but they are all alike unto Him. (R. Turnbull.)

Wrong social distinctions

God Himself has made a distinction among men. That one should be rich and have abundance, and another should be poor and needy, is an arrangement of the Almighty, just as it is His arrangement and appointment, that all the ears of corn should not contain the same number of grains, and that all flowers should not be arrayed in the same gay colours, and that all the stars should not shine with the same brilliancy, but one star differ from another star in glory. But we make an evil distinction when we carry that which is of value only in earthly relations, in civil and social intercourse, into a sphere where, according to the appointment of God, poverty and riches are both of the same value, or rather of no value. For let us only ask ourselves for what purpose do we assemble in the house of God on appointed days? Is it not that we may feel the importance, and attend to the concerns of another life, far different from our earthly and every-day one? Is it not that we may know and enjoy the life eternal, that we may taste the powers of the invisible world? But all the pre-eminence which riches can procure for us is as transitory as riches themselves; the rich man fades away amidst all his affluence, as completely as the poor man perishes in his state of destitution. How iniquitous is it, then, to distinguish the rich as such, and to slight the poor as such, in a place where all are on the same level before God, where all assemble with an equal need of heavenly grace and gifts, and all have a right to rejoice in the same riches, even the fulness of the Divine love in Christ. (B. Jacobi.)

Respect of persons in church

It was my custom occasionally to attend St. Marys, and the sermons of the vicar always delighted me. But as the church was always very full, I was often obliged, though not strong in health, to stand during the whole service. Now, having observed that the persons who were best dressed were always the first to be conducted to seats, although not seat-holders, I yielded to the temptation of resorting to an artifice. I happened to possess a large and beautiful ring. One Sunday morning I put it on and repaired to church as usual. I stood for a minute or two with other people of divers classes near the door. Then, taking off my glove, I raised my hand with apparent carelessness to my ear, and immediately I was led to a comfortable seat. (Autobiography of Bp. Gobat.)

Without respect of persons

Until the last few years of his life Friend Hopper usually walked to and from his office twice a day. When the weather was very unpleasant he availed himself of the Haarlem cars. Upon one of these occasions it chanced that the long, ponderous vehicle was nearly empty. They had not proceeded far when a very respectable looking young woman beckoned for the car to stop. It did so; but when she set her foot on the step the conductor somewhat rudely pushed her back, and she turned away, evidently much mortified. Friend Hopper started up, and inquired, Why didst thou push that woman away? Shes coloured, was the laconic reply. Art thou instructed by the managers of the railroad to proceed in this manner on such occasions? inquired Friend Hopper. The man answered, Yes. Then let me get out, rejoined the genuine republican; it disturbs my cow, science to ride in a public conveyance where any decently behaved person is refused admittance. And though it was raining very fast, and his horse was a mile off, the old veteran of seventy-five years marched through mud and wet at a pace somewhat brisker than his usual energetic step; for indignation warmed his honest and kindly heart and set the blood in motion.

No respect of persons

On one occasion Peter Cartwright, the Backwoods Methodist preacher, was occupying the pulpit of a time-serving fashionable preacher at Nashville. He was in the middle of his sermon, when Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) entered the building and walked up the main aisle. The presence of so great a man, the President of the United States, overpowered the clergyman in charge, and bending over to Peter Cartwright, he said in an audible whisper, General Jackson has come in; General Jackson has come in. And who thundered out Cartwright, is General Jackson? If he doesnt get his soul converted, God will damn him as quick as He would a Gainea negro! It may well be supposed that the congregation was startled, and the next day the Nashville pastor went, with abject apologies, to the General, regretting the indignity that had been offered him. But the independence of the bold Backwoods apostle, so far from giving offence to Old Hickory, won his lasting regard, and the Rev. Peter was afterwards his honoured guest at the Hermitage. (Tinlings Illustrations.)

Your synagogue

The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem still frequented the temple, and those among the dispersion the synagogues; hence there is no cause for surprise in finding Christians mixed with unconverted Jews at this period in a common place of worship. The people sat in the synagogue according to their social rank or trade, and St. James fastens on this exhibition of pride on the part of the higher classes as a ground of convincing them of sin and of violation of the law which enjoined Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. A further argument that the Jewish synagogue is spoken of is that we learn from the context that strangers came in who were provided with seats that happened to be vacant. This would occur constantly in the synagogue, but in the upper chamber of the Christians it would be most unlikely that persons of wealth and eminence, as here described, should thus freely enter the congregation of the despised Nazarenes. A graphic delineation follows of the casual worshippers, for casual they must have been, as the regular comers Would have their seats allotted them. The one is wealthy and proud, the other poor and lowly. The force of this contrast will appear the more when we remember that the Christian portion of the Jewish community was chiefly gathered out of the lower ranks in the social scale. The rich man is described as having a gold ring or rings on his fingers, for it was a common custom to wear a number of these ornaments; he is clad also in handsome attire, literally shining, most likely with reference to the gloss of the texture of his raiment; and the poor man is represented as clothed in shabby attire, most probably with reference to the soil contracted in labour: (F. T. Bassett, M. A.)

A man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel

Degrees of honour in the Church

This place taketh not away degrees of honour from men, neither denieth it honour or worship to be given to men of honour or worship, albeit wicked and unworthy. St. James only teacheth not to judge of the faith and religion of Christ in men by their outward appearance, neither in the public meetings of Christians to reverence or prefer the rich men of the world, being wicked, with the disdaining of the poor which are religious, as the words themselves import when to the rich man we say, Sit here in a good and worshipful place, and to the poor, Sit there, or Sit under my footstool, which argueth contempt of the poor brethren; for if in spectacles and theatrical sights, in election of officers, in parliaments, in assizes and sessions, and in all well-ordered assemblies of men, there is difference of men and comeliness of persons observed, how much more in ecclesiastical meetings ought there an order to be observed whereof the primitive Church was careful, appointing their place for the ministers, theirs for the laity, theirs for them which were to be catechised, theirs for them which were to do penance and to make open acknowledgment of their offences. The same was ratified by councils, confirmed by fathers; and for the business of the churches or the reproving of mens vices and correcting of them which fell both Tertullian and St. Ambrose writeth that there were several places for certain persons assigned. So, then, all difference and degrees of men are not here forbidden, but in Christian assemblies to respect the rich, with the contempt and disdain of the poor, is condemned. (R. Turnbull.)

Showing off dress in church

Perhaps, in the modern church worship, the greatest discouragement which the poor feel is in the dress which their rich brethren and sisters are accustomed to exhibit in the house of God. It is a shame to their poor apparel. It ought to be a shame to any well-to-do Christian woman when she wears her gayest and newest costly clothing to public worship, and appears with diamonds and other very valuable and conspicuous ornaments before the altar of her God. Cannot the Christian women of this age at length have the courage to refuse to continue to be Sunday advertisements of modistes and milliners? A lady in New York, whose pew was on one of the wall sides of the church, and who consequently had the congregation all on one side of her, suggested to her milliner that she put a certain bow on the congregation side of her bonnet! What a revelation was that! And was it solitary? Is not the preparation of many a worshipper made on the congregation side? And is not the house of the Lord thus turned into a show-room, in which those who have no special dry-goods to exhibit are neither welcome nor at home? (C. F. Deems, D. D.)

A gold-ringed man

The custom was one of the fashions of the empire, and had spread from Rome to Judaea. So Juvenal, in a portrait which unites the two forms of ostentations luxury noted by St. James, describes one who, though born as an Egyptian slave, appears with Tyrian robes upon his shoulders and golden rings, light or heavy, according to the season (Sat. 1:28, 30). So in Martial (xi. 60) we read of one who wears six rings on every finger day and night, and even when he bathes. (Dean Pumptre.)

The poor to be treated equitably

The tutor of Cyrus instructed him, when in a controversy, where a great boy would have taken a large coat from a little boy because his own was too little for him and the others was too big, he adjudged the great coat to the great boy. His tutor answered, Sir, if you were made a judge of decency or fitness, you had judged well in giving the biggest to the biggest; but when you were appointed judge, not whom the coat did fit, but whose it was, you should have considered the title and the possession, who did the violence, and who made it, or who bought it. And so it must be in judgments between the rich and the poor: it is not to be considered what the poor man needs, but what is his own. (Jeremy Taylor, D. D.)

Bowing to an old coat

The rich man is like him who, walking in the market with the cast-off coat of a nobleman to which the tinsel star was still sewn, felt elated and proud--a great man truly, because all bowed and raised their hats. Reaching home, he strutted before the glass with a lord-like air, and caught sight of the star. Aha! cried he, blushing red with shame, what a fool the world is to bow to an old coat! (H. O.Mackey.)

Judges of evil thoughts

Our judgments of others

I. OURS IS A CRITICAL AGE, and we, most of us, have learned how to criticise. It has been raised to a science. We can distinguish the false from the true, the impostor from the honest man. We can put the motive to everything that is done. We can estimate character, we can measure the degrees of virtue and of vice; nay, so clever have we grown in this accomplishment, that we discover things that never existed, see unkindness where none was meant, deceit and hypocrisy in the honest and the true, selfishness in some act of generosity which we cannot otherwise account for.

II. JUDGE NOT.

1. Because we cannot judge aright. Even when there is no beam in our own eye to obscure our vision, and no want of charity to bias our judgment, we cannot truly judge of the motives which are at work in another. The French have a motto, that To know everything is to forgive everything; and if this is not literally true, at least it embodies a truth, which we are slow enough to admit, that we often judge by the outside fact and give no credit for the hidden motive. Men who see into their neighbours, says an acute observer of human nature, are very apt to be contemptuous; but men who see through them find something lying behind every human soul which they cannot judge and dare not sneer at.

2. It is the very worst policy possible. The man who judges harshly will be harshly judged. But he who has always a good word to say of another will find but few critics and many friends. I was much struck by a chance remark made to me by a friend not long ago. Speaking of a neighbour, he said: He seems a good sort of man. I never heard him speak against any one; and that is the kind of man I like.

3. If you are honest with yourself, you dare not judge. To judge, you must yourself be at least free from the sin which you profess to judge Mat_7:5; Joh_8:7). It is Gods prerogative (Rom_14:4). What if the Master should judge us as we are so ready to judge our fellow men? What if God should take us at our word, and forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us? (A. L. Moore, M. A.)

Evil thoughts

Evil thoughts, if cherished, blight virtue, destroy purity, and undermine the stablest foundations of character. They are very much like rot in timber, like rust in iron. They eat into the man. And when the process has gone on for awhile, and there comes the stress of an outward temptation, down they go into a mass of ruins.

Hath not God chosen the poor?--

The rich and the poor

Let us not misunderstand St. James. He does not say or imply that the poor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or that his poverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any more than that the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has declared any preference, it is for the poor rather than for the rich. The poor man has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live according to Gods will, and to win the blessings that are in store for those who love Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life is perpetually brought home to him, and he is spared the peril of trusting in riches, which is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He has greater opportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike, and fewer occasions of falling into those sins which separate him most fatally from Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is not salvation, Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of reverence rather than of contempt. But the error of the worldly Christians whom St. James is here rebuking does not end with dishonouring the poor whom God has honoured; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as a class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the reverse, as experience is constantly proving. Do not the rich oppress you? &c. St. James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period (A.D. 35-65) were among the worst oppressors of the poorer Jews, and of course were specially bitter against those who had become adherents of the Way, and who seemed to them to be renegades from the faith of their forefathers. It was precisely to this kind of oppression that St. Paul devoted himself with fanatical zeal previous to his conversion (Act_9:1-2; 1Ti_1:13; 1Co_15:9; Php_3:6). The judgment-seats before which these wealthy Jews drag their poorer brethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts (cf. 1Co_6:2; 1Co_6:4)

, but are probably the Jewish courts frequently held in the synagogues. The Roman Government allowed the Jews very considerable powers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely ecclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic law penetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was concerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law. Consequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was more secure and less provocative of rebellion when the Jews were permitted to retain a large measure of self-government. These were the times when women bedight the priesthood for their husbands from Herod Agrippa II., and went to see them officiate, over carpets spread from their own door to the temple; when wealthy priests were too fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice without first putting on silk gloves; when their kitchens were furnished with every appliance for luxurious living, and their tables with every delicacy; and when, supported by the Romans, to whom they truckled, they made war upon the poor priests, who were supported by the people. Like Hophni and Phinehas, they sent out their servants to collect what they claimed as offerings, and if payment was refused the servants took what they claimed by force. Facts like these help us to understand the strong language used here by St. James, and the still sterner words at the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state of society the mere possession of wealth certainly established no claims upon the reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning upon rich people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem to St. James to be specially perilous and distressing then. Do not they blaspheme the honourable name by which ye are called? The last clause literally means which was called upon you; and we need not doubt that the reference is to the name of Christ, which was invoked upon them at their baptism. That the blasphemers are not Christians is shown by the clause which was called upon you. Had Christians been intended, St. James would have written, Do not they blaspheme the honourable name which was called upon them? That they blasphemed the name in which they were baptized would have been such an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to indicate it. These blasphemers were, no doubt, Jews; and St. James has in his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent utterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation. His argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of honouring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any dishonour done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the meanness of flattering their own oppressors and the wickedness of reverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of their own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord. But perhaps (the argument continues) some will defend this respect paid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the contrary, simple fulfilment of the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy of respect and honour, yet nevertheless they are our neighbours, and no misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to treat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves like to be respected and honoured, and therefore we pay respect and honour to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly, if that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbour as yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he chances to be poor? The law of loving ones neighbour as ones self is a royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as it is one of those two on which hang all the law and the prophets (Mat_22:40). Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as to cover the whole duty of man. Thus St. Paul says of this royal law, The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Gal_5:14); and St. John teaches the same truth in a different way when he declares that he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen (1Jn_4:20). Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in-one point, he is become guilty of all. The law is the expression of one and the same principle--love; and of one and the same will--the will of God. Therefore he who deliberately offends against any one of its enactments, however diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of offending against the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but selfishness--not Gods will, but his own. He keeps nine-tenths of the law because he likes to do so, and he breaks one-tenth because he likes to do so. (A. Plummer, D. D.)

The poor chosen by God

1. God often chooses the poor of this world. The lion and the eagle are passed by, and the lamb and the dove chosen for sacrifice (Mat_11:25). This God does--

(1) Partly to show the glory of His power in preserving them, and truth amongst them, that were not upheld by worldly props.

(2) Partly to show the riches of His goodness.

(3) Partly to discover His wisdom by making up their outward defects by this inward glory.

(4) Partly that the members may be conformed to the Head, the saints to Christ, in meanness and suffering.

(5) Partly because poverty is a means to keep them upright: riches are a great snare.

2. There are poor in this world, and poor in the world to come. Though here you swim and wallow in a sea of pleasures, yet there you may want a drop to cool your tongue.

3. The poor of this world may be spiritually rich (2Co_6:10).

4. Faith makes us truly rich; it is the open hand of the soul, to receive all the bounteous supplies of God. If we be empty and poor, it is not because Gods hand is straitened, but ours is not opened.

5. The Lord loves only the godly poor (Mat_5:3).

6. All Gods people are heirs (Rom_8:17).

7. The faithful are heirs to a kingdom (Rev_1:6).

8. Heaven is a kingdom engaged by promise. It is not only good to tempt your desires, but sure to support your hopes.

9. The promise of the kingdom is made to those that love God. Love is the effect of faith, and the ground of all duty, and so the best discovery of a spiritual estate. (T. Manton.)

To the poor

I. THE IMPORT OF THE STATEMENT.

1. Not that only the poor are chosen.

2. Not that all the poor are chosen.

3. More of the poor are chosen than of the rich.

II. THE REASONS OF THE FACT.

1. It illustrates the sovereignty of God.

2. It furnishes a powerful argument for the truth of Christianity.

3. It occasions a magnificent display of the character and genius of the gospel.

4. It shows the estimate that is formed by God of the value of wealth.

5. It teaches Christians to raise their thoughts to heaven. (G. Brooks.)

Poverty gives opportunity for manifold virtues

A wise man is placed in the variety of chances, like the nave or centre of a wheel in the midst of all the circumvolutions and changes of posture, without violence or change, save that it turns gently in compliance with its changed parts, and is indifferent which part is up, and which is down; for there is some virtue or other to be exercised whatever happens, either patience or thanksgiving, love or fear, moderation or humility, charity or contentedness, and they are every one of them equally in order to his great end and immortal felicity; and beauty is not made by white or red, by black eyes, and a round face, by a straight body and a smooth skin; but by a proportion to the fancy. No rules can make amiability, our minds and apprehensions make that; and so is our felicity: and we may be reconciled to poverty and a low fortune, if we suffer contentedness and the grace of God to make the proportion. For no man is poor that doth not think himself so. But if in a full fortune with impatience he desires more, he proclaims his wants and his beggarly condition. (Jeremy Taylor, D. D.)

Penury not the deepest poverty

Life has deeper poverties than penury, because it has treasures costlier than gold. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)

Poor yet good

Better go to heaven in rags, than to hell in embroidery. Many whom the world regards as dirt, the Lord esteems as jewels. Judge a Christian not by his coat, but by his character. Poor yet rich

A poor seal may be a rich Christian, and a rich man may have a poor soul. (J. Trapp.)

Grateful for poverty

In the last will and testament of Martin Luther occurs the following remarkable passage

Lord God, I thank Thee that Thou hast been pleased to make me a poor and indigent man upon earth. I have neither house, nor land, nor money to leave behind me. Thou hast given me wife and children, whom I now restore to Thee. Lord, nourish, teach, and preserve them, as Thou hast me. (K. Arvine.)

Little happiness with rich men

Big bells are very apt to be poorly cast. I never heard of a bell which weighed a great many thousand pounds which, first or last, did not break. And what a sound a big bell that is broken gives! If you take these overgrown rich men and ring them, how little happiness you find in them! (H. W. Beecher.)

Virtue the way to honour

At Athens there were two temples, a temple of virtue and a temple of honour; and there was no going into the temple of honour but through the temple of virtue; so the kingdoms of grace and glory are so joined together that we cannot go into the kingdom of glory but through the kingdom of grace. (T. Watson.)

Ye have despised the poor

Sins of the rich against the poor

I. The first evil for which the profane rich men are to be held as execrable is their TYRANNY; they oppress the poor by tyranny. Men are oppressed by tyranny divers ways.

1. When they are imprisoned, afflicted, persecuted by the rich and mighty men of the world.

2. When in the trades of this life they deal hardly, deceitfully.

3. When they wring them by usury, forfeitures, exactions, impositions, and all manner of extortion.

4. When they weary and waste the bodies of the poor with toilsome labour unrewarded.

II. Another and second evil for which they ought to be held accursed is their CRUELTY AND UNMERCIFULNESS; for they draw the poor before judgment seats for their profession and religion.

III. The third sin in the rich men of the world wherefore they are to be held accursed IS THEIR BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE RELIGION OF CHRIST, they blaspheme the worthy name whereby ye are named.

1. When they deride, jest, scorn, and scoff at Christian religion, speaking maliciously and disdainfully against Christ and His profession.

2. As by their speech, so by their lives, men blaspheme and dishonour the gospel when they which profess religion walk not, neither live thereafter, by which means the gospel is slandered, dishonoured, and blasphemed. (R. Turnbull.)

The sin of neglecting the poor

I. GOD HAS NOT OVERLOOKED THE POOR.

1. His sovereignty has been exercised in their favour.

(1) Our Lord, when He undertook mans nature, was born amongst the poor, brought up in poverty, and made acquainted with all its sufferings and privations.

(2) During the personal ministry of our Lord, while the chief priests rejected Him and members of the higher classes among the Jews treated Him with scorn, the common people heard Him gladly.

(3) See 1Co_1:26-28.

2. The poor are interested in Gods promises.

3. They are interested in His kingdom (Luk_12:32). As the result of all this mercy and grace, many amongst the poor are being prepared for their future inheritance. There are amongst them some who are distinguished by their faith and by their love, as well as by their position and hopes.

II. THE INFLUENCE WHICH THIS TRUTH OUGHT TO HAVE UPON OUR CONDUCT, as those who wish to serve the Lord Christ.

1. The poor should have the gospel preached unto them.

2. Civility and kindness should be shown towards them.

3. Active benevolence. (W. Cadman, M. A.)

Men who despise the poor

These men harden themselves in their sternness; they stand fixed in their own determination, even as on a rock. It is useless for me to place before such men that tender object of sympathy, a helpless infant, without one rag to shelter it from the blast; they will use their ample cloak to hide their faces from the very misery which that cloak would cover. It is needless to tell them that the fire in the widows cottage never burns when they can make themselves joyful and happy in their cold stern-heartedness. For such men I can but feel unmitigated and unbounded sorrow. How truly pitiable is he who at the end of a life, perhaps of fourscore years, falls asleep without being able to call to mind one act of benevolence (E. West.)

Despising the poor

He thats down, down with him. (Anon.)

Taking undue advantage of poverty

Men go over the hedge where it is lowest. (J. Trapp.)

A threefold sin

This is a sin against race, grace, and place. (J. Trapp.)

God honouring, men despising

The pronoun is emphatic, God chose the poor, ye put them to shame. (Dean Plumptre.)

Dishonouring whom God honours

With Haman--like impiety ye would disgrace the man whom the King delights to honour. (A. Plummer, D. D.)

Professors, yet persecutors

There seems, at first, a want of logical coherence. The rich man first appears as gaining undue pre-eminence in the assembly of Christians, and then as one of a class of persecutors and blasphemers. This, however, is just the point on which St. James lays stress. Men honoured the rich Christian, not because he was a Christian, but because he was rich, i.e., because he was connected with a class, which, as such, had shown itself bitterly hostile to them. (Dean Plumptre.)

A rogue in the heart

Many a man has a paternoster round his neck and a rogue in his heart. (M. Luther.)

Tyranny of money

Money is now exactly what mountain promontories over public roads were in old times. The barons fought for them fairly; the strongest and cunningest got them, then fortified them and made every one who passed below pay toll. Well, capital now is exactly what crags were then. Men fight fairly (we will at least grant so much, though it is more than we ought) for their money; but once having got it, the fortified millionaire can make everybody who passes below pay toll to his million, and build another tower of his money castle. And I can tell you the poor vagrants by the roadside suffer now quite as much from the bag-baron as ever they did from the crag-baron. Bags and crags have just the same result on rags. (J. Ruskin.)

Oppression

Oppress you; yea, devour you, as the greater fish do the lesser. (J. Trapp.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 2:1-4. My brethren — The equality of Christians intimated by this name is the ground of the admonition; have — That is, hold; not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory — Of which glory all who believe in him partake; with respect of persons — So as to give undue preference to any on account of their external circumstances; honour none merely for being rich, despise none merely for being poor. Remember that the relation in which the meanest of your fellow-Christians stands to Him who is the Son of God, ought to recommend them to your regard and esteem. For if there come unto your assembly — Convened either for religious worship, or for deciding civil differences; a man with a gold ring — Or, having his fingers adorned with gold rings, as χρυσοδακτυλιος may be rendered. For, as the learned Albert hath observed, those who valued themselves upon the richness and luxury of their dress, were accustomed to deck their fingers with a considerable number of costly and valuable rings, frequently wearing several upon one finger. And a poor man in vile (ρυπαρα, in sordid, or dirty) raiment, and ye have respect — Ye show an undue regard to the former, and put a visible slight on the latter, without considering what may be the real character of the one or the other. Are ye not partial in yourselves — Or, as ου διεκριθητε εν εαυτοις may be rendered, ye distinguish not in yourselves, according to the different characters of these two men, to which of them the most respect is due, to the poor or to the rich; but only regard their outward appearance, and are become judges of evil thoughts — Or evil-reasoning judges, as the original words may be translated. You reason ill, and so judge wrong; for fine apparel is no proof of worth in him that wears it.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

SINS OF PARTIALITY, ETC.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Jas_2:1. Have not.—Better, “hold not.” Webster translates, “Without showing degrees of deference, maintain ye your faith.” The Lord of glory.—There are no words in the Greek answering to “the Lord,” but the insertion is necessary in order to complete the English sentence. Some would, however, give to the genitive, τῆς δόξης, only the qualifying power of an adjective, and render either “glorious faith,” or “faith of the glory revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Plumptre explains thus: “In believing in Him who was emphatically a sharer in the eternal glory (Joh_17:5), who had now returned to that glory, men ought to feel the infinite littleness of all the accidents of wealth and rank that separate man from man.” Respect of persons.—Greek is a plural, “in respectings of persons”; showing preferences for one person rather than another.

Jas_2:2. Assembly.—Greek, συναγωγή. The only place in the New Testament where the Jewish word is used for a Christian congregation. In the Jewish synagogue the people sat according to their rank, and members of the same trade sat together. James regards this as unadvisable in Christian congregations. The word ἐκκλησία, translated “Church,” was preferred for Christian assemblies. It implied that those attending were called out from the rest of mankind, and united by new and spiritual bonds. Gold ring.—Better, “a man golden-ringed, in bright apparel.” Gorgeous apparel, splendid in colour and ornament. Gay, Jas_2:3. Vile.—Dirty, squalid, the sign of poverty, or of some mean form of occupation.

Jas_2:3. Have respect.—Give special consideration and attention to. Under my footstool.—That is, “on the floor at my feet.” “In practice the seats most coveted among the Jews were those near the end of the synagogue which looked towards Jerusalem, and at which stood the Ark, that contained the sacred scroll of the law.”

Jas_2:4. Partial.—Same word as “waver,” “doubt,” of chap. Jas_1:6. “Are ye not divided in your mind?” Part wishing to be loyal to Christ, and part wishing to gain the favour of the well-to-do man. “Have ye not doubted” whether in Christ rich and poor really are one? Judges of evil thoughts.—Better, “become judges having evil thoughts, which altogether bias your judgment.” “Evil-thinking judges.”

Jas_2:5. Rich.—That is, “to be rich.” The poor in this world, or so far as this world is concerned, are referred to. A true estimate of poverty and riches is suggested. Heirs of the kingdom.—Some of the better manuscripts read, “heirs of the promise.”

Jas_2:6. Despised.—Done dishonour to. Their acts expressed a cherished contempt. Oppress you.—Lord it over you καταδυναστεύουσιν act the potentate over you. Draw you.—Drag you. It is not that a particular rich member does this, but that he belongs to a class that does it.

Jas_2:7. They.—The rich class, largely composed of Sadducees. Ye are called.—Or, “which was called over you [at baptism]” (Mat_28:19).

Jas_2:9. Commit sin.—Alford, “It is sin that ye are working.” Convinced.—Convicted by.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Jas_2:1-9

Right and Wrong Respect of Persons.—It has well been said of St. James, that “he manifests a straightforward good sense which scatters at a stroke the precepts of hypocrisy, and the illusions of religious conceit. He assails the characteristic faults of the Jewish mind; the religious arrogance, presumption, and laxity; the asperity of mutual crimination, and the readiness to assume an intolerant jurisdiction over other men’s conduct and opinions.” How little practical influence a merely ritual religion, a religion of professions and sentiments, might be was shown in the assemblies of the Jewish Christians. Class distinctions were unduly recognised; the rich worshippers were flattered, and the poor neglected or insulted. In a Christian community there should be the equality of a common Divine life, for that life a rich man can have in no fuller and no healthier measures than a poor man can have. By the term “respect of persons” we understand, showing special favour to some, not on the basis of good judgment, or from a desire to do right, but on the ground of personal favour, or to gain some personal advantage. It is therefore again and again asserted that there is no “respect of persons with God”; it is again and again urged that “respect of persons” is a grievous sin in judges and magistrates. St. James points out that it is a most unworthy and most mischievous spirit, when it gets into Christian communities. But it is important that we should recognise a right “respect of persons” as well as a wrong. So long as there are varieties of station, varieties of relationship, and varieties of ability among human beings, there will be spheres for a proper respect of persons. The child ought to respect his parent; the servant ought to respect his lord; the workman ought to respect his master; the poor ought to respect the rich; the citizen ought to respect his governors. But then it is equally true, though less recognised, that the parent ought to respect the child, the lord the servant, the master the workman, the rich the poor, and the governor the citizen. It was just in this mutual respect that the social system of China failed. It is in this that the social system of Christianity claims universal acceptance. In China five relations are recognised, but in each case exclusive attention is given to the claims of the superior on the inferior; the inferior is not conceived as having any rights against the superior. The five relations are: sovereign and minister; father and son; husband and wife; elder and younger brothers; and friends. Christianity must not be thought of as a force interfering with social relationships, and affecting those signs of mutual respect which materially help to preserve the order of society. It does give a man such self-respect as will keep him from adulation or flattery of anybody, and from servility in his dealings with anybody. St. James, however, is not dealing with general social relations; he is writing to Judæo Christians concerning what is befitting for them in their specially Christian relationships. They are brought into fellowship on conditions which altogether override all social distinctions. Neither intellect, nor wealth, nor manners, nor clothes give a man special claim or place in a Christian community. Spiritual life alone gives a man a place, and spiritual gifts alone give a man a position. Within Christian communities persons are respected for their piety and ministry. The Duke of Wellington was right when, kneeling beside a poorly clad villager at the communion-rail, he quietly reproved the verger who wanted to remove the poor man, by saying, “Let him alone; we are all equal here.”

I. Respect of persons is wrong when it puts circumstances before character.—When it shows deference to a man for what he has rather than for what he is. It is the common and every-day estimate that we make of men. The workman judges a man by his ability to find him work. The business man values men by their purchasing power. The poor are unduly impressed by fine clothes. Women are constantly in danger of estimating others by their appearances. It is not possible, nor would it be right, to change altogether the relationships of the week on the Sunday. We should not expect men to be otherwise toward each other at Christian worship than they are towards each other in daily business. St. James proposes no such unreasonable thing. The proper respect due to one another is as necessary in the house of God as anywhere else. Servility is very different from respect. The assumption of St. James is that the man with the gold ring, dressed in fine clothing, is wanting to make an impression, to proclaim his superiority; and what St. James reproves is the failure to deal with such a man according to Christian principles. Christians ought never to be carried away by outward appearances, by circumstances of wealth, by chance of getting personal advantages from the well-to-do. And yet what striking illustrations of the evil St. James denounces can be found in the pew system of our modern churches, especially where the support of worship is directly dependent on the gifts of the people. The man who can pay is everywhere thought more of than the man who can pray. Up to quite recent times there were separate, and specially hard and uncomfortable, seats for the poor in many churches and chapels. They had to sit in a low place. St. James calls this sort of thing wrong, because:

(1) it reveals bad, self-seeking dispositions in those who show such servility—“they are partial, and judges of evil thoughts”;

(2) it shows that they formed no true estimate of character, for these showy rich men were just the very men likely to become their oppressors and persecutors; and

(3) the treatment of the poor, contrasted with this treatment of the rich, convicted them of sin against the foundation law of the second table—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Such servility always shows low conditions of spiritual life; for when we go past our own circumstances to concern ourselves with our own characters, we are pretty sure to be keen to recognise cultured character in others, and to be indifferent to mere show of circumstance.

II. Respect of persons is right when it puts character above circumstances.—When it shows deference to a man for what he is rather than for what he has (see Jas_2:5). That may make us attentive and obliging to poor people as well as rich. Nay, it is quite possible that we may find more call to attention to the poor than to the rich. For it is the compensation of those in lowly estate that they have less to hinder the progress of soul culture, and so often reach heights of Christian attainment, and Christian power of service, that are altogether beyond the rich. But servility to the pious poor would be as mischievous as servility to the showy rich. Let respect be given wherever it is due. But do not be carried away by appearances. “The Lord looketh not on the outward appearance. The Lord looketh on the heart.” And so should we who are taught of Christ and bear the Christian name.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Jas_2:1. Worship of the Modern Golden Calf.—True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this scripture; but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf. Respecting persons is a sin of the rich, who despise the poor; of judges, who are influenced in their decision by the status of prisoners; and of the poor, who are constantly tempted to timeserving.

No Classes within Christian Churches.—Right relations of classes in society involve mutual respect. But Christianity recognises no classes. It brings men into the unity of a common new life. There are no classes in the children of one family. The redeemed are restored sons in the family of God. Christianity makes new relationships on the basis of the new family life. It keeps its “respect” for cultured and sanctified character, rather than for external conditions.

Jas_2:2. The Weakness of the Early Church.—We must not judge the early Christian Church too harshly. The appearance of a stranger in costly apparel, with a gold ring, however common a mark simply of wealth in later times, would in those days cause a far greater and more painful surprise in an obscure and probably timorous assemblage of Christians than at this distant period we are willing to believe. The time of persecution had already commenced, and upon his testimony how many issues might depend! Anxious to propitiate the favour of the great man, we can easily imagine that every consistent courtesy would be offered to him. The prominently jewelled ring, itself an insignium of the equestrian and senatorial order, would instantly announce the rank of the visitor. Many of these rings are preserved in the national and Continental collections; they are solid, tapering, and of massive gold, with a large jewel, often an onyx or jasper cameo on the face. Some of these specimens weigh nearly an ounce. The gems are often engraved with magical devices, as charms of talismanic power, or valedictory inscriptions for the wearer. Others, like Hannibal’s famous ring, contain a secret recess, in his instance filled with poison. Such ornaments were both cumbersome and costly, so much so that a Roman writer ridicules an enervated fop by stating that,—

“Charged with light summer rings, his fingers sweat,

Unable to sustain a gem of weight.”

Jas_2:4. The Sin of Partiality.—In the common intercourse of life it cannot but be that men have preferences for one person over another. This, indeed, is the basis of the selections on which human relationships rest. We come into life unions because of our partialities. The sin of partiality is determined by

(1) the occasion,

(2) the way in which it finds expression. Class partialities are wrong. Sect partialities are wrong. Partialities are always wrong when they lead us to do injustice, by giving to one what is due to another, or by withholding from any what is his due. Within the Christian Church, where all should stand in the equality of brotherhood in Christ, partiality must always be a source of bickerings, jealousies, and heart-burnings.

The World’s Standard.—The, world must always measure by its own standard, and consider poverty a curse, just as it looks on pain and trouble as evil. The peril of organised Christianity is unduly estimating those who can pay.

Jas_2:5. Poverty and Piety.—“There are no gains without pains, and no pains without gains.” Our Lord taught that, relative to the religious life, the rich were placed at some very grave disadvantages. It is but the truth involved in this teaching, that those who are poor in this world are at advantage in relation to the religious life. It must, however, be kept in mind that the cares of the poor, their painful efforts to obtain a livelihood, and the lack of cultured intelligence, provide serious hindrances to piety. There is not much to choose between poor and rich in respect of occupation and worldly care, but the kind of occupations of the rich are more inimical to the religious life and spirit than those of the poor. They tend to nourish self-reliance and self-satisfaction, and so draw men’s minds and hearts away from God. True religion—the religion of Christ—proposes to culture into perfection man’s whole nature, but it finds one side of man’s nature specially neglected, and it puts its strongest force into it. The passive graces (characteristic of woman) flourish in the soil of dependence; and that is the habitual attitude of the poor. True, the strain of poverty often makes men bitter and hard; but where there is the religious sense, the poor have always been found noble examples of piety, spirituality, and service. “Blessed are the poor,” when poverty of circumstance is joined with “poverty of spirit,” that keeps the soul open and receptive.

Powerful Men from the Ranks of the Poor.—Moses was the son of a poor Levite; Gideon was a thresher; David was a shepherd-boy; Amos was a herdsman; the Apostles were “ignorant and unlearned.” The reformer Zwingle emerged from a shepherd’s hut among the Alps. Melancthon, the great theologian of the Reformation, was a workman in an armourer’s shop. Martin Luther was the child of a poor miner. Carey, who originated the plan of translating the Bible into the language of the millions of Hindostan, was a shoemaker in Northampton. Dr. Morrison, who translated the Bible into the Chinese language, was a last-maker in Newcastle. Dr. Milne was a herd-boy in Aberdeenshire. Dr. Adam Clarke was the child of Irish cottars. John Foster was a weaver. Andrew Fuller was a farm-servant. William Jay of Bath was a stonemason.

Jas_2:6-7. Good and Bad among the Rich.—The denunciations of the rich by our Lord and by His disciples may be seriously misunderstood and misused. They are when they are employed to support class enmities, and to excite prejudices against the rich, and to hinder them from accepting the religious life. The conditions of society in the time of our Lord need to be fully understood and wisely estimated. Then the rich were self-satisfied Pharisees or cynical Sadducees, and one of the grave disabilities of the age arose from the arrogance, masterfulness, and injustice of the rich. But even then there were good and bad among the rich. There was a Barnabas as well as a Dives, a Joseph of Arimathæa as well as a Herod. Let severe reproaches come upon those who are rich and bad. Let the Divine acceptance and human respect come to all those who are rich and good.

I. The bad among the rich are not those who have riches or acquire riches, but those who trust in riches.—There are many persons who are born into the possession of wealth. From no point of view can this be regarded as any reproach to them. It simply makes the set of human conditions which are to provide the discipline of their lives. Character has to be won under these conditions, call them conditions of privilege, or of disability, as we may please. There are many who acquire wealth by their genius, perseverance, or by fortunate circumstances. They need not be envied; character has been made or spoiled in the getting of the riches; and now the great question is—How do they stand related to the riches they have acquired? Our Lord repeated His saying so as to make His reference quite clear—“How hardly shall they that trust in riches enter the kingdom!” It is the trusting in, not the having, that always has made, and still makes, the bad rich man.

II. The bad among the rich are not those who are rich, but those who will be, are determined to be, rich.—When a man forces his way to get riches

(1) he can have no spirit of humility and submission before God;

(2) he is very likely to do shameful wrong to his fellow-men; and

(3) he is sure to “fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts.” There is such a thing as being “rich” toward God.

Jas_2:8. The Law of Human Relations.—Very remarkable is the insight which our Divine Lord showed in dealing with the revealed law of God. He went behind all formal commands to the essential principle. Love God, and you will do everything right, because love will be the constraint of obedience. There really is no need of a second law. One is only stated in accommodation to human weakness. Loving our neighbour as ourselves is involved in loving God with all our heart. We must love whosoever God loves. We cannot help loving those who stand in the same relation to God as we do. Observe, however, that the claim of the Divine relation is not precisely the same as the human relation. We are not to love God as ourselves. We are not to love our neighbour with all our mind and soul. God stands absolutely first and alone. Our relation to Him is unique, and all-inclusive. A whole devotion of the whole self to God is consistent with all due service of others. But what we give to God may be shared with none. His sacrifice is a whole burnt-offering. There is a careful limitation in the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” It is not “as you love God.” It is “as you love yourself.” But “yourself” comes after God, and can stand in no rivalry with Him. We must love ourselves consistently with supreme love to God. We must love our neighbour consistently with supreme love to God. There is a certain subtlety in St. James’s reference to this law. He hints that our love to self sets us continually upon efforts to serve self; and if we love our neighbour as we love ourselves, that love will continually set us upon efforts to serve them. True love is always, and everywhere, the inspiration of service. Show how this “royal law” seeks to get applications in the family, business, social, and church spheres. We can never meet aright our obligations to our neighbour until we can be said to love him so as to take a personal interest in his well-being.

Jas_2:8-10. The Royal Law.—After rebuking partiality, St. James goes on to lay down the rule of the believer’s duty to his fellow-men. In the few words of this most comprehensive law, we have the essence of the second table of the Decalogue. The Christian’s duty is to cherish towards every man a true kindliness. “As thyself;” as much in degree would be impossible; but as really, as constantly, as persistently in spite of ill-deserving. We do not exactly love ourselves, but we care for ourselves, we sympathise with ourselves; and without the smallest sentimentalism, in the homeliest reality, we might do the like toward our fellowmen. And to do this is, in the full Scriptural meaning, to love our neighbour as ourself. The law which bids us do so seems all our duty to our brethren in humanity; for once the genuine principle of unselfish kindliness is implanted in us by God’s Spirit, that principle will prompt every right deed, and permit no wrong deed. Prejudice rather than selfishness is the main obstacle within ourselves to the due keeping of the royal law—at least in the case of really worthy people. There are not many who are at all worthy to be called Christian people who find it in the least difficult to feel kindly towards any mortal creature when they really come to know him tolerably well. St. James goes on to point out a too common way in which this law is broken. “If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.” This was the besetting sin of the people he had in his mind, and was writing to. It is transgression, plainly enough, whether the person unduly respected be one-self or another. Meeting the possible objection that “respect of persons, though not quite right, is no great matter,” St. James says, that anything wrong is a great matter; doing wrong, you break God’s law; and if you break God’s law on one point, it will not avail you to plead that you keep it on twenty; you are a law-breaker, a transgressor, and you must rank as such and take the consequences. Far from being a paradox, it is almost a truism. Every man punished for a breach of human law is held a lawbreaker, a criminal, just for the one crime he has done. The law is a whole; you break it by breaking any one of its innumerable provisions. Dwell upon the vital and central matter of that kindly principle within us which will be the spring of all duty to our fellow-men. Nothing worth is that kindliness which dwells in a mere soft heart and a super-sensitive nervous system. Nothing worth is that so-called Christian love which ends in tears, and reaches not to stout, daylight work. Nothing worth is that philanthropy which results from mere physical feeling. Sound, equable, lasting kindliness, not to be discouraged or soured, not to be wearied out, is that which is implanted by God’s blessed Spirit, and which takes note of men not merely as the objects whose sufferings remind of our own, but as beings on whom a common Father has conferred a common immortality, and towards whom a common Saviour has felt a common love. Ordinary people will never attain what is in the least like loving our neighbour as ourselves, unless by the abounding grace of God’s blessed Spirit. It is possible by God’s grace to cultivate and keep a frame so sweet and kindly, as that you shall be sources of blessing and help to those around you, as you go on your pilgrimage way. There are excellent gifts, but there is a most excellent. There are mighty graces, but there is a mightiest. A kind heart, a sweet temper, is the very best thing the Holy Ghost can give to mortal man or woman. It is the thing that is likest God. It is “the mind which was also in Christ Jesus”—the very same.—A. K. H. B.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2

Jas_2:2-4. A Brahmin’s Reproof.—The other instance in which I had the pleasure to meet this most interesting man (Rammohun Roy) was at breakfast in my own house. On that occasion I invited men of various religious opinions to meet him, and there were about thirty persons present. The conversation was very lively and well sustained. The Brahmin exhibited wonderful shrewdness. “Ah,” he said, “you say that you are all one in Christ, all brethren, and equal in Him. Well, you go to the cathedral at Calcutta; there you see a grand chair of crimson velvet and gold—that is for the Governor-General of India; then there are other chairs of crimson and gold—they are for the members of council; and then there are seats lined with crimson—they are for the merchants, etc.; then there are the bare benches for the common people and the poor; yet you say we are all one in Christ; but if the poor man whose seat is there, on that bare bench, if he go and sit down on the crimson velvet chair of the Governor-General, they will break his head! yet you are all one in Christ!” Some one was about to expound this matter to the Brahmin, and explain the impropriety of any one taking the seat of the representative of majesty. But the thing was too good for our Quaker friend, James Cropper, quietly to let it go. He so thoroughly sympathised with the Brahmin’s view of the matter, that he could not refrain from interposing. “Nay, nay,” he cried, “thou must not seek to put aside the force of our friend’s remark.” So the Brahmin and our friend James had the matter entirely to themselves.—Dr. Raffles.

Jas_2:5. Gain in Poverty—Trees struck by Lightning.—When some giant tree is struck by the lightning’s flash and scorched to death, its shattered trunk and torn boughs have not been destroyed by the action of fire from without. The tree, it is true, has been subjected to the direct action of the most intense heat—a heat proportioned to the terrible brilliancy of the electric illumination, which we call lightning. But the action of this heat is rendered fatal by the condition of the tree itself. The dismemberment of its body and branches, which extends to every part, results from the sudden conversion into steam of all the moisture it contains in sap and wood. The instant expansion that thus takes place by the power of the generated steam rends the tree to pieces, just as under very similar circumstances it would burst even a vessel of wrought iron. Thus the giant of the forest falls a victim to its rich and flourishing condition. The greener and fairer the tree, the more its vein-like tissues swell with those nourishing juices that build up a life which has the promise of hundreds of years, the more inevitable and crushing its ruin. It is not otherwise with human greatness and prosperity. While misfortune’s stroke finds less upon which to feed in the case of the poor and lowly, whose very poverty is in this respect a protection, its effects are far more deadly on those with whom all is flourishing. Lazarus in his want is far less exposed to the shocks of trial than Dives in his wealth. The humble fishermen of Galilee could, humanly speaking, better face the loss of their all than could the rich and amiable young man, who indeed desired an interest in Christ, but felt that his fortunes were too splendid to be sacrificed even for heaven—“for he had great possessions.” It is one of the chief and peculiar glories of the philosophy of the gospel that it teaches us not only the dignity but also the gain of poverty, thus extracting its double sting. “Hath nut God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?” Deeper and more real than we are sometimes apt to suppose is the meaning of the Master’s words when, speaking of a state of which He had actual experience, He said, “Blessed be ye poor.”—James Neil, M.A.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

V. THIRD ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE THIRD FORM OF TEMPTATION. EBIONITE CONDUCT

CAUTION AGAINST JUDAISTIC PARTIALITY, AGAINST FAVOURING THE RICH (THE JUDAIZING CHRISTIAN) AND DEPRECIATING THE POOR (THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN) IN THEIR CHURCH-LIFE. CONSISTENT PROOF OF FAITH DEMANDED IN THE WORK OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERLY LOVE AND IN THE ACKNOWLEDGING OF UNITY OF FAITH IN THE FAITH-WORK OF ABRAHAB THE PATRIARCH AND IN THE FAITH-WORK OF RAHAB, THE GENTILE HARLOT. DEAD AND LIVING FAITH

James 2

1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2For if there come unto your assembly1 a man with a gold ring,2 in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment: 3And ye have3 respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him,4 Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here5 under my footstool:6 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world,7 rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom8 which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you9 before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10For whosoever shall10 keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11For he that said, Do not commit adultery,11 said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13For he shall have judgment without mercy,12 that 14hath shewed no mercy; and13 mercy rejoiceth against judgment. What doth it profit,14 my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?15 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute16 of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith,17 if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without18 19thy19 works, and I will shew thee20 my faith by my21 works. Thou believest22 that 20there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?23 21Was not Abraham our 22father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with24 his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24Ye see then25 how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers,26 and had sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without27 works is dead also.

Footnotes:

[1] Jam_2:1. Lange: My brethren, do not practise the faith in our lord Jesus, the Christ of glory [the Messiah in His glory exalted above Judaistic expectations] with respectings of persons [personal considerations, partialities.]

[… hold not ye the faith … [the Lord] of glory in respecting of persons.—M ]

Jam_2:2. εἰς τὴν. A. G. K., Tischendorf; omit τὴν B. C. Sin. al. Lachmann [Alford—M.], an important variation, showing that the reference is not to particular synagogues.

[2] Jam_2:2. [2 χρυσοδακτύλιος=golden-ringed.—M.]

Lange: For if there had entered into your common assembly (συναγωγή)a man with a gold fingerring, in a clean splendid garment, but there had also entered a poor man in an unclean garment.

[For if there come into your place of assembly a man with golden rings, etc.—M.]

[3]Jam_2:3. ἐπιβλέψητε δὲ. B. C. K. Tischendorf [Alford], is more expressive than καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε A. G. Lachmann.

[4]Jam_2:3. The omission of αὐτῷ A. B. C. Sinait. keeps the expression more general and gives it more dogmatical colouring [than its insertion, Rec. K. L. Vulg. and al.—M.]

[5] Jam_2:3. ὧδε inserted in C.** G. K., is omitted by A. B. C.*—The addition of τῶν ποδῶν in A. Vulg. [Syr.—M]. Lachmann, seems to be exegetical and intensive, but may have been dropped owing to a moderation in expression.

Lange: And ye were looking upon [made a looking up, a demonstration of] him who wore the clean splendid garment and should say [to him] [thou], sit thou here on the best place, but should say to the poor, [thou] keep standing here [on the standing place], or sit [here] under [down at] my footstool.

[6] Jam_2:4. καὶ omitted before οὐ by A. B. C. Sinait, may have been objected to in the apodosis as a striking form, Lange: Did ye not then separate [divide] among ourselves, and become judges according to evil considerations?

[Did ye not distinguish (invidiously) among ourselves etc.—M.]

[7]Jam_2:5. Rec. reads τοῦ κόσμὀυ τούτου; [A.** C.** K. L. τοῦ κόσμου—M.]; τῷ κόσμῳ A.* B. C.* Sin. etc. The variations seem to be exegetical illustrations.

[8] Jam_2:5. For βασιλείας [A. and] Sin.; read ἐπαγγελίας.

Lange: … hath not God also chosen the poor [according to the world), who are rich in faith, heirs, of the [glorified Messiah—] kingdom …

[9] Jam_2:6. [For ὑ μῶν A. Sinait, read ὑμᾶς.—M.]

Lange: … [But] is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not just they, who drag you to the courts of judgment?

[Is it not they that drag you into courts of justice?—M.]

Jam_2:7. Lange: Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair [glorius] name, which hath been made to you a surname?

[ … that glorious name, which was invoked over you?—M.]

Jam_2:8. Lange: If indeed ye fulfil [complete under the New Testament] the royal law [the law of the kingdom] according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye act beautifully [conformable to the beautiful name of Christ as Christians].

[If, however, ye fulfil etc.—M.]

Jam_2:9. Lange: But if ye practise respect of persons, ye practise sin, convicted by the [very] law as transgressors.

[But if ye respect persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.—M.]

[10] Jam_2:10. τηρήση and πταίσῃ, the most authentic readings. So [A. B. C. Sinait.—M.] Lachmann, Tischendorf.

Lange: For whosoever should observe … in one thing [commandment] the same hath become guilty of all.

[For whosoever shall have kept etc.—M.]

[11] Jam_2:11. A. B. C. Sin. have the Present μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις.

Jam_2:12. [… as those about to be judged by the law of liberty.—M.]

[12]Jam_2:13. ἀνέλεος not ἀνίλεως, is the true reading. So A. B. C. [K. Alford—M.] Lach., Tisch. On the form, itself and variations of spelling it see Huther.

[13] Jam_2:13. καὶ before κατακαυχ, found only in minuscule codd; δὲ after κατακαυχ, is probably also a stylistic insertion; the variations κατακαυχάσθω in A. [Vulg.;—χασθε C.**M.];—χᾶτε are exegetical efforts to render the text more easy.—ἔλεος instead of ἔλεον supported by A. B. Tischend. [Alford.—M.]

Lange: For the judgment is merciless to him who did not practise mercy, and mercy boasteth [triumphantly] against the judgment [thus Christian mercy triumphantly excels the judging legalistic spirit of Judaism.]

[For the judgment [will be] merciless to him who wrought not mercy. Mercy boasteth [triumpheth] over judgment.—M.]

[14] Jam_2:14. Τί τὸ ὄφελος, Tischend. following the majority of Codd. Lachmann: τί ὄφελος. So also in Jam_2:16.

Lange: … [what profit doth it bring] if any man were to say that he hath faith, but were to have no works. Faith [in such a case] surely cannot save him?

[… can his faith [ἡ πίστις] save him ?—M.]

[15] [Jam_2:15. ἐὰν δὲ the most authentic reading; omit δὲ B. Sinait.—M.]

Lange: But if a brother or sister were naked and bare and destitute of daily food.

[16] Jam_2:16. ὦσιν after λειπόμενοι in A. G. Lachmann, is unimportant as to sense. Sin. [B. C. K. Syr. Tischend. Alford.—M.] omit it.

Lange: And one of you should say to them: Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, but ye were not to give to them those things which are needful to the body what would that profit?

[And some one from among you say to them … but ye give them not the necessaries of the body, what is the profit ?—M.]

[17] Jam_2:17. ἔχη ἔργα [A. B. C. K. Tischend. Alf.—M.], is the most authentic and most emphatic reading.

Lange: So also faith, if it has not works, is dead for itself.

[So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself (καθ’ ἑαυτήν.—M.]

[18]Jam_2:18. χωρὶς A. B. C. Sin. Lachmann, Tischend. [ἐκ Rec. K. L.—M.]

[19]Jam_2:18. σου after ἔργων omitted by A. B. [Tischend. Alford.—M.]

[20]Jam_2:18. μου after ἔργων wanting in Vulg. Syr. B. C. It seems to have originated in the parallelism of this sentence with the one preceding it according to its rejected readings.

[21] Jam_2:18. B. C. μου after πίστιν [A. K. L. insert it.—M.]

Lange: But some one will say [to a man of such faith]: thou hast faith and I have works: show me thy faith without the works [how canst thou do it?] and I will show thee my faith out of [by] the works.

[Nay, some one will say … show me thy faith without [apart from] the works, and I will show thee my faith by [out of ἐκ] my works.—M.]

[22] Jam_2:19. Different readings, Rec. with G. θεὸς εἷς ἐστι; A. Sinait. Lachmann, εἶς ἐστιν ὁ θεός; B. Tischend. [Alford]: εἷς ὁ θεός ἐστιν. The strongest emphasis of A is also the most probable.

Lange: Thou believest [the article of the law and of doctrine] that God is one: that thou doest well therein; the evil spirits [the demons] also believe that and shudder.

[23] Jam_2:20. νεκρά A. C.**G. K. [Rec. Vulg. Copt.—M.], opposed by ἀργή in B. C* etc.; the latter more probable (Lachm. and Tischend. support it) because the former seems to have been occasioned by Jam_2:17.

Lange: But wilt thou know it, O empty man! that faith without works is useless [inefficient]?

[… that faith without [apart from] the works is useless [bootless. Alford]?—M.]

Jam_2:21. Lange:… justified [proved righteous] by works [out of works] when he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar of sacrifice [Genesis 22]?

[… When he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar.—M.]

[24] Jam_2:22. [συνέργει A. Sinait.—M.]

Lange: Thou seest that his faith was energetically joined with his works [was manifested as one with his works] and that faith was completed by works [out of works].

[Thou seest that faith was working together with his works and that by [ἐκ] works faith was made complete.

Jam_2:23. Lange: And thus also was fulfilled … righteousness [in justification proper Gen_15:6.]

[25] Jam_2:24. τοίνυν wanting in A. B. C. Sin. [Tisch. Alf—M.] etc.

Lange: Ye see [therefore] that by [out of] works man is justified [proved righteous as man] etc.

[26] Jam_2:25. κατασκόπους, C. G. seems to be taken from Heb_11:31.

Lange:… and sent them forth by another way.

[27] Jam_2:26. [χωρὶς ἔργων, B. Sinait.—M.]

Lange: For as the body without spirit etc.

§ 1. Jam_2:1-13

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Analysis: Caution against partiality in the Christian Church-life, that is against the Ebionitizing preference of the Jewish Christian and putting back of the Gentile Christian, in connection with the demand of the proof of faith in the exhibition of brotherly love.—Leading points: Reference to the abolition of respect of persons by the Christ of glory.—Ebionite conduct in a parable, Jam_2:1-4.—Reference to the faith of the poor (in a symbolical sense) as well as to the unbelief of the rich (cf. Mat_22:1-10), Jam_2:5-7.—True fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the whole law in the royal commandment of love, as well as the damnable transgression of the whole law in sinning against this commandment, Jam_2:8-13.—The true life of faith or faith evinced by the mercy of brotherly love and dead faith illustrated by heartless demeanour, Jam_2:14-17.—The proof of faith by the works of faith or the believer’s justification before the consciousness of the Church; Jam_2:18-19.—The two examples of the proof of faith by works as a general example of the unity of the living faith of Jews and Gentiles, Jam_2:20-26.

Caution against partiality in Christian Church-life, that is against Ebionitizing demeanour. The parable of such demeanour. Jam_2:1-4.

Jam_2:1. My brethren, do not practise.—The Apostle does not, as is generally supposed, pass from the doctrine of charity to a particular example of charity. If this were so, the example would be ill-chosen, for respect of persons does not violate primarily the duty of charity but the law of justice and equality. He rather passes on to a new form of the temptation.

This clause is not (as Schneckenburger and Kern take it) interrogative, not because the fact in question is beyond all doubt (Huther), for the interrogative form would express this more definitely (is it not so that ye, etc.), but because the form of a warning exhortation makes it imperative. The interrogative construction is inadmissible not only because of the analogy in Jam_1:16 but also on account of the parable which shows the form of the temptation to which they were exposed.

Do not practise:—ἔχειν denotes not only, “do not hold your faith as if it were shut up in προσωποληψίαις” (Huther); still less, “do not detain your faith” (κατέχετε Grotius), but still stronger “do not hold, cherish it in this form.” The faith of fanaticism is not only allied with particularisms but the particularisms constitute its very glory. The Plural προσωποληψίαι points to the ever returning and diversified occurrences of this kind.

The faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ.—Different constructions: 1. The faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ (de Wette, Wiesinger, and al.; reference to 1Co_2:8). This construction is inadmissible on account of the position of τῆς δόξης. 2. δόξα taken in a different sense from its ordinary signification=opinion (Calvin: the knowledge of Christ obscured by the respect paid to wealth). Wholly inadmissible, because this mode of expression would be most remarkable and because the faith of Christ itself could not be thus disfigured. 3. τοῦ κυρίου etc. Genitive of the subject: the faith, derived from our Lord Jesus Christ, on the glory (Huther). 4. Bengel: τῆς δόξης is in apposition to Christ ut ipse Christus dicatur ἡ δόξα. Gloria. Luk_2:32; Eph_1:17 etc. Christ, the glory not sufficiently developed, although the idea that Christ is the Schechinah would otherwise be quite suitable. 5. Laurentius unites δόξης with Χριστοῦ, Christus gloriæ, but Huther objects that this construction would require the Article before Χριστοῦ. This would however occasion an error as if a twofold Christ were conceivable. In German however we have to emphasize the Article, as far as it is in τῆς δόξης. The sense is plain: faith in the Christ of glory is incompatible with estimating persons according to carnal respects. See the analogous idea 2Co_5:16 and Eph_2:16-17. Christ in virtue of His exaltation has also acquired the κυριότης of the unbelieving Jews. See Mat_26:64; Rom_9:5. [But on the whole it seems best, because it is the least forced construction, to govern τῆς δόξης by κυρίου, see 1Co_2:8.—M.]

Jam_2:2. For if there had entered; γάρ gives the reason not of the whole exhortation as such, but of the reference (connected with it) to the glory of Christ, which Luther has made prominent in his free translation; Do not suppose that faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord of glory, suffers respect of persons. The construction which makes the antecedent extend to the end of Jam_2:4 and then makes the consequent begin (Michaelis, Herder etc.) has been justly set aside by Huther; Jam_2:4 is the consequent. The reference of the following exhortation to misconduct in worship has led to the opinion that James is primarily addressing the Church-wardens (Grotius etc). We have already shown that this view over against the grand prophetico-symbolical expression of the Apostle is inadequate The misconduct to which James refers is so general and important as to preclude the literal acceptation of what follows. In the first place it cannot be assumed that such a grievance as that of assigning bad places to the poor had spread throughout the entire Jewish Christian dispersion and in the second, it is even more improbable that James should have received reliable information concerning a disorder so universally prevalent. The ἐάν also and the Aorist indicate a relation which has become historical and is still in course of development.

Into your common-assembly.—Schneckenburger and al. interpret the Jewish synagogue, Huther, the place of the Christian assembly, de Wette, with reference to Heb_10:25, the religious assembly. But the Article indicates that the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion is meant, that is their religious community symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship. The symbol is the more appropriate in that it characterizes the family-bias to union in Judaism. The reference to civil judicial assemblies, which Herder and al. find here, is altogether unfounded. We have endeavoured to bring out in the translation the uniting element of Christianity.

If there had entered a man.—The Aorist not only aids the imagination by its picturesque force but indicates the historical fact that believers with Judaistic pretensions had already entered the Church.

With a gold finger-ring.—The character of the parables delineating and censuring on the one hand the factious conduct of the Jewish Christians towards the Judaizers proper and on the other towards the Gentile Christians, comes out in the most decided manner. According to Wiesinger and Huther our text gives only an example instar omnium for the representation of that sinful προσωποληψία, while many older commentators see in it only a figure of the preference of the rich to the poor, and these are the common views. These views give only rise to the question whether the rich and the poor are to be considered members of the Christian commonwealth (Knapp, Theile, de Wette), or unbelievers or hospites (Pott, Kern, Schneckenburger). Wiesinger, in support of the former view, alleges that the Epistle being addressed to Christian readers, the oppressive disparities between rich and poor should be taken as introcongregational (Jam_4:1; Jam_2:13-15; Jam_5:1); Huther, in support of the latter, that the rich are distinguished from the brethren etc.; Weiss (Deutsche Zeitschrift für Christliche Wissenschaft, 1854, No. 51) makes the rich a non-Christian, the poor a Christian. Schwegler is altogether wrong in making the rich the Gentile Christian and the poor the Jew, for it would follow from this that the Jewish Christians did exhibit partiality towards the Gentile Christians. But he is on the right track in that he sees in the Epistle a reflection of the circumstances of the time. Now we hold that the rich here and throughout the Epistle is not less symbolical than the rich in the Gospel (Mat_19:24 etc.) and just so the poor. But the attributes of the rich indicate whereof he is proud. He is in the first place a χρυσοδακτύλιος (the word ἅπαξ λεγ.). That rings with the ancients, especially among the Jews (as a signet-ring) were highly esteemed is evident from Gen_41:42; Est_3:10; Est_8:2; Luk_15:22. Received as a gift it denotes the prerogative of representing the donor; in the parable of the prodigal doubtless the restoration to the filial state. But the man with the gold ring cannot be any other than the Judaist priding himself in and boasting of his covenant-right and sonship (which to the humble was indeed a veritable gold-ring see Romans 9), as a χρυσοδακτύλιος, a gold-finger-ring-wearer by profession. He is further described by wearing a splendid garment (λαμπρός) which according to Rev_15:6 involves in particular the idea of purity and connected therewith denotes the Jewish pretensions to purity and holiness or glory. In like manner the garment of the poor, that is, of the Gentile Christian, is not stained in the ordinary sense but from a religious point of view, as is proved by the ῥυπαρός Zec_3:3-4. In Rev_22:11 also it denotes the opposite of the Holy in a symbolical sense. According to the Jewish conception of purity the Gentile Christians had entered the Church in such a garment; but that James notwithstanding accords to them the wedding-garment is evident from Jam_2:25. Raphelius on λαμπρός, “nullum certum colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum, seu rubrum sit, seu alius generis.”

Jam_2:3. And ye were looking upon.—Ἐπιβλέπειν is emphatic (Pott). Upon the ὁ φορῶν τὴν ἐσθῆτα, also very significant, he who wears that and carries himself in wearing it. Instead of experiencing disgust at the spectacle of vanity which manifestly looks out of that proud dress, they suffer themselves to be deceived by that glitter, which in their estimate should have been valueless, and to be awed by the haughty claims to it. This rich man is first looked at, contemplated in astonishment, then complimented, he also stands first; meanwhile the eye is averted from the poor man, who is furthermore despatched in a hurry. “The difference of speech to the one and to the other strongly marks the contrast; they are first distinguished by σύ—σύ, then κάθου and στῆθι, ὦδε and ἐκεῖ, καλῶς and ὑπὸ τὸ ὑπόδιόν μου are opposites” (Huther). The addition “or sit thou here, etc,” as allowing him to be seated, is intended to modify the hardness of the word “keep standing there,” but becomes a further humiliation, “sit here under my footstool.” This means certainly “down at my footstool.” but the expression involves contempt; as it were under one’s feet. Not on the footstool. The Judaist either wanted to acknowledge the Gentile Christian merely as hospes in the Church, or to concede to him at most an inferior right of communion. As the reading ἐπί [for ὑπό B**—M.] indicates a tendency to soften the harshness of the expression, a similar tendency may have omitted τῶν ποδῶν before μου.

Jam_2:4. Did ye not then separate among yourselves.—The comments on this passage are wide apart. Some plead οὐ as a declaration, others as a question. 1. Those who take it declaratorily: then, partly ye would not have distinguished (according to sound judgment) among yourselves, partly ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (Grashof); or, “then ye are not any longer distinguished among yourselves, i.e., godly and ungodly” (Oeder); or, “then ye have not rightly judged among yourselves” (Oecumenius, Bengel); or, “then ye have not yet judged yourselves” (Heisen); “not yourselves but your garments” (Cajetan). But the construction is decidedly in favour of the interrogative form, particulary the hypothetical form and the brevity of the consequent. Hence 2, interrogatively: a. διακρίνεσθαι=to doubt in the sense of having scruples concerning a thing. “Ye had no scruples, etc.?” (Theile). b. to doubt in the literal sense: “have ye not become doubters in your faith? or similarly (de Wette, Wiesinger, Huther); c. the verb=to judge: do ye then not judge among yourselves?” (Augusti); or the Verb passive: “Do ye not condemn yourselves? (Paraeus). d. to make difference; did ye not make differences (in a bad sense) among yourselves?” (Grotius, Knapp and al.). This interpretation passes into e. to separate, to divide in a Passive or Middle sense. But the Middle sense lies nearest: do ye not separate, divide yourselves in or among yourselves? (Semler, Gebser, Schneckenburger). We hold with Schneckenburger that the beginning of dissension in the Church primarily takes rise in the minds of those factious Christians. They are also at schism in themselves‚ which schism although it begins with doubting (Jam_1:6) means more than doubting, as is the case in our time with those confessional zealots [confessional=pertaining to a confession, used in German almost as the synonyme of denomination—M.], who suspend the communion of the Lord’s Supper with other Evangelicals while they are willing otherwise to hold fraternal intercourse with them. Creating dissensions reacts on the zealots themselves so that they become divided in themselves. Wiesinger and Huther allege in favour of their exposition that διακρίνεσθαι in the New Testament constantly signifies to doubt, which it does in many passages. But the Middle of our verb occurs in our sense in Jude 5, 22 and the transition from the Active (Act_15:9) to the Middle lay quite near, καί intensifies the question. We have endeavoured in our translation to bring out the paronomasia of κριταί and διακρίθητε [In German: zerschieden and Schiedsrichter.—M.]. From the evil schism in the heart springs evil judging in the life. Richter: after (according to) evil considerations (motives), not the evil, etc. That is, according to the motives of national preferences, claims and prejudices, outward position, etc.

Reference to the faith of the poor in a symbolical sense as well as to the faith of the sick Jam_2:5-7.

Jam_2:5. Listen, my beloved brethren.—The painful earnestness of the Apostle’s mind in view of the dangerous symptoms he had described may be seen in his animated exhortation, his lively address (see Jam_1:16) and his questions.

Did not God choose the poor?—Cf. 1Co_12:26. Huther: “poor to the world” [Germ. for the world.—M.]. Wiesinger: “poor as regards the world.” In the latter sense reference may be made to the analogous τῷ πνεύματι Mat_5:3. But that condition of poverty as to the Spirit, simultaneously expresses a longing for the Spirit. But such an element would be out of place here, hence the sense “to the world” is more appropriate. These persons whom you call poor, because they are Gentile Christians, are rather poor to the world according to their relation to the world; but to you they ought to be rich, seeing they are rich in faith. The fact that the Ebonites afterwards called themselves poor as regards this world, presents no obstacle to this exposition. Their usus loquendi was doubtless rather formed after the pattern of James than vice versa, just as the Gnostics did probably borrow many of their expressions from Paul, not Paul from them. [But the sense “poor as regards the world” is after all at least as good as that given by Lange; it is general, and there is no reason why even Lange’s interpretation may not be included in it: the Dative of reference here simply shows that these persons were poor with reference to the world objectively or subjectively or both.—M.].

Rich in faith.—Not rich in the possession of much faith [nicht reich an Glauben. Germ.—M.], but they are rich in virtue of their faith. Still the stress lies not only on the general being rich, the result of the general condition of believing, but also on the particular measure of their being rich as contrasted with the false being rich of the Judaists. Who are rich in faith. Huther: Πλουσίους ἐν πίστει not in apposition with τοὺς πτωχούς (Erasmus, Baumgarten, etc.), but the complement of ἐξελέξατο, stating whereto God did choose the poor (Beza, Wolf, Wiesinger, etc.). But taking James’ choosing as exactly synonymous with Paul’s we consider to be not proven. Here the word evidently signifies rather calling, with reference to ethical good behaviour to the Divine revelation. That is: “the decree (more definitely the election) of God is here viewed (indicated) in respect of temporal manifestation.” Wiesinger. Still an essential element of the idea of election is held fast. The nearer definition of the election lies in καὶ κληρονόμους sc. εἶναι. That is: Did not God choose these poor according to the world (from among the Gentiles) who prove themselves rich in faith, that they also may be heirs of the kingdom? Cf. Act_15:14, etc.; Ephesians 2.—It is to be borne in mind that only the poor to the world were also the “rich” among the Jews. But this characteristic was not enough here, while the correction “poor to the world, rich in faith” was sufficiently definite. James therefore here utters the same idea, on which Paul laid peculiar stress as the characteristic of his evangelization, Eph_3:3-6, etc.—κληρονόμους here, points not to the kingdom as future (so Huther), but as καὶ κληρονόμους to the joint participation in the true υἱοθεσία of the Jews.—

Heirs of the kingdom.—It is the kingdom of God, the real theocracy completed in the New Testament, progressing towards eschatological completion, not the latter only, as Huther maintains. James separates from this kingdom whatever is particularly Jewish, describing it as the kingdom, that peculiar kingdom which God has prepared for those who love Him. The common construction gives a proposition not limited like 1Co_1:26-28, and not sufficiently proven by Mat_19:23; Mat_19:26; viz.: “chosen the poor in this sense that those whom God did choose belong to this category, while those belonging to the category of the rich have not been chosen.” (Huther). It is impracticable to take the one expression literally, the other figuratively.

Jam_2:6. But ye dishonoured the poor (man).—δὲ denotes the antithesis of θεός, ἠτιμάσατε the antithesis of ἐξελέξατο, as Huther rightly observes. Still the Aorist is used, not only because reference is made to Jam_2:2-3, and because the case is general, but its historical force points to a historical fact, in which Judaizing Jewish Christians have already taken part with the Jews, viz.: the dishonouring of the Gentile Christians.

But is it not the rich?—These rich, who use violence towards themselves, i.e. the Christians, (cf. the expressions Mat_20:25). The reference here is not any more to the rich in general than before to the poor (both according to Huther). The populace took as much part in the persecution of the Christians as the nobility, the former indeed were conspicuous in it. Nevertheless it was with the Judaists who fancied themselves theocratically rich, that the impulses to the persecution of the Christians did then still originate. So e.g. the first persecution of the Apostles, the execution of Stephen. καὶ αὐτοί, it is just they. All sympathizing of Christian ultras with judaistic Jews contained the germ of want of self-respect, as is the case nowadays with all sympathizing of the evangelical ultras with the ultramontanists and that of pietistic ultras with the confessionalists. Is it not just they who excommunicate you? one might ask in the latter cases.

Jam_2:7. Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair name?—Favouring those rich ones would involve not only want of self-respect but even a participation in the guilt of their blasphemous conduct in respect of the fair name. This blaspheming cannot be taken figuratively as if it did denote insult heaped on that fair name by the evil works of the Christian rich men themselves, as Huther rightly observes in refutation of the views of several commentators (also of Wiesinger, whose citations, e.g. Jer_52:5 : δἰ ὑμᾶς τὸ ὄνομα μου βλασφημεῖται and similar ones, do not prove that βλασφημεῖν has the direct meaning “to dishonour”), nor can the reference be (according to Hensler) to the Christian name, for that is just the transfer of that name to them; the name of the poor is altogether out of the question. It is only the name of Christ to which reference is made, whether believers were already called χριστιανοί (which was the case, in part at least, Act_11:26), or not. The name of Christ was transferred to them as a surname denoting at once their peculiarity and to whom they belonged. [They were Christ’s χριστοῦ, 1Co_3:23.—M.]. The expression is formed after the Hebrew model שֵׁם נִקְרָא עַל (Deu_28:10; 2Ch_7:14; cf. Isa_4:1; Gen_48:16 and Act_15:14; Act_15:17). In virtue of the fact that once the name of Jehovah was called over Israel, Israel was described the people of Jehovah; in like manner Christians are now the Christian people (the people of Christ—M.] in virtue of the name of Christ. His name is called fair, in opposition to the insulting blaspheming; it is the fair, the glorious name κατ’ ἐξοχήν; the name of the Lord of Glory (Jam_2:1), in which is all salvation (Act_4:1; Php_2:10, Wiesinger). The Christian rich men could not any more be reproached with the sin of blaspheming the name of Christ (βλασφημεῖν always denotes abusive language, Huther), than the non-Christian rich men in general (the names even of Pilate, Gallio, Agrippa, Festus and al. may here be called to mind); the reproach fitted solely, if the Judaists were the rich in a figurative sense; to them it was wholly applicable.

True fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the whole law in the royal commandment of love, as well as the damnable transgression of the whole law in sinning against this commandment, Jam_2:8-13.

Jam_2:8. If, indeed, ye fulfil the royal law.—The connection, by the introduction of μέντοι, is difficult, but only, if doubts remain as to what precedes. James had just now reproved his readers for being partial to Judaists, proud of the law and fancying themselves rich, i.e. because they themselves were not free from legal onesidedness. The progress of the thought fully accords therewith: “The whole consistency of true fidelity to the law, to be sure, ye ought to exhibit, according to the commandment, thou shalt love, etc.; but your partiality is a breach of the law.” According to Huther and many others (Calvin, Theile etc.) James wants to meet the excuse of his readers that their respect of the rich was the outgoing of love; but surely no Jew could have thought of representing προσωπληψία as love. Although in this case μέντοι is rendered certainly (indeed, German freilich) the sense is different: igitur (Schneckenburger) and yet (de Wette) are also, set aside by our explanation. [Whichever particle be chosen, μέντοι is clearly adversative.—M.].

The royal law.—The law denotes here not a single commandment (as Huther maintains with reference to Jer_31:33, Heb_8:10; Heb_10:16), for the commandment cited immediately afterwards embraces the whole law as completed in the New Testament. It is royal not only because it is supreme and the most excellent (so Wiesinger with reference to Philo, Plato and also Theile, Schneckenburger and al.). Although Christ, placing Himself on the Jewish stand-point calls it first and great, immediately afterwards He describes it as all-embracing and principial (Mat_22:39), and this New Testament conception of it is found also in Paul, Rom_13:8-10; Gal_5:14. Now if this principial [i.e. original, initial, elementary—M.] nature of the law and this its oneness, Mar_12:32, are inferred from the Oneness of God, the Giver of the Law, the explanation that it is called royal because it proceeds from God its Author, is not so far-feteched (Raphelius, Wetstein and al.), as Wiesinger supposes, who says that this is true in respect of the whole law; but this objection lacks point, inasmuch as the cited commandment is really the whole law; but it leads to the exposition that the “royal commandment is the commandment of Christ” (Grotius). Its applying to kings as well as to other men (Michaelis) its being a via regia (Calvin), are explanations which do not reach the fundamental idea; its making kings (Thomas) is less remote; but it is probably called here the law royal and the law of the kingdom, because of the authority of rich men and the contrast between rich and poor must completely vanish before the authority of the king. Before Christ, the Lord of Glory, who has comprehended all laws in this one law, the rich are low and the poor rich (Jam_2:1; Jam_1:9 etc.) Negatively, the law completed in the New Testament is a principle of perfect liberty (Acts 1:35), Positively it is a royal principle exacting perfect obedience to the Lord. Hence we have here once more the word τελεῖν conformably to the previously repeated allusions to the New Testament τέλος. [But why not take νόμον βασιλικόν in its plain and obvious sense, the law royal, “the law which is the king of all laws” (Alford)? This rendering (with reference to Rom_13:10) suits the context well.—M.]—κατὰ τὴν γραφήν refers not only to τελεῖτe but to the whole sentence νόμον βασιλικόν τελεῖτε for the νόμος Exodus 20 in its higher royal form is already traced before-hand, Lev_19:18, while that discursive form of the law is referred to the ministration of angels (Gal_3:19).

Ye do well. (German: “ye act beautifully,”) —That is: conformably to the beautiful name, which those men blaspheme. Christianly beautiful, answering to the spiritual beauty or the glory of the name of Christ. Huther’s remark that here something is to be conceded, not without irony, to the opponents, lies outside of the context.

Jam_2:9. But if ye respect persons.—προσωποληπτεῖν is ἅπαξ λεγ. and admirably chosen by James to denote Judaizing Christianity. By such conduct they suppose to avoid sin, but he tells them: by this very thing ye are working sin (ἐργάζεσθαι is stronger than ποιεῖν, Mat_7:23, etc.).

Convicted by the law.—The reference here is certainly to the specific prohibition of prosopolepsy [respect of persons—M.] Deu_16:19 and similar interdictions (Huther denies it), inasmuch as it formulates the commandment of love literally and at the same time in the light of it acquires a more general sense; that is, the law of love in its oneness, as applied to the question under notice, runs into an express prohibition of prosopolepsy. The very law therefore on which the Judaist plumes himself, convicts him as a transgressor. The choice of the word παραβάτης has here, as in Rom_2:25, and like παράβατης Jam_5:14, a peculiar emphasis: the Judaistico-Ebionite transgression of the law as completed in the New Testament is, as it were, a second fall. Cf. Gal_2:18.

Jam_2:10. For whosoever shall have kept the whole law.—Hypothetical case, put so as to apply at once to the Jewish stand-point in its full consequence and to the Christian, without being ambiguous, because the full consequence of Judaism leads to Christianity. The uniform solidarity of the law is also acknowledged by the Jews; hence Rabbi Jonathan says; “quod si faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singulorum reus.” ἐν ἑνί is to be taken agreeably to the preceding. Not the one definite commandment of love (Oecumenius, Semler), which embraces the whole but any one point of the law. Since νόμοι is rarely used to denote the Mosaic commandments one might feel inclined to take ἑνί as a neuter (with Schneckenburger and Kern), but since the following πάντων, according to Huther and al., renders the construction difficult, it is better to assume James entering into the Jewish mode of view which he potentiates in saying that every separate ἐντολή has also the full force of a νόμος. Wiesinger says that James takes the most favourable case in order to make his statement as convincing as possible. But James is hardly willing to yield this most favourable case to the reader. The point to be made is the demonstration of the absolute inviolability of the law. The πταίειν may be understood as well of a slight offence as of a gross offence, the declaration holding good in either case; but the context seems to require the latter construction which is also favoured by the preposition ἐν. Whosoever offends in one point so as to fall, is preëminently a transgressor of all laws, i.e., he is an apostate. This sense follows more clearly from the sequel. Such an one is ἔνοχος, i.e., held fast in guilt [Germ. arrested—M.] for satisfaction by the suffering of punishment. Each separate law becomes as it were a judge who arrests him.

Jam_2:11. For He who said.—The unity of all commandments lies primarily in the unity of the Lawgiver, Mar_12:32, This implies of course the One Spirit of all commandments according to which all commandments are included in each separate commandment and the one sense: the requirement of love and the one recompense.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.—Different explanations have been given of the selection of these two commandments. Baumgarten: Because their transgression was punished with death; Wiesinger: because the readers are nowhere charged with μοιχεύειν (see for the contrary James 4), whereas μὴ φονεύσῃς has the commandment of love as its kernel, because these are the first duties under the law of love to one’s neighbour. However we have here once more to call attention to the symbolical character of this Epistle. To the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was at once the prohibition of religious apostasy to heathenism (which probably accounts for the transpositions Mar_10:19, etc. of which Huther makes mention), and the prohibition of murder at once that of lovelessness [coined from the German Lieblosigkeit, for want of a current English equivalent—M.] towards our neighbour. The sense therefore is probably as follows: the same God to whose commandment you appeal in your fear of intermingling with heathenism, has prohibited murder, of which you may become guilty by your hatred of men. We have no doubt that also 1Jn_3:15 refers primarily to Ebionite conduct towards Christian fellowship (Jam_2:19). The connection of the words with Mat_5:17-19 is clear.

Jam_2:12. So speak ye and so do ye.—Application drawn from what has gone before, but not a new section (Semler). Huther wants to connect οὕτως with what follows, not with what has gone before. But the double οὕτως as well as the anteposition of λαλεῖτε refer strongly to what has gone before. The readers of the Epistle are charged not only after the manner of laymen to judge according to the anti-judaistic conception of the law, which had been laid down, but also to assert it in their respective spheres as witnesses of the truth (see James 3). Thus they were first to speak and to testify but then of course also to act accordingly.

As those about to be judged by the law of liberty.—This is not the explication but the reason of the preceding exhortation. The question comes up why here again James calls the New Testament the law of liberty as in Jam_1:25 and not, as above, the royal law? The law of liberty is the New Testament principle of the new life in the Gospel of Christ, which frees us from the restraint of the law. Conscious that according to their faithful or unfaithful conduct with reference to this law they are to be judged, true Jewish Christians and Israelites must cheerfully testify against Judaism and its legalism and exhibit Christian fellowship. It is true that this νόμος, as such, admits least a non-observance of this or that commandment (Huther), but this is hardly the reason why it is called νόμος έλευθερίας.

Jam_2:13. For the judgment is [will be] merciless.—Unmerciful is inadequate. Cf. Mat_5:6; Mat_18:23; Mat_25:35. The saying is primarily true objectively. The judgment will be rigidly enforced according to the love displayed in our life by mercy shown to the poor, the suffering and the despised. But the saying holds also good subjectively. A hard, merciless man reacts by his conduct upon his own consciousness; he makes himself a hard self-tormentor, who cannot but see the judgment in all his experience and a merciless judicial decree in all judgment.

Mercy boasteth over judgment.—The asyndeton intensifies the antithesis. Since κατακαυχᾶσθαι with the Genitive denotes boasting oneself against or over (see Rom_11:8; Jam_3:14), ἔλεος must not be completed by θεοῦ (so Calvin, Bengel and al.), nor interpreted as the triumphant exaltation with which mercy by its assurance of grace confounds (puts to shame) the terrors of the judgment (so Wiesinger), or transforms them into signs of redemption, as says our Lord (Luk_21:38); but it rather signifies the triumphant assurance with which the evangelizing mercy of believers, especially that of a James, a Peter or a Paul or the Gentile world excelled the judging spirit of the Judaists, the cheerful Gospel excelled the gloomy Talmud, the Church of the world the synagogue of the Jewish quarter and the evangelical confession the inquisition of the Middle Ages, to say nothing of the triumph of Christian philanthropy over modern particularism.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Against the genuineness of the Epistle of James there is probably not raised an objection apparently more just than that the person of Christ is less prominent in it than in other Epistles and that the author occupies a comparatively lower Christological standpoint than the most famous Apostles. It certainly does not contain the richly developed Christology which characterizes the writings of Paul and John. The Christology of James in general is on a level with that of his brother Jude and not essentially different from that of the synoptical Gospels. The mind of James is rather-practical and ethical than dogmatical and speculative. Even in respect of insight into the nature of Christ there was among Apostolical authors doubtless a diversity of gifts, cf. 1Co_12:7. It is also very probable that James in his wisdom as a teacher deemed it more judicious to refer the readers whom he addressed, more to the moral precepts of the Gospel than chiefly to the Person of the Redeemer. On this account the comparatively few passages in which he speaks of Him with decision, as e.g. in Jam_2:1, deserve the greater attention. On the sense of the remarkable expression τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης see under Exegetical and Critical. This single passage proves conclusively how far James was from conceiving Christ (as some maintain) according to the old-Ebionite manner to have been a ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος. Describing himself as the servant (bondman) of Jesus Christ (Jam_1:1) shows unmistakably how far he places the Master above himself, and describing Him as κύριος τῆς δόξης, he not only attributes to Him a royal rank but, indirectly at least, a higher Divine nature far exalted above all creatures. Cf. Psa_110:1; Heb_1:13. Nor must we overlook his mentioning the Lord Jeaus Christ at the very beginning of his Epistle in immediate connection with God Himself, and his constant reference to God as the Father shows not indistinctly that in doing so he had before his mind’s eye the high and holy relation of God the Father to the Son. Of equal importance in estimating the Christology of James is the circumstance of his unequivocally calling Christ the Lord, that is transferring to Him the Old Testament name of God with which he was familiar from his earliest childhood; Jam_5:7-8. Such an appellation was only possible on the conviction that He, who in the Old Testament is universally called Jehovah (Jahve), has revealed Himself in the New Testament as God (the Father) and as Christ. Cf. Wiesinger’s Commentary on James, p. 65, and Dorner’s Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, 2d ed., I., p. 95.

2. We should wholly misunderstand James’ reproof of the sin of respect of persons, were we to infer from it that he was aiming at the establishment of a perfect equality in daily life or even in the assemblies of the Church. God Himself sanctions difference of rank and station, Pro_22:2; Mat_26:11. But it is contrary to the will of God, if men overstep the line of demarcation which He in wisdom has drawn, turn it into an impassable gulf and with the existing difference overlook the higher unity. The arrangement therefore, which especially in former times was so frequently prevalent in many evangelical churches, of assigning splendid seats of honour to the distinguished and of putting back the poor as much as possible, would surely be contrary to the spirit of James. It is one thing to recognize a Divinely appointed difference, but it is another to make arbitrary distinction in the public worship of God.

3. James also teaches the doctrine of God’s eternal election of grace irrespective of wealth or poverty or any outward prerogatives whatsoever. Although it is true that poverty per se is no recommendation and wealth per se presents no insuperable obstacle (cf. Mat_19:25-26; Joh_19:38-39), it is on the other hand not less indubitable (and also a real compensation for so many things of which the poor are deprived in this world), that comparatively by far the greatest number of those who are rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom are found among the poor.

4. The idea of Christian Church-life involves among other things the non-existence of lawsuits among believers, or at least the settling of their differences among themselves. Cf. 1Co_6:1-4. The readers of the Epistle of James appear however to have been far from realizing this ideal, and as a rule it was just the rich who in this respect most oppressed their poor brethren. This is therefore an additional reason for not showing them any greater honour than that to which they were legitimately entitled.

5. David was held guilty of having caused the enemies of God to blaspheme in consequence of his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, 2Sa_12:14. Equally guilty are in James’ eyes those who by their oppressive conduct cause the goodly name of the Lord to be blasphemed to the Church, the name which in Baptism was invoked over His people. This is again an indirect proof that he ascribes to the Lord Jesus Christ a really Divine dignity.—

6. “The giving of the law on Mount Sinai took place mainly by the Son of God, who as the Angel of the Lord had led the children of Israel through the wilderness and is on that account called by the prophets King of Israel (Jer_23:5-6; Num_24:17; Jer_30:21; Joh_1:49; Rev_17:14; Rev_19:16), and King of all kings; hence the words royal law refer particularly to Christ, who in His sayings and sermons did so strongly inculcate the duty of love (Mat_22:38-39; Mat_25:12; Mat_25:17; 1Jn_2:5; 1Jn_4:20-21). To love oneself, that is in a well-ordered manner, is nothing else than taking care of one’s temporal, spiritual and eternal welfare, so that one’s spiritual welfare may also promote one’s temporal prosperity. This is done, if we are truly the servants of God, believe on Him and love Him. Now where this love of oneself is well-ordered, it is also a rule of a well-ordered love of one’s neighbour; see Mat_7:12.” Starke.

7. “A single sin against the commandment of God (though he have kept all others) condemns the sinner and burdens him with the curse. If it is presumptuous and intentional, it deprives him of spiritual life, destroys faith, etc., as in the case of David by adultery, in that of Peter by denial and in that of Adam by eating the forbidden fruit. If it is committed through infirmity and haste, sin as sin carries within itself the venom of damnableness, although preserving grace and forgiveness prevent its execution. The law is, as it were, a garment, which is torn altogether, although you only take away a piece thereof; it is like harmony in music which is wholly spoiled if only one voice is out of tune.” Starke.

8. “If a man transgress only one commandment and, if it were possible, should keep all the other commandments of the law, he would still be guilty of the whole law, because he has offended the same God who gave the whole law and insists upon its being kept not according to one commandment only, but wholly according to all its parts; whence every man may abundantly know that there is not any single sin so trifling and bad as not to be liable to damnation, since also the most trivial offence against the law is a transgression of the whole law. But God forgiving the penitent even the grossest offences in their justification, is done for Christ’s sake, just as in the case of the converted their daily sins of infirmity, although damnable in themselves, for Christ’s sake are not imputed unto damnation.” Starke.

9. The moral life of the Church of Christ was at all times exposed to the peril of two opposite rocks; moral rigorism on the one hand and antinomian latitudinarianism on the other. The doctrine of James (Jam_2:10-12) concerning the indivisible unity of the Divine Law is admirably adapted powerfully to counteract both maladies. In no event does he favour ascetical rigorism which only too frequently degenerates into soul-killing formalism. The law for which he is zealous, is a law of liberty in the loftiest acceptance of the term, yea the entire antithesis of authority and liberty is converted on his standpoint into a higher unity. The Divine law by no means opposes the Christian as heteronomy, but if he has received it through faith and love into his inmost consciousness, it becomes to him daily more and more an autonomy [heteronomy literally another law, then, living according to another law; autonomy literally one’s own law, then, living according to one’s own law, self-goverment.—M.]. But if on the other hand latitudinarianism arrives only too soon at being rigid in some points and yielding and lenient in others James stands up with inexorable severity and administers the unity of the Divine law as that of an indivisible whole. even the best Christian involuntarily is easily inclined pharisaically to overrate some commandments and to underrate others (cf. Mat_22:36; Mat_23:23). many a man, e.g. who would fear and tremble at the thought of murder would little hesitate in bearing false witness against his neighbour. Here comes in the admonition, “Whosoever shall have kept the whole law yet offend in one point, has become guilty of all.” It is self-evident that James here does not speak of sins of haste, ignorance or infirmity but of intentional, presumptuous or principled transgressions (transgressing on principle) of one of the commandments. Whosoever has thus become guilty, has disturbed the harmony of the Divine law. Of course not in the sense that a murderer is therefore also a thief, an adulterer or a defamer, but because the transgressor of any one commandment disgraces love, which is the key-note and sum-total of all the commandments. The favourite notion of many people that the province of morals recognizes a greater or a smaller number of adiaphora therefore is here emphatically denied. He who obstinately transgresses one commandment without actually violating the others, omits doing so only because at that instant he does not feel himself incited to a definite act of disobedience. For did he feel it, he would doubtless withdraw himself with equal swiftness from the restraint of any other commandment. But where is then his respect of the Divine law in its totality? Whichever commandment be transgressed, such transgression always reveals selfishness opposing on principle the chief requirement of love.

10. The passage, “Mercy boasteth over (against) judgment” (Jam_2:13) is not any more isolated than that it contradicts the evangelical doctrine of free grace. In the Old Testament also the idea is repeatedly expressed that love and mercy disarm to a certain degree the severity of that Divine judgment. See e.g., Isa_1:17-18; Dan_4:27. John the Baptist described and insisted upon actual exhibitions of love as one of the marks of a repentance by which men might flee from the wrath to come, Luk_3:8-11. Our Lord described the blessedness of the merciful (Mat_5:7) and set forth love as the standard in the last judgment, Mat_25:34-40. This is also the spirit in which James thinks and speaks and no further intimation is needed to show that he refers to no other Christian mercy than to that which is the fruit of living faith and genuine renovation of the heart. Not only he, who loved much, may therefore hope for forgiveness but also he who asked for much forgiveness, will now also love much, and may look forward to the judgment with greater calmness because this love of faith supplies to him and to others unequivocal proof that he has passed from death unto life. Cf. 1Jn_3:14.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The glorified Christ, the Lord of the Church, the object of faith. Sincere faith may still be very imperfect. Love and faith are indissolubly united, but love is irreconcilable with partial respectings of persons.—Agreement of the love insisted upon by James and that described by Paul, 1 Corinthians 13.—Rich and poor should appear in the house of prayer at unity among themselves.—Christian liberty, equality and fraternity.—The catchwords of the revolution only caricatures of a Gospel watchword.—The communion of saints is disgraced by lovelessness and party-spirit.—Loveless judging of others ill-becoming to one who will be judged himself.—The prerogatives of the believing poor! 1, They are the elect of God; 2, they are rich in faith; 3, they are heirs of the kindom of heaven which god has promised both to mobocracy [German ‘Proletariat,’ a word always used in a bad sense; this must be my apology for the hybrid mobocracy.—M] and despotism.—“He that oppresseth the poor, reproacheth his maker, etc.” Pro_14:33—poverty evangelically considered.—It Isaiah , 1, a great sin, 2, a great shame, 3, a great harm, that the goodly name of Christ, which was invoked over us in Baptism, is dishonoured for our sake; cf. Rom_2:23-24.—Love the foremost requirement made by the royal law of Christianity, Joh_13:34-35.—The inviolable unity of the Christian code of morality.—“Whosever shall have kept the whole law, but have offended in one point, etc.” This saying 1, is apparently strange 2, but nevertheless perfectly true and therefore 3, calculated to solemnize our minds in the judgment we pass on ourselves and to render us careful in that which we pass on others.—The Christian must not consider the commandments of the second table to be less holy than those of the first.—We shall be judged by the law of liberty; the meaning, the truth, the solemnity and consolation of this thought.—The connection between faith, love, judgment and acquittal.—The thought of the impending judgment—1, wherein it may alarm the Christian and 2, wherein it may again calm his fears.

On the whole pericope, Jam_2:1-13.—Of respect of persons. 1. The character it discloses: it manifests itself a. among Christians (Jam_2:1), b. in religious intercourse (Jam_2:2-3) and c. it springs from impure foundations (Jam_2:4). 2. The wrong it inflicts: a. on the poor (Jam_2:5), b. on the rich (Jam_2:6-7), c. on ourselves (Jam_2:8-9). The judgment it deserves; this is a. terrible (Jam_2:10), b. just (Jam_2:11-12), c. inevitable (Jam_2:13).—

Starke:—The Jews had the regulation that if the rich and the poor had a cause before a tribunal, both had either to stand or to be seated.

Quesnel:—Godliness forbids not the difference of posts of honour but simply disapproves of the rich only being respected and the poor despised, 1Co_11:22.—Whoso on account of his occupation has outwardly to wear a vile garment, let him so much the more wear the beautiful garment of Christ’s righteousness. Isa_61:10.

Starke:—The masses always look more at these who are splendidly attired before the world than at those who are gloriously attired before Christ.

Luther:—The rich enjoy greater privileges than others in things temporal, but not in things spiritual, Luk_6:24.

Langii Op.:—There are rich in the world who are also rich in God, but there are also poor in the world who are likewise poor in God and these are most miserable for time and for eternity, Gen_13:2.

Hedinger:—To be a beggar but a true Christian is more than being emperor or king without it.

Cramer:—Bodily poverty should not hinder but promote one’s salvation Luk_16:22.—Those who do not honour Christ in His members are not worthy to be honoured themselves, Luk_10:16; 1Sa_2:30.

Quesnel:—There is nothing greater than the name of Christ, but nothing more to be feared than to bear it unworthily.

Starke:—The royal law of love makes all to be kings, who are however the subjects of the king of kings, 1Pe_2:9; Rev_18:6.

Cramer:—By seeming trifles also the law may be transgressed, Num_15:32, etc.

Nova Bibl. Tub.:—The law exacts perfect obedience.

Hedinger:—Like as the believer fulfils all the commandments of the law, so the ungodly transgresses all the commandments, 1Jn_3:22.—If any man will allow only one sin to have dominion over him, he cannot receive forgiveness of sins, Psa_32:2.

Starke:—It is as culpable to be silent when we ought to speak as to speak when we ought to be silent, Isa_56:10.

Luther:—The Divine law is the only rule of conduct in whatsoever we do in word or deed, Psa_119:9; Psa_119:15; Psa_119:22.

Quesnel:—To be unmerciful, especially towards the innocent and believers, is a sign of men being merely natural and consequently exposed to the wrath of God, Psa_37:26.

Luther:—The unmerciful will be damned without mercy and the merciful will be saved of mercy, Jer_15:6; Hos_1:6.

Lisco (Jam_2:1-9):—True faith is remote from all sinful partiality.—(Jam_2:10-13). Of disobedience to the Divine law.—Christianity aims at equalizing the differences among men.

Heubner:—All haughtiness is a denial of faith. Unchristian distinguishing between sins.—What a contradiction! to see Christians dishonour the poor whom God honours.—Without esteeming and keeping all the commandments alike the keeping of this or that is worthless in the sight of God.—The assurance which love gives in the judgment.

Von Gerlach:—The Apostle calls Christ the Lord of glory in order to show the nothingness of all human distinctions in His sight.—The law of liberty has freed us from the bondage of sin, from mercenary work-holiness; we should consider therefore what a testimony there will arise against us in the judgment if we make exceptions and do not keep it in voluntary and childlike love.

Stier:—The Christianity of the rich is more frequently ungenuine and not proof than that of the poor.—If a father setting out on a journey lays down ten commandments to be observed by his child during his absence, and the child reserves one to be transgressed by him—dares such a child appear before his father and say: Father I have obeyed thee, nine of the ten commandments I have well kept! Every sin, thus reserved and remaining, every continuing transgression of one commandment given by the same God cancels our righteousness before the law, so that all its fair numbers turn into so many ciphers.

Neander:—Diversities and inequalities founded on the natural relations and organizations of society were not to be abrogated by Christianity but rendered less burdensome, they were to be equalized by the common bond of love and to become matter for the exercise of that Christian love.

Viedebandt:—The devil has well succeeded in a double trick: 1. In making the rich think that faith is the disturber of all enjoyment and pleasure, 2. In convincing the poor that faith brings no help.

G. Nitzsch:—We do not call a negro a white man because his teeth are white; so none may be called righteous, who only speaks of righteousness or otherwise puts into practice some other part thereof. David says: “I keep all thy commandments.”

Porubszky:—Faith in Jesus Christ tolerates no respect of persons.—The moral harmony in the kingdom of God (Jam_2:10-12).—The taking to heart of Christian mercy (Jam_2:13).

Jacoby (Jam_2:12):—Speaking also is subjected to the royal law of love.—It amounts to the same whether our judgment be bribed by riches in money, in intellect or worldly education.

Jam_2:8-13—Pericope on the 21st Sunday after Trinity in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and elsewhere.

Baur:—Love as to its being and working.

J. Müller:—Love the being of the Christian life.

R. Kromm:—The Christian is able and bound to keep all the commandments of his God.—Of the riches of Christian love.

[Jam_2:1. Social differences are allowed among Christians, Rom_13:7; but invidious distinctions and partiality in spiritual matters are disallowed and unchristian. In the use of the Sacraments, in prayer and praise, in the hearing of God’s Word Christians are on a level. The pew-system is unprimitive and unchristian. The Church is the Lord’s house, as its name implies (κυριακόν), and in the Lord’s house the rich and poor alike ought to be provided with equal accommodation for worship without any invidious, unchristian and worldly reference to their pecuniary ability.—Ecclesiastical preferment of personal friends and relatives, as such, is another form of respectings of persons.—M.].

Wordsworth:—Contemplate the Lord of glory (1Co_2:8), who humbled Himself, and took the poor man’s nature, and joined all in Himself, and promises glory to humility (Luk_14:11; Jam_4:10). This consideration is the groundwork of the Apostle’s argument and exhortation. This is the glory which Christ Himself offers to you—not the vain glory of this world, which ye seek by preferring the rich to the poor, and by having men’s persons in admiration for the sake of advantage to yourselves (Judges 16).

[Jam_2:2. Christian places of worship true synagogues (cf. συναγωγὴ and ἐπισυναγωγὴ Heb_10:25).—M.].

[Jam_2:4. Wordsworth:—There are two distinct grounds of censure—

1. That by this partiality they become like disputants in a law-suit (cf. 1Co_6:6), instead of being brethren: this is the rebuke in this clause.

2. That they thus constitute themselves into judges; this is developed in what follows.

Jam_2:7. The name invoked over Christians in Baptism and in the Benedictions (Mat_28:19; Act_9:14; Act_9:21; Rom_10:12; 1Co_1:2; 1Pe_1:17).—In the Jewish synagogue that godly name was blasphemed (1Co_12:3); in the Christian synogogue it was invoked. ἐπίκλησις in the language of the Church denotes the act of solemn invocation. See Bingham, Eccl. Ant. 15, 1.—M.].

[Jam_2:13. Chrysostom:—“Mercy is dear to God, and intercedes for the sinner, and breaks his chains, and dissipates the darkness, and quenches the fire of hell, and destroys the worm and rescues from the gnashing of teeth. To her the gates of heaven are opened. She is the queen of virtues, and makes man like to God, for it is written, Be ye merciful as your Father who is in heaven is merciful. She has silver wings like the dove, and feathers of gold, and soars aloft, and is clothed with divine glory, and stands by the throne of God; when we are in danger of being condemned, she rises up and pleads for us, and covers us with her defence and enfolds us in her wings. God loves mercy more than sacrifice.”—M.].

[Shakspeare, Merchant of Venice, Acts 4. Scene 1.

The quality of mercy is not strain’d;

It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d;

It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes: etc.—M.].

§ 2. Jam_2:14-26

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The true life of faith or faith evinced by the mercy of brotherly love and dead faith illustrated by heartless demeanour. Jam_2:14-17.

Jam_2:14. What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man were to say etc.?—James, having illuminated outward legality as lacking the principle of love, now takes it up as outward faith (Gläubigkeit) lacking both love and the energy of practical demonstration (Thatbeweis). The sequel shows what he means by practical demonstration; it is the full communion with believing brethren in love and life. The following section (Jam_2:14-26) supports his demand by examples from the Old Testament. Here it is to be remembered “that with James πίστς is the necessary ground of σωτηρία, which is evident from Jam_1:18-21, but of course that πίστις which is not without Works. In disputing the former delusion, James adopts his characteristic mode of first stating in clear and well-defined language the fundamental thought on which all the rest depends and he does it by the introduction of brief interrogative sentences, which reject that false opinion.” Huther.

What doth it profit? The Article makes ὅφελος emphatic; what is the use, what profit does it bring? That is, all the blessing of the theocratic faith, ultimately also in Jesus as the Messiah, is lost if this faith does not lead to vital fruit. That faith itself is then not true: hence: “if a man were to say, that he hath faith. λέγη is emphatic, so also Gataker, Stier, de Wette and al. Although de Wette’s rendering “if a man pretends,” be probably too strong, the assertion of Huther, that the sequel does not give the lie to λέγειν, is incorrect. This is certainly done conditionally in Jam_2:18 where it is maintained that the existence of faith cannot be proved without works. Only thus much may be admitted, that James allows the faith which is merely outward and traditional to pass as a kind of faith, on account of its objective truth he cannot call it false, but on account of its subjective untruth he calls it dead and the contrast of dead and living shows that he distinguishes faith from faith. Now the faith which he calls living needs no further complement; it is a unit as to its living energy, while the faith without works, lacks owing to the absence of works the demonstration of energy of life. If we say “the dead body is without the soul,” it does not follow that we think also: “The living man consists of body and soul.” Schneckenburger with reason sees something significant in the absence of the Article (ἐὰν πίστιν). Huther rightly asserts that πίστις does not denote here nuda notitia or professio, because this idea is identical with real faith in the opinion of the speaker; but he is wrong in supposing that πίστις always denotes the same thing in the mind of James. For saying, that πίστις in one is different from πίστις in another, amounts to nothing and it is false to affirm that fiducia cannot be denied even to dead faith. Why then is the subject of this faith uniformly the δίψυχος? [The distinction is manifestly between theoretic belief unaccompanied by the practice of good works and vital faith abounding in good works. Faith is the inward, works the outward. Works are the outward sign and pledge, the demonstration of faith within. The man dramatically introduced in the text has faith (Jam_2:19), but his faith is theoretic belief. There seems to be no necessity for making λέγῃ emphatic.—M.].

But were to have no works—That is, the works specifically belonging to and characteristic of faith. That James particularly refers to the works of brotherly love, is manifest from the sequel.

Faith surely cannot.—The remarkable character of this proposition as contrasted with the doctrine that faith does save is variously gotten over. Some commentators emphasize the artice ἡ before πίστις: that faith, such a faith [Bede, “fides illa, quam vos habere dicitis”—M.]. In reply, Wiesinger and Huther observe that the Article is used, because there is a resumption of the previous idea, as Jam_1:3 with reference to ὑπομονή, and Jam_1:15 with reference to ἁμαρτία. But the resumption of the previous idea is sufficient to settle the point that the reference is here to such a faith which has no works. The demonstrative therefore is not contained in ἡ only, but in ἡ πίστις and one might translate, “thus faith surely cannot save him.” Huther thinks that αὐτόν is emphatic, “him who thus conducts himself, faith cannot save;” but this would make faith an abstract objectivity. The reference therefore is simply to the faith in question, and the explanations of Theile (false faith), Pott (faith only) and similar ones are epexegetical. Huther in his explication of αύτόν returns to the definition “the faith which has no works,” whereas, in order to be consistent, he ought to say, “the man who has no works.”

Save him.—σῶσι relates not to the attainment of future salvation, as Huther maintains, but denotes, according to the idea of the New Testament σωτηρία the present, principial salvation of the redemption already experienced and passing through progressive stages of completion to ultimate salvation.

Jam_2:15-16. But if a brother or a sister.—The following example in the opinion of Huther (and Wiesinger) explains the preceding proposition by explaining that compassion also without corresponding works is dead and useless. But the reference to dead love or even to dead compassion would be unheard of. The question in one example also is dead faith, which under certain circumstances hypocritically affects the appearance of love without however evincing the reality of its existence. The absence of the work is just the absence of love or compassion. The brother and the sister are as such fellow-believers (companions of the same faith). And this leads to take these personages also in a symbolical sense. For the duty of relieving the literally needy with food and raiment was already recognized in the Old Testament as a duty of man to man; how much more then under the sense of duty acknowledged in the Christian Church. James doubtless needed not to inculcate this duty on the believing dispersion, and if it was his intention, he could not limit its exercise to Christian brethren. But the case stood differently with regard to the relation of the Jewish Christian to his Gentile-Christian coreligionist or also to the Gentile-Christian Church. That they were not literally poor and naked does not affect the question, for on the one hand they were indebted to the Apostles, who were more merciful than the Judaists, for their spiritual prosperity, and on the other hand they would still appear as very poor to the Judaists; γύμνοι, as those wholly stripped of proper and respectable apparel, after having laid aside their vile raiment (see Jam_2:2; Huther’s pressing of γύμνοι yields no gain), and destitute of daily food (the different senses in which ἐφήμερος is construed, amount to the same thing), i.e., destitute of positive familiarity with the word of God according to Judaistic ideas. The Jewish Christians, to be sure, had progressed so far as not to damn the poor believers (even as the Jews already affected friendliness towards the proselytes of the gate); they acknowledged the brotherhood in a general way and perchance would unctuously express that acknowledgment in the words “Go in peace,” wished them perhaps also all manner of good in the self-satisfying of their (the poor brethren’s) Christian wants, but having gone to that stretch of liberality, would also dismiss them, without having any other dealings with them or entering with them into the communion of devoted care and love (just as nowadays the Confessionalists dismiss the Evangelicals with unctuous sour-sweet words). Be warmed! be filled! These words are surely not uttered optatively in the sense, “May some one else help you” (Hottinger, Grotius and al.), nor imperatively in a liberal sense (Huther), but connected with the valedictory salutation of peace they denote a cant-wish of blessing, “may you succeed in getting warmed etc.” The reproach of pauperism is at the same time clothed in hypocritically sparing terms, hence “be ye warmed” not at once “be ye clothed” (Laurentius and al.), but alluding to it and in like manner “be ye filled” in allusion to their hunger.—The one who thus speaks represents the general tendency but points to the unctuous speakers who understand to couch the unsparing dismissal as much as possible in fair and sparing language. Instead of such conduct they were one and altogether to show love to the poor. But our example presupposes the case that they did not even give them necessaries.

What would that profit?—See Jam_2:14. Such a benediction (wish-of-blessing) would purely have no value and the acknowledgment of brotherhood on which it is founded would accordingly be equally void, just as the faith on which it is founded. The whole demeanour would be unprofitable egentibus (Hottinger) and dicentibus (Semler); in general to the kingdom of God.

Jam_2:17. So also faith, if it have not.—If it does not show the life-sign of animating works, which are intrinsically its property.

For itself. [i.e. in itself.—M.]—As it is dead as regards the brethren, so it is dead as regards itself. Καθ’ ἑαυτήν not pleonastic (Grotius), not “fides sola” (Knapp), but joined with νεκρά indicative of being dead or rather of having died, whereby the life of faith and consequently the life of the believer himself is denied. And this being dead is not only the cause of this want of works (Olshausen) but also the consequence of the reaction of that want. It dies ever more and more of not being energizing. See Mat_18:23 etc.

The proof of faith by the works of faith or the believer’s justification before the consciousness of the Church, Jam_2:18-19.

Jam_2:18. But some one will say.—Different explanations are given for the introduction of an objection by ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις, although the sense of the passage especially with the reading χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων is abundantly clear. The possession of faith without works may be asserted but not be proved, since the corresponding works constitute the proof of faith, while the faith may be proved by the right works. The works therefore are the exhibition, the evidence of faith. Difficulties have been found 1. In James’ introducing this proposition as the expression of another person and not as his own; 2. in his introducing it by ἀλλά. The second difficulty disappears with the first. James could not well take the place of the objector because it was remote from the mind of his readers to deny the genuineness of his faith; but many among them were inclined to deny it in the case of the Gentile Christians. Hence the sense is as follows: but some one will rise up against this dead faith and with it enter the lists in proving the genuineness of his faith by his works of faith. In this sense the passage has a grand prophetical character. The Gentile Christian world has proved by its works of faith that it had the true faith, but Ebionism with its want of consistency in Christian works of love that its orthodoxism was not a living faith. ἀλλά therefore is here not the formula of a dialectical objection, as in Rom_9:19; 1Co_15:35, but the introduction of an actual historical antithesis, That the speaker’s faith (Jam_2:14) is dead is primarily a mystery of an inward state of death, but there will come one who by the exhibition of the contrary will make manifest that death. James makes him express in a definite antithesis what he actually shall do, in order to elucidate the law of life that invisible faith cannot be seen without visible works, while the visible works enable us to see the invisible faith. Wiesinger therefore rightly maintains that the speaker sides with James. On the other hand the artificial explanation of Huther can only be accounted for by the embarrassment he experienced with respect to ἀλλά. “But some might say in answer to what I have just stated, defending himself: thou (who hast not the works) hast faith and I, on the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works; my one-sided insisting upon works is not any more right than thy one-sided insisting upon faith.” This, in the first place, would be no defence of the speaker (Jam_2:14), and secondly it is nowhere said that the speaker (Jam_2:18) has no faith; he rather wants to prove his faith by his works. Stier even maintains that the ἔργα ἔχων, who has the word, is a man of pharisaic tendencies who in the interest of work-righteousness impugns faith; but this is altogether beside the connection, for there is no reference whatsoever to pharisaic works. On the other wide-differing but otherwise unimportant explanations given of this passage compare Huther especially with reference to those of Pott, Kern, de Wette and Schneckenburger. It is proper to add that Huther himself farther on gives a tolerably correct paraphrase of this passage and is equally right in remarking that with the reading ἐκ τῶν ἔργων in Text. Rec. these words should be taken ironically.

Jam_2:19. Thou believest that God is one.—The Apostle having shown in what precedes that the existence of faith cannot be proved without works, now proceeds to the proof that faith, even if granted in such a form, has a damnable effect, that is one issuing in fear and terror of God. Huther does not justly state the force of the Apostle’s thought in saying that James here shows the inadequateness of faith without works to salvation. For the example of the devils who tremble just in consequence of their manner of believing, not only along with their faith, nor even notwithstanding their faith, is not simply designed to intensify the negation that such a faith is without salvation. The condition of not being saved is connected with the state of being damned. The Apostle does not start with the concession that the objector has faith (Huther), but that his faith is worthless. Huther thinks it strange that James does not name that which is specifically Christian as the object of faith. On this account Calvin supposed that this whole section treats not of Christian faith (de fide) but only de vulgari dei notitia. De Wette holds that ὅτι characterizes the faith as being merely theoretical, in which Wiesinger agrees with him and to which Huther objects without sufficient reason. Huther and al. consider that this article of faith is simply introduced by way of example and that just this article was selected because it distinguishes revealed religion from heathenism (Deu_6:4; Neh_9:6 etc.). But this suggests the additional remark that it was selected because the Jewish Christians and the Jews not only were particularly proud of this first article of their faith (Schneckenburger), but also were wont to contrast it with the distinctly Christian dogma of the Triune God and the Son of God.—This discloses moreover the further consideration that it was their pride in this increasingly misunderstood article which kept them back as Jews from fully surrendering to Christ and as Jewish Christians from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith. The monarchism of the Jews which was opposed to the incarnation of the Son of God continued in the germinating monarchism of the Jewish Christians. In the judgment of James therefore the fruitlessness or worthlessness of that faith is connected with the fact that in the shape of orthodoxism it obstinately remains at a stand-still on a stage of faith which has been laid aside and that in this respect it is a heterodoxy which may become a heresy and ultimately even a devilish antichristianity. It was just by remaining at a standstill and by resistance offered to the completed revelation that monotheism originally so rich in vitality became dead deism. In a similar way the Greek article of faith has been established in opposition to Roman Catholic development, and the Roman Catholic article in opposition to evangelical faith.28 Where vital development is abhorred (perhorrescirt?) faith becomes false confidence in the abstract article. Wiesinger justly calls attention to the circumstance that this passage shows that this Epistle is far from being Judaizing and anti-Pauline.

Thou doest well.—It is questionable whether we are to take these words ironically (Calvin, Theile, Wiesinger and many others), or literally (Grotius, de Wette and al). They cannot be purely ironical, because the article is truth; they cannot be purely laudatory, because the true article is falsely held; Huther therefore rightly observes that the ironical lies in the whole expression; that is, in the momentary appearance as if James in conceding to the objector to believe in such a manner were therewith also conceding to him the true faith. “This irony” says Wiesinger “rises into sarcasm in the combination of πιστεύουσι και φρίσσουσι.” It may be doubted whether this conclusion is formally sarcastic. The sarcasm lies here in the naked fact itself. Formally it only flashes out in the splendid καὶ which connects the greatest seeming contradiction and which Huther rightly does not like to see wiped off (Theile: atqui etc.).

The devils.—Although we must not think of demoniacs (Wetstein), nor of the demons in the demoniacs (Schneckenburger) they furnish the most intelligible historical proof of the otherwise more transcendental declaration. Huther thinks that the reference is to the demons or apostate spirits according to the view which makes the heathen deities demons (LXX. Deu_32:17 etc.; 1Co_10:20). But the Apostle’s saying is perfectly intelligible without such reference, which may easily lead here to confusion. For as far as the demons are the occasion of polytheism they impugn the Unity of God but as far as they are conscious that they are lying and that the One God will visit them in judgment, they just appear to acknowledge the pride of Judaism and the defeat of heathenism. Holding fast to this reference we ought to pass on to the thought that heathenism also in its deepest demon-background is not without a monotheistic consciousness, and it is just this which constitutes its misery. To give to this idea a more popular shape it would run thus: the demons which as you hold inhabit and constitute the heathen world, are all monotheists but for that very reason they shudder. But if we emphasize the heathen element, we weaken the marked emphasis of the demon element, and this is the reason why we have doubts concerning said reference. Nor do they shudder only, because they expect the judgment, their judgment is already involved in their relation to God. This shuddering φρίσσειν. (ἅπαξ λεγ.) is more than trembling (Job_4:15), a horror with the hair standing on end.—

The two examples of the proof of faith by works as a general example of the unity of living faith of Jews and Gentiles, Jam_2:20-26.

Jam_2:20. But wiliest thou to know (it)?—These words denote the certainty with which the Apostle announces the convincing proof of the uselessness of faith without works from the Holy Scriptures, the source of all certainty.—The ὦ before ἄνθρωπε intensifies the censure conveyed in the address, “thou empty (not as Baumgarten has it, simply unwise and shortsighted [stupid], but empty as to faith and spirtual strength) man,” and which “as applied to persons occurs only here in the New Testament” (Huther). It is not perchance the fiction of an objector but the personification of a mode of thinking which is introduced as an actor, Jam_2:1 etc. and as a speaker in Jam_2:15. The spiritual emptiness of such a man corresponds to the spiritual emptiness or impotence and unproductiveness of his faith. The reading ἀρχή (advocated by Wiesinger against Huther) certainly deserves the preference also in respect of the sense because the Apostle passes from the idea of dead faith through the idea of unproductive faith to the idea of a faith lacking the specific effect of faith (δικαιοῦσθαι). [Oecumenius: κενὸν ἐκάλεσεν ἄνθρωπον τὸν ψιλῇ τῇ πίστει αὐχοῦντα, μηδὲν τῆς διὰ τῶν ἔργων ὑποστάσεως κεκτημένον εῖς πλήρωσιν.—M.].

Jam_2:21. Was not Abraham our father.—The first example contrasts the father of faith himself with the false orthodoxy-righteousness of Judaism, just as Paul in Romans 4 contrasts him with their work-righteousness, or more accurately with their pride in circumcision. Abraham, the highest theocratical authority, which they share with him.

When he offered Isaac, his son.—In explaining this difficult passage we have to start with the preliminary statement that δικαιοῦν (הִצְדִּיק Sept. δικαιοῦν, δίκαιον κρίνειν) generally denotes in both Testaments: to pronounce, declare, set one forth as, righteous in any forum of justice or judgment, whether in consequence of proved innocence or surrender at discretion, expiation or pardon; although there are passαges in the Old Testament in which the sense to lead to righteousness, to make righteous predominates, Dan_12:3; Isa_53:11. The most important instances of the former kind of declaring righteous are the following passages: Luk_7:29 : ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν and 1Ti_3:16; ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (cf. Exo_23:7; Deu_25:1; Pro_17:15; Isa_5:23; Mat_12:37; Rom_2:13); instances of the latter kind occur in Rom_4:5; Rom_3:26 etc. The comparison of these different passages shows that to the Old Testament with reference to man belongs especially the idea of pronouncing the innocent righteous conformably to his innocence, while to the New Testament belongs that of pronouncing the sinner righteous conformably to his faith. Mat_12:37 must be carefully distinguished because the last judgment shall be a judgment of the works of faith. But even the Old Testament knew already the imputation of the faith as righteousness, Gen_15:16. We may say therefore that James for the benefit of his readers adopts the language of the Old Testament in allotting to true faith the imputation of righteousness by the λογίζεσθαι εἰζ δικαιοσύνην, but to the proof of true faith the δικαιοῦσθαι. St. Paul, on the other hand, employs the two terms as identical (Rom_4:6 etc.; Jam_5:1), although he is well acquainted with the Old Testament meaning of δικαιοῦσθαι as applied to a human forum or even to the last judgment (see 1Co_4:4-5). Huther, after enumerating the different interpretations of this passage (Calvin: proved righteous before men; Baumgarten: his justification has been ratified before men; Grotius: he was loved as a righteous man etc.), adds “he has been declared righteous;” but this is really saying nothing concerning our passage, for the question is, in which sense? The difference in the report is noteworthy. Gen_15:6 we read: Abram “believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness,” without any further mention of an outward declaration of God concerning it. Both to him and to the Scripture the thing is sure in virtue of the testimony of the Spirit. Very different is Gen_22:16, where the proof of Abraham’s faith is followed by the the solemn declaration of the angel from heaven, “By myself have I sworn etc.” Has not this declaration become a manifest deposit to the house of Abraham and the theocratic posterity? And that this is a decisive element is also evident from the other proof. So also righteousness was imputed to Rahab, the harlot also, not only in the depth of her heart but along with the proof of her faith. She did also experience a δικαιοῦσθαι in the congregation of God, Jos_6:25; Mat_1:5. The term δικαιοῦν consequently is used by James according to the Old Testament mode of expression in a New Testament deeper sense and denotes that God declares righteous in the theocratical forum before the theocratical congregation conceived as permanent. It is the Divine declaration of the proof of faith in and for the kingdom of God, while the λογίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην of James or the δικαιοῦν of Paul describes an act, which transpires solely between God and the sinner in the forum of his consciousness.

Justified by works: ἐξ ἔργων.—Although this Plural is selected with reference to the category in question, yet it must also be remembered that the singular work “when he offered his son” was the culminating point which comprehended all the trials of his faith. Huther justly finds this pronouncing righteous in Gen_22:16; but it was not solely contained in the giving of the promise on the ground of that which he had done; he had previously received less developed promises and moreover in connection with acts of well-doing. It was rather contained in the solemn declaration with which God in consequence of Abraham’s proof of his faith now sealed to him His promise with an oath, whereby at the same time a seal was set to the consciousness of Abraham. If the distinction which Holy Scripture draws between the degree of justification and that of sealing, had been better observed, the key to the doctrine of James in its agreement with that of Paul would thereby have also been better preserved (see Jesus Sir_44:20).—

On the altar.—Offering is sacrificing as to its essential element; hence Luther’s version “when he sacrificed” is not as wrong as Huther thinks; but the explanation “when he was going to sacrifice” is tautological, unless the term receive the doubtful interpretation of positive slaughtering.

Isaac, his son.—Emphatically describing the greatness of the offering as in Gen_22:16.—The example of Abraham, however, has a peculiar significance to the Jewish Christian readers of the Epistle. As Abraham obediently offered to the God of revelation his theocratic offspring with whom the promise seemed to be indissolubly connected, so were they also to learn to distinguish their natural national feelings from the promise of God and offer them for their entrance into the New Covenant.

Jam_2:22. Thou seest.—We read the verse with the majority of commentators as an assertion and not as a question (de Wette, Lachmann and al.). And what then? Not, perchance, that the works were added to his faith, but that faith and works flow forth in one gush of the Spirit and doubly cover each other; faith was actively joined with his works as the foundation, the works were reactively the completion of his faith.

That faith was working together with Ms works.—Most commentators perceive here the antithesis, “neither faith was wanting nor the works” (Bengel: quid utravis pars alteri conferat; similarly Erasmus etc. Wiesinger.). According to the opposite view the propositions are designed to demonstrate the necessity of works. Thou seest that faith was active in works and had to be completed by works (Estius: operosa fuit, non otiosa. Calvin). Huther, “The second hemistich is not in antithesis with the former, but constitutes its complement: faith being active with its works, itself reached its completion.” But James evidently does not wish to lay so one-sided an emphasis on the necessity of works; his object is rather to vindicate the unity of both, as is manifest from Jam_2:18; Jam_2:23. Primarily he demanded works as the proof of faith, he now demands them also with reference to the ἐδικαιώθη Jam_2:22 as the completion of faith. The first proposition therefore stands for the proof of faith, although not as demanding the necessity of faith which was self-evident to him and to his readers. συνήργει certainly cannot mean “faith was auxiliary in his doing” as Huther rightly observes against Hofmann and Wiesinger; nor hardly, “it was the συνεργός of his works, it operated not by itself but with his works” (Huther), which gives not a clear idea. Kern sought to avoid this dualism by taking τοῖς ἔργοις as Dat. commod., “it operated to the production of his works.” σύν joined with the verb may be construed as having additional force, i.e. along with, but also intensivo-synthetically, i.e. united to, joined with (not to mention that it may mean: quite, thoroughly, συντέμνω etc.) Mar_16:20 etc. We take the passage in the latter sense thus: “Faith manifested itself operatively at one with the works.” Faith aided in the completion of the work and the work aided in the completion of faith.—

Faith was made complete.—ἐτελειώθη is taken by many as completed proof, that is declaratively (Calvin, Bengel etc.), against which rendering Huther with reason insists upon the expression, “it was completed,” not in the sense it had been imperfect but that it was consummated in the exercise. But here again we have to remind the reader of the significance of the term τελείωσις in this Epistle (cf. Jam_1:4; Jam_1:25; Jam_3:2; Jam_5:11). Abraham by his faith-offering attained typically and ideally the τελείωσις, which the Jewish Christians were to attain by the full proof of Christian love out of [as the ground and source of—M.] faith and with them all Israel was to attain it.

Jam_2:23. And [thus] the Scripture was fulfilled.—That is the passage Gen_15:6 here cited from the Sept. (with the exception of δὲ for καί) which gives a passive rendering to the active language of the original. So Paul quotes the LXX. Rom_4:3; Gal_3:6. James, it is evident from this declaration, was fully cognizant of the predication of that passage concerning Abraham’s righteousness of faith and was far from disputing it. But on that account, as Huther rightly maintains, we are unable to adopt the definition of ἐπληρώθη which is given by the majority of commentators, viz.: then was confirmed, or that of Hofmann: then was proved that God had rightly estimated the faith of Abraham (Wiesinger, “then it was shown (erwiesen) that the Scripture was right”). The meaning of πληροῦν forbids such definitions. Moreover, strictly speaking this saying cannot be referred to the written declaration of Holy Scripture but to the Divine act on which that declaration is founded, i.e. the λογίζεσθαι, or to the prophetical sense of believing Abraham himself. But, on the other hand, we cannot adopt the exposition of de Wette and Huther, “then was realized,” for that righteousness of faith was a reality from the very first. The fulfilling denotes throughout the completed, decided and manifested development of a seed of faith which until then was germ-like concealed, whether it be a prophecy or a type (cf. Mat_2:15; Mat_5:23 etc.; 1Ki_2:27 etc.). That righteousness of faith of Abraham reached its πλήρωσις or τελείωσις in its proof and verification, as it was sealed by the now openly stated Divine testimony. The act of faith itself and the subsequent sealing in the life of individual believers answer to the Old Testament Abrahamic foundation and the New Testament completion. That proof and verification of faith was on its real side τελείωσις, while, on its ideal side viewed as the completion of the prophetical word of the Spirit on which the written word is founded, it was πλήρωσις. And this πλήρωσις was manifested in his being called the friend of God. Not literally but substantially he was honoured with that appellation from the beginning Gen_22:16, and afterwards also was referred to in the Old Testament as the beloved of God 1Ch_20:7; Isa_41:8. This honourable appellation has developed the epithet “the friend of God” among the Jews and the Mohammedans (Wolf’s curæ, and Theile.) [“El-Khalil-Allah” or, as he is more usually called, “El-Khalil,” simply “the friend,” “is a title which has in Mussulman countries superseded altogether his own proper name.” Stanley’s Jewish Church p. 14. “Abraham is the Zoroaster of the Semitic race; but he is more than Zoroaster, in proportion as his sense of the Divine was more spiritual, and more free from the philosophy of nature and the adoration of the visible world.” Bunsen, Bibelwerk, II., 88. See also Max Müller’s Essay on Semitic Monotheism in the London Times of April 14 and 15, 1860.—M.]. “In Gen_18:17 the 70 add the words τοῦ παίδος μου to ἀπὸ Ἀβραάη, for which Philo substitutes τοῦ φίλου μου.” Huther. Hofmann defines the expression “the friend of God,” by “who loved God,” while Huther disputes that definition and gives the opposite one “whom God loved.” But both entangle themselves in a false antithesis. The friend is at once loving and loved and indissolubly so. And although it remains a fixed fact that Abraham’s love was the consequence of God’s love to him, it is also evident that Abraham’s good conduct, that is his self-sacrificing love, is intended to be brought out. But he was not only made “the friend of God” (Grotius ἐκλήθη=factus est), but he was called and honoured as such. And this was the way in which he was ἐδικαιώθη for the kingdom of God. Wiesinger’s assertion is therefore incorrect that δικαιοῦσθαι refers to righteousness before God and not (as Calov and al.) to righteousness before men. But this “righteousness before men” requires to be defined in the manner indicated above.

Jam_2:24. Ye see that by works a man is justified. Out of (ἐξ ἔργων) works.—The preposition is not interrogative (Griesbach), nor imperative (Erasmus), but indicative (Luther). Recollecting that δικαιοῦται here as in Jam_2:21 does not refer to justification by faith before God, but to the proof of faith before the congregation or the forum of the kingdom of God (in the sense of being declared righteous to the world, cf. 1Ti_3:16), the seeming opposition of this passage to Rom_3:28 and al. is set aside. Per se therefore μόνον might be connected with δικαιοῦται thus “not only by faith but by works a man is justified,” but firstly this would not give a pure antithesis as in Jam_2:18, and secondly, the preposition Jam_2:26 could then not follow, μόνον therefore must be joined adjectively with πίστεως in the sense of bare faith, faith without works (so Theophylact, Grotius, Wiesinger, Huther and al. cf. 1Co_12:31; 2Co_11:23 and other passages).

Jam_2:25. But likewise, Rahab, the harlot.—δέ indicates the contrast between the two examples, ὁμοίως their similarity. The contrast comes out strongly in the fact that Rahab was a harlot. The Article denotes that she was the historically known personage without intensifying the idea which however must not be weakened by the exposition “hospita” (Lyranus) or “idolatra” although she was both in reality (Rosenmüller). But the circumstance that she was a Gentile is implied. The supposition of de Wette and al. that this example was chosen with polemical reference to Heb_11:31, because there she is praised on account of her faith, Wiesinger rejects with the appropriate observation that there as here it is the work-proof of her faith which is rendered prominent, as indeed the whole chapter (Hebrews 11) lauds faith as the power of conduct well pleasing to God. Wiesinger (following Calvin) also brings out the real motive for the selection of this example. To the example of Abraham, who was the prototype of all true faith, is now added another as remote from it as possible, “that of a woman, a Canaanite, a harlot.” The Apostle’s motive, however, must be taken even more concretely. Doubtless Rahab stands here as the representative of Gentile Christians in their works of faith. Just as Abraham by the sacrifice of Isaac, from being a Jew, hedged in by his nationality, became the patriarch of the spiritual Israel, a pattern to the Jewish Christian readers of this Epistle, so the case of Rahab is an example drawn from the Old Testament of the ability of Gentiles becoming by means of their work of faith the spiritual companions of Abraham and his children. Now she was justified not only in that her life was spared (Jos_22:6; Jos_22:22 etc.) but in that she became a highly honoured mother in Israel, as tradition informs us (Mat_1:5).

When she received the messengers.—One might always think that James selected the word ἄγγελοι instead of κατάσκοποι (Heb_11:31) in allusion to the circumstance that the Gentiles of his time were so ready to receive the messengers of the Gospel. Although the ὑπό of the verb may not have the secondary meaning “clam excipere,” (Theile) still it suitably intensifies the idea. She hospitably received the messengers and sheltered them, she received them forthwith, as the Gentiles received the messengers of the Gospel rejected and persecuted by the Jews.

And sent them forth by another way.—Cf. Jos_2:15. It is not simply that she let them go, but that she thrust them off with saving haste and effort, as it were by force. So Festus the Gentile sent Paul to Rome in order to deliver him from the persecutions of the Jews and so for a time the Roman rulers in general, but especially believing Gentiles protected the messengers of the Gospel from the fanaticism of the Jews. The way of the deliverance of the messengers, however, was not only another way, but an uncommon one (ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ [i.e. διὰ τῆς θυρίδος.—M.]).

Jam_2:26. For as the body without spirit.—The spirit can only describe the constant, inward vital principle (and in its actuality), which gives motion to the living body. Consequently not the soul as a quiescent substance, nor that which animates (Wiesinger), and still less the πνεῦμα as “halitus” (Piscator and al.). The spirit in its actuality is the ἐνέργεια of the body, without which it is dead. By comparison therefore faith is dead without (corresponding) works. It is an unnatural condition for the body to exist without spirit; consequently the reference here is to a faith which has passed into an unnatural condition. James, therefore, cannot mean that works must be added to faith; he rather sees in the works (with the Article), the collective phenomenon, that form of life which renders visible the vitality of faith, its animating energy (although not absolutely love, as Theile maintains) or entelechy. The seeming inconcinnity of the figure, to which Huther calls attention, that while on the one hand, the body is visible and the spirit invisible, faith on the other is invisible and the works visible, disappears if it is remembered that the spirit also in virtue of its actuality effects the higher visibility of the body. Being dead and being alive is the decisive antithesis, in which, however, the separate members also are brought into comparison. James is therefore far from forming a dualistic conception of real faith, he rather takes it really as a productive power much as Aristotle does the idea, and with reference to public proof he will recognize it only in its expression by works which almost recalls Hegel’s idea that the true in the individual authenticates itself in its process of development as fact.

James’s doctrine of faith in this chapter in relation to the doctrine in Rom_3:28; Gal_2:16, and al.—We refer in the first place to the Introduction, to the foregoing exegesis, to our exposition in the History of the Apostolic Age, I., p. 171; and in the next place to Huther, p. 126, and the Supplement to his Commentary, p. 208. Huther, with reason enumerates three views. 1. James and Paul agree in thought but differ in expression. This was the prevalent view before the Reformation, and in modern times the view of Neander, Thiersch, Wiesinger, Huther, etc. 2. The doctrine of James contradicts that of Paul. So Luther, de Wette, Kern, Baur, Schwegler. 3. There is certainly a difference in doctrine of subordinate importance yet without prejudicing their higher unity. So Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Lechler, Weizsäcker (see the last supplement in Huther, also the controversy with Weiss and Weizsäcker, p. 130, 131). Ad 1. Theophylact and others. The ἔργα are different in both instances, Paul mentions the opera legis, James the “opera fidei.” “This is also right,” as Huther correctly observes. Paul deals with the ergism of the Jews, James with their orthodoxism. Huther moreover urges with reason that Paul does not attribute justifying power to the opera fidei. A second distinction in the idea of πίστις was therefore necessary. This has been pointed out by Oecumenius, Neander and al.; viz. “that James takes faith per se simply as the mere notitia, the considering things as true etc.” It is evident that he knows such a kind of faith but it is equally certain that he does not acknowledge it as living faith; not any more than Paul, who was equally familiar with Jewish orthodoxy according to Romans 10, but insisted with equal firmness, that faith must work by love or authenticate itself by works (Gal_5:6). Wiesinger (with whom Huther agrees), however, is right in maintaining against Schmid, Olshausen, Neander and al., that it is one thing to say “to become righteous by (out of) faith authenticated (proved) in works,” and another “to become righteous by works in which faith authenticates, itself.” This brings us to the third and most important distinction, the different senses of δικαιοῦσθαι. Here Wiesinger and Huther also go asunder. Wiesinger (in connection with Hofmann) maintains that man, having been justified by faith, becomes personally righteous by his works in which faith authenticates itself: that justification in relation to God becomes a justification according to a man’s behaviour towards God. Huther, on the other hand, holds that by δικαιοῦν Paul describes that declaring righteous or free [i.e. from guilt and punishment, German Freisprechen—M.] on the part of God which puts the believer into the new filial relation to God, whereas James understands by it that declaring righteous or free on the part of God in virtue of which the man regenerated into a child of God receives in the judgment σωτηρία. But the two views are not quite clear. In the first the idea of the forum is wanting, where the δικαιοῦσθαι is to take place, in the second the forum of the last judgment is improperly anticipated. It is of course understood, that according to Paul also, men will be judged in the last day with reference to their fruits of faith (2Co_5:10), but in that judgment Abraham also has not yet stood, whereas on the other hand righteousness of faith and σωτηρία along with it, are acquired only in an ideal judgment. But between the first Divine forum in a repenting conscience and the last forum in the judgment of the world there lies as a middle forum the public attestation of the believer in the consciousness of the theocratic congregation; outwardly to the Church an authentication, inwardly to believers a sealing. By the selection of the term, therefore, James wished the Jewish Christians to understand that with the Church he could not acknowledge them as believers, if they were lacking the full consistency of Christian deeds.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Both according to James and Paul (Rom_1:16-17) the doctrine of the sinner’s justification before God is one of the principal doctrines of the Gospel. The question of the true Israelite “What shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Mat_19:16; Mar_10:17; Luk_10:25), rightly considered, is the most vital question for every sinner desirous of salvation. It is so much the more melancholy that the dispute concerning the doctrine of justification by faith (out of faith), or of justification by (out of) works has in every century of the Christian era given rise to so much misunderstanding and called forth so many attempts to show that James and Paul are irreconcilably contradicting one another. How little the doctrine of the one differs from that of the other, if we understand the meaning which each attaches to the terms faith, works and justify, has been sufficiently illustrated in the exegesis of this passage. See “Exegetical and Critical.”—Considering this, we cannot but regard the well-known opinion of Luther on the epistola straminea, which is partly based on James’ doctrine of justification, as the fruit of an unfortunate misunderstanding. Nor do we find in these propositions of James any positive opposition to the doctrine of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. But we hold it to be very conceivable that Paul’s doctrine of justification was either involuntarily misunderstood or designedly perverted into an excuse for the flesh by the readers of the Epistle of James and that he was on that account constrained powerfully to oppose those who degraded the doctrine of grace into a cloak of sin. He therefore contends not against Paul but against a one-sided Paulinism, which in some hands might easily turn into unchristian Antinomianism and an unholy spirit of emancipation. Both James and Paul are well entitled to a hearing and every view or consideration of the way of salvation, which silences the one at the expense of the other, is decidedly unfair. Paul’s preaching is glad tidings to all who are conscious of the absolute impossibility of being saved by their own virtue and strength, and the exhortation of James is a wholesome corrective for all who are apt to forget what Paul himself did teach that true faith must work by love (Gal_5:6). Paul sets into prominent relief the great antithesis of grace and sin, James (as well as our Lord, Joh_13:17) that of knowing and doing.

2. It is of the utmost importance that while, on the one hand, justification and sanctification must be distinguished the one from the other, on the other hand the one must never be separated from the other. The true preaching of the Gospel involves the necessity of Christ in all His fulness being set forth both in us and for us. If justification and sanctification are confounded, or if the latter is made the foundation of the former we open the door to self-righteousness; if justification and sanctification are separated, we deliver an open passport to injustice. The true union of the “for us” and the “in us” requires that justification be put first, but that sanctification be neither put in the background nor in the foreground.

3. What James says concerning the faith of the devils (Jam_2:19) is important on several considerations 1. As affording proof of the existence of personal, self-conscious evil spirits. 2. As affording proof of their original goodness and communion with God, which consequently shuts out indirectly all reference to dualism in the question of the origin of moral evil. 3. As affording proof of the infinite misery of the fallen angels; to have a faith which yields no consolation but only excites terror and shuddering, must probably be the highest degree of misery. 4. As indicating the low and sad standpoint occupied by one who confesses the Gospel without the exhibition of love-working Christianity; his standpoint is not Christian but devilish.

The way of acquiring the favour and friendship of God in all great essential features was virtually the same under the Old Covenant as under the New. The example of Abraham, in particular (Gen_15:1-6), which is also used by Paul (Romans 4.) exhibits this unity of the way of salvation under both Testaments in the clearest manner.

5. The case of Rahab, the harlot, who is introduced as a pattern to the believers in Christ Jesus (cf. also Heb_11:31), affords a striking proof that God exalts the mean and regards the miserable and exhibits a lofty memorial of the spiritual emancipation and exaltation of woman by Christianity. It is wonderful that just the most fallen and disgraced women of the Old Testament are preferred to honour in the New. Do not even Thamar and Bathsheba shine in the genealogy of our Lord? Matthew 1.

6. “Whatever is transitory is only a similitude.” Nature the symbol of grace, the body permeated by the spirit the figure of living and active faith, but the cold corpse also is the representative of a merely outward form of spiritual life, from which life itself has vanished.

7. “If James calls faith without works a dead faith, he surely cannot mean that the works, the outward and the visible render faith living and that they constitute the life of faith but he had to presume that true faith includes [carries within itself] life, the animating principle, from which the works must emanate, and that this must make itself known in the works. He considers the want of works as proof of the want of vital faith and therefore he calls such faith a dead faith.” Neander.

8. Luther (in his Exposition of 2 Pet. Ed. Irmischer, Vol. LXX., p. 223 sq.) excellently says concerning the fruits of faith: “although they belong to our neighbour, in order that they may redound to his benefit, yet does that fruit not fail because it makes faith stronger.—It is therefore altogether a very different strength than bodily strength for it decreases and is consumed; but this spiritual strength, the more we exercise and practise it, the stronger it grows, and it decreases if it is not practised.”

[Jam_2:14. On the error which James combats, compare the following passage from Tertullian (‘de Poenit’ 100:5): “Some persons imagine that they have God if they receive Him in their heart and mind and do little for Him in act; and that therefore they may commit sin, without doing violence to faith and fear; or in other words that they may commit adulteries, and yet be chaste, and may poison their parents, and yet be pious! At the the same rate they who commit sin and yet are godly, may also be cast into hell and yet be pardoned! But such minds as these are offshoots from the root of hypocrisy and sworn friends of the evil one.”

Jam_2:16. There is opus fidei, the work of faith; fides quæ operatur, faith that worketh; that is St. Paul’s faith (1Th_1:3; Gal_5:6), and faith that can show itself by working, that is St. James’s faith (Jam_2:18). And without works it is but a dead faith, the carcase of faith; there is no spirit in it. No spirit, if no work; spectrum est, non spiritus: a flying shadow it is, a spirit it is not, if work it do not. Having wherewith to do good, if you do it not, talk not of faith, for you have not faith in you, if you have wherewith to show it and show it not. Andrewes.

Jam_2:20. Beveridge (on Art. 12 “of good works”): “Though it be for our faith only, and not for our works that God accepts us, yet our works as well as faith are acceptable unto God, yea, and they necessarily spring out from a true and lively faith, so that it is as impossible there should be true faith without good works, as that there should be good works without true faith; for as without faith our works are bad, so without works our faith is dead. And therefore a true faith may be as evidently known by its works, as a tree is clearly discerned by its fruit [Article 12 of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and Prot. Episc. Church in the United States reads as follows: “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment: yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.”—M.]. If I see fruit growing upon a tree, I know what tree it is, upon which such fruit grows. And so if I see how a man lives, I know how he believes. If his faith be good, his works cannot but be good too; and if his works be bad, his faith cannot but be bad too; for wheresoever there is a justifying faith there are also good works, and wheresoever there are no good works there is no justifying faith.” To this last statement Wordsworth adds the following judicious modification. “Suppose the case of a person who has been baptized, and has a lively faith and earnest resolve to serve God, and that he is suddenly taken away from this life, without having time to show his faith by his works. Or suppose the case of an infant dying after baptism. Then Faith saves. No man can do good works without Faith; but faith without works saves a man, if God thinks it fit to remove him out of this life, without giving him time for working, and if God knows that he would have worked, if he had had time for working. Indeed in such a case Faith itself is work; according to our Lord’s saying, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him, whom He sent” (Joh_6:28-29).

Jam_2:25. Wordsworth. “Rahab received the spies, who were sent before Joshua, the type of Jesus, and who were types of the Apostles of Christ, and hearkened to their message and sent them forth in speed (ἐκβαλοῦσα) by a cord, by another way (other than that by which they had come), viz. by the window, from which she tied the scarlet cord by which they were let down (Jos_2:15-18), and thus obtained deliverance for herself and family by her faith, when her city was destroyed. Thus she was an example very applicable to those whom St. James addressed, who, by receiving the Gospel preached by the Apostles, might escape the woes impending on Jerusalem, as she escaped those which fell upon Jericho (cf. Heb_11:31), and who would be overwhelmed in that destruction, if they neglected so great salvation.”—M.].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The Christian utility-principle.—Faith without works.—A faith that cannot save us, cannot possibly be the true faith.—Love the touchstone of faith.—Pious works behind which lurks not Seldom hardness of heart.—Those who unwittingly communicate to other their temporal goods prove thereby that they received of their God only little or nothing of spiritual goods.—The contention of dead and living faith.—Unfruitful monotheism.—The faith of devils in its infinite diversity 1, from the faith of good angels and 2, from the faith of believing Christians.—Abraham the true friend of God: 1. God calls and Abraham obeys, 2. God promises and Abraham confides, 3. God tries and Abraham stands fast.—The friendship of God compared with the friendship of the world. What the friend of God shuns, enjoys and expects. Why is it just faith, provided it be living and active, which makes the sinner so well-pleasing to God? Answer: 1. Because of the honour it gives to God, 2. because of the struggle it costs us, 3. because of the fruit it bears for the benefit of others.—Rahab, the harlot of Jericho a guide to the heavenly Jerusalem.—What the sight of a corpse suggests to a believer of the Gospel.—According to James also the sinner is justified not propter, sed per fidem.

On the Pericope. Commendation of a living faith; 1. The sense in which James exhorts us thereto, 2. The connection of his doctrine with the doctrine of the Gospel, and in particular with that of Paul. 3. The importance it will always have and has now. a. There are men who have neither faith nor works; b. others who have works without faith; c. others again who have faith without works; and d. many whose faith and works leave much to be wished for. For each one of these diseases and one-sidednesses the ever-repeated consideration of James’ doctrine is wholesome medicine.

Starke:—To boast of faith without having it, is very common, Tit_1:16.—Neither true faith nor true love consists in bare words, 1Jn_3:17-18.—We usually refer the poor to the Providence of God and it is just this Providence that refers them to us, 1Ti_6:18.—A rich man ought to rejoice in being God’s hand, whereby to do good to the poor;—Pro_3:27-28.—Saving faith is not either dead or living, but it is only and always living and this is properly true faith; whereas dead faith is properly not true but false faith. But apart from the article of justification both agree in this respect, that just as true and living faith consists of three parts, viz. knowledge, assent and trust, so false and dead faith consists of these three parts but its knowledge is only historical, its assent only human and its trust only carnal or a conceit of God’s grace drawn in carnal assurance, Mat_7:21-22; Luk_13:25.—Works are not the life or soul of faith but only an infallible mark of the same, Heb_11:8; Heb_11:17.—The devils believe and know in particular four articles of our faith, Mat_8:2; Mat_8:9. They know 1. that there is a God, 2. that there is a Christ, 3. that there will be a final judgment, 4. that they will then be tortured. But this knowledge does not minister to their peace and salvation, but to their alarm and damnation.

Hedinger:—If true faith consists only in knowledge and outward assent, the devil also is a believer and consequently blessed, 1Jn_2:3-4.

Luther:—Not fear and terror, but joy, peace and consolation in the conscience work true faith, Rom_5:1.

Quesnel:—Even the devil is not an atheist; what then are we to think of those who boast that they believe nothing and are not afraid of anything? Psa_14:1.—Some hope to be saved by a faith which does less to them than the faith of devils, Job_21:12-13.

Langii Op.:—The emptier a vessel, the more does it sound and resound; just so the hypocrite who lacks faith, Psa_94:4.

Quesnel:—Works live by faith as by the spirit which animates them, Rom_14:23.

Luther:—Works do not make us righteous but cause us to be declared righteous, Luk_17:9-10.—All the world has admired the offering of Abraham; what may not come to pass, since God has offered His own Son? Rom_5:8; Rom_8:32.—Faith is the mother who gives birth to the virtues, as her children.

Starke:—All true believers are the friends of God and this is the peculiar prerogative of believers of the New Testament, Joh_15:14-15.—The faith of converted Jews and Gentiles is uniform, Act_15:19.—The grace of God does not charge us with past transgressions, if we are converted, 1Ti_1:13.—The weak faith of a Rahab must be as active as the most perfect faith of Abraham, Rom_4:19-20.

Langii Op.:—This is the only right and safe way to seek righteousness, which enables us to stand before God, solely by faith in Christ out of His merit so that that faith be also actively shown by love, Php_3:9; Gal_5:6.

Heubner:—Unfruitfulness betrays the ungenuineness of faith.—Love never complains of want of ability; the stronger love, the greater the ability.—Dead faith is no faith.

Augustine:—Such faith is a palsied hand.—The faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness, before it had brought forth works, but it was a living faith, in which the works lay as to the germ.—Works per se are not the spirit, but the faith moving in the works, is spirit.

Von Gerlach:—What James calls faith without works is properly speaking no faith at all; not any more than a love which deals only in pleasant words, is love (Jam_2:15).—Paul opposes the antithesis of dead work-holiness, James the antithesis of a pharasaic pride in empty intellectual knowledge.—Paul met the Pharisees with precisely the same argument, cf. Rom_2:6-11; Romans 13:27.—Man is not justified by (out of) faith separable from works, not any more than fire (e. g. painted fire) separable from heat and light is able to warm and light us.

Luther:—O, faith is a lively, busy active thing, so that it is impossible for it not to be ceaselessly working good! It does not ask either if good works are to be done, but before it asks, it has done them and is ever doing. But whoso doeth not such works, is an unbelieving man, gropes and looks out for faith and good works, and neither knows what is faith nor what are good works, but for all chatters and talks much of faith and good works. Faith is a living, well-weighed assurance of the grace of God, so sure, that he would a thousand times die for it, and such assurance and knowledge of Divine grace renders men glad, daring and merry before God and all creatures, which is the work of the Holy Ghost in faith. Hence man becomes without constraint ready and glad to serve everybody, to suffer many things to the praise of God and from love of God who has been so gracious to him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea as impossible as it is to separate burning and shining from fire.

Stier:—James by no means affirms that works give life to, produce or create faith; for faith comes by the power of the word, entering into and received by us and by nothing else. But faith grows complete in works, that is the same as Paul’s saying or rather the Lord’s saying to Paul, that the strength of God may be completed in weakness (2Co_12:9). The strength of faith, indwelling from the beginning and already received along with the first seizing of grace, becomes fully proved, verified and its operation completed. Thus our calling and election are made sure in the diligence of living and doing (2Pe_1:10). Thus Abraham’s first call was made sure in his last works and the word concerning justification by (out of) faith already before accorded to him, was lawfully and actually confirmed as a truth.

Viedebandt:—A faith which helps not our neighbour, neither helps ourselves, for it has not helped us to love.—Before faith are the tears of Peter and after faith the following after of Paul.

Jakobi:—A sacred author tells us of true faith that it is the firm confidence of things hoped for. But the faith of the devils is an assurance not of what they hope for, but of what they fear.

Porubszky:—Dead faith cannot save. This is evident 1. from the being of blessedness, 2. from the nature of dead, 3. from the experience of daily life.—Living faith justifies and saves (Reformation-Sermon). Cf. art. 20 of the Augsburg Confession.

Lisco:—Faith and works.—Operative faith justifies us before God.—True Christian faith a sanctifying power of life.

[Jam_2:17. Hall:—As that is a vain and idle charity, which bids a man be warm and filled, yet gives him nothing to feed or warm him with, so is that a vain and dead faith, which, professing an adherence to God, yet is severed from all good works and is void of charity.—M.].

[Jam_2:21. Hammond:—Abraham was the father of the faithful, the great example of faith and justification; but it was not upon his bare belief of God’s promise that he was justified, but upon that high act of obedience to God, in being ready to offer up his only son, in whom the promises were made to him.—M.].

[Jam_2:23. Adam Clarke:—As among friends everything is common, so God took Abraham into intimate communion with Himself, and poured out upon Him the choicest of His blessings; for as God can never be in want, because He possesses all things, so Abraham, His friend, could never be destitute, because God was his friend.—M.].

[Jam_2:24. Horne:—In this instance of the father of the faithful, as in a common centre, are the doctrines of both Apostles met: one says a man is justified by faith working; the other by working faith; and this is really and truly all the difference between them.—M.].

[Jam_2:26. Bright:—Justification then by faith, or according to the Christian doctrine as opposed to the law, must be that all men being sinners are justified, and particularly receive remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and everlasting salvation, from the free and undeserved goodness of God; upon the consideration of the perfect righteousness and the meritorious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and upon the condition or qualification of a pious temper of heart for the future, to obey the will of God, and consequently to do what is right and just in whatsoever way He is pleased to declare it, but particularly as it is declared by the Lord Jesus Christ; which same condition too we had never been able to perform without the assistance of the grace of God.—M.].

[Taylor:—Let a man believe all the revelations of God; if that belief ends in itself and goes no further, it is like physic taken to purge the stomach; if it do not work, it is so far from bringing health, that itself is a new sickness.—M.].

[Epiphanius:—Faith hath in it the image of godliness engraven and infidelity hath the character of wickedness and prevarication.—M.].

[Salvianus:—Hominem fideliter Christo credere est fidelem Deo esse, h. e. fideliter in Dei mandata servare.”—M.].

[Lactantius:—“Christianorum omnis religio sine scelere et macula vivere.”—M.].

[Taylor:—There are but three things that make the integrity of Christian faith; believing the words of God, confidence in His goodness, and keeping His commandments.—Believing is the least thing in a justifying faith; for faith is a conjugation of many ingredients, and faith is a covenant, and faith is a law, and faith is obedience, and faith is a work, and indeed it is a sincere cleaving to and closing with the terms of the Gospel in every instance, in every particular.—M.].

[Compare also on Jam_2:23. John Howe, Friendship with God, 10 Sermons. Works, 8, 376.—Jam_2:24. Taylor, Faith working by love. Sermons.—Bull, Doctrina D. Jacobi de justification ex operibus explanatur et defenditur, Works, 3, 1.—M.].

Footnotes:

[28]If Lange alludes to the filioque in the Nicene Creed it is only proper to remark that the position of the Greek Church is sustained by Oecumenical consent, while the insertion of the filioque in the Nicene Creed has never received the sanction of an Oecumenical Council.—M.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

James

FAITH IN HIS NAME

Jas 2:1.

THE rarity of the mention of Jesus in this Epistle must strike every attentive reader; but the character of the references that are made is equally noticeable, and puts beyond doubt that, whatever is the explanation of their fewness, lower thoughts of Jesus, or less devotion to Him than belonged to the other New Testament writers, are not the explanation. James mentions Christ unmistakably only three times The first occasion is in his introductory salutation, where, like the other New Testament writers, he describes himself as the slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ’; thus linking the two names in closest union, and proffering unlimited obedience to his Master. The second ease is that of my text, in which our Lord is set forth by this solemn designation, and is declared to be the object of faith. The last is in an exhortation to patience in view of the coming of the Lord, to be our Judge.

So James, like Peter and Paul and John, looked to Jesus, who was probably the brother of James by birth, as being the Lord, whom it was no blasphemy nor idolatry to name in the same breath as God, and to whom the same absolute obedience was to be rendered; who was to be the object of men’s unlimited trust, and who was to come again to be our Judge.

Here we have, in this remarkable utterance, four distinct designations of that Saviour, a constellation of glories gathered together; and I wish now, in a few remarks, to isolate, and gaze at the several stars - ‘the faith of our Lord - Jesus - Christ - the Lord of glory.’

I. Christian faith is faith in Jesus.

We often forget that that name was common, wholly undistinguished, and borne by very many of our Lord’s contemporaries. It had been borne by the great soldier whom we know as Joshua; and we know that it was the name of one at least of the disciples of our Master. Its disuse after Him, both by Jew and Christian, is easily intelligible. But though He bore it with special reference to His work of saving His people from their sins, He shared it, as He shared manhood, with many another of the sons of Abraham. Of course, Jesus is the name that is usually employed in the Gospels. But when we turn to the Epistles, we find that it is Comparatively rare for it to stand alone, and that in almost all the instances of its employment by itself, it brings with it the special note of pointing attention to the manhood of our Lord Jesus. Let me just gather together one or two instances which may help to elucidate this matter.

Who does not feel, for example, that when we read ‘let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith,’ the fact of our brother Man having trodden the same path, and being the pattern for our patience and perseverance, is tenderly laid upon our hearts? Again, when we read of sympathy as being felt to us by the great High Priest who can be ‘touched with a feeling of our infirmities, even Jesus,’ I think we cannot but recognise that His humanity is pressed upon our thoughts, as securing to us that we have not only the pity of a God, but the compassion of a Man, who knows by experience the bitterness of our sorrows.

In like manner we read sometimes that ‘Jesus died for us,’ sometimes that ‘Christ died for us’; and, though the two forms of the statement present the same fact, they present it, so to speak, from a different angle of vision, and suggest to us different thoughts. When Paul, for example, says to us, ‘If we believe that Jesus died and rose again,’ we cannot but feel that he is pressing on us the thought of the true manhood of that Saviour who, in His death, as in His resurrection, is the Forerunner of them that believe upon Him, and whose death will be the more peaceful, and their rising .the more certain, because He, who, ‘forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood likewise took part of the same,’ has thereby destroyed death, and delivered them from its bondage. Nor, with loss emphasis, and strengthening triumphant force, do we read that this same Jesus, the Man who bore our nature in its fulness and is kindred to us in flesh and spirit, has risen from the dead, hath ascended up on high, and is the Forerunner, who for us, by virtue of His humanity, hem entered in thither. Surely the most insensitive ear must catch the music, and the deep significance of the word which says, ‘We see not yet all things put under him {i.e., man}, but we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour.’

So, then, Christian faith first lays hold of that manhood, realises the suffering and death as those of a true humanity, recognises that He bore in His nature ‘all the ills that flesh is heir to,’ and that His human life is a brother’s pattern for ours; that, He having died, death hath no more terrors for, or dominion over, us, and that whither the Man Jesus has gone, we sinful men need never fear to enter, nor doubt that we shall enter, too.

If our faith lays hold on Jesus the Man, we shall be delivered from the misery of wasting our earthly affections on creatures that may be false, that may change, that must be feeble, and will surely die. If our faith lays hold on the Man Jesus, all the treasures of the human love, trust, and obedience, that are so often squandered, and return as pain on our deceived and wounded hearts, will find their sure, sweet, stable object in Him. Human love is sometimes false and fickle, always feeble and frail; human wisdom has its limits, and human perfection its flaws; but the Man Jesus is the perfect, the all-sufficient and unchangeable object for all the love, the trust, and the obedience that the human heart can pour out before Him.

II. Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ.

The earliest Christian confession, the simplest and, sufficient creed, was, Jesus is the Christ. What do we mean by that? We mean, first and plainly, that He is the realisation of the dim figure which arose, majestic and enigmatical, through the mists of a partial revelation. We mean that He is, as the word signifies etymologically, ‘anointed’ with the Divine Spirit, for the discharge of all the offices which, in old days, were filled by men who were fitted and designated for them by outward unction - prophet, priest, and king. We mean that He is the substance of which ancient ritual was the shadow. We mean that He is the goal to which all that former partial unveiling of the mind and will of God steadfastly pointed. This, and nothing less, is the meaning of the declaration that Jesus is the Christ; and that belief is the distinguishing mark of the faith which this Hebrew of the Hebrews, writing to Hebrews, declares to be the Christian faith.

Now I know, and ‘I am thankful to know, that there are many men who earnestly and reverently admire and obey Jesus, but think that they have nothing to do with these old Hebrew ideas of a Christ. It is not for me to decide which individual is His follower, and which is not; but this I say, that the primitive Christian confession was precisely that Jesus was the Christ, and that I, for my part, know no reason why the terms of the confession should be altered. Ah, these old Jewish ideas are not, as one great man has called them, ‘Hebrew old clothes’; and I venture to assert that they are not to be discarded without woefully marring the completeness of Christian faith.

The faith in Jesus must pass into faith in Christ; for it is the office described in that name, which gives all its virtue to the manhood. Glance back for a moment to those instances which I have already quoted of the use of the name suggesting simple humanity, and note how all of them require to be associated with this other thought of the function of Christ, and His special designation by the anointing of God, in order that their full value may be made manifest.

For instance, ‘Jesus died.’ Yes, that is a fact of history. The Man was crucified. What is that to me more than any other martyrdom and its story, unless it derives its significance from the clear understanding of who it was that died upon the Cross? So we can understand that significant selection of terms, when the same Apostle, whose utterances I have already Been quoting in the former part of this sermon, varies the name, and says, ‘This is the gospel which I declared unto you, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.’

Again, suppose we think of the example of Jesus as the perfect realised ideal of human life. That may become, and I think often does become, as impotent and as paralysing as any other specimen without flaw, that can be conceived of or presented to man. But if we listen to the teaching that says to us, ‘Christ died for us, leaving us an example that we should follow His steps,’ then the ideal is not like a cold statue that looks down repellent even in its beauty, but is a living person who reaches a hand down to us to lift us to His own level, and will put His spirit within us, that, as the Master is, so may also the servants be.

Again, if we confine ourselves to the belief that the Man named Jesus has risen again, and has been exalted to glory, then, as a matter of fact, the faith in His Resurrection and Ascension will not long co-exist with the rejection of anything beyond simple humanity in His person. If, however, that faith could last, then He might be conceived of as filling a solitary throne, and there might be no victory over death for the rest of us in His triumph. But when we can ring out as the Apostle did, ‘Now is Christ risen from the dead,’ then we can also say, ‘and is become the first-fruits of them that slept.’

So, brethren, lift your faith in Jesus, and let it be sublimed into faith in Christ. ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ The answer is - may we all from our hearts and from our minds make it! - ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God:

III. Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.

Now, I take it that that name is here used neither in its lowest sense as a mere designation of politeness, as we employ ‘sir,’ nor in its highest sense in which, referred to Jesus Christ, it is not unfrequently used in the New Testament as being equivalent to the ‘Jehovah’ of the Old; but that it is employed in a middle sense as expressive of dignity and sovereignty.

Jesus is Lord. Our brother, a Man, is King of the universe. The new thing in Christ’s return to ‘the glory which He had with the Father before the world was’ is that He took the manhood with Him into indissoluble union with the divinity, and that a man is Lord. So you and I can cherish that wonderful hope: ‘I will give to him that overcometh to sit with Me on My throne.’ Nor need we ever fear but that all things concerning ourselves and our dear ones, and the Church and the world, will be ordered aright; for the hand that sways the universe is the hand that was many a time laid in blessing upon the sick and the maimed, and that gathered little children to His bosom.

Christ is Lord. That is to say, supreme dominion is based on suffering. Because the vesture that He wears is dipped in blood, therefore there is written upon it, ‘King of kings, and Lord of lords.’ The Cross has become the throne. There is the basis of all true rule, and there is the assurance that His dominion is an everlasting dominion. So our faith is to rise from earth, and, like the dying martyr, to see the Son of Man at the right hand of the majesty of the heavens.

IV. Lastly, Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ, ‘the Lord of glory.’

Now, the last words of my text have given great trouble to commentators. A great many explanations, with which I need not trouble you, have been suggested with regard to them. One old explanation has been comparatively neglected; and yet it seems to me to be the true one. ‘The Lord’ is a supplement which ekes out a meaning, but, as I think, obscures the meaning. Suppose we strike it out and read straight on. What do we get? ‘The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.’

And is that not intelligible? Remember to whom James was writing - Jews. Did not every Jew know what the Shekinah was, the light that used to shine between the Cherubim, as the manifest symbol of the divine presence, but which had long been absent from, the Temple? And when

James falls back upon that familiar Hebrew expression, and recalls the vanished lustre that lay upon the mercy-seat, surely he would be understood by his Hebrew readers, and should be understood by us, as saying no more and no other than another of the New Testament writers has said with reference to the same symbolical manifestation - namely, ‘The Word became flesh tabernacled among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as the only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ James’s sentence runs On precisely the same lines as other sentences of the New Testament, For instance, the Apostle Paul, in one place, speaks of ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, our hope.’ And this statement is constructed in exactly the same fashion, with the last name put in opposition to the others, ‘The Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.’

Now, what does that mean? This - that the true presence of God, that the true lustrous emanation from, and manifestation of, the abysmal brightness, is in Jesus Christ, ‘the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His person.’ For the central blaze of God’s glory is God’s love, and that rises to its highest degree in the name and mission of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Men conceive of the glory of the divine nature as lying in the attributes which separate it most widely from our impotent, limited, changeable, and fleeting being. God conceives of His highest glory as being in that love, of which the love of earth is kindred spark; and whatever else there may be of majestic and magnificent in Him, the heart of the Divinity is a heart of love.

Brethren, if we would see God, our faith must grasp the Man, the Christ, the Lord, and, as climax of all names - the Incarnate God, the Eternal Word, who has come among us to reveal to us men the glory of the Lord.

So, brethren, let us make sure that the fleshy tables of our hearts are not like the mouldering stones that antiquarians dig up on some historical site, bearing has obliterated inscriptions and ‘fragmentary names of mighty kings of long ago, but bearing the many-syllabled Name written firm, clear, legible, complete upon them, as on some granite block from the stonecutter’s chisel. Let us, whilst we cling with human love to the Man ‘that was born in Bethlehem, discern the Christ that was prophesied from of old, to whom all altars point, of whom all prophets spoke, who was the theme end of all the earlier Revelation. Let us crown Him Lord of All in our own hearts, and let us, beholding in Him the glory of the Father, He in His Light until we are changed into the same image. Be sure that your faith is a fullorbed faith; grasp all the many sides of the Name that is above every name.

And let us, like the apostles of old, rejoice if we are counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name. Let us go forth into life for the sake of the Name, and, whatsoever we do in word or deed, let us do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

II. THE ROYAL LAW: FAITH AND WORKS

CHAPTER 2

1. The faith of Christ with respect to persons (Jas 2:1-5)

2. The royal law (Jas 2:6-13)

3. Faith must be manifested by works (Jas 2:14-26)

Jas 2:1-5

Here we have the synagogue mentioned, sufficient evidence that these Jewish believers were still gathering together in the Jewish fashion, and were not an ecclesia, an assembly, gathered out. The Epistle to the Hebrews, written many years after the Epistle of James, exhorted them to leave the camp behind and go outside of it (Heb 13:13). Now in the synagogue among unbelieving Jews the rich man with his gold ring and fine clothing was accorded all honor, received the foremost place, while the poor man was told to stand up. (The same spirit prevails in many “churches” too, with their pew rents, sometimes auctioned off to the highest bidder, while the poor are not welcomed in such aristocratic surroundings.) Such a practice is not according to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, who Him self became poor so that by His poverty we might be rich. Faith, so prominent in the opening chapter of this Epistle, is here again insisted upon. Their action, even, in so small a matter as preference of the rich and influential, was not according to that faith, which worketh by love. “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?”

Jas 2:6-13

They had despised the poor, who were believers and walked in faith, while the rich oppressed them and dragged them before the judgment-seats. These of course were not believers, but mere professors, which again shows the mixed conditions of their gatherings. Furthermore, these rich people with their shameful behavior had blasphemed “that worthy Name” by which they were called, the name of the Lord of glory. This respect of persons was a sin against the royal law: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” “If ye have respect to persons ye commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” If it is the matter of keeping the law, it must be kept in every detail and the entire law “for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” They were in their consciences still under the law, not having fully seen “the law of liberty” which is the perfect law, flowing as we have learned from the first chapter, from the new nature guided by the Holy Spirit, producing the walk in the Spirit, thus fulfilling the righteousness of the law. James, therefore, appeals to the Ten Commandments as a witness to arouse their consciences. Then he mentions once more the law of liberty. “So speak ye, and so do, as they that be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment shall be without mercy to him that hath shown no mercy. Mercy rejoiceth over judgment.” The perfect law of liberty produces mercy in the believer, but where no mercy is shown, no mercy can be expected, but judgment. “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Mat 7:2).

Jas 2:14-26

This section of the Epistle has produced much perplexity in the minds of some and led to a great deal of controversy. As it is well known, Dr. Martin Luther, thinking that James tried to answer and contradict Paul’s statement in Romans, called James “an Epistle of straw.” Others also hold that James corrects the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, the one being the inspired statement unfolding the gospel of grace, the other the defense of that gospel. But how could James answer either Epistle when they were not at all in existence, but written years later? When Paul wrote Romans and Galatians he knew James’ Epistle. But did Paul try to correct James’ argument? Not by any means. Both James and Paul wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any thought of correcting a mistake impeaches the inerrancy of the Word of God.

There is no difficulty at all connected with this passage. The Holy Spirit through James shows that true faith which justifies before God must be evidenced by works. “What should it Profit, my brethren, though a man say that he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save?” What kind of faith does he mean? It is a faith which assents to certain dogmas, consisting in a mental, intellectual assent, but it is not the living faith. A living faith manifests itself in works. That is what James insists upon. In their synagogue were those who professed to believe, but they did not show by their actions that they had the faith given by God; they only said that they had faith; works, as the proof of true faith were absent. “If a brother or a sister be naked (the fatherless and widows of the closing verse of the previous chapter), and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” The answer to this question is, it certainly profits nothing. Such a behavior shows that the professed faith is dead. “So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself” The quality of faith is defined in the nineteenth verse. “Thou believest there is one God”--that which the Jew boasts Of, that he believes in one God, and not like the heathen in many gods--”thou doest well; the demons also believe and tremble.” Demons who also believe are still demons; so a man may believe and still be the natural man, live and act as such. The seal of true faith is works.

This the Holy Spirit now illustrates through the case of Abraham and Rahab, so different from each other, the one the Father of the faithful, the other the harlot of Jericho. The works of both bear witness to the character of true faith which produced them. In the case of Abraham he offered up his only son. Of Abraham it was said “he believed God.” That he acted as he did, in unquestioning and unhesitating obedience, was the proof that he believed God. What he did was the seal put on his faith, by which he was justified before God. Rahab also believed, and her faith was demonstrated when she received the spies, hid them and associated herself with the people of God, while she separated herself from her own people. Thus faith was seen as a perfect faith, as the true faith, by works. This is what the Holy Spirit teaches through James. In Romans justification before God is taught, which is by faith only. James does not say that our works justify us before God; such are not needed before an omniscient God, for He sees the faith of the heart, which man does not see. It is in exercise with regard to Him, by trust in His Word, in Himself, by receiving His testimony in spite of everything within and without--this true faith God sees and knows. But when our fellow-men ask, show me, then that faith shows itself by works. It is our justification before man. The argument is concluded by the terse comparison: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Division 2. (Jas 2:1-13.)

"Against such there is no law."

We have now what is very characteristic of the epistle, according to what we have seen as to it. It is addressed to those still under the law -not assuredly as seeking by it life or righteousness, (for they would be no Christians who did that,) but still bound by it, as people say still, as a rule of life; only carrying this further as Jews, than men would now carry it, -although there is a teaching, reviving even in the present day, in which it is contended that, after all, the Christian Jew is still a Jew, and that he is right to cleave, as such, to the ordinances given to his fathers. This is the state of things which we find amongst those addressed in the epistle, to whom as yet the word to go outside the camp had not come. Thus, as we said in Acts, they would persuade the apostle of the Gentiles himself to go with those among them who were under a vow in such a way as to show that he himself walked orderly and kept the law. At the same time we have to remember, in what is before us here, that the "righteousness of the law," all its moral perfection, "is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;" and that against the fruits of the Spirit there is no law. This is as far as the teachings of the apostle here go. He is kept by the divine wisdom of inspiration from anything that would seem yet to bind the law upon those who were, as we have seen, in conscience under it. He appeals simply to its witness, and condemns even by it such as did not manifest a Christian conduct. It is indeed faith that the apostle is really insisting on all the way through, but faith "worketh by love," and "love is the fulfilling of the law;" so that it is easy to convict by it that in which faith does not work. That is what we shall find is done here.

1. This faith is fixed upon one blessed Person in whom God has revealed a glory so far beyond any other, that, in respect of it, there is no glory at all. James presses how this must of necessity influence one in matters which may be considered of the smallest importance. The poor place given in a synagogue to a poor man (the apostle, as has already been noticed, uses a Jewish term) may exemplify this. One cannot hold the faith with regard to the Lord of glory unobscured where there is respect of persons after this manner. If one finds glory in the gold ring and the fine clothing of one, and promoting him to a good place while banishing to another the poor man with his vile raiment, is not this, asks the apostle, to make a difference among themselves and to become judges with evil thoughts? Alas, how many Christians today may fail to see the point of the apostle. Are there not, then, these differences, and is there not such a thing as place amongst men, which is in the meantime to be respected, even though we know it is not going to last eternally? Nevertheless, it is plain what is said here, and the apostle emphasizes it. Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor as to this world?" Are they not the very people amongst whom Christians are, for the most part, found? Are they not those most ready to lay hold of the true riches, as "heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him"? We see in how practical a way Christianity would manifest itself in those times of its first freshness, and yet even already was not that first freshness tending somewhat to fade?

2. But, as a matter of fact, the case that the apostle is putting is not hypothetical. He has to urge upon those he is addressing that they have "despised" the poor. One would judge that this state of things must already have been becoming common, or he would hardly speak of it in this way to the many whom he was addressing: "But ye have despised the poor," he says. And this was all the worse in view of the notorious oppression on the part of the rich, for whom that which was the blessed grace of Christianity was but a mere "strait gate." "How hardly," asks the Lord Himself, "shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"* But thus the edge that it had for their consciences only roused them to violence. "Do not the rich oppress you and drag you before the judgment-seats? Do they not blaspheme that excellent name by which ye are called?" "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" was the royal law according to Scripture. In the second table it is plain that it was, in fact, supreme, that which gave the spirit of all the rest. This respect of persons, therefore, was a sin against the law also, for it was the neighbor as the neighbor that it required one to love; and here, it is plain, no earthly distinctions could be of force. If, then, they had respect of persons, they committed sin, and were convicted by the law itself as transgressors. And it was in vain to plead the keeping of other points; they were but questions of detail. If a man were to yield true obedience, it would have to be entire obedience, and a man was a transgressor, therefore, if he violated any one point. It would not do to say, "I am no adulterer," if a man killed his neighbor; and the law was, in fact, now, according to the new covenant which had come in for Christians, if not for the nation, a law of liberty. "I will write my laws," says the Lord, "upon their hearts." A law written upon the heart becomes the nature of the man in whom this takes place, so that there is no slavery in obedience, but delight. And by this law of liberty, plainly, Christians then were to be judged; that is to say, it was to be expected from them that they would answer to the character implied in it; and the lack of mercy shown would necessarily bring down judgment upon the one who showed no mercy; but "mercy glorieth over judgment;" yet they were, in fact, judging the poor man for his poverty.

{*In an apostate world the child of God will find himself identified more with its sorrows than its joys, with adversity rather than prosperity. This has been seen just previously in the "pure religion." Here we are reminded that God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith, while the rich have "received" their "consolation." Our blessed Lord was Himself poor, and His associations were largely with the lowly. In the Gospel of Luke we have frequent words as to the dangers of wealth -the rich fool in Luk 12:1-59, the rich man and Lazarus in Luk 16:1-31, and the young ruler in Luk 18:1-43. All this refers, of course, to

mere possession of riches. We can thank God for all exceptions where wealth did not blind the eyes. But the general principle remains -one to be heeded especially in these days of money-getting and money-worship. -S.R.}

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 10

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES-THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP.

Jam_2:1-4

As has been stated already, in a previous chapter, one of Luthers main objections to this Epistle is that it does not "preach and urge Christ." "It teaches Christian people, and yet does not once notice the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ. The writer names Christ a few times; but he teaches nothing of Him, but speaks of general faith in God."

This indictment has been more fully drawn out by a modern writer. "The authors standpoint is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas are cast in a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but twice, {Jam_1:1; Jam_2:1} and His atonement is scarcely touched. We see little more than the threshold of the new system. It is the teaching of a Christian Jew, rather than of one who had reached a true apprehension of the essence of Christs religion. The doctrinal development is imperfect. It is only necessary to read the entire Epistle to perceive the truth of these remarks. In warning his readers against transgression of the law by partiality to individuals, the author adduces Jewish rather than Christian motives. {Jam_2:8-13} The greater part of the third chapter, respecting the government of the tongue, is of the same character, in which Christs example is not once alluded to, the illustrations being taken from objects in nature. The warning against uncharitable judgment does not refer to Christ, or to God, who puts His Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law. {Jam_4:10-12} He who judges his neighbor judges the law. The exhortation to feel and act under constant remembrance of the dependence of our life on God belongs to the same category. {Jam_4:13-17} He that knows good without doing it is earnestly admonished to practice virtue and to avoid self-sufficiency, without reference to motives connected with redemption. Job and the Prophets are quoted as examples of patience, not Christ; and the efficacy of prayer is proved by the instance of Elias, without allusion to the Redeemers promise. {Jam_5:17} The Epistle is wound up after the same Jewish fashion, though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, who gave Himself a Sacrifice for sin, presented itself naturally."

All this may be admitted, without at all consenting to the conclusion which is drawn from it. Several other considerations must be taken into account before we can form a satisfactory opinion respecting the whole case. Few things are more misleading, in the interpretation of Scripture, than the insisting upon one set of facts and texts, and passing over all that is to be found on the other side. In this manner the most opposite views may be equally proved from Scripture: Universalism and the eschatology of Calvin. Pelagianism and Fatalism, Papalism and Presbyterianism.

First, both logically and chronologically the teaching of St. James precedes that of St. Paul and of St. John. To call it "retrograde" when compared with either of them is to call a child retrograde when compared with a man. St. Paul had to feed his converts with milk before he fed them with meat, and the whole of the congregations addressed by St. James in this letter must have been at a comparatively early stage of development. In some respects even the Mother Church of Jerusalem, from which his letter was written, did not get beyond these early stages. Before it had done so the center of Christendom had moved from Jerusalem to Antioch; and to Jerusalem it never returned. It was useless to build a structure of doctrine before a foundation of morality had been laid. Advent must come before Christmas, and Lent before Easter. The manifold significance of the great truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection would not be well appreciated by those who were neglecting some of the plainest principles of the moral law; and to appeal to the sanctions which every Jew from his childhood had been accustomed to regard as final was probably in the long-run more convincing than to remind these converts of the additional sanctions which they had admitted when they entered the Christian Church. Moreover, there are passages in the Epistle which seem to show that St. James at times looks aside to address Jews who are not Christians at all, and it may be that even when He addresses Christian converts he deliberately prefers arguments which would weigh with Jew and Christian alike to those which would appeal to the latter only. Like St. Paul himself, he was willing to become to the Jews a Jew, that he might win the Jews. Besides which, we must allow something for the bias of his own mind. To his death he remained in many respects, not only a saintly shepherd of the Christian Church, but also a Hebrew of Hebrews. He is the last Jewish prophet as well as the first Christian bishop, a Hebrew Rabbi inside the Church; and even if the condition of his readers had not made it desirable to lay much stress upon the Law and the Old Testament, the associations of a lifetime would have led him frequently to those old sources of truth and morality, all the more so as no authoritative Christian literature was as yet in existence. It was part of his mission to help in creating such a literature. He sets one of the first, it may be the very first, of the mystic stones, which, although apparently thrown together without order or connection, form so harmonious and so complete a whole; and alike in the solidity of its material and in the simplicity of its form this Epistle is well fitted to be one of the first stones in such a building.

But it is easy to go away with an exaggerated view of the so-called deficiencies of this letter as regards distinctly Christian teaching. The passage before us is a strong piece of evidence, and even if it stood alone it would carry us a long way. Moreover, the strength of it is not much affected by the ambiguity of construction which confronts us in the original. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty how the genitive "of glory" (της δοξης) ought to be taken; but the Revisers are possibly right: "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons." Nor does it much matter whether we take the Greek negative (μη εχετε) as an imperative, "Do not go on holding"; or as an interrogative which expects a negative reply, "Do ye hold?" In any case we have the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the fact of His being an object of faith to Christians, placed before us in clear language. No mere Jew, and no Ebionite who believed that Jesus was a mere man, could have written thus. And the words with which the Epistle opens are scarcely less marked: "James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a bond-servant." In both passages the title "Lord," which in the Old Testament means Jehovah, is given to Jesus Christ, and in the opening words God and the Lord Jesus are placed side by side as equal. Moreover, St. James, who might have claimed honor as the brother of the Lord, prefers to style himself His bond-servant. He has "known Christ after the flesh," few more closely and intimately, and he knows from experience how little such knowledge avails: "henceforth knows he Him so no more." He who does the will of God is the true brother of the Lord, and it is this kind of relationship to Christ that he wishes to secure for his readers.

Nor do these two passages, in which Jesus Christ is mentioned by name, stand alone. There is the question, "Do not they blaspheme the honorable Name by which ye were called?" The honorable Name, which had been "called upon" them, is that of Christ, and if it can be blasphemed it is a Divine Name. {Jam_2:7} The Second Advent of Christ, "the coming of the Lord," is a thing for which Christians are to wait patiently and longingly, {Jam_5:7-9} and the office which He will then discharge is that of the Divine Judge of all mankind. "The coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth before the doors". {Jam_5:8-9}

Nor have we yet exhausted the passages which in this singularly practical and undoctrinal Epistle point clearly to the central doctrine of the Divinity of Christ and His eternal relation to His Church. "Is any among you sick? Let film call for the elders of the Church: and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up". {Jam_5:14-15} As in the case of the man healed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple {Act_3:6; Act_3:16} it is "in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom God raised from the dead, even in this Name," that the sick man is to be restored. And some interpreters (Dorner and Von Soden) think that Christ is included, or even exclusively intended, in "One is the Lawgiver and the Judge." {Jam_4:12. Comp. Jam_5:9} Thus Liddon: "Especially noteworthy is his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of men, is not the delegated representative of an absent Majesty, but is Himself the Legislator enforcing His own laws. The Lawgiver, he says, is One Being with the Judge who can save and can destroy; the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven, has enacted the law which He thus administers." But without taking into account expressions of which the interpretation is open to doubt, there is quite enough to show us that the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His redeeming death, His abiding power, and His return to judgment are the basis of the moral teaching of St. James, and are never long absent from his thoughts. Expressions, some of which no mere Jew or Ebionite could have used, and others which no such imperfect believer would have been likely to use, abound in this short Epistle, in spite of its simple and practical character. "My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons." These words open a new section of the letter, as the renewed address indicates; and although the Epistle is not a set treatise, capable of analysis, but a letter, in which the subjects to be treated are loosely strung together in the order in which they occur to the writer, yet the connection between the two very different subjects of this section and the preceding one can be traced. The previous section teaches that much hearing is better than much talking, and that much hearing is worthless without corresponding conduct. This section denounces undue respect of persons, and especially of wealthy persons during public worship. The connecting thoughts are religious worship and the treatment of the poor. The conduct which is true devotion is practical benevolence, moral purity, and unworldliness. This conclusion suggests a new subject, worldly respect of persons in public worship. That is the very reverse of pure devotion. To profess ones belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and at the same time show ones belief in the majesty of mere money, is grievously incongruous. St. James is not making any attack on differences of rank, or asserting that no man is to be honored above another. He is pointing out that reverence for the wealthy is no part of Christianity, and that such reverence is peculiarly out of place in the house of God, especially when it brings with it a corresponding disregard of the poor.

"If there come into your synagogue." This is one of several improvements which the Revisers have introduced into this passage. The Authorized Version has "assembly," which obscures the fact that the letter is written in those very early days of the Church in which the Jewish Christians still attended the worship of the Temple and the synagogue, or if they had a separate place of worship, spoke of it under the old familiar name. The latter is probably what is meant here. St. James, in writing to Christians, would hardly speak of a Jewish place of worship as "your synagogue," nor would he have rebuked Christians for the way in which different persons were treated in a synagogue of the Jews. The supposition that "the article (την συναγωγην υμων) indicates that the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian Dispersion is meant, i.e., their religious community, symbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship," is quite unfounded, and against the whole context. A typical incident-perhaps something which had actually been witnessed by St. James, or bad been reported to him-is made the vehicle of a general principle. {comp. Jam_1:2} That the reference is to judicial courts often held in synagogues is also quite gratuitous, and destroys the contrast between "pure religion" and worldly respect of persons in public worship.

Another improvement introduced by the Revisers is a uniform translation of the word (εσθης) capriciously rendered "apparel," "raiment," and "clothing." Only one word is used in the Greek, and it is misleading to use three different words in English. By a quaint misuse of the very passage before us, the translators of 1611 defend their want of precision in such matters, and avow that in many cases precision was deliberately sacrificed to variety and to wish to honor as many English words as possible by giving them a place in the Bible! In ordinary copies of the Authorized Version the Address to King James is commonly given, the far more instructive Address to the Reader never. Near the close of it the translators say as follows:-

Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word: as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of new fangleness called κραββατον σκιμπους, though the difference be little or none (Niceph. Call. 8:42); and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into Hedera (Jerome, In IV Jonae. See S. Augustine, Epist., 71). Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of a like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, "To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts." In the passage before us the repetition of one and the same word for "clothing" is possibly not accidental. The repetition acculturates the fact that such a thing as clothing is allowed to be the measure of a mans merit.

The rich man is neither the better nor the worse for his fine clothes, the poor man neither the better nor the worse for his shabby clothes. The error lies in supposing that such distinctions have anything to do with religion, or ought to be recognized in public worship; and still more in supposing that any one, whether rich or poor, may at such a time be treated with contumely.

"Are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges with evil thoughts?" Here, as in the first verse, there is a doubt whether the sentence is an interrogation or not. In the former case the meaning is the same, whichever way we take it for a question which implies a negative answer (μη interrogative) is equivalent to a prohibition. In the present case the meaning will be affected if we consider the sentence to be a statement of fact, and the number of translations which have been suggested is very large. In both cases we may safely follow the Vulgate and all English versions in making the first verse a prohibition, and the fourth a question. "Are ye not divided in your own mind?" Or more literally, "Did ye not doubt in yourselves?" i.e., on the typical occasion mentioned. At the outset St. James says, "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons." But the conduct described respecting the treatment of the gold-ringed man and the squalidly clothed man shows that they do have respect of persons in their religion, and that shows that genuine faith in Christ is wanting. Such behavior proves that they doubt in themselves. They are not single-hearted believers in the Lord Jesus, but double-minded doubters, {Jam_1:6-7} trying to make the best of both worlds, and to serve God and Mammon.

The word rendered "doubt" (διακρινεσθαι) may mean "distinguish": "Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?" It is so taken by Renan ("LAntechrist," p. 49) and others. This makes sense, but it is rather obvious sense; for of course to give a rich man a good place, and a poor man a bad one, is making distinctions. It seems better to adhere to the meaning which the word certainly has in the preceding chapter, {Jam_1:6} as well as elsewhere in the New Testament, {Mat_21:21; Mar_11:23; Act_10:20; Rom_4:20; Rom_14:23} and understand it as referring to the want of faith in Christ and in His teaching which was displayed in a worldly preference for the rich over the poor, even in those services in which His words were to be taught and His person adored.

"Judges with evil thoughts" is an improvement on the more literal but misleading "judges of evil thoughts" (κριται διαλογισμων πονηρων).

The meaning of the genitive case is that the evil thoughts characterize the judges, as in such common phrases as "men of evil habits," "judges of remarkable severity" (see above on "hearers of forgetfulness,"). The word for "thoughts" is one which in itself suggests evil, even without any epithet. It is the word used of the reasonings of the Pharisees, when they taxed our Lord with blasphemy for forgiving sins (Luk_5:22. Comp. Luk_24:38). St. Paul uses it of those who are "vain in their reasonings," {Rom_1:21; 1Co_3:20} and couples with it "murmurings" {Php_2:14} as congenial company. Those men who, even while engaged in the public worship of God, set themselves up as judges to honor the rich and contemn the poor, were not holding the faith of Jesus Christ, but were full of evil doubts, questionings, and distrust.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:1-4 James gives a realistic illustration to enforce his prohibition against favoring the wealthy.

2:1 dear brothers and sisters (Greek adelphoi): The Greek word used here means members of the same family—in this case, fellow Christians—of either sex. James frequently begins a new section with this affectionate greeting (1:2, 16; 2:14; 3:1; 5:7, 19), soliciting their loyal response. • James contrasts our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with the glory of a well-dressed man (2:2). Christ’s glory includes his resurrection, exaltation, and second coming.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Jas 2:1. Ἄδελφοί μου, my brethren) The equality of Christians, as indicated by the name of brethren, is the basis of this admonition.—ἐν) The phrases, ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχειν, and ἐν ἐπιγνώσει ἔχειν, Rom 1:28, are similar.—προσωποληψίαις, receivings of persons) The one (manner of receiving) has reference to the rich who are strangers to the faith; the other, which is widely different, has reference to the poor who are Christians.—τὴν πίστιν, faith) in which the poor abound.—τῆς δόξης, of glory) The pronoun our seems to show, that this (of glory) does not depend upon the word Lord. It is therefore put in apposition, so that Christ Himself is called ἡ δόξα, the Glory. Comp. Luk 2:32; Isa 40:5; Eph 1:17; 1Pe 4:14. The Glory is Christ Himself. Thus James both declares Him to be the Son of God, and publishes His resurrection from the dead, as it becomes an apostle. Christ is Glory; and therefore faith in Him is glorious, and the faithful are glorious. This glory of the faithful is far above all worldly honour; no respecter of persons acknowledges it.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jam_2:1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. Jam_1:27, that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love.

After the impressive address ἀδελφοί μου, he first expresses the exhortation with reference to that conduct, that their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger regards the clause as interrogative, remarking: interrogationis formam sensus gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern); incorrectly, for although the interrogation with μή may not always require a negative answer, yet it is only used when the interrogator, with every inclination, to regard something as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case; comp. Winer, p. 453 f. [E. T. 641]; Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the fact mentioned in what follows, the προσωποληψία of the readers, was undoubtedly true. μὴ … ἔχετε is thus imperative, as Jam_1:16, Jam_3:1.

The plural προσωποληψίαις is used because the author thinks on individual concrete instances in which the general fault manifested itself (Hornejus: multiplex illud malum in vita est); comp. Col_3:22; 2Pe_3:12. For the explanation of προσωποληψία (only here and in Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25), foreign to classical Greek, see Mat_22:16; Luk_20:21; Gal_2:6 (see Meyer in loc.); from the O. T. Lev_19:15; Deu_1:17, and other places (the verb προσωποληπτέω, Jam_2:9; the adjective, Act_10:34). The phrase ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχειν τ. πίστιν is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as ἔχειν τινα ἐν ὀργῇ, ἐν αἰτίαις, ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει (Rom_1:28), for James intends not to reproach his readers, that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith free from προσωποληψία. Also ἔχειν does not stand for κατέχειν, whether in the meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius: detinere velut captivam et inefficacem); but ἔχειν ἐν expresses the relation of internal connection thus: Have not your faith, so that it is as it were enclosed in προσωποληψίαις, i.e. combined with it. Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a distinction of persons according to their external relations.

De Wettes opinion is incorrect, that πίστιν ἔχειν here is to be understood of the management of the concerns of faith.

Faith is more exactly described as ἡ πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης]. Most expositors (particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, de Wette, Brückner, Wiesinger) take τοῦ κυρίου as a genitive of object, and make τῆς δόξης, as a second genitive (besides ἡμῶν), dependent on κυρίου; thus: the faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ. Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory (comp. 1Co_2:8; Psa_29:3 : ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης), nor the dependence of two genitives (ἡμῶν and τῆς δόξης) on one substantive (κυρίου), see Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238], has anything against it; yet this construction cannot be held to be correct, because the name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which follows τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend on κυρίου; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written either τὴν πίστιν Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, or τ. π. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δόξης, Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ.[110] It is evidently an entire mistake to construct τῆς δόξης with προσωποληψίαις, whether it be taken as = opinio (Calvin: dum opum vel bonorum opinio nostros oculos perstringit, veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Heisen: quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make τῆς δόξης depend on Χριστοῦ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae = gloriosus; so also Bouman; also Lange: the Messiah exalted in His glory above Judaistic expectations. Decisive against this construction are(1) the close connection of Ἰησοῦ and Χριστοῦ, as when those two names are so directly united as here, Χριστοῦ is purely nomen proprium; (2) the N. T. mode of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Χριστοῦ by a genitive dependent on it; also in this case the article τοῦ before Χριστοῦ would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions) τῆς δόξης was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on τὴν πίστιν, and τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰ. Χρ. as the genitive of the subject, in the sense: faith in the glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christ,founded on Him, namely, τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, Rom_8:18. This construction, although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler, with Bengel, to regard τῆς δόξης as in apposition with Ἰησοῦ Χρ.; still the idea δόξης is too indefinite. The passages cited by Bengel, Luk_2:32, Eph_1:17, 1Pe_4:14, Isa_40:5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justification of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite τῆς δόξης as a genitive of quality, not with Χριστοῦ only, but with the whole expression τοῦ κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰησ. Χρ., by which δόξα is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are ὁ οἰκονόμος (Luk_16:8), ὁ κριτής (Luk_18:6), τῆς ἀδικίας. At all events, τῆς δόξης is added in order to mark the contrast between the προσωποληψία paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ.

[110] The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is separated from the word which governs it; see Php_2:10; Rom_9:21; and Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 238]; but in that case the intervening word is never in apposition with the preceding idea, with which it is completely concluded.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 2:1-13 take up again the subject of the rich and poor which was commenced in Jas 1:9-11 .

Jas 2:1 . μὴ … ἔχετε : the imperative, which is also found in all the versions, seems more natural and more in accordance with the style of the Epistle than the interrogative form adopted by WH. ἐν προσωπολημψίαις : the plural form is due to Semitic usage, like ἐξ αἱμάτων in Joh 1:13 ; cf. Rom 2:11 ; Eph 6:9 ; Col 3:25 . τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Κυρίου …: the mention of the “faith of Christ” is brought in in a way which shows that this was a matter with which the readers were well acquainted. The phrase must evidently mean the new religion which Christ gave to the world, i.e. , the Christian faith. τῆς δόξης : the intensely Jewish character of this Epistle makes it reasonably certain that the familiar Jewish conception of the Shekinah is what the writer is here referring to. The Shekinah (from the root שׁכן “to dwell”) denoted the visible presence of God dwelling among men. There are several references to it in the N.T. other than in this passage, Mat 9:7 ; Luk 2:9 ; Act 7:2 ; Rom 9:4 ; cf. Heb 9:5 ; so, too, in the Targums, e.g. , in Targ. Onkelos to Num 6:25 ff. the “face (in the sense of appearance or presence) of the Lord” is spoken of as the Shekinah . A more materialistic conception is found in the Talmud, where the Shekinah appears in its relationship with men as one person dealing with another; e.g. , in Sola , 3 b , it is said that before Israel sinned the Shekinah dwelt with every man severally, but that after they sinned it was taken away; cf. Sota , 17 a , where it is said: “Man and wife, if they be deserving, have the Shekinah between them”; so, too, Pirqe Aboth. , iii. 3: “Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradyon [he lived in the second century, A.D.] said, Two that sit together and are occupied in words of Torah have the Shekinah among them” ( cf. Mat 18:20 ); see further Oesterley and Box, Op. cit. , pp. 191 194. The Shekinah was thus used by Jews as an indirect expression in place of God, the localised presence of the Deity. “In the identification of the Shekinah and cognate conceptions with the incarnate Christ, ‘a use is made of these ideas,’ as Dalman says, ‘which is at variance with their primary application’. It marks a specifically Christian development, though the way had certainly been prepared by hypostatising tendencies” (Box, in Hastings’ DC [55] ., ii. 622 a ). That Christ was often identified with the Divine Shekinah may be seen from the examples given by Friedländer, Patristische und Talmudische Studien , pp. 62 ff. If our interpretation of δόξα here is correct, it will follow, in the first place, that the meaning of the phrase … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης is free from ambiguity, viz. , “… Have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Shekinah ” (literally “the glory”); this is precisely the same thought that is contained in the words, “… who being the effulgence of his glory … (Heb 1:2-3 ). And, in the second place, this rendering shows that the words are an expression of the Divinity of our Lord; cf. Bengel’s note: “ τῆς δόξης : est appositio, ut ipse Christus dicatur ἡ δόξα ”. [Since writing the above the present writer finds that Mayor, p. 78, refers to Mr. Bassett’s comment on this verse, where the same interpretation is given, together with a number of O.T. quotations; it seems scarcely possible to doubt that this interpretation is the correct one.]

[55]CG Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1907 1908)

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

2:1-13.] The sin of respect of persons: as the first of a series of reproofs for errors in practice which spring out of the mention of the νόμος τέλειος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας: cf. ch. 1:25 and ver. 12. The Apostle begins, as is his wont, with strong blame of the sin: then illustrates it, vv. 2-4: then gives the ground of its sinfulness, vv. 5-11, and concludes, vv. 12, 13, with a reference again to the law of liberty.

1-4.] The warning, and its practical ground.

1.] My brethren, do not (ἔχετε is not, as Schneckenburger, al., interrogative, but imperative, as ch. 1:16; 3:1. The interrogative with μή may not always require a negative answer, but it always implies a doubt as to the fact questioned: ‘Surely.… not …?’ e. g. μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός: “Surely this cannot be the Christ?” Joh 4:29: μὴ πλείονα σημεῖα ποιήσει; “Surely he will not do more signs?” Joh 7:31: &c. See Winer, § 57. 3, b. And this clearly cannot be the case here) in respectings of persons (ἐν, ‘in,’ i. e. in the practice of, in the midst of: see on ἔχετε below. The subst. is plur., to point out the various kinds and occasions of the fault. The fault itself, as here intended, is easily explained by the context, where an example is taken of one kind of it. Theile says well that it is, “iniquitas singulos Christianos non virtute sua christians, sed fortuna qualitatibusque externis metiendi atque secundum hanc normam alios aliis præferendi.” Notice, that ἐν προσωπολ. is put first, as carrying the weight of the dehortation, ἔχειν τὴν πίστιν following, as matter of course and existing fact) hold (ἔχετε has been taken wrongly: e. g. by Grot., “detinere velut captivam et inefficacem,” = κατέχειν in the saying of St. Paul in Rom 1:18, τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων: by Pott, as ἔχειν τινὰ ἐν ὀργῇ, ἐν αἰτίαις, ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, as Rom 1:28, explaining it “religiosis partibus nimium studere,” which however this construction would hardly bear. ἔχειν is simply to have or to hold, as ever in St. James, cf. ch. 1:4; 3:14: and see reff.) the faith (not merely ‘faith in,’ but the faith of, thus setting before them more forcibly the utter inconsistency of such respect of persons with the service of Christ) of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory (such I believe, with most Commentators, to be the construction of τῆς δόξης, though it is somewhat harsh and unusual. Others have been proposed, but all of them are more objectionable still: e. g. by Erasm. (“Nolite facere discrimen personarum juxta rerum mundanarum æstimationem”), and Calvin (“ex opinione”), as if it were ἐν δόξῃ προσωπολημψίας or -ῶν: by Bengel (“Est appositio, ut ipse Christus dicatur ἡ δόξα, gloria, cf. Luk 2:32: Isa 40:5: Eph 1:17: 1Pe 4:14;” none of which places justify the idea, seeing that in the two former a genitive follows δόξα, and the two latter rather support the common view): by Laurentius, who unites τῆς δόξης with χριστοῦ (“Christus gloriæ = Christus gloriosus”): finally by Huther, who would join τῆς δόξης with τὴν πίστιν (differing however from Grot. who doing this had made τοῦ κυρίου dependent on it, τὴν πίστιν τῆς δόξης τοῦ κυρίου, and from Gataker and Hottinger, who also doing it, make it = τὴν πίστιν ἔνδοξον), making it a gen. of the object, and τοῦ κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰ. χρ. a gen. of the subject—the faith, resting on our Lord Jesus Christ, in the (future) glory, i. e. τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, Rom 8:18. And, he adds, this belief in the glory which shall be revealed is the more naturally mentioned here, because of the contrast between it and the passing glory of this world’s pomp. Exactly: but that contrast is just as vivid on the common hypothesis. This last, complicated and harsh as it is, seems to me the only admissible one of all these interpretations. But it is surely far better, either to govern τῆς δόξης by κυρίου, as a second genitive, or to regard it as the epithetal genitive which so constantly follows the mention of the divine Name, as ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης and the like. Both these are abundantly justified: see reff. Huther’s objection to the first, that the full name Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ entirely completes the idea, and forbids another genitive following, is not decisive: just for the same reason that the full Name is given, viz. to make the contrast more solemn and striking, is the additional title τῆς δόξης given, to increase still further that solemnity. It is to be again noticed, how expressly St. James grounds Christian practice on the faith of Christ, in all its fulness. The θρησκεία just spoken of is here taken up and enlarged on; but its root and ground is πίστις, and that, ἡ πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 2

1-7. To court the rich and neglect the poorin the house of worship reverses real values.

In 2:1-7 the thought of the supreme importance of conduct, stated in 1:26-27, is further illustrated by an instance from a situation of common occurrence. With this instance the writer connects his reply to two excuses or pretexts (vv. 8-13, 14-26), which are perversions of true religion, and in so doing he is led to enter upon broader discussions. Ch. 2 is more original and less a repetition of current Jewish ideas than any other part of the epistle.

1. ἀδελφοί μου, marking transition to a new topic, cf. 1:19, 2:14, 3:1, 5:7, and see note on 1:2.

ἐν προσωπολημψίαις “with acts of partiality.” προσωπολημψία (found also Rom 2:11, Eph 6:9, Col 3:25, Polyc. Phil. 6), together with the cognate words προσωπολημπτεῖν (Jas 2:9), προσωπολήμπτης (Act 10:34), ἀπροσωπόλημπτος (ecclesiastical writers), ἀπροσωπολήμπτως (1Pe 1:17, Clem. Rom 1:3, Barn. 4:12), is a compound formed from the LXX translation of the O. T. phrase נָשָׂא פָנִים, λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, Lev 19:15, Psa 82:2, etc. (For an analogous compound, cf. ἐμοσχοποίησαν, Act 7:41). These words were of course used only among persons acquainted with the Greek O. T., that is, Jews and Christians.

This group of expressions has had a history not unlike that of English “favour,” “favouritism,” etc., and, having often had originally an innocent sense, came in the O. T. to mean “respect of persons” in the sense of improper partiality. The early uses related chiefly to partiality on the part of a judge. In later use any kind of improper partiality might be meant, whether judicial favouritism or, as here, selfish truckling to the powerful. For the meaning of the Hebrew expression, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, s. v. נָשָׂא, p. 916; cf. Lightfoot on Gal 2:6, and, for some similar O. T. expressions, Mayor on Jas 2:1.

The plural denotes the several manifestations of favouritism; cf. Winer, § 27, 3; Hadley-Allen, § 636; cf. 2Co 12:20, Gal 5:20, 1Pe 4:3.

ἐν denotes the state, or condition, in which the act is done; here the acts with which the action of the main verb is accompanied. Cf. 2Pe 3:11 ὑπάρχειν ἐν εὐσεβείαις, Col 3:22 ὑπακούετε … μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλίαις, Jas 1:21 ἐν πραΰτητι.

Warnings against contempt of the poor are common in the O. T., cf. Lev 19:15, Pro 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, etc.

μὴ ἔχετε. Not interrogative (R.V. mg., WH.), but imperative (A.V., R.V. text), as is better suited to the gnomic style of the epistle (cf. 1:2, 22, 3:1, 4:11, etc.), and to the following context.

The question “Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord?” would express doubt whether a faith accompanied by this fault is true faith in Jesus Christ at all.

But this makes a weak and unnatural opening to the paragraph, is too subtle and indirect for so straightforward a writer, and does not suit so well the transition to the following sentence with γάρ. This writer (e. g. in vv. 5, 6, 7) uses the question-form rather in argument than in exhortation. Note, too, the directness with which his other paragraphs open, e. g. 1:2, 5, 3:1, 5:7. Moreover, such a surprisingly drastic denial that the readers were Christian believers would require a clearer form of statement.

ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν. Cf. 2:14, 18, 3:14, Mat 17:20, Mat 21:21, Mar 11:22, Luk 17:6, Act 14:9, Rom 14:22, 1Ti 1:19, Phm 1:5. ἔχω is used in its natural sense, with reference to “having” an inner quality. This is a Greek usage, see L. and S. s. v. ἔχω A. I. 8. Cf. τηρεῖν τὴν πίστιν, 2Ti 4:7, Rev 14:12. For the whole phrase, cf. Herm. Mand. v, 2:3 τῶν τὴν πίστιν ἐχόντων ὁλόκληρον.

τὴν πίστιν. The “subjective” faith, not the later idea of a body of doctrine to be believed; so throughout this epistle, 1:3, 6, 2:5, 14-26, 5:15. Faith in Jesus Christ is the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian. See A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament2, 1896.

τοῦ κυρίου. Objective genitive, cf. Mar 11:22, Gal 2:16; Hermas, Sim. vi, 1:2, etc.

The view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube, 1891, and James Drummond, Epistle to the Galatians, 1893, p. 91, that these genitives after πίστις are subjective, not objective, is unnatural, and seems disproved by both Mar 11:22 and Gal 2:16. See Sanday on Rom 3:22. Hort paraphrases: the faith “which comes from Him and depends on Him,” but this is unnecessary.

τῆς δόξης. “Glory” is the majesty and brightness of light in which God dwells, and which belongs also to the Messiah; see Sanday on Rom 3:23, G. B. Gray, art. “Glory,” in HDB; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900.

The interpretation now most commonly given for this difficult expression is probably right. τῆς δόξης is genitive of characteristic (cf. Luk 16:8, Luk 18:6, Heb 9:5 Χερουβεὶν δόξης), limiting the whole preceding phrase τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, i. e. “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” The expression is a not altogether happy expansion of ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης (1Co 2:8), cf. ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης, Psa 29:3, Act 7:2, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, Eph 1:17. By its solemnity the writer may intend to emphasise the inconsistency between the great privilege of Christian faith and this petty discrimination between rich and poor.

No convincing objection can be made to this interpretation, although there is no complete parallel to it. Among the other interpretations the following deserve mention:

(1) ταῖς προσωπολημψίαις τῆς δόξης, “partiality arising from your own opinion,” or “partiality arising from external glory” (admiratio hominum secundum externum splendorem, Michaelis). But the separation of the words is too great, and the meaning “glory” for δόξα in this context too obvious, to permit this interpretation, and it is now held by no one.

(2) τὴν πίστιν τῆς δόξης, “faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Pesh.), or “Christ-given faith in the glory” (i. e. the glory which we are to receive, Rom 8:18), or “the glorious faith in Christ.” But the last two of these are forced, and the first involves too strange an order of words to be acceptable, in spite of such partial analogies as Act 4:33, 1Th 2:13. Cf. Buttmann, § 151, III; Winer, § 61, 4; for many illustrations of hyperbaton from LXX and secular authors, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 768 ff.

(3) Various interpretations separate off some part of the phrase τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is then connected with τῆς δόξης, and the two together taken as in apposition with the rest of the phrase. The least objectionable of these is perhaps that of Ewald, “our Lord, Jesus Christ of glory”; but this division is unnecessary, and it seems impossible that the writer should not have meant to keep together the whole of the familiar designation.

(4) A.V. and R.V. supply τοῦ κυρίου, and translate “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.” There are abundant parallels for this latter phrase, but none for such a singular omission.

(5) Bengel, Mayor, Hort, WH. mg., and others take τῆς δόξης as in apposition to the preceding and as referring to Christ (perhaps as the Shekinah) under the title of “the Glory.” But the evidence that this is a possible use of ἡ δόξα (see the full note of Mayor3, pp. 79 ff., cf. Luk 2:31, Eph 1:17, Tit 2:13, Heb 1:3) is inadequate.

(6) Spitta and Massebieau think the words ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ an interpolation by the Christian editor. This would leave the expression “the Lord of glory,” referring, as in Enoch, to God. Beyschlag’s answer to this, that an interpolator would not have broken the phrase τοῦ κυρίου τῆς δόξης, is not quite satisfactory, since the natural words to follow τοῦ κυρίου are ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But the interpolation is not sufficiently obvious to justify itself apart from the general theory to which it belongs. See the long note in Mayor.

1. Since the objection is quoted by James, σύ is taken as if from James’s point of view and ἐγώ as if referring to James: “But someone will say, ‘Thou (i. e. the representative of the class just censured) hast faith, while I (James) have works.’ ” This is taken either (a) as a defense of the class censured, on the ground that several types of religion are alike admissible, or (b) as an attack upon James, who is declared to have only works (which are inferior to faith), whereas the person attacked has faith, the superior quality (so Weiss). To this, under either form, (a) or (b), James replies that faith cannot exist alone.

Both these explanations are exposed to the fatal difficulty that the objection of the defender is given in direct discourse (as, e. g., in 2:3) so that ἐγώ cannot possibly refer to James; the interpretation of Weiss is exposed to the further, equally fatal, objection that it is impossible to suppose that James could have introduced, in the mouth of a supposititious defender, such an insulting personal attack on himself. The rhetorical device of the objector’s defense is very characteristic of Greek popular moral exhortation of this period, and is always adopted solely in order to state vividly a possible point of view, in itself not wholly unreasonable, but liable to the crushing rejoinder with which the author follows it. It must be assumed as intended to aid, not to hinder, the development of the main contention. To withdraw the reader’s mind from the main subject by raising the question of the author’s own character and principles would be a strangely inept turn. Moreover, for Weiss’s view the precise bearing of the attack (through the supposed inferiority of works to faith) would have to be more clearly expressed. James nowhere lays himself open to the accusation that he thinks works can exist without faith.

1. Under the more common form of this view (De Wette, Beyschlag, Mayor) the interrupting τις is thought of as another Christian; ἀλλά is taken as like immo vero (cf. Joh 16:2, Php 1:18, Luk 12:7, Luk 16:21); σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις is given the meaning “thou pretendest to have faith,” a pretense which is shown to be false in the sentence δεῖξόν μοι κτλ.

But the natural sense of ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις is too clear to permit here this meaning of ἀλλά; and it is not justifiable to make ἔχεις equivalent to λέγεις ἔχειν. Further, the introduction of an ally, representing the same point of view, is wholly uncalled for, and cannot be accounted for on the ground either of “modesty” (Mayor) or of “dramatic vividness” (Beyschlag). It would have to be made more obvious by the context. James cannot thus boast of works, nor has he occasion to defend himself against any charge of lack of faith. This interpretation, although widely held, cannot be accepted.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The fifth: Charity which proceedeth from a true faith, cannot stand with the accepting of persons: which he proveth plainly by setting forth their example, who with the reproach or disdain of the poor, honor the rich.

For if we knew what Christ’s glory is, and esteemed it as we ought to do, there would not be such respect of persons as there is.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER II.

We should not prefer the rich to the poor, nor show any

partiality inconsistent with the Gospel of Christ, 1-4.

God has chosen the poor, rich in faith, to be heirs of his

kingdom, even those whom some among their brethren despised

and oppressed, 5, 6.

They should love their neighbour as themselves, and have no

respect of persons, 7-9.

He who breaks one command of God is guilty of the whole,

10, 11.

They should act as those who shall be judged by the law of

liberty; and he shall have judgment without mercy, who shows

no mercy, 12, 13.

Faith without works of charity and mercy is dead; nor can it

exist where there are no good works, 14-20.

Abraham proved his faith by his works, 21-24.

And so did Rahab, 25.

As the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without good

works, 26.

NOTES ON CHAP. II.

Verse 1. My brethren, have not] This verse should be read interrogatively: My brethren, do ye not make profession of the faith or religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with acceptance of persons? That is, preferring the rich to the poor merely because of their riches, and not on account of any moral excellence, personal piety, or public usefulness. πιστις, faith, is put here for religion; and τηςδοξης, of glory, should, according to some critics, be construed with it as the Syriac and Coptic have done. Some connect it with our Lord Jesus Christ-the religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Others translate thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus. There are many various readings in the MSS. and versions on this verse: the meaning is clear enough, though the connection be rather obscure.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

This reproof seems at first sight to be hard and unreasonable; for it is one of the duties of courtesy, not to be neglected, to honor those who are elevated in the world. Further, if respect of persons be vicious, servants are to be freed from all subjection; for freedom and servitude are deemed by Paul as conditions of life. The same must be thought of magistrates. But the solution of these questions is not difficult, if what James writes is not separated. For he does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love.

Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context and surely ambitions is that honor, and full of vanity, which is shewn to the rich to the contempt of the poor. Nor is there a doubt but that ambition reigns and vanity also, when the masks of this world are alone in high esteem. We must remember this truth, that he is to be counted among the heirs of God’s kingdom, who disregards the reprobate and honors those who fear God. (Psalm 15:4.)

Here then is the contrary vice condemned, that is, when from respect alone to riches, anyone honors the wicked, and as it has been said, dishonors the good. If then thou shouldest read thus, “He sins who respects the rich,” the sentence would be absurd; but if as follows, “He sins who honors the rich alone and despises the poor, and treats him with contempt,” it would be a pious and true doctrine.

1 Have not the faith, etc., with respect of persons. He means that the respect of persons is inconsistent with the faith of Christ, so that they cannot be united together, and rightly so; for we are by faith united into one body, in which Christ holds the primacy. When therefore the pomps of the world become preeminent so as to cover over what Christ is, it is evident that faith hath but little vigor.

In rendering τὢς δόξης, “on account of esteem,” (ex opinione,) I have followed Erasmus; though the old interpreter cannot be blamed, who has rendered it “glory,” for the word means both; and it may be fitly applied to Christ, and that according to the drift of the passage. For so great is the brightness of Christ, that it easily extinguishes all the glories of the world, if indeed it irradiates our eyes. It hence follows, that Christ is little esteemed by us, when the admiration of worldly glory lays hold on us. But the other exposition is also very suitable, for when the esteem or value of riches or of honors dazzles our eyes, the truth is suppressed, which ought alone to prevail. To sit becomingly means to sit honorably.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

II.

(1) My brethren.—The second chapter opens with some stern rebukes for those unworthy Christians who had “men’s persons in admiration,” and, doubtless, that “because of advantage” to themselves. (Comp. Jud_1:16.) The lesson is distinctly addressed to believers, and its severity appears to be caused by the Apostle’s unhappy consciousness of its need. What were endurable in a heathen, or an alien, or even a Jew, ceased to be so in a professed follower of the lowly Jesus. And this seems to be a further reason for the indignant expostulation and condemnation of Jas_2:14. Thus the whole chapter may really be considered as dealing with Faith; and it flows naturally from the foregoing thoughts upon Religion—or, as we interpreted their subject-matter, Religious Service.

Have (or, hold) not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with (or, in) respect of persons.—“Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” wrote St. Paul to the proud and wealthy men of Corinth (2Co_8:9), “that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich;” and, with more cogent an appeal, to the Philippians (Jas_2:4-7), “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves: look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God”—i.e., Very God, and not appearance merely—nevertheless “thought not His equality with God a thing to be always grasped at,” as it were some booty or prize, “but emptied Himself” of His glory, “and took upon Him the shape of a slave.” Were these central, nay initial, facts of the faith believed then; or are they now? If they were in truth, how could there be such folly and shame as “acceptance of persons” according to the dictates of fashionable society and the world? “Honour,” indeed, “to whom honour” is due (Rom_13:7). The Christian religion allows not that contempt for even earthly dignities—affected by some of her followers, but springing more from envy and unruliness than aught besides. True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this scripture: but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My brethren,.... As the apostle is about to dissuade from the evil of having respect to persons, this is a very fit introduction to it, and carries in it an argument why it should not obtain; since the saints are all brethren, they are children of the same Father, belong to the same family, and are all one in Christ Jesus, whether high or low, rich, or poor:

have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons: that is, such as have, and hold, and profess the faith of Christ, ought not along with it to use respect of persons, or to make such a distinction among the saints, as to prefer the rich, to the contempt of the poor; and in this exhortation many things are contained, which are so many arguments why such a practice should not be encouraged; for faith, whether as a doctrine or as a grace, is alike precious, and common to all; and is the faith of Christ, which, as a doctrine, is delivered by him to all the saints, and as a grace, he is both the author and object of it; and is the faith of their common Lord and Saviour, and who is the Lord of glory, or the glorious Lord; and the poor as well as the rich are espoused by him, as their Lord and husband; and are redeemed by him, and are equally under his government and protection, and members of his body: the Syriac Version reads, "have not the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus", &c. meaning either the glory which Christ is possessed of, whether as the Son of God, in the perfections of his nature, or as man and Mediator, being now crowned with glory and honour, and which is seen and known by faith; or else that glory which Christ has in his hands, to bestow upon his people, and to which they are called, and will appear in, when he shall appear, and about which their faith is now employed: and since this glory equally belongs to them all, no difference should be made on account of outward circumstances, so as to treat any believer with neglect and contempt.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Ver. 1. The Lord of glory] Or, "Have not the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. Faith is a glorious grace indeed.

With respect of persons] i.e. Of their outward quality or conditions, as rich or poor, of this side or that, &c. Zanchy relates about a certain Frenchman, a friend of his, and a constant hearer of Calvin at Geneva, that being solicited by him to hear Viret, an excellent preacher, who preached at the same time that Calvin did, he answered, If St Paul himself should preach here at the same hour with Calvin, Ego, relicto Paulo, audirem Calvinum, I would not leave Calvin to hear Paul. This is not only partiality, but anthropolatry {a} or man worship, saith he. Grynaeus reports a speech of George, duke of Saxony: Although I am not ignorant, saith he, that there are various errors and abuses crept into the Church, Nolo tamen amplecti Evangelium quod Lutherus annunciat, yet I will none of that gospel reformation that Luther preacheth. (Lect. in Hag.) Compertum est, it is for certain, saith Erasmus, that many things are condemned as heretical in Luther’s writings, that in Austin’s and Bernard’s books are approved for sound and pious passages. (Erasm. Epist. ad Card. Mogunt.)

{a} Man worship; the giving of divine honours to a human being. ŒD

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. Notes, 1Ti 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 the notes at 1Co 2:8. The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord should be in no way dishonored.

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 Pro 24:23; Pro 28:21; Lev 19:15; Deu 1:17; Deu 10:17; 2Ch 19:7; Psa 40:4. See the subject explained in the Act 10:34 note; Rom 2:11 note.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

With respect of persons. This partial respect of persons is several times condemned both in the Old and New Testament. St. James here speaks of it as it was committed in the assemblies, by which many understand the meetings of Christians, in[1] synagogues and places where they celebrated the divine service, or met to keep the charitable feast, called Agape. Others expound it of meetings where causes were judged. If it be meant of Church meetings, the apostle might have even greater reason to condemn such a partiality at that time than at present; for when the poorer sort of people, of which was the greatest number of converts, saw themselves so neglected and despised, and any rich man when he came thither so caressed and honoured, this might prove a discouragement to the meaner sort of people, and an obstacle to their conversion. But if we expound it of meetings where causes were judged betwixt the rich and others of a lower condition, (which exposition the text seems to favour) the fault might be still greater, when the judges gave sentence in favour of great and rich men, biassed thereunto by the unjust regard they had for men rich and powerful. This was a transgression of the law: (Leviticus xix. 15.) Respect not the person of the poor, nor honour the countenance of the mighty. But judge thy neighbour according to justice. See also Deuteronomy i. 17. (Witham) --- Respect, &c. The meaning is, that in matters relating to faith, the administering of the sacraments and other spiritual functions in God’s Church, there should be no respect of persons: but that the souls of the poor should be as much regarded as those of the rich. ([Deuteronomy?] Chap. i. 17) (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Have not; profess not yourselves, and regard not, or esteem not in others.

The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; i.e. faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; not the author but the object of faith is meant, as Gal 2:20; Gal 3:22; Phi 3:9.

The Lord of glory; Lord not being in the Greek, glory may be joined with faith, ( admitting only a trajection in the words, so frequent in the sacred writers), and then the words will run thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. the faith of his being glorified, which by a synecdoche may be put for the whole work of redemption wrought by him, which was completed by his glorification, as the last part of it; or, by a Hebraism, the faith of the glory, may be for the glorious faith. But the plainest way of reading the words is (as our translators do) by supplying the word Lord just before mentioned; Lord of glory, ( Christ being elsewhere so called, 1Co 2:8), i.e. the glorious Lord; as the Father is called the Father of glory, Eph 1:17, i.e. the glorious Father: and then it may be an argument to second what the apostle is speaking of; Christ being the Lord of glory, a relation to him by faith puts an honour upon believers, though poor and despicable in the world; and therefore they are not to be contemned.

With respect of persons; the word rendered persons signifies the face or countenance, and synecdochically the whole person; and, by consequence, all those parts or qualities we take notice of in the person. To respect a person is sometimes taken in a good sense, Gen 19:21; 1Sa 25:35. Mostly in an evil, when either the person is opposed to the cause, we give more or less to a man upon the account of something we see in him which is altogether foreign to his cause, Lev 19:15, or when we accept one with injury to or contempt of another. To have, then, the faith of Christ with respect of persons, is to esteem the professors of religion, not for their faith, or relation to Christ, but according to their worldly condition, their being great or mean, rich or poor; this the apostle taxeth in the Hebrews to whom he wrote, that whereas in the things of God all believers are equal, they respected the greater and richer sort of professors, because great or rich; so as to despise those that were poor or low. The Greek hath the word plurally, respects, which may intimate the several ways of respecting persons, in judgment or out, of judgment. This doth not exclude the civil respect we owe to magistrates and superiors upon the account of their places or gifts; but only a respecting men in the things of religion upon such accounts as are extrinsical to religion; or, with prejudice to others as considerable in religion as themselves, though inferior to them in the world.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Warnings Against Respect of Persons. Belief and Practice

1. Another instance of inconsistency. Jesus Christ the Lord of glory] better, 'Jesus Christ the glory,' or 'the glorious one,' One of the rare passages in which St. James breaks through his habitual reserve in speaking of the Master, and shows us something of his devotion to Christ. Such reserve was natural to a Jew.

2. In the Jewish-Christian Church the place for worship is still the synagogue (Heb_10:25). At first strangers would be admitted (1Co_14:16).

4. Partial] better, 'divided' between Christian duty and worldly interests.

Judges of evil thoughts] better, 'evil-thinking judges.' By showing undue preference to the rich man you judge, and judge wrongly, as to the relative merits of the rich and the poor man (see Jam_4:11). God, the Just Judge, gives greater honour to the pious poor man. He is an heir of the kingdom (Jam_1:9).

6. Josephus ('Ant.'

28.8) speaks of the cruelty of the rich Sadducees to the poor in Jerusalem: cp. also Isa_3:15; Amo_4:1, and many other passages from the prophets of the OT. denouncing the cruelty and oppression of the rich.

7. Worthy name] RV 'honourable name.' For baptism into the name of Christ see Act_2:38. For the expression cp. Act_5:41; (RV) Php_2:9. By the which ye are called] better, 'which was called over you,' i.e. probably at baptism.

8. Royal law] see Lev_19:18 and Mat_5:43-47.

10. It might be said that, even if a man transgressed the Law of Christ in the matter of respect of persons, he was only breaking a small part of that Law. Not so. The Law, like the Lawgiver, is one. To break any commandment is to violate the whole Law of love, the unity of which is marred by any disobedience.

12. The law of liberty] better, 'a law of liberty.' There can be no true liberty without obedience. A Law of liberty is one which a man obeys freely, not because he must, but because it is a Law of love, which is gladly obeyed. To serve the Master, Christ, is 'perfect freedom.' To St. James even the OT. Law—though imperfect—was something higher than a mere code. He saw in it the underlying principle of love. Thus he was led on to find in the Law of Christ the fulfilment of the old Law.

13. The meaning of the last phrase probably is, The unmerciful and unloving man is condemned without pity (Mat_18:21-35), but the merciful man is triumphantly acquitted. The man who loves is 'justified' by God.

14. A third instance of inconsistency—great profession of belief without practice. In order to understand this passage we must bear in mind that St. James is here using the word 'faith' in a sense opposite to that of Jam_1:3, Jam_1:6, and different also from that in which St. Paul uses it. To St. Paul faith is always living and loving belief in Christ. To St. James (in this passage) faith is a kind of 'otiose assent,' or at any rate a 'barren orthodoxy, untouched by love.' Similarly, to St. Paul 'works' are the works of the Law—the fulfilment of certain obligations quite apart from faith. To St. James 'works' are the necessary fruits of Faith, without which Faith in any true sense cannot exist. That the two writers are in substantial agreement is shown by passages like 2Co_9:8; Eph_2:10; 2Th_2:17; 1Ti_2:10; 1Ti_5:10; 1Ti_6:18; 2Ti_3:17; Tit_2:7, Tit_2:14; Tit_3:8. (St. James's 'faith' would be represented in St. Paul's language by 'knowledge,' and his 'works' by 'the fruits of the Spirit.') The difference is 'merely a difference in method of stating the truth.' The two writers, 'like trains on different pairs of rails, cannot collide, though they may seem to be in danger of doing so.' The further question whether, if either was acquainted with the writings of the other, he would have used phrases liable to be misunderstood, is one not easy to answer with certainty; but at least we may say that it cannot be regarded as proved that either of the two had read the work of the other. It is, at any rate, unlikely that St. James had read St. Paul.

15-17. Faith without practical love of the brethren is dead. The reference may be to the famine of Act_11:28-30. Being alone] RV 'in itself.'

18. If you have 'faith' without active piety to be its evidence, it is impossible for any one to be sure that you have faith at all.

19. Tremble] better, 'shudder.' Even the evil spirits have a kind of 'faith'; and their faith bears fruit of a sort. It causes them profound fear: Mar_1:24; Luk_8:28. No doubt St. James has in his mind these incidents recorded in the Gospels.

20-25. The appeal to Scripture. Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his only son was the crowning act of a life of faith which began when he left home and country. By that faith he was 'justified' (i.e. acquitted at the bar of God's judgment), and called God's friend (Isa_41:8). So also, when Rahab received Joshua's spies and saved their lives, her faith was practical (Jos_2:7; Heb_11:31; Hebrews 1 Clem 12). Rahab, though a Gentile and an outsider, was sure that the God of Israel was the one true God, and that His people would be victorious. And she had the courage of her convictions. She showed in a practical way that she was on the Lord's side, and so was rewarded by becoming an ancestress of Christ Himself after the flesh (Mat_1:5).

26. Without] better, 'apart from.'

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. No obsequiousness to rich incomers to the Christian synagogue, 1-4.

1. My brethren—The apostle is still administering lessons to the Synagogue of believers. In the first chapter he reproves their disputatiousness; in the present, their courting the rich.

Of glory— Omitting the Italic words, the Greek order is, our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, in which the author does not suppose that inserting the identifying name Jesus Christ prevents of glory from belonging to Lord, so as to make Lord of glory, namely, Jesus Christ. Faith in so glorious a Lord is not in consistency with respect of persons. Respect of persons (see note on Act_10:34,) means to regard a man for his rank, personal appearance, or any other reason than his true deserts or value. All men are equal before the Lord of glory; and therefore, in his Church, rich and poor are equally valuable in the sight of Him who died for all.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-13. WARNING AGAINST RESPECT OF PERSONS.

The translation is doubtful, two renderings being possible.

(1) That of the A.V and R.V, "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

(2) That of the R.V margin and Westcott and Hort, "Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory?" According to this view, the section commences with a question, as does the following one, ver. 14. According to the former view, which is on the whole preferable, it is parallel to Jam_3:1. The faith of our Lord. "The faith" here may be either

(1) objective (tides quae creditur), as in the Epistle of Jud_1:3, 20; or

(2) subjective (tides qua creditur), "Have the faith which believes in," etc. (Mar_11:22) Our Lord Jesus Christ. Exactly the same title occurs in Act_15:26, in the letter written from the Apostolic Council to the Syrian Churches a letter which was probably drawn up by St. James himself. The Lord of glory. The same title is given to our Lord in 1Co_2:8, and seems to be founded onxhv, (Psa_24:7) etc. The genitive, thv do must depend on Kuriou in spite of the intervening jIhsou Cristou. Similar trajections occur elsewhere; e.g. nhv Heb_12:11, where dikaiosu) depend, on karpon, and, according to a possible view, Luk_2:14 (see Hort"s "Greek Testament," vol. 2., appendix, p. 56). Bengel"s view, that thv doxhv is in apposition with Kuriou jIhsou Cristou can scarcely be maintained, in the absence of any parallel expression elsewhere. Respect of persons (ejn proswpolhyiaiv) literally, reception of faces. The substantive is found here and three times in St. Paul"s Epistles Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25; the verb (proswpolhptein) only here in ver. 9; proswpolhpthv inswpon Act_10:31. None of them occur in the LXX, where, however, we find pro lambanein in Lev_19:15; Mal_2:9, etc., (cf. Luk_20:21) for the Hebrew zc; g. Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out ("Galatians," p. 108) that, in the Old Testament, the expression is a neutral one, not necessarily involving any idea of partiality, and more often used in a good than in a bad sense. "When it becomes an independent Greek phrase, however, the bad sense attaches to it, owing to the secondary meaning of proswpon as a mask," so that proswpon lambanein signifies "to regard the external circumstances of a man his rank, wealth, etc. as opposed to his real intrinsic character. Thus in the New Testament it has always a bad sense." It is exactly this regard to external circumstances against which St. James is warning his readers; and the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ had himself been known, when on earth, as no respecter of persons, (Luk_20:21) would give point to his warning. The plural (ejn proswpolhyiaiv) is perhaps used to include the different kinds of manifestations of the sin.

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 1-13 -1.

Respect of persons is inconsistent with the first principles of Christianity.

1. One great function of Christianity was to create a sphere in which there should be neither Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor barbarian, bond nor free. "All equal are within the Church"s gate" is true, not only of the material building, but equally of the spiritual fabric of the Catholic Church, which, like her Divine Head, is no respecter of persons. Bengel well remarks that the equality of Christians, indicated by the name "brethren" (ver. 1), is the foundation of the admonition with which the chapter opens.

1. St. James gives but one instance of the kind of respect of persons which is forbidden, viz. the respect shown to the rich in assemblies of Christians for worship. Other forms of the same sin are common enough and are equally reprehensible, e.g. the homage paid to a man in society because he

2. is rich, without regard to his character and moral worth. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that Christianity accepts as a fact class distinctions, and that we are bidden to give "honor to whom honor is due." "The Christian religion allows not that contempt for even earthly dignities affected by some of her followers, but springing more from envy and unruliness than aught besides. True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this Scripture, but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf" (Punchard).

3. Respect of persons, regard to outward appearances, the gold ring and the gay clothing, evince not merely evil thinking but want of faith (ver. 4); i.e. a halting between God, who is no respecter of persons, and the world, which judges only by that which is external. How foolish also to regard the persons of men, when the object of our faith is the Lord of glory himself!

HOMILIES BY C. JERDAN. Vers. 1-7.

Respect of persons.

In the closing sentences of the preceding chapter James has been speaking of the true cultus or ritual of the Church; and here he warns his readers against a violation of it which they were in danger of committing, and of which indeed they had been already guilty, even when assembled for public worship.

I THE EVIL HERE CONDEMNED. (Ver. 1.) It is that of Pharisaic contempt of the poor. The apostle does not, of course, mean that social distinctions are nowhere to be recognized by God"s people. The Scriptures teach no such doctrine. Bather they enjoin Christians to "render honor to whom honor is due". (Rom_13:7) In ordinary society we are to act with manly deference towards our superiors, whether they be such in age, rank, office, knowledge, wealth, or influence. The apostle refers in this exhortation to the spiritual sphere. He urges that within the sacred circle of our Church life respect is to be paid to religious character, and not to material wealth. A true pure faith in "the Lord of glory" is incompatible with the entire spirit of snobbery, and especially with the maintenance of unchristian distinctions of caste within the Church. The British Churches of the nineteenth century unhappily need the warning of this passage almost as much as the congregations of the Dispersion in the apostolic age (see Kitto"s "Daily Bible Illustrations," vol. 1. twelfth week, first day).

II A PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL. (Vers. 2, 3.) The case supposed is in all respects an extreme one; yet how correctly it depicts human nature! It presents the thought of "the influences of clothes," or that "society is founded upon cloth" (Carlyle). The deference paid to the gold-ringed man in presence of the congregation is described with dramatic realism. A cordial welcome greets him when he caters, and he is conducted fussily to a principal seat; while the poor man in the squalid clothing is coldly pointed to a place where he may stand, or at most is permitted to sit in an uncomfortable comer. The apostle"s graphic picture suggests to the thoughtful reader other examples of the same sin. We shall mention only one or two. The arrangements for seating a congregation amongst ourselves sometimes show "respect of persons," as in the case of an elevated and luxurious pew for the lord of the manor. Ministers in the pulpit are tempted to avoid enforcing practical duties too pointedly, lest their exhortations and reproofs should be unpalatable to influential families. (Yet how many examples of ministerial fidelity may be readily recalled Numerous cases are historical: Elijah, Micaiah, John the Baptist, Knox, Howe, Massillon, etc.) Church courts are sometimes prone to mete out different measures to different classes of offenders. Congregations have been known to elect men of substance to spiritual office, rather than those who possessed the requisite qualifications of mind and character; and, on the other hand, members of Churches are sometimes actuated by mean jealousy of a wealthy fellow-worshipper, even to such an extent that they would fain, were it possible, abridge his liberty in the exercise of his ordinary rights as a member of the congregation. In these and many other ways Christian people have often shown themselves to be "evil-thinking judges," and have thereby entailed upon the Church much mischief and damage.

III THE GROUNDS OF THE CONDEMNATION. The apostle"s reproof is faithful, but it is also affectionately tender (vers. 1, 5). He indicates from various points of view the wrongfulness of the partiality which he is denouncing.

1. Mere earthly distinctions should be indiscernible in the presence of "the Lord of glory. " (Ver. 1.) There is an argument in the very use here of this great title. Worldly distinctions of wealth and rank should be dwarfed into nothingness before our minds when we realize that those who assemble in the house of God are the guests of "the Lord of glory.

2. Respect of persons is inconsistent with sound Christian principle. (Ver. 4.) The believer "looks at the things which are not seen;" and he ought not to do so with a wavering mind or a vacillating will. Ecclesiastical servility towards the rich is a form of mammon-worship; while the one power which the Church should exalt is that of character.

3. God is no respecter of persons. " (Ver. 5.) The New Testament rings with declarations of this truth. "The Lord of glory," when he lived on earth, was no sycophant of the rich. He was himself a poor man. He chose the poor rather than the rich to possess spiritual means in his kingdom. In "dishonoring the poor man," therefore, the Church was despising one for whom Christ died, and a possible heir of the heavenly glory.

4. The rich as a class had been the enemies both of Christ and his people. (Vers. 6, 7.) With a few noble exceptions, the upper classes persecuted the Christians in the days of the apostles. They harassed them with lawsuits. They slandered them before the judges. They cursed the blessed Name of Christ which it is the mission of the Church to exalt. It was, therefore, contrary to "the spirit of a sound mind" to court the rich. To do so showed a deficiency of common sense. It indicated a lack of self-respect. And, above all, it was disloyal to the blessed Name. C.J.

HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER Vers. 1-13.

Respect of persons.

Amongst the other evils of which these Christian Jews were guilty, was the gross evil of respect of persons. James presents the scene graphically, according to his wont. There is the synagogue, with the worshippers gathering for worship, some taking the good places, as it were the chancel-seats, near to the ark with the roll of the Law, and to the table of the Lord; some the lower seats, away from the speaker anti the Word. When, lo, a rich man enters, some stranger to the place, blazing in Tyrian purple, all embroidered o"er with gold, and heavily laden with jeweled rings. And him the officious ministrants conduct with ostentatious honor to the stalls in the chief part of the synagogue. A poor man enters, likewise a stranger, in squalid garb, and. with some contempt of gesture or of tone the deacon points him to a remote place in the building, or bids him sit below the rich man"s toot-stool on the ground. So did the Christian Church do homage to the pomp and wealth of the world, and despise the poor. Against this practice James levels his rebuke, and shows the inconsistency and the sin of such respect of persons.

I THE INCONSISTENCY. He points out the inconsistency of such conduct:

1. With their faith. (Vers. 1, 4.) The faith of Christians is precisely that faculty of their nature by which they discern and espouse spiritual things as distinguished from the things of the world. And in virtue of this faith they are supposed to be raised above the tyranny of world-attractions. The glory of earth does not dazzle them, for their faith has caught the vision of a higher glory, even a heavenly, of which Jesus Christ is Lord. They sit in heavenly places with him. And in virtue of this faith they must estimate a man according to his relation to the invisible world, his relation to Christ and God. There is to them a citizenship, a brotherhood, which takes precedence of all other social claims. How, then, with such a faith, the faith of the Lord of glory, could they be caught with the glitter of rings and of cloth of gold? And how ignore the equal relationships to the spiritual kingdom of God? Their conduct was in utter inconsistency with their belief, their faith; they were double-minded, evil-thoughted judges.

2. Also, with their world-relationships themselves. (Vers. 6, 7.) For they were in the world, though properly not of it. And what were their relations to the several classes of the world as such? Their relation to the rich was unquestionably that of persecuted and persecutors, of oppressed and oppressors (ver. 6). And to such would they cringe and pay homage; to men of such a class? To those likewise who not only oppressed them, but blasphemed the name by which they were called (ver. 7)? The inconsistency of their conduct, then, was sufficiently glaring: they were inconsistent with their professed faith, double-minded, trimming between the world and God; and they were inconsistent with their own relation to the world, for they did reverence to that very power which was often turned against themselves, and against the holy Name they bore.

II THE SIN. All inconsistency may with truth be charged home upon the inconsistent man as being essentially sinful. But the inconsistent conduct of these Jews was more directly and immediately open to that charge, as being a breach of the royal law, the law of love.

1. The specific sin, i.e. the particular aspect which the sin of uncharity assumed in this special case.

(1) Want of regard for the spiritual interests of the poor. They were brothers in their common need, but these had not treated them as such. The most commanding claim of one on the love and help of another, that of spiritual necessity, had been almost ignored.

(2) Want of considerate tenderness for their special lowliness of estate. The greater their want, the greater should be the regard of Christians for them. So God"s special regard for them (ver. 5). So God in Christ. (Mat_11:5)

2. The generic sin, i.e. its general nature, as uncharity, apart from this special manifestation.

(1) Transgression of the law of a King his will disregarded.

(2) Transgression of a kingly law the sway of the principle destroyed. Viewed either way, it loses its character of isolated transgression, of a particular fault, and runs up into the dark character of sin! And all sin is essentially one. As has been said, it is only accident, or fear, or the absence of temptation, that prevents our transgressing" other commandments also (Plumptre); potentially, when one is broken all are broken. Yes; adultery, murder, and all other deadly evil. Guilty of all.

The conclusion of all is, "With what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again." A law of liberty, but not of liberty to sin. And if we disregard the law that should make us free, for us there is, not love, but judgment. A merciless judgment, if we have been merciless. But if, on the other hand, our hearts have been loving, and. our lives merciful, through the faith of Christ, then judgment shall be disarmed, and we shall learn what those words mean, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. T.F.L.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

My brethren -- the equality of Christians, intimated by this name, is the ground of the admonition. Hold not the faith of our common Lord, the Lord of glory - Of which glory all who believe in him partake. With respect of persons - That is, honour none merely for being rich; despise none merely for being poor.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

the Lord of glory the Glory, i.e. in the sense of Heb 1:3 as taking the place of the shekinah.

with respect In the presence of Christ the Glory, earthly distinctions disappear.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Dead Faith Compared with Living Faith.

Caution against partiality:

v. 1. My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons.

v. 2. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment,

v. 3. and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool;

v. 4. are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

v. 5. Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?

v. 6. But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seats?

v. 7. Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

v. 8. If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well;

v. 9. but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the Law as transgressors.

It is a peculiar fact that history repeats itself, that the same conditions seem to be found in the Christian congregations after just about so long a time of Gospel preaching. The apostle does not hesitate to attack the evil with all the power at his command: My brethren, not in respect of persons hold the faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord of Glory. The Christian faith must not be abused, nor dare shame and disgrace be brought upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior and the King of Glory. The reference is probably to the fact that the second person of the Godhead was present in the cloud of glory which accompanied the children of Israel on their journey through the wilderness and afterward appeared at the dedication of the Temple of Solomon. Such a condition of affairs, however, such servile regard of people, altogether out of agreement with the spirit shown by Jesus Christ in His treatment of men, had crept into the churches. Men were not regarded on the basis of their Christianity, their moral excellence, their personal piety, their usefulness to the congregation, but on the basis of the wealth which they had accumulated.

This is brought out with great emphasis and effectiveness by the apostle: For if there enters into your common assembly a man bedecked with gold rings, in a splendid garment, but there entered also a poor man in a sordid garment, and you (would) attend to the wearer of the splendid garment and say to him, Sit thou here in the best place, and to the poor man you would say, Keep standing here, or sit down at my footstool, do you not therefore discriminate among yourselves and become judges according to evil considerations? The text pictures a meeting, an assembly of worship, as it was held in those days. In steps a man whose wealth and influence is apparent at first glance. He is bedecked with gold rings, he wears the fine white garment which was assumed by rich Jews. Hardly has he entered the door, when the members crowd forward to meet him. With obsequious deference they place the best seat in the room at his disposal, their faces, at the same time, displaying the admiration for wealth and power which fills their hearts. But immediately after there steps in a poor man, clad in a simple garment, perhaps even soiled with the labor of his hands. There is no deferential ushering as he apologetically tries to find a place where he may stay. Instead, he is curtly told that he may stand in the room reserved in the rear; or, if that does not suit him, he may sit down on the floor. Note: History repeats itself also in this, that these very conditions obtain in many so-called Christian houses of warship to this day. But the apostle gives his opinion of such behavior in sharp words, telling his readers that they are thereby making a false distinction, a wrong and foolish discrimination, that they are dividing the congregation of the Lord into parties without the consent of the Lord, in a manner which in no way accords with His own acceptance of publicans and sinners. Incidentally, men calling themselves Christians and yet acting in such a manner become judges according to evil surmisings, according to false considerations. To judge a man by his outward appearance only and to condemn him on account of his poverty is to defame him both in thought and deed, an act very decidedly at variance with the Eighth Commandment.

In solemn warning the apostle calls out: Listen, my beloved brethren: Did not God choose the poor according to this world, rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him? This fact the readers should consider, of that they should never lose sight. It is the poor people in this world’s goods, the weak, the foolish, that God has chosen, 1Co 1:27-28. The wise and mighty of this world are inclined to sneer at the Gospel of the poor Galilean fishermen and of the Nazarene that died on the cross. Therefore the Lord has chosen the poor, not because their hearts by nature are any better than those of the wealthy and mighty, but because they at least have not the handicap which riches are apt to prove to contend with. And it is the Lord’s choosing which has made the poor rich in faith, which has assured them of the inheritance of the saints in light, the glorious reward of mercy in heaven above, which God has promised to those that love Him. Reproachfully the apostle therefore writes: You, however, insult the poor, both dishonoring and despising them.

In this connection the apostle reminds the Jewish Christians of another fact: Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before their tribunals? Do they not blaspheme the excellent name which was laid upon you by your call? He speaks of the rich people as a class, characterizing them by the behavior which is commonly found where they have the power. They make use of violence, they oppress those that are not in their own class, they try to lord it over them at all times; they foster lawsuits, believing that their money will buy them the decision which justice would never render. And altogether too many of them will not believe that they are in need of the Savior and His redemption, they blaspheme the name of Him that called the Christians by faith, and added them to the communion of saints. The conduct of the believers, therefore, in acting with a false deference to all the wealthy people, is all the more reprehensible.

The apostle, then, offers this conclusion: If, indeed, you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, you do well; but if you have respect of persons, you commit a sin, and are convicted by the Law as transgressors. There is a royal law, a rule of the Kingdom, which should be heeded also by Christians as expressing the will of God, namely, the precept that they should love their neighbors as themselves, making no distinction between rich and poor, between fashionable and unimportant. Such conduct is well-pleasing to God. But if the Christians make such false distinctions as outlined by the apostle above, preferring the rich and influential merely on account of their money and not on account of their Christian life and moral worth, then they are transgressing the will of God and stand convicted by Him and by His Law, which will then apply once more. It is a willful, conscious sin of which they will be guilty, and there will be no excuse for them. It is a warning which will bear repetition in our days.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 2:12

The Law of Liberty.

Take these two words, "the law of liberty"—liberty and law. They stand over against one another. Our first conception of them is as contradictory. The history of human life, we say, is a history of their struggle. They are foes. Law is the restraint of liberty. Liberty is the abrogation, the getting rid, of law. Each, so far as it is absolute, implies the absence of the other. But the expression of the text suggests another thought, that by the highest standards there is no contradiction, but rather a harmony and unity between the two; that there is some high point in which they unite; that really the highest law is liberty, the highest liberty is law; that there is such a thing as a law of liberty.

I. First, what do we mean by liberty, the oldest, dearest, vaguest, of the words of man? I hold it to mean simply the genuine ability of a living creature to manifest its whole nature, to do and be itself most unrestrainedly. Now between this idea and our ordinary thought of law there must, of course, be an inherent contradiction. The ordinary laws of social and national life are special provisions made for the very purpose of restricting the very natures and characters of their subjects. National law does not aim at the development of individual character, but at the preservation of great general interests by the repression of the characteristic tendencies of individuals. We hear the word "law," and it has this repressive sound. We hear the noise of grating prison doors, of heavy keys groaning in their locks. We see the lines of chains or the lines of soldiers that bind the individual’s freedom for some other individual’s or for society’s advantage. Law is constraint as yet, and is the foe of liberty.

II. The law of constraint is that which grows out of man’s outward relations with God; the law of liberty is that which issues from the tendencies of a man’s own nature inwardly filled with God. That is the difference. Just so soon as a man gets into such a condition that every freedom sets towards duty, then evidently he will need no law except that freedom, and all duty will be reached and done. You see then what a fundamental and thorough thing the law of liberty must be. All laws of constraint are useless unless they are preparatory to, and can pass into, laws of liberty. This doctrine of the law of liberty makes clear the whole order and process of Christian conversion. Laws of constraint begin conversion at the outside, and work in; laws of liberty begin their conversion at the inside, and work out.

III. The whole truth of the law of liberty starts with the truth that goodness is just as controlling and supreme a power as badness. Virtue is as despotic over the life she really sways as vice can be over her miserable subjects. Here is where we make our mistake. We see the great dark form of viciousness holding her slaves down at their work, wearing their life away with the unceasing labour of iniquity; but I should not know how to believe in anything if I did not think that there was a force in liberty to make men work as they can never work in slavery. There is one large presentation of the fact of sin which always speaks of it as a bondage, a constraint, and consequently of holiness as freedom or liberation; but I believe there is no more splendidly despotic power anywhere than that with which the new life in a man sets him inevitably to do righteous and godly things. If there is one thing on earth which is certain, which is past all doubt, past all the power of mortal hindrance or perversion, it is the assurance with which the good man goes into goodness and does good things, ruled by the liberty of his higher life. Oh for such a liberty in us! Look at Christ, and see it in perfection. His was the freest life man ever lived. Nothing could ever bind Him. He walked across old Jewish traditions, and they snapped like cobwebs; He acted out the Divinity that was in Him up to the noblest ideal of liberty. But was there no compulsion in His working? Hear Him: "I must be about My Father’s business." Was it no compulsion that drove Him those endless journeys, foot-sore and heart-sore, through His ungrateful land? "I must work today." What slave of sin was ever driven to his wickedness as Christ was to His holiness? What force ever drove a selfish man into his indulgence with half the irresistibility that drove the Saviour to the cross? Who does not dream for himself of a freedom as complete and as inspiring as the Lord’s? Who does not pray that he too may be ruled by such a sweet despotic law of liberty?

Phillips Brooks, The Candle of the Lord, p. 183.

References: Jas 2:12.—R. Gregory, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 305; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 343; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, Part II., p. 331. Jas 2:14-17.—T. Hammond, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 378. Jas 2:15.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1061,

Jas 2:18

I. Nothing is more evident than that the whole passage now before us is directed against the language in the Epistle to the Romans, as that language was misinterpreted by the wickedness of fanaticism; and that it does not in the slightest degree interfere with it as taken according to the meaning of the writer. The words, "Show me thy faith without thy works," are intended to allude to St. Paul’s words that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Taking faith in the sense in which it has often been used since—that is, "correct opinion"—and taking the words, "without the deeds of the law," with nothing further to explain them, and we have at once that most wicked doctrine which St. James condemns, namely, that if a man’s opinions about God be right, he need care nothing for his affections and conduct, whereas St Paul was not speaking of any such belief as was no more than opinion. He did not say that "He who believes in one God is justified," but "He who believes in Jesus Christ is justified," nor, again, did he mean by believing in Jesus Christ believing in such facts about Him as the heathens believed—namely, that there had been such a man crucified in Judaea under Pontius Pilate—but he meant "whosoever believed that Jesus Christ died for his sins "—a thing that never was believed really by any one who did not care for his sins beforehand, and can be really believed by no man without its making him care for his sins a great deal more than he ever cared before.

II. All, then, that St. James says in this passage is that correct opinions will save no man, or, to use the term "faith," not in St. Paul’s sense of it, but in the unhappy sense which others have too often attached to it, that a sound faith in religious matters will alone save no man. From the language of two great Apostles, we may surely derive an important lesson, not to make one another offenders for a word. We should not condemn our brother for using words which an apostle has used before him, as he, like the Apostle, may mean no more by them than this, that Christ’s people are those only in whom the Spirit of Christ abides.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 269.

Jas 2:19

Atheism.

I. For the vast majority of mankind, two phenomena have been in all ages, and I believe will be to the end of time, the all-sufficient proof that there is one God. One is the universe; the other is the conscience: one is the starry heaven above; the other is the moral law within. To every good man a true conscience not only tells of a God above us, but is a god within us. It is the categoric imperative which says to a man direct from heaven, "ought" and "must."

II. For nations there can be no morality if they know not God. In a brief tormented existence, ungoverned by any laws save their own appetites, the character of a world deprived of a holy ideal may be summed up in two words: heartless cruelty; unfathomable corruption. I say that any nation which denies God becomes by an invariable law a degraded nation at last, and any age which denies God sinks in great measure into an abominable age. If atheism continues for a time to kindle its dim torches at the fount of life, those torches soon die out in smouldering flames. A nation may walk for a short time in the dubious twilight left on the western hill-tops when the sun is set; but the twilight soon rushes down into the deep, dark night when God is denied, when faith is quenched, when prayer has ceased. It is never long in a nation before the holy warfare of ideas is abandoned for the base conflict of interest, never long before hatred and envy usurp the place of charity, and lust takes the place of honourable love. When once Christianity is dead, the world will be twice dead, a wandering star for which is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

F. W. Farrar, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 177.

Reference: Jas 2:24.—F. W. Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 58.

Jas 2:26

Justification by Faith.

I. Justification by faith is in fact a doctrine belonging of necessity to all true religion, and not to the Christian religion only. Men speak sometimes as if the Gospel had introduced a method of salvation which is not the completion and perfection of all that went before, but a method utterly opposed to it, as though Abraham and the patriarchs entered heaven by a quite different door from St. Paul and the members of the Christian Church. But the New Testament teaches differently. St. Paul entirely repudiates the notion of his having made void the law by the doctrine of faith; he shows that the principle which justified Abraham was identical with that which he preaches as the principle of Christian justification, a conclusion which is confirmed by the Old Testament expression that "Abraham believed God, and it" (that is, his faith) "was counted unto him for righteousness." If I wanted independent confirmation of St. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, I would seek it in the confession of any man whose spiritual consciousness was ever so slightly awakened, and who sought, on his knees before God, some communication of the Divine life; and I am sure that the earnestness with which such a man would implore help from above would sufficiently show that no works of man can establish that union with God which is the life of the human soul.

II. When St. Paul wrote with so much earnestness, it was not faith itself for which he was contending so much as for faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as opposed to faith shown in any other way. Who shall say that he put faith before works? He never made the comparison at all. He simply pointed to Christ as the way to the Father, and therefore to union with Christ, or faith in Him, as the only conceivable means of bringing forth fruit to the praise and glory of God.

Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 198.

References: Jas 3:1-18.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 188. Jas 3:2.—J. Keble, Sermons for Christmas and Epiphany, p. 483; J. H. Thom, Laws of Life, vol. i., p. 266; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 301. Jas 3:4.—F. Wagstaff, Ibid., vol. xxii., p. 170. Jas 3:5.—J. F. Haynes, Ibid., vol. xviii., p. 54; Ibid., vol. ii., p. 182; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 173. Jas 3:8.—D. Burns, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 101; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 51.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For the better understanding of these words, let us consider. 1. What the apostle doth not; 2. What he doth condemn. 3. What is here not condemned, namely,

1. The paying of civil respect to all persons, according to their character, and a different respect to persons, according to their different qualities: honour is to be given to whom honour is due, and the rich are entitled to respect; and that they receive it from us, is no ways displeasing unto God.

2. Much less does our apostle here speak against honouring magistrates, or paying respect to our ecclesiastical or civil rulers and governors in their courts or judicature: civility, yea, Christianity, calls for outward respect and reverence to them that are above us, especially if in authority over us.

But positively, that which is here condemned, 1. In general, is partiality in our respect to persons in religious matters, for in the things of God all are equal: the rich and the poor stand upon the same terms of advantage; external relations and differences bear no weight at the gospel-beam; therefore, to disesteem any of the poor members of Christ, as such, is to disesteem and undervalue Christ himself. Holiness in not less lovely to him because clothed with rags, nor unholiness less loathsome because it goes in a gay coat with a gold ring. Wickedness is abominable to Christ, and ought to be so to us, though it sits upon a throne, and holiness shines in his eye, (and may it in ours also,) though it lies upon a dunghill.

2. That which seems here to be condemned in particular, is the accepting of persons in judgment, upon the account of outward advantages, proceeding not according to the merits of the cause, in their ecclesiastical and civil judicatures, but according to external respects. Our apostle would by no means have them pay a deference to a rich man in judgment because of his riches, or gay attire; nor to pass over the poor saints in their assemblies, for want of the gold ring, and goodly apparel, seeing their faith clothed them with a greater and a more valuable glory, which renders them more honourable than any riches or gay clothing could do.

And mark the apostle’s vehement expostulation, which carries with it the force of a severe reprehension; Are you not partial, and become judges of evil thoughts? As if he had said, "Are ye not condemned in yourselves, and convinced in your own consciences that you do evil? Are ye not become judges of evil thoughts; that is, do you not pass judgment from your evil thoughts, in thinking the rich worthy of respect in judgment for his gorgeous attire, and outward greatness, and the poor fit to be despised for his outward meanness? Is not this an evil, a very evil thought in you, to think him the best man that weareth the best clothes, and him a vile person that is in vile apparel?

From the whole learn, 1. That men are very prone to honour worldly greatness in general, yea, to give too great a preference to it, even in matters of judgment. Man is very often swayed in judgment by the power, pomp, and splendour of men; we are apt to think that they that are worth most are most worthy: thus men, good men, may mis-judge of men; but thus to accept the persons of men, either in spiritual or civil judgment, is a provoking sin.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 7

PARTIALITY

1. The Holy Ghost here condemns the wicked sin of partiality, called “respect of persons.” How natural is it for us to think that God can be glorified more through the instrumentality of the rich than the poor, the learned than the illiterate, the noble than the ignoble. For this conclusion we fail to fully apprehend the power of God. Aunt Amanda Smith, born and reared in Negro slavery, ignorant of the alphabet, toiling at the washtub in a basement hovel in New York, is gloriously sanctified by some street preachers. Filled with the Spirit, as the years roll on she becomes the sensation of the Continent, preaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. She crosses the ocean and preaches to the magnates of the British Empire in Europe and Asia. She goes to Africa and stirs the Dark Continent, preaching to the sable sons and daughters of her native land; thus girdling the globe with her thrilling testimonies to full salvation, and her flaming appeals to flee the wrath to come. Will not her crown outshine that of every bishop except Taylor?

2. “For if a golden ringed man in shining apparel may come into your synagogue, and a poor man may also enter in soiled clothing.”

3, 4. “Are ye not condemned within yourselves, and have you not become the judges of evil reasonings,” i.e., having evil reasonings. This simple description of the partiality shown to the rich, noble, cultured and well dressed people entering our congregations, with simultaneous neglect and depreciation of poor people, dressed in untidy, soiled and perhaps ragged apparel, is universally prevalent at the present day, with few exceptions, outside of the holiness movement. Yet we here see God’s withering condemnation of all such proceedings.

5. “... Hath God not chosen the poor in the world, rich in faith, truly heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him with divine love?” Agapee, which means divine love, is none other than the divine nature imparted to the human spirit by the Holy Ghost in regeneration (Rom 5:5), and synonymous with the spiritual kingdom. Hence the kingdom here referred to as the glorious reward of God’s people, poor in this world, but rich in faith, is none other than the millennium, in which the glorified Savior will rule the world through the instrumentality of His transfigured saints.

6, 7. It is a significant fact that the saints of God in all ages, as a rule, have been poor in the things of this world, while the rich have invariably led the way in the bloody persecutions, which in bygone ages have martyred two hundred millions of God’s people.

8. “If you truly perfect the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor with divine love as thyself,’ you do well.” Your neighbor is every human being on the globe, without regard to race, color, nationality or religion. This commandment of the royal law can not be satisfied with human love, as the word used with the Holy Ghost is agapee, divine love, to which the unregenerated are total strangers, and must so remain till the Holy Spirit pours out the divine agapee into the heart, which always consummates regeneration.

9. “But if you have respect unto persons you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.” This verse is a withering condemnation of all partiality shown to different classes of people. What a powerful argument is this against the inbred sin of partiality, for which there is no final and effectual remedy but entire sanctification.

10. “For whosoever may keep the whole law and fail in one item, has become guilty of all.” Here is tacit allusion to this occult and universally prevalent sin of partiality. The breachy animal need not elope every panel of the fence, in order to become a transgressor. If he jump the fence in one place, he is in your field, and as truly a transgressor as if he had leaped over every panel encompassing your field. When you commit a single overt act of known sin, you are out of the Lord’s kingdom, over on Satan’s common and a transgressor of the law.

11. This verse is illustrative of the preceding.

12. When you stand before the great white throne you will be judged by the law of liberty. What is this law of liberty? The soul fully and completely sanctified, and thus saved from every inclination to violate the law, is as free as if there were no law. Hence this is the only final qualification for the judgment bar.

13. “For judgment is without mercy to him that doeth no mercy: mercy boasteth over judgment,” i.e., condemnation. Mercy is the twin sister of divine love which is the fulfilling of the law. Rom 13:10. James elaborates with iron logic this powerful argument of thirteen verses against the inbred sin of partiality, i.e., respect of persons, whose only possible remedy is entire sanctification. This sin is so prevalent nowadays as to be passed by among all classes almost unnoticed, yet James assures us that the guilty party will be held responsible for the whole decalogue. The grand achievement of grace is to prepare us for glory. This great and prevalent sin, i.e., respect of persons, is utterly incompatible with the heavenly state, whose crowning glory is perfect love for every creature in all the celestial universe. Hence this subtle, clandestine and serpentine sin of partiality must be totally and eternally eradicated.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

James Chapter 2

The apostle now enters on the subject of those who professed to believe that Jesus was Christ the Lord. Before, in chapter 1, he had spoken of the new nature in connection with God: here the profession of faith in Christ is brought to the same touchstone-the reality of the fruits produced by it in contrast with this world. All these principles-the value of the name of Jesus, the essence of the law as Christ presented it, and the law of liberty-are brought forward to test the reality of their professed faith, or to convince the professor that he did not possess it. Two things are reprobated: having respect to the outward appearance of persons; and the absence of good works as a proof of the sincerity of the profession.

First, then, he blames respect for outward appearance of persons. They profess faith in the Lord Jesus, and yet hold with the spirit of the world! He replies that God has chosen the poor, making them rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. These professors had despised them; these rich men blasphemed the name of Christ and persecuted Christians.

In the second place he appeals to the practical summary of the law, of which Jesus had spoken-the royal law. They broke the law itself in favouring the rich. Now the law did not allow of any infraction whatsoever of its commands, because the authority of the legislator was concerned. In despising the poor, they were assuredly not loving their neighbor as themselves.

In the third place they ought to walk as those whose responsibility was measured by the law of liberty, in which-possessing a nature which tasted and loved that which was of God-they were set free from all that was contrary to Him; so that they could not excuse themselves if they admitted principles which were not those of God Himself. This introduction of the divine nature leads the apostle on to speak of the mercy by which God glorifies Himself. The man who shews no mercy will find himself the object of the judgment which he has loved.

The second part of the chapter is connected with this; for he begins his discourse on works, as proofs of faith, by speaking of this mercy which answers to the nature and character of God, of which , as born of Him, the true Christian is made a partaker. The profession of having faith without this life-the existence of which is proved by works-can profit no one. This is plain enough. I say the profession of having faith, because the epistle say it: “If a man say he hath faith.” This is the key to this part of the epistle. He says it: where is the proof of it? Works are the proof; and it is in this way that the apostle uses them. A man says he hath faith. It is not a thing that we can see. I say therefore with reason, “Shew it me.” This is the evidence of faith which is required for man-it is only by its fruits that we make it evident to men; for the faith itself cannot be seen. But if I produce these fruits, then assuredly I have the root, without which there could not be the fruits. Thus faith does not shew itself to others, nor can I recognise it, without works; but works, the fruit of faith, prove the existence of faith.

That which follows shews that he is speaking of the profession of a doctrine, true perhaps in itself-of certain truths being confessed; for it is a real faith looked at-certainty of knowledge and conviction-which devils have in the unity of the Godhead. They do not doubt it; but there is no link at all between their heart and God by means of a new nature-far indeed from it.

But the apostle confirms this, by the case of men in whom the opposition to the divine nature is not so apparent. Faith, the recognition of the truth with respect to Christ, is dead without works; that is , such a faith as produces none is dead.

We see (ver 16) that the faith of which the apostle speaks is a profession devoid of reality; verse 16 shews that it may be an unfeigned certainty that the thing is true: but the life begotten by the word, so that a relationship is formed between the soul and God, is entirely wanting. Because this takes place through the word, it is faith; being begotten of God we have a new life. This life acts, that is to say, faith acts, according to the relationship with God, by works which flow naturally from it, and which bear testimony to the faith that produced them.

From verse 20 to the end he presents a fresh proof of his thesis, founded on the last principle that I have mentioned. Now these proofs have nothing at all to do with the fruits of a kindly nature (for there are such), appertaining to us as creatures-but not to that life which has for its source the word of God, by which He begets us. The fruits of which the apostle speaks, bear testimony by their very character to the faith that produced them. Abraham offered up his son; Rahab received the messengers of Israel, associating herself with the people of God when everything was against them, and separating herself from her own people by faith. All sacrificed for God, all given up for His people before they had gained one victory, and while the world was in full power, such were the fruits of faith. One referred to God; and believed Him in the most absolute way, against all that is in nature of on which nature can count; the other owned God’s people, when all was against them; but neither was the fruit of an amiable nature or natural good, such as men call good works. One was a father going to put his son to death, the other a bad woman betraying her country. Certainly the scripture was fulfilled which said that Abraham believed God. How could he have acted as he did, if he had not believed Him? Works put a seal on his faith: and faith without works is but like the body without the soul, and outward form devoid of the life that animates it. Faith acts in the works (without it the works are a nullity, they are not those of the new life), and the works complete the faith which acts in them; for in spite of trial, and in the trial, faith is in activity. Works of law have no part in it. The outward law which exacts, is not a life which produces (apart from this divine nature)s these holy and loving dispositions which, having God and His people for their object, value nothing else.

James, remark, never says that works justify us before God; for God can see the faith without its works. He knows that life is there. It is in exercise with regard to Him, towards Him, by trust in His word, in Himself, by receiving His testimony in spite of everything within and without. This God sees and knows. But when our fellow-creatures are in question, when it must be said “shew me,” then faith, life, shews itself in works.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–4. Have not the faith of our Lord. The Gospel, the Christian profession. With respect to persons. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), nor should Christians be. God respects character, not dress, or wealth, or earthly rank.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

James continues to tell the scattered Jewish believers how to live by loving one another and reminds them not to favor rich people over poor brothers.

My brothers

James considers his audience to be Jewish believers. AT: "My fellow believers" or "My brothers and sisters in Christ"

hold to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ

Believing in Jesus Christ is spoken of as if it were an object that one could hold onto. (See: Metaphor)

our Lord Jesus Christ

The word "our" includes James and his fellow believers. (See: Inclusive "We")

favoritism toward certain people

the desire to help some people more than others

Suppose that someone

James starts to describe a situation where the believers might give more honor to a rich person than to a poor person. (See: Hypothetical Situations)

wearing gold rings and fine clothes

"dressed like a wealthy person"

sit here in a good place

sit in this place of honor

stand over there

move to a place with less honor

Sit at my feet

move to a humble place

are you not judging among yourselves? Have you not become judges with evil thoughts?

James is using rhetorical questions to teach and possibly scold his readers. AT: "you are making judgments among yourselves and becoming judges with evil thoughts." (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

brother

faith

lord

Jesus

glory

favor

judge

evil

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1–4. THE SUBJECT OF θρησκεία NATURALLY LEADS TO THE THOUGHT OF THE συναγωγή, CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH WHICH IS THE SPIRITUAL DANGER OF προσωπολημψία, AGAINST WHICH ST JAMES NOW WARNS HIS BRETHREN.

1. ἀδελφοί μου, the name itself is a protest against the sin of προσωπολημψία.

μὴ … ἔχετε is pointed interrogatively by Westcott and Hort. This construction however is regularly used only where a negative answer is expected, and even if there are exceptions to the rule, the imperative is more forcible and more characteristic of St James’ style. See Winer, III. 67, 3 b.

ἐν προσωπολημψίαις, with respect of persons. Do not let those personal distinctions and differences continue to find a place in religious life. The plural denotes the different ways in which προσωπολημψία shews itself, the various acts and instances of deference to persons. See note Jas 1:17. The compounds προσωπολημψία, προσωπολημπτεῖν, προσωπολήμπτης are first found in the N.T. They are among the earliest purely Christian words.—πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν is a Hebraism נָשָׂא פָּנִים, lit. to lift the face (opposed to making the countenance fall); hence to be favourable to: translated by ἐθαύμασά σου τὸ πρόσωπον, Gen 19:21: hence in N.T. always in a bad sense of shewing favour or preference to persons on account of external advantages, rank, wealth, power: οὐ λαμβάνεις πρόσωπον οὐδενός, Luk 20:21, in parallels οὐ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων, Mat 22:16, Mar 12:14; comp. οὐ γὰρ προσωπολήμπτης ὁ θεός, Act 10:34; θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, Jud 1:16. For προσωπολημψία itself, see Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25.

τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου κ.τ.λ., the faith in the Lord Jesus, that faith of which He is the object, in virtue of which the disciples were called οἱ πιστεύοντες.

τῆς δόξης. Comp. Heb 12:11 where δικαιοσύνης has the same emphatic position qualifying the whole phrase. For the expression see 1Co 2:8 οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν, and comp. Joh 1:14 ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός. See also Joh 2:11; Joh 17:5; Joh 17:22; Joh 17:24. In the LXX. δόξα is used of the Shekinah or glorious manifestation of Jehovah in the tabernacle, e.g. καὶ δόξης Κυρίου ἐπλήσθη ἡ σκηνή, Exo 40:35—a signification closely connected with the use of the word by St John: see Bp Westcott on Joh 1:14 and comp. Book of Enoch, ch. xli, ‘my eyes beheld all the sinners who denied the Lord of glory.’ The construction of τῆς δόξης with πίστιν, which is possibly suggested by the marginal reading in W. H., has the support of some interpreters, who render: (a) belief in the glory of the Lord Jesus or (b) faith proceeding from the Lord Jesus in the glory (about to be revealed). The expression however of πίστις Ἰησ. Χρ. varied sometimes by the construction of εἰς or ἐν is so usual (see Rom 3:22; Gal 2:16; Col 2:5) that it is natural to take these words together and to regard τῆς δόξης as added with special reference to the subject under discussion.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Have [εχετε] . Rev., hold, not in the sense of hold fast, cleave to, but of possessing, occupying, and practicing, as a matter of habit. Thus we say that a man holds his property by a certain tenure. A rented estate is a holding. So of an opinion, or set of opinions, with which one is publicly identified. We say that he holds thus and so.

With respect of persons [εν προσωπολημψιαις] . From proswpon, the countenance, and lambanw, to receive. To receive the countenance is a Hebrew phrase. Thus Lev 19:15 (Sept.) : Ouj lhyh proswpon ptwcou : Thou shalt not respect the person (receive the countenance) of the poor. Compare Luk 20:21; Rom 2:11; and Jude 1:16.

The Lord of glory. Compare 1Co 2:8; Act 7:2; Eph 1:17.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.