James 2:19

Chapter 13

THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM; AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT.

Jam_2:19; Jam_2:21; Jam_2:25

IN the preceding chapter several points of great interest were passed over, in order not to obscure the main issue as to the relation of this passage to the teaching of St. Paul. Some of these may now be usefully considered.

Throughout this book, as in that on the Pastoral Epistles and others for which the present writer is in no way responsible, the Revised Version has been taken as the basis of the expositions. There may be reasonable difference of opinion as to its superiority to the Authorized Version for public reading in the services of the Church, but few unprejudiced persons would deny its superiority for purposes of private study and both private and public exposition. Its superiority lies not so much in happy treatment of difficult texts, as in the correction of a great many small errors of translation, and above all in the substitution of a great many true or probable readings for others that are false or improbable. And while there are not a few cases in which there is plenty of room for doubt whether the change, even if clearly a gain in accuracy, was worth making, there are also some in which the uninitiated student wonders why no change was made. The passage before us contains a remarkable instance. Why has the word "devils" been retained as the rendering of δαιμονια, while "demons" is relegated to the margin?

There are two Greek words, very different from one another in origin and history, which are used both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament to express the unseen and spiritual powers of evil. These are διαβολος and δαιμονιον, or in one place δαιμων. {Mat_22:31; not Mar_5:12; Luk_7:29, or Rev_16:14 and Rev_18:2} The Scriptural usage of these two words is quite distinct and very marked. Excepting where it is used as an adjective, {Joh_6:70; 1Ti_3:2; 2Ti_3:3; Tit_2:3} διαβολος is one of the names of Satan, the great enemy of God and of men, and the prince of the spirits of evil. It is so used in the Books of Job and of Zechariah, as well as in RAPC Wis 2:24, and also throughout the New Testament, viz., in the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse. It is, in fact, a proper name, and is applied to one person only. It commonly, but not invariably {1Ch_21:1; Psa_108:5; Psa_109:5} has the definite article. The word δαιμονιον, on the other hand, is used of those evil spirits who are the messengers and ministers of Satan. It is thus used in Isaiah, the Psalms, Tobit, Baruch, and throughout the New Testament. It is used also of the false gods of the heathen, which were believed to be evil spirits, or at least the productions of evil spirits, who are the inspirers of idolatry; whereas Satan is never identified with any heathen divinity. Those who worship false gods are said to worship "demons," but never to worship "the devil." Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New are the two words ever interchanged. Satan is never spoken of as a δαιμων or δαιμονιον, and his ministers are never called διαβολοι. Is it not a calamity that this very marked distinction should be obliterated in the English Version by translating both Greek words by the word "devil," especially when there is another word which, as the margin admits, might have been used for one of them? The Revisers have done immense service by distinguishing between Hades, the abode of departed spirits of men, and Hell or Gehenna, the place of punishment. {Jam_3:6} Why did they reject a similar opportunity by refusing to distinguish the devil from the demons over whom he reigns? This is one of the suggestions of the American Committee which might have been followed with great advantage and (so far as one sees) no loss.

St. James has just been pointing out the advantage which the Christian who has works to show has over one who has only faith. The one can prove that he possesses both; the other cannot prove that he possesses either. The works of the one are evidence that the faith is there also, just as leaves and fruit are evidence that a tree is alive. But the other, who possesses only faith, cannot prove that he possesses even that. He says that he believes, and we may believe his statement, but if any one doubts or denies the truth of his profession of faith he is helpless. Just as a leafless and fruitless tree may be alive; but who is to be sure of this? We must note, however, that in this case the statement is not doubted. "Thou hast faith, and I have works"; the possibility of possessing faith without works is not disputed. And again, "Thou believest that God is one"; the orthodox character of the mans creed is not called in question. This shows that there is no emphasis on "say" in the opening verse, "If a man say he hath faith, but have not works"; as if such a profession were incredible. And this remains equally true if, with some of the best editors, we turn the statement of the mans faith into a question, "Dost thou believe that God is One?" For "Thou doest well" shows that the mans orthodoxy is not questioned.

The object of St. James is not to prove that the man is a hypocrite, and that his professions are false; but that, on his own showing, he is in a miserable condition. He may plume himself upon the correctness of his Theism; but as far as that goes, he is no better than the demons, to whom this article of faith is a source, not of joy and strength, but of horror.

It is most improbable that, if he had been alluding to the teaching of St. Paul, St. James would have selected the Unity of the Godhead as the article of faith held by the barren Christian. He would have taken faith in Christ as his example. But in writing to Jewish Christians, without any such allusion, the selection is very natural. The Monotheism of his creed, in contrast with the foolish "gods many, and lords many," of the heathen, was to the Jew a matter of religious and national pride. He gloried in his intellectual and spiritual superiority to those who could believe in a plurality of deities. And there was nothing in Christianity to make him think less highly of this supreme article of faith. Hence, when St. James desires to give an example of the faith on which a Jewish Christian, who had sunk into a dead formalism, would be most likely to rely, he selects this article, common to both the Jewish and the Christian creed, "I believe that God is One," "Thou doest well," is the calm reply; and then follows the sarcastic addition, "The demons also believe-and shudder."

Is St. James here alluding to the belief mentioned above, that the gods of the heathen are demons? They, of all evil spirits, might be supposed to know most about the Unity of God, and to have most to fear in reference to it. "They sacrificed unto demons, which were no God," we read in Deuteronomy. {Deu_32:17} And again in the Psalms, "They sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons" (Psa_106:37, Comp. Psa_96:5). In these passages the Greek word δαιμονια represents the Elilim or Shedim, the nonentities who were allowed to usurp the place of Jehovah. And St. Paul affirms, "That the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God". {1Co_10:20} It is quite possible, therefore, that St. James is thinking of demons as objects of idolatrous worship, or at any rate as seducing people into such worship, when he speaks of the demons belief in the Unity of God.

But a suggestion which Bede makes, and which several modern commentators have followed, is well worth considering. St. James may be thinking of the demons which possessed human beings, rather than those which received or promoted idolatrous worship. Bede reminds us of the many demons who went out at Christs command, crying out that He was the Son of God, and especially of the man with the legion among the Gadarenes, who expressed not only belief, but horror: "What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure Thee by God, that Thou torment me not." Without falling into the error of supposing that demons can mean demoniacs, we may imagine how readily one who had witnessed such scenes as those recorded in the Gospels might attribute to the demons the expressions of horror which he had heard in the words and seen on the faces of those whom demons possessed. Such expressions were the usual effect of being confronted by the Divine presence and power of Christ, and were evidence both of a belief in God and of a dread of Him. St. James, who was then living with the mother of the Lord, and sometimes followed His Divine Brother in His wanderings, would be almost certain to have been a witness of some of these healings of demoniacs. And it is worth noting that the word which in the Authorized Version is rendered "tremble," and in the Revised "shudder" (φρισσειν), expresses physical horror, especially as it affects the hair; and in itself it implies a body, and would be an inappropriate word to use of the fear felt by a purely spiritual being. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but in the Septuagint we find it used in the book of Job: "Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up". {Job_4:15} It is a stronger word than either "fear" or "tremble," and strictly speaking can be used only of men and other animals.

This horror, then, expressed by the demons through the bodies of those whom they possess, is evidence enough of faith. Can faith such as that save any one? Is it not obvious that a faith which produces, not works of love, but the strongest expressions of fear, is not a faith on which any one can rely for his salvation? And yet the faith of those who refuse to do good works, because they hold that their faith is sufficient to save them, is no better than the faith of the demons. Indeed, in some respects it is worse. For the sincerity of the demons faith cannot be doubted; their terror is proof of it: whereas the formal Christian has nothing but cold professions to offer. Moreover, the demons are under no self-delusion; they know their own terrible condition. For the formalist who accepts Christian truth and neglects Christian practice there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will come a time when "believe and shudder" will be true also of him. "But, before it is too late, wiliest thou to get to know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?"

"Wilt thou know" does not do full justice to the meaning of the Greek (θελεις γνωναι). The meaning is not, "I would have you know," but, "Do you wish to have acquired the knowledge?" You profess to know God and to believe in Him; do you desire to know what faith in Him really means? "O vain man" is literally. "O empty man," i.e., empty-headed, empty-handed, and empty-hearted. Empty-headed, in being so deluded as to suppose that a dead faith can save; empty-handed, in being devoid of true spiritual riches; empty-hearted, in having no real love either for God or man. The epithet seems to be the equivalent of Raca, the term of contempt quoted by our Lord as the expression of that angry spirit which is akin to murder. {Mat_5:22} The use of it by St. James may be taken as an indication that the primitive Church saw that the commands in the Sermon on the Mount are not rules to be obeyed literally, but illustrations of principles. The sin lies not so much in the precise term of reproach which is employed as in the spirit and temper which are felt and displayed in the employment of it. The change from "dead" (A.V.) to "barren" (R.V.) is not a change of translation, but of reading (νεκρα το αργη), the latter term meaning "workless, idle, unproductive". {Mat_20:3; Mat_20:6; 1Ti_5:13; Tit_1:12; 2Pe_1:8} Aristotle ("Nic. Eth.," 1. 7:11) asks whether it is likely that every member of a mans body should have a function or work (εργον) to perform, and that mart as a whole should be functionless (αργος). Would nature have produced such a vain contradiction? We should reproduce the spirit of St. Jamess pointed interrogation if we rendered "that faith without fruits is fruitless."

In contrast with this barren faith, which makes a mans spiritual condition no better than that of the demons, St. James places two conspicuous instances of living and fruitful faith-Abraham and Rahab. The case of "Abraham our father" would be the first that would occur to every Jew. As the passages in the Apocrypha (RAPC Wis 10:5; Ecclus. 44:20; 1 Macc. 2:52) prove, Abrahams faith was a subject of frequent discussion among the Jews, and this fact is quite enough to account for its mention by St. James, St. Paul, {Rom_4:3; Gal_3:6} and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, {Heb_11:17} without supposing that any one of them had seen the writings of the others. Certainly there is no proof that the writer of this Epistle is the borrower, if there is borrowing on either side. It is urged that between the authors of this Epistle and that to the Hebrews there must be dependence on one side or the other, because each selects not only Abraham, but Rahab, as an example of faith; and Rahab is so strange an example that it is unlikely that two writers would have selected it independently. There is force in the argument, but less than at first sight appears. The presence of Rahabs name in the genealogy of the Christ, {Mat_1:5} in which so few women are mentioned, must have given thoughtful persons food for reflection. Why was such a woman singled out for such distinction? The answer to this question cannot be given with certainty. But whatever caused her to be mentioned in the genealogy may also have caused her to be mentioned by St. James and the writer of Hebrews; or the fact of her being in the genealogy may have suggested her to the author of these two Epistles. This latter alternative does not necessarily imply that these two writers were acquainted with the written Gospel of St. Matthew, which was perhaps not in existence when they wrote. The genealogy, at any rate, was in existence, for St. Matthew no doubt copied it from official or family registers. Assuming, however, that it is not a mere coincidence that both writers use Abraham and Rahab as examples of fruitful faith, it is altogether arbitrary to decide that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote first. The probabilities are the other way. Had St. James known that Epistle, he would have made more use of it.

The two examples are in many respects very different. Their resemblance consists in this, that in both cases faith found expression in action, and this action was the source of the believers deliverance. The case of Abraham, which St. Paul uses to prove the worthlessness of "works of the law" in comparison with a living faith, is used by St. James to prove the worthlessness of a dead faith in comparison with works of love which are evidence that there is a living faith behind them. But it should be noticed that a different episode in Abrahams life is taken in each Epistle, and this is a further reason for believing that neither writer refers to the other. St. Paul appeals to Abrahams faith in believing that he should have a son when he was a hundred, and Sarah ninety years of age. {Rom_4:19} St. James appeals to Abrahams faith in offering up Isaac, when there seemed to be no possibility of the Divine promise being fulfilled if Isaac was slain. The latter required more faith than the former, and was much more distinctly an act of faith; a work, or series of works, that would never have been accomplished if there had not been a very vigorous faith to inspire and support the doer. The result (εξ εργων) was that Abraham was "justified," i.e., he was counted righteous, and the reward of his faith was with still greater solemnity and fullness than on the first occasion {Gen_15:4-6} promised to him: "By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed My voice". {Gen_22:16-18}

With the expression "was justified as a result of works" (εξ εργων εδικαιωθη), which is used both of Abraham and of Rahab, should be compared our Lords saying, "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned," {Mat_12:37} which are of exactly the same form; literally, "As a result of thy words thou shalt be accounted righteous, and as a result of thy words thou shalt be condemned" (εκ των λογων σου δικαιωθηση καιγων σου καταδικασθηση); that is, it is from the consideration of the words in the one case, and of the works in the other, that the sentence of approval proceeds; they are the source of the justification. Of course from the point of view taken by St. James words are "works"; good words spoken for the love of God are quite as much fruits of faith and evidence of faith as good deeds. It is not impossible that this phrase is an echo of expressions which he had heard used by Christ.

That the words rendered "offered up Isaac his son upon the altar" really mean this, and not merely "brought Isaac his son as a victim up to the altar," is clear from other passages where the same phrase (αναφερειν επι τοριον) occurs. Noah "offering burnt offerings on the altar" {Gen_8:20} and Christ "offering our sins on the tree" {1Pe_2:24} might be interpreted either way, although the bringing up to the altar and to the tree does not seem so natural as the offering on them. But a passage in Leviticus about the offerings of the leper is quite decisive: "Afterward he shall kill the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meal offering upon the altar". {Lev_14:19-20} It would be very unnatural to speak of bringing the victim up to the altar after it had been slain. {Comp. /RAPC Bar 1:10; 1Ma 4:53} The Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and all English versions agreed in this translation; and it is not a matter of small importance, not a mere nicety of rendering. In all completeness, both of will and deed, Abraham had actually surrendered and offered up to God his only son, when he laid him bound upon the altar, and took the knife to slay him-to slay that son of whom God had promised, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Then "was the Scripture fulfilled"; i.e., what had been spoken and partly fulfilled before Gen_15:6 received a more complete and a higher fulfillment. Greater faith hath no man than this, that a man gives back his own promises unto God. The real but incomplete faith of believing that aged parents could become the progenitors of countless thousands had been accepted and rewarded. Much more, therefore, was the perfect faith of offering to God the one hope of posterity accepted and rewarded. This last was a work in which his faith co-operated, and which proved the complete development of his faith; by it "was faith made perfect."

"He was called the Friend of God." Abraham was so called in Jewish tradition; and to this day this is his name among his descendants the Arabs, who much more commonly speak of him as "the Friend" (El Khalil), or "the Friend of God" (El Khalil Allah), than by the name Abraham. Nowhere in the Old Testament does he receive this name, although our Versions, both Authorized and Revised, would lead us to suppose that he is so called. The word is found neither in the Hebrew nor in existing copies of the Septuagint. In 1Ch_20:7, "Abraham Thy friend" should be "Abraham Thy beloved"; and in Isa_41:8, "Abraham My friend" should be "Abraham whom I loved." In both passages, however, the Vulgate has the rendering amicus, and some copies of the Septuagint had the reading "friend" in 2Ch_20:7, while Symmachus had it in Isa_41:8 (See Fields "Hexapla," 1. p. 744; 2. p. 513). Clement of Rome (10., 17.) probably derived this name for Abraham from St. James. But even if Abraham is nowhere styled "the friend of God," he is abundantly described as being such. God talks with him as a man talks with his friend, and asks, "Shall I, Abraham that which hide from I do?" {Gen_18:17} which is the very token of friendship pointed out by Christ. "No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known unto you". {Joh_15:15} It is worthy of note that St. James seems to intimate that the word is not in the sacred writings. The words "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness," are introduced with the formula, "The Scripture was fulfilled which saith." Of the title "Friend of God," it is simply said "he was called," without stating by whom.

"In like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?" It is because of the similarity of her case to Abrahams, both of them being a contrast to the formal Christian and the demons, that Rahab is introduced. In her case also faith led to action, and the action had its result in the salvation of the agent. If there had been faith without action, if she had merely believed the spies without doing anything in consequence of her belief, she would have perished. She was glorified in Jewish tradition, perhaps as being a typical forerunner of proselytes from the Gentile world; and it may be that this accounts for her being mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah, and consequently by St. James and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Talmud mentions a quite untrustworthy tradition that she married Joshua, and became the ancestress of eight persons who were both priests and prophets, and also of Huldah the prophetess. St. Matthew gives Salmon the son of Naasson as her husband; he may have been one of the spies.

But the contrast between Abraham and Rahab is almost as marked as the similarity. He is the friend of God, and she is of a vile heathen nation and a harlot. His great act of faith is manifested towards God, hers towards men. His is the crowning act of his spiritual development; hers is the first sign of a faith just beginning to exist. He is the aged saint, while she is barely a catechumen. But according to her light, which was that of a very faulty moral standard, "she did what she could," and it was accepted.

These contrasts have their place in the argument, as well as the similarities. The readers of the Epistle might think, "Heroic Acts are all very suitable for Abraham; but we are not Abrahams, and must be content with sharing his faith in the true God; we cannot and need not imitate his acts." "But," St. James replies, (and he writes ομοιως δε, not καιως), "there is Rahab, Rahab the heathen, Rahab the harlot; at least you can imitate her." And for the Jewish Christians of that day her example was very much in point. She welcomed and believed the messengers, whom her countrymen persecuted, and would have slain. She separated herself from her unbelieving and hostile people, and went over to an unpopular and despised cause. She saved the preachers of an unwelcome message for the fulfillment of the Divine mission with which they had been entrusted. Substitute the Apostles for the spies, and all this is true of the believing Jews of that age. And as if to suggest this lesson, St. James speaks not of "young men," as Jos_6:23, nor of "spies," as Heb_11:31, but of "messengers," a term which is as applicable to those who were sent by Jesus Christ as to those who were sent by Joshua.

Plutarch, who was a young man at the time when this Epistle was written, has the following story of Alexander the Great, in his "Apothegms of Kings and Generals": The young Alexander was not at all pleased with the success of his father, Philip of Macedon. "My father will leave me nothing," he said. The young nobles who were brought up with him replied, "He is gaining all this for you," Almost in the words of St. James, though with a very different meaning, he answered, "What does it profit (τι οφελος) if I possess much and do nothing? "The future conqueror scorned to have everything done for him. In quite another spirit the Christian must remember that if he is to conquer he must not suppose that his heavenly Father, who has done so much for him, has left him nothing to do. There is the fate of the barren fig-tree as a perpetual warning to those who are royal in their professions of faith, and paupers in good works.

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.

2:19 that there is one God: This is the basic confession of Israel’s faith (see Deut 6:4). • the demons believe: They know that there is one God, and he is their enemy (Mark 1:24).

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

Jas 2:19. Σὺ πιστεύεις thou believest) There is a forcible repetition in the word thou by the figure Anaphora;[26] for this verse also is contained under the words, a man will say (Jas 2:18).—ὁ Θεὸς εἷς, One God) That fundamental article, which has always distinguished the faithful from unbelievers, is put prominently forward.—τιστεύουσι, believe) The word believe is here used in a very wide sense; for the devils perceive, and understand, and remember, that there is a God, and one only.—καὶ φρίσσουσι, and tremble) in fearful expectation of eternal torments. So far is such a faith as that from justifying or saving its possessor; and yet it has some efficacy, but in an opposite direction. This, added as it is, contrary to the expectation of the reader, has great force.

[26] See Append. under the title ANAPHORA.

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

Jam_2:19. James shows, in the faith of demons, with whom it produces trembling, how little faith without works effects salvation. With σὺ πιστεύεις, which is not, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be taken as a question, it is granted to the opponent that he possesses faith. From the fact that what is specifically Christian is not named as the object of faith, it is not to be inferred, with Calvin, that in this entire section not the Christian faith (de fide) is spoken of, but only de vulgari Dei notitia. Expositors correctly assume that this one article of faith is only adduced as an example. The selection of precisely this article on the unity of God is not to be explained because the Jewish Christians were particularly proud of it, so that it kept them back from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith (Lange), but because it distinguished revealed religion from all heathenism. However much the position of the individual words vary (see critical notes), yet the unity of God appears in all as the chief idea; comp. particularly, Deu_6:4; Neh_9:6; Isa_44:6; Isa_45:6; Mat_23:9; Mar_12:29; Mar_12:32; Rom_3:30; 1Co_8:4; 1Co_8:6; and, in this Epistle, chap. Jam_4:12. In Hermas, I. 2, mand. 1, it is said: πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Θεός.

De Wette, with whom Philippi coincides, thinks that by the construction with ὅτι the faith which the opponent has is characterized as merely theoretical; but it is, on the other hand, to be observed, that a construction with εἰς or ἐν here, where the unity of God is to be adduced, could hardly have been used (so also Brückner).

James grants, by the words καλῶς ποιεῖς, that this faith is something in itself entirely good (see Jam_2:8). Several expositors, as Calvin, Semler, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman, find in the expression a trace of irony, which others, as Laurentius, Baumgarten, Grotius, Pott, Gebser, de Wette, deny. Though not in the statement by itself, yet in the whole expression there is something ironical (Lange, Brückner), which, in the combination of πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν (as Wieseler remarks), rises to sarcasm. This sarcasm is, moreover, to be recognised in demons being placed in opposition to the opponent.

καί before τὰ δαιμόνια is not to be explained by ἀλλὰ καί (Pott), or atqui (Theile); by the insertion of a contrary reference the peculiar severity of the expression is only weakened. That James, in his reference to the unity of God, mentions the demons, is in accordance with the view that the heathen divinities are demons; comp. LXX. Deu_32:17; Psa_95:5; Psa_105:37; 1Co_10:20; and Meyer in loco: As these are the occasion of polytheism, so they are hostilely opposed to the one God; but, in their usurped lordship over the heathen world, they tremble before the one God, who will again rescue the world and judge them. It is wholly arbitrary to take τὰ δαιμόνια = daemoniaci (Wetstein), or to think on the demons in the possessed (Semler, Gebser, Schneckenburger). Pott incorrectly paraphrases the καί between πιστεύουσιν and φρίσσουσι by καὶ ὅμως; the simple copulative meaning of the word need not here be altered. φρίσσειν, an ἅπ. λεγ., is used particularly of the hair standing on end (Job_4:15), and is therefore a stronger expression than δεδοικέναι and τρέμειν.

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 2:19 . σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἶς ἐστιν ὁ θεός : Cf. Mar 12:29 , 1Co 8:4 ; 1Co 8:6 ; Eph 4:6 . The reading varies, see critical note above; the interrogative is unsuitable, see note on ἔχεις in the preceding verse. Somewhat striking is the fact that the regular and universally accepted formula (whether Hebrew or Greek) among the Jews is not adhered to; the Septuagint of Deu 6:4 , which corresponds strictly to the original, runs: Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἶς ἐστιν , and this is also the exact wording in Mar 12:29 , The stress laid on Κύριος (= יהוה ) in the original is very pointed, the reason being the desire to emphasise the name of Jahwe as the God of Israel (note the omission of the article before Κύριος ); it sounded a particularistic note. The elimination of Κύριος in the verse before us, and the emphatic position of ὁ Θεός , is most likely intentional, and points to a universalistic tendency, such as is known to have been a distinctive characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism. To Jews of all kinds belief in the unity of God formed the basis of faith; this unity is expressed in what is called the Shema‘ (Deu 6:4 ff.), i.e. , “Hear,” from the opening word of the passage referred to; strictly speaking, it includes Deu 6:4-9 ; Deu 11:13-21 ; Num 15:37-41 , though originally it consisted of the one verse, Deu 6:4 . From the time of the Exile, according to Berachoth , i. 1, the recitation of the Shema‘ every morning and evening became the solemn duty of all true Jews. To the present day it is the confession of faith which every Jew breathes upon his death-bed. It is said of Rabbi Akiba, who suffered the martyr’s death, that he breathed out at the last the word “One” in reference to the belief in the Unity of God as contained in the Shema‘ ( Ber. , 61 b ). A few instances may be given from Jewish literature in order to show the great importance of and honour attaching to the Shema‘ : “They cool the flames of Gehinnom for him who reads the Shema‘ ” ( Ber. , 15 b ); “Whoever reads the Shema‘ upon his couch is as one that defends himself with a two-edged sword” ( Meg. , 3 a ); it is said in Ber. , i. § 2, that to him who goes on reading the Shema‘ after the prescribed time no harm will come; in Suk. , 42 a , it is commanded that a father must teach his son to read the Shema‘ as soon as he begins to speak. The very parchment on which the Shema‘ is written is efficacious in keeping demons at a distance. The single personality of God is frequently insisted upon in the O.T., Targums, and later Jewish literature; in the latter this fundamental article was sometimes believed to be impugned by Christian teaching concerning God, and we therefore find passages in which this latter is combated (see, on this, Oesterley and Box, op. cit. , p. 155); in the Targums all anthropomorphisms are avoided, since they were considered derogatory to the Divine Personality. We must suppose that it was owing to this intense jealousy wherewith the doctrine of the Unity of God was guarded that in the passage before us there are no qualifying words regarding the Godhead of Christ; when St. Paul (1Co 8:6 ) enunciates the same doctrine, ἀλλʼ ἡμῖν εἶς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ , he is careful to add, καὶ εἶς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός . Such an addition might well have been expected in the verse before us; its omission must perhaps be accounted for owing to the very pronounced Judaistic character of the writer. καλῶς ποιεῖς : it is impossible to believe that there is anything ironical about these words; as far as it went this belief was absolutely right; the context, which is sometimes interpreted as showing the irony of these words, only emphasises the inadequacy of the belief by itself. τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν : one is, of course, reminded of the passage, Luk 8:26 ff. (= Mat 8:28 ff.), already alluded to above: δέομαί σου , μή με βασανίσῃς , or, more graphically, in the parallel passage, ἔκραξαν λέγοντες , τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί , υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ; ἦλθες ὧδε πρὸ καιροῦ βασανίσαι ἡμᾶς ; cf. Act 19:15 ; 1Th 2:18 . On demons see the writer’s article in Hastings’ D.C.G. , i. 438 ff. Mayor gives some interesting reminiscences of these words in other early Christian writings, e.g. , Justin, Trypho , 49, etc. φρίσσουσιν : ἅπ . λέγ . in the N.T.; literally “to bristle,” cf. Job 4:15 ; the very materialistic ideas concerning evil spirits which is so characteristic of Jewish Demonology would account for an expression which is not, strictly speaking, applicable to immaterial beings. One of the classes of demons comprised the שׂעירים (“hairy ones”), in reference to these the word φρίσσουσιν would be extremely appropriate (see further, on Jewish beliefs concerning demons, the writer’s articles in the Expositor , April, June, August, 1907).

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

Another reason taken of an absurdity: If such a faith were the true faith whereby we are justified, the devils should be justified: for they have that, but yet notwithstanding they tremble, and are not justified therefore, neither is that faith a true faith.

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

Thou--emphatic. Thou self-deceiving claimant to faith without works.

that there is one God--rather, "that God is one": God's existence, however, is also asserted. The fundamental article of the creed of Jews and Christians alike, and the point of faith on which especially the former boasted themselves, as distinguishing them from the Gentiles, and hence adduced by James here.

thou doest well--so far good. But unless thy faith goes farther than an assent to this truth, "the evil spirits (literally, 'demons': 'devil' is the term restricted to Satan, their head) believe" so far in common with thee, "and (so far from being saved by such a faith) shudder (so the Greek)," Mat 8:29; Luk 4:34; Pe2 2:4; Jde 1:6; Rev 20:10. Their faith only adds to their torment at the thought of having to meet Him who is to consign them to their just doom: so thine (Heb 10:26-27, it is not the faith of love, but of fear, that hath torment, Jo1 4:18).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 19. Thou believest that there is one God] This is the faith in which these persons put their hope of pleasing God, and of obtaining eternal life. Believing in the being and unity of God distinguished them from all the nations of the world; and having been circumcised, and thus brought into the covenant, they thought themselves secure of salvation. The insufficiency of this St. James immediately shows.

The devils also believe, and tremble.] It is well to believe there is one only true God; this truth universal nature proclaims. Even the devils believe it; but far from justifying or saving them, it leaves them in their damned state, and every act of it only increases their torment; φρισσουσι, they shudder with horror, they believe and tremble, are increasingly tormented; but they can neither love nor obey.

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

19 Thou believest that there is one God. From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were any one to say, that the devils have faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites. The devil trembles, he says, at the mention of God’s name, because when he acknowledges his own judge he is filled with the fear of him. He then who despises an acknowledged God is much worse.

Thou doest well, is put down for the purpose of extenuating, as though he had said, “It is, forsooth! a great thing to sink down below the devils.”

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.

(19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well.—Better thus, Thou believest that God is One; thou doest well. He is the formal object of faith derived from knowledge, whether by sense, intuition, or demonstration; you are theologically correct, and may even declare your internal faith by external confession—well, indeed.

The devils also believe, and tremble.—They shudder in the belief which only assures them of their utter misery; literally, their hair stands on end with terror of the God they own. Assent, opinion, knowledge—all are thus shared by demons of the pit; call not your joint possession by the holier name of Faith. “I believe in God,” “I believe in one God”—such is the voice of the Christian; and this is said in the full sense “only by those who love God, and who are not only Christians in name, but in deed and in life.”

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

19. Thou believest that there is one God …] The instance of the faith in which men were trusting is important as shewing the class of Solifidians (to use a term which controversy has made memorable) which St James had in view. They were not those who were believing in the Son of God, trusting in the love, the blood, in the language of a later age, the merits, of Christ, but men who, whether nominally Christians or Jews, were still clinging to their profession of the Creed of Israel as the ground of all their hopes. It is scarcely probable that a writer intending to correct consequences drawn from St Paul’s teaching as to faith would have been content with such a far-off illustration.

thou doest well] The words have the character of a half-ironical concession. Comp. note on Jas_2:8. It is well as far as it goes, but the demons can claim the same praise.

the devils also believe and tremble] Better “shudder.” The general bearing of the words is plain enough, but there is a special meaning which is commonly passed over. The “devils” are the “demons” or “unclean spirits” of the Gospels, thought of, not as in their prison-house of darkness (Jude Jas_2:6), but as “possessing” and tormenting men. As such, they too acknowledged the Unity and Sovereignty of God, but that belief, being without love, led only to the “shudder” of terror, when the Divine Name was uttered in the formulæ of exorcism. (Comp. Mat_8:29; Mar_9:20; Mar_9:26.) Here then was an instance in which belief in a dogma, as distinct from trust in a person, brought with it no consciousness of peace or pardon, and what was true of the “demons” might be true also of men.

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.

Thou believest that there is one God,.... These words are a continuation of the address of the man that has works, to him that boasts of his faith without them, observing to him, that one, and a main article of his faith, is, that there is one God; which is to be understood in the Christian sense, since both the person speaking, and the person spoken to, were such as professed themselves Christians; so that to believe there is one God, is not merely to give into this article, in opposition to the polytheism of the Gentiles, or barely to confess the God of Israel, as believed on by the Jews, but to believe that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, and that these three are the one God; wherefore this article of faith includes everything relating to God; as to God the Father, his being and perfections, so to Christ, as God, and the Son of God, and the Messiah, &c. and to the Holy Spirit; and to believe all this is right:

thou doest well; for that there is but one God, is to be proved by the light of nature, and from the works of creation and providence, and has been owned by the wisest of the Heathens themselves; and is established, by divine revelation, in the books both of the Old and of the New Testament; what has been received by the Jews, and is well known by Christians, to whom it is set in the clearest light, and who are assured of the truth of it: but then

the devils also believe; the Arabic version reads, "the devils likewise so believe"; they believe the same truth; they know and believe there is but one God, and not many; and they know that the God of Israel is he; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one God; they know and believe him to be the most high God, whose servants the ministers of the Gospel are; and they know and believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God, the Son of God, and the Messiah, Act 16:17.

And tremble; at the wrath of God, which they now feel, and at the thought of future torments, which they expect, Mar 5:7 and which is more than some men do; and yet these shall not be saved, their damnation is certain and inevitable, Pe2 2:4 wherefore it follows, that a bare historical faith will not profit, and cannot save any; a man may have all faith of this kind, and be damned; and therefore it is not to be boasted of, nor trusted to.

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

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Ver. 19. Believe and tremble] Gr. φρισσουσι, roar as the sea, and shriek horribly, Act 19:29; Mar 6:49. Their hearts ache and quake within them; and shall any man mock at God’s menaces? Shall not the devils keep holiday in hell, in respect of such atheists?

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.

Thou believest that there is one God - One of the great and cardinal doctrines of religion is here selected as an illustration of all. The design of the apostle seems to have been to select one of the doctrines of religion, the belief of which would - if mere belief in any doctrine could - save the soul; and to show that even this might be held as an article of faith by those who could be supposed by no one to have any claim to the name of Christian. He selects, therefore, the great fundamental doctrine of all religion, - the doctrine of the existence of one Supreme Being, - and shows that if even this were held in such a way as it might be, and as it was held by devils, it could not save men. The apostle here is not to be supposed to be addressing such an one as Paul, who held to the doctrine that we are justified by faith; nor is he to be supposed to be combating the doctrine of Paul, as some have maintained, (see the Introduction); but he is to be regarded as addressing one who held, in the broadest and most unqualified sense, that provided there was faith, a man would be saved. To this he replies, that even the devils might have faith of a certain sort, and faith that would produce sensible effects on them of a certain kind, and still it could not be supposed that they had true religion, or that they would be saved. Why might not the same thing occur in regard to man?

Thou doest well - So far as this is concerned, or so far as it goes. It is a doctrine which ought to be held, for it is one of the great fundamental truths of religion.

The devils - The “demons,” - (τα δαιμόνια ta daimonia). There is, properly, but one being spoken of in the New Testament as “the devil” - ὁ διάβολος ho diabolos, and ὁ Σατᾶν ho Satan - though “demons” are frequently spoken of in the plural number. They are represented as evil spirits, subject to Satan, or under his control, and engaged with him in carrying out his plans of wickedness. These spirits or demons were supposed to wander in desert and desolate places, Mat 12:43, or to dwell in the atmosphere, (Notes, Eph 2:2); they were thought to have the power of working miracles, but not for good, (Rev 16:14; compare Joh 10:21); to be hostile to mankind, Joh 8:44; to utter the pagan oracles, Act 16:17; to lurk in the idols of the heathen, 1Co 10:20; and to take up their abodes in the bodies of men, afflicting them with various kinds of diseases, Mat 7:22; Mat 9:34; Mat 10:8; Mat 17:18; Mar 7:29-30; Luk 4:33; Luk 8:27, Luk 8:30, et soepe. It is of these evil spirits that the apostle speaks when he says that they believe.

Also believe - That is, particularly, they believe in the existence of the one God. How far their knowledge may extend respecting God, we cannot know; but they are never represented in the Scriptures as denying his existence, or as doubting the great truths of religion. They are never described as atheists. That is a sin of this world only. They are not represented as sceptics. That, too, is a peculiar sin of the earth; and probably, in all the universe besides, there are no beings but those who dwell on this globe, who doubt or deny the existence of God, or the other great truths of religion.

And tremble - The word here used (φρίσσουσιν phrissousin) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, to be rough, uneven, jaggy, sc., with bristling hair; to bristle, to stand on end, as the hair does in a fright; and then to shudder or quake with fear, etc. Here the meaning is, that there was much more in the case referred to than mere speculative faith. There was a faith that produced some effect, and an effect of a very decided character. It did not, indeed, produce good works, or a holy life, but it made it manifest that there was faith; and, consequently, it followed that the existence of mere faith was not all that was necessary to save men, or to make it certain that they would be secure, unless it were held that the devils would be justified and saved by it. If they might hold such faith, and still remain in perdition, men might hold it, and go to perdition. A man should not infer, therefore, because he has faith, even that faith in God which will fill him with alarm, that therefore he is safe. He must have a faith which will produce another effect altogether - that which will lead to a holy life.

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

The devils also believe, and tremble. St. James compares indeed faith without other virtues and good works, to the faith of devils: but comparisons must never be stretched farther than they are intended. The meaning is, that such a faith in sinners is unprofitable to salvation, like that of devils, which is no more than a conviction from their knowledge of God; but faith which remains in sinners, is from a supernatural knowledge, together with a pious motion in their free will. (Witham)

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).

Thou believest that there is one God; thou givest thy assent to this truth, that there is one God. This may likewise imply other articles of the creed, to which the like assent may be given.

Thou doest well; either this kind of faith hath its goodness, though it be not saving; or ironically, q.d. A great matter thou dost, when thou goest almost as high as the devils.

The devils also believe; yield the like assent to the same truth.

And tremble: the word signifies extreme fear and horror, viz. such as the thoughts of their Judge strike into them. This shows the faith the apostle speaks of in this place, not to be the faith of God’s elect, which begets in believers a holy confidence in God, and frees them from slavish fears; whereas the faith here spoken of, if it have any effect upon men, it is but to fill them with horror.

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

19. Thou—Addressed to a monotheist, probably a Jew, who held that all Jews would be saved by their Mosaic belief.

One God—The prime article in which the Jew differed from the polytheist. It is to be noted here that St. James addresses a Jew as included in the twelve tribes to whom the epistle is written.

Thou doest well—So far, good! But it helps very little for salvation, as the next sentence shows.

The devils—The demons, or evil spirits, subordinate to the one devil, or Satan. Note on 1Co_10:20.

Believe—They are as orthodox on that point as the Jews. Yet their orthodoxy, their monotheistic faith alone, does not save them. We have defined justifying faith (note on Rom_3:22) to be that unity of intellect, heart, and will, by which a man perfectly surrenders himself to Christ for salvation. It is the will element in this faith from which due works result. Without it faith becomes mere intellective belief, and, like that of the devils, is ineffective and dead.

Tremble—Shudder. Their knowledge of God and of his character induces a dread of a future beyond the judgment day.

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

(1) "Thou believest that God is one," R.V, reading Oti ei=v oJ Qeov ejstin: or

(2) "Thou believest that there is one God," A.V and R.V margin, reading Oti eiv Qeov ejstin. The reading, and by consequence the translation, must be considered somewhat doubtful, as scarcely any two uncials read the words in precisely the same order. The illustration is taken from the central command of the Old Testament, (Deu_6:4) indicating that the ease of Jews is under consideration. The following quotations from the Talmud will show the importance attached by the Jews to this command (Farrar, "Early Days," etc., p. 83). It is said ("Berachoth," fol. 13, 6) that whoever in repeating it prolongs the utterance of the word One," shall have his days and years prolonged to him." Again we are told that when Rabbi Akibah was martyred he died uttering this word "One;" and then came a Bath Kol, which said, Blessed art thou, Rabbi Akibah, for thy soul and the word "One" left thy body together."

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

Thou believest there is one God - I allow this: but this proves only that thou hast the same faith with the devils. Nay, they not only believe, but tremble - At the dreadful expectation of eternal torments. So far is that faith from either justifying or saving them that have it.

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

As if the apostle had said, "Be thou either Jew of Christian, thou believest that there is a God, and assentest to the articles of religion: herein thou doest well, but this is no more than what the devils do: for they also believe and tremble; and if thou hast no better faith, and no better fruits of thy faith than they, thou hast the same reason to tremble which they have."

Observe here, 1. That a bare and naked assent to the truths of the gospel, yea, to the fundamental truths and articles of religion, is not faith that will justify and save. The devils have it, yet have no hopes of salvation with it; they believe that there is a God, and a Christ that died for others, though not for them; so that an atheist that does not believe a God, is worse than a devil; for he believes that there is a God, whose being the Atheist denies.

Observe, 2. That horror is the fruit and effect of the devil’s faith; the more they know of God, the more they dread him; the more they think of him, the more they tremble at him. O God! All knowledge of thee out of Christ is uncomfortable; thine attributes, which are in themselves dreadful and terrible, being beheld by us in thy Son, do yield comfort and sweetness to us; The devils believe, but tremble.

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

19. Thou believest that there is one God. That is very well, but can that alone save you? Even the demons believe that also. See Matt. 8:29. Evil spirits confessed Christ, but this confession of faith did not save them.

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.

19. ὅτι εἶς ἐστὶν ὁ θεός; the reading of אA, the Vulgate, Peshitto and other versions: εἶς ὁ θεός ἐστιν B: εἶς ὁ θεός, some versions: ὁ θεὸς εἶς ἐστίν K2L.

19. The ineffectiveness of faith regarded as merely intellectual assent is shewn by the example of belief in the unity of God, a belief which even devils hold.

ὅτι εἶς ἐστὶν ὁ θεός, that God is one. The central belief of Judaism, Deu 6:4 ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἶς ἐστιν, the fundamental principle of faith. For reading see crit. notes.

καλῶς ποιεῖς, thou art right. See above, Jas 2:8.

τὰ δαιμόνια, the evil spirits who by their submission to the word of Christ recognised the One true God. δαιμόνιον is the neuter of the adj. δαιμόνιος and means literally that which proceeds from a δαίμων or god. εἰ μή τι δαιμόνιον εἴη, ‘unless there were some hindrance from the gods,’ Xen. Mem. I. 3. 5. So Demosthenes, Phil. III. § 54, speaks of the divine power or force which seems to be hurrying on the Hellenic race to destruction: ἐπελήλυθε καὶ τοῦτο φοβεῖσθαι μή τι δαιμόνιον τὰ πράγματα ἐλαύνῃ. The δαιμόνιον of Socrates is the divine warning voice which apart from his own reasoning faculties checked him from entering on dangerous enterprises. See Xen. Mem. I. 1. 2. It is defined Plat. Symp. 202 D πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ … ἑρμηνεῦον καὶ διαπορθμεῦον θεοῖς τὰ παρʼ ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀνθρώποις τὰ παρὰ θεῶν. Hence δαιμόνια are deities of an inferior order. One of the accusations against Socrates is, καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρειν, Xen. Mem. I. 1. 2, Comp. Act 17:18 ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεύς εἶναι. In the LXX. δαιμόνια is used to designate the false gods of the surrounding nations: Deu 32:17 ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, a sense attributed by some to the word in this passage; but certainly not on good grounds, for how could faith in the true God be predicated of them?

In N.T. language τὸ δαιμόνιον is the unseen evil force or influence (comp. δαιμονίη ὁρμή, Hdt. VII. 18) which, gaining possession of a man, like a separate personality, impelled him to evil and afflicted him with disease. See note on S. Mat 9:33.

φρίσσουσιν. ἄπ. λεγ. in N.T.; properly to be rough, to bristle, then to shudder with fear: in Plutarch especially of awe in the presence of a god.

A faith which involves ‘shuddering fear’ is widely removed from the justifying faith of St Paul which brings peace, Rom 5:1, and which is closely allied with that perfect love which casts out all fear, 1Jn 4:18.

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.

19.] Still addressed to the same soli-fidian, but now directly, and not in the person of the ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις. This is better than to suppose the τις still speaking; on account of the length of argumentation before the second person singular is dropped, and the analogy of the two arguments drawn from Abraham and Rahab, both of which most naturally come, as the latter on any view does, from the Apostle himself. Thou believest (better without an interrogation: see Joh 16:31, note) that God is one (or with the reading εἷς θεός, ‘that there is one God.’ The Apostle selects, from all points of dogmatic belief, that one which stands at the head of the creed of Jews and Christians alike. Cf. especially Deu 6:4: Neh 9:6: Mar 12:29, Mar 12:32: Rom 3:30: 1Co 8:4, 1Co 8:6: ch. 4:12: and the Shepherd of Hermas, ii. 1, p. 914, πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός. De Wette and Wiesinger have noticed that the construction with ὅτι after πιστεύεις instead of εἰς or ἐν, implies that merely a theoretical faith is spoken of. But against this view there are two objections: 1. that εἰς or ἐν could hardly have been used in this case, where the existence (εἷς θεός) or the unity (εἷς ὁ θεός) of God is spoken of as the object of belief: 2. that ὅτι after πιστεύω does undoubtedly elsewhere express the highest kind of realizing faith: e. g. Mar 11:23, Mar 11:24: Joh 6:69; Joh 11:27, Joh 11:42; Joh 14:10, Joh 14:11; Joh 17:8, Joh 17:21; Joh 20:31 al.): thou doest well (i. e. either understood simply,‘so far is well:’ ‘it is a good faith, as far as it goes:’ or understood ironically, as Calv. al., “ac si dixisset. Hoc magnum est, infra diabolos subsidere:” only that “infra diab.” is further than the text assumes: rather, ‘diabolis, quod ad fidem, æquari.’ The former seems preferable; it is hardly likely that the Apostle would speak slightingly even ‘argumenti causa,’ of so fundamental an article of the faith): the dæmons also (not, the dæmoniacs, as Wetst., though his explanation is specious, “qui per exorcismos et pronuntiationem nominum Dei Hebræorum sanari dicuntur:” nor as Schneckenburger, al., the dæmons in the possessed, who trembled at the sacred Name: but simply, as usually, the evil spirits) believe (the verb is purposely used absolutely: not merely, ‘believe this truth,’ but, ‘thus far, are believers in common with thyself’), and (not to be diluted into ἀλλὰ καί, as Pott, or “atqui,” as Theile: the keenness of the sarcasm lies in the simple copula) shudder (φρίσσω, properly of the hair standing on end with terror. Their belief does nothing for them but certify to them their own misery. “Hoc, præter exspectationem lectoris additum, magnam vim habet.” Bengel).

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

19-26. Argument from the instances of the demons and of Abraham and Rahab.

(a) v. 19. Faith by itself can be exerted by demons.

(b) vv. 20-24. In Abraham’s case, faith had to be completed by works in order to secure justification.

(c) v. 25. Likewise Rahab was justified by works.

(d) v. 26. Thus faith without works is dead.

19. Faith (even the supreme faith in One God) can be exerted by demons, who are not thereby saved.

James, after refuting the excuse of the objector, proceeds with his main argument. The point made in v. 19 is in support of the original proposition of vv. 14, 17, that faith without works is dead; v. 19 is thus an argument parallel to that of vv. 15-16.

πιστεύεις. Perhaps better taken as affirmation than (Tdf. WH.) as question.

ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἔστιν.

This, the existence and unity of God, is doubtless thought of as the chief element in faith, but it is going too far to represent it as including the whole of James’s conception of faith. Cf. the emphasis on monotheism (with reference to Christ added) in 1Co 8:4, 1Co 8:6, Eph 4:6, 1Th 1:8.

The emphasis on monotheism as the prime article of the Jewish creed is to be seen in the Shema (Deu 6:4), “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (cf. Mar 12:29), and may be illustrated from Philo, De opif. mundi, 61; De nobilitate, 5; Leg. ad Gaium, 16. See Bousset, Religion des Judentums, ch. 15.

That a strong perception of the fundamental and distinctive significance of monotheism passed over into the early church may be illustrated from Hermas, Mand. i, πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός; it was not peculiar to Jewish Christians. Cf. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, Buch ii, Kap. 9.

ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἔστιν] BC (ὁ θεός) minn3 ff Priscill.

ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός] אA min1 vg.

ὅτι ὁ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν] KL minnpler.

Some other minor variations in a few minuscules are due to the omission of the article before θεός. The Latin versions are:

ff quia unus deus;

Priscillian quia unus deus est;

vg quoniam unus est deus.

The text of KL has probably put ὁ θεός first in order to give it a more emphatic position. As between the other two readings, that of B is less conventional (see Mayor’s note, p. 100), hence more likely to be original. The parallel 4:12 probably exhibits the same tendency, for there also the reading of B (with P, which is here lacking) is probably right as against an emender who inserted the article.

καλῶς ποιεῖς, cf. v. 8, καλῶς ποιεῖτε. “This is good as far as it goes,” perhaps said with a slight touch of irony, as in Mar 7:9.

τὰ δαιμόνια. The evil spirits whose presence and power is so often referred to in the Gospels; cf. 3:15.

This is better than to think of the gods of the heathen, whom nothing here suggests.

πιστεύουσιν. For illustration of this, cf. Mat 8:29, Mar 1:24.

φρίσσουσιν, “shudder in terror.” This word properly means “bristle up,” cf. Latin horreo, horresco.

The “shuddering awe” of demons and others before the majesty of God was a current idea, cf. Dan 7:15, Or. Man. 4, Jos. B. J. v, 10.3; Justin Martyr, Dial. 49, Χριστῷ ὃν καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια φρίσσει (cf. Dial. 30 and 121), Test. Abrah., Rec. A, 16; Xen. Cyr. iv, 2.15; the Orphic fragment (nos. 238, 239) found in Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 14, p. 724 P. δαίμονες ὃν φρίσσουσι; and passages quoted by Hort, ad loc.

Here the thought is of a fear which stands in contrast to the peace of salvation. A faith which brings forth only this result is barren. Cf. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 42 f., E. Tr. p. 288.

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

Tremble [φρισσουσιν] . Only here in New Testament. It means, originally, to be rough on the surface; to bristle. Hence, used of the fields with ears of corn; of a line of battle bristling with shields and spears; of a silver or golden vessel rough with embossed gold. Aeschylus, describing a crowd holding up their hands to vote, says, the air bristled with right hands. Hence, of a horror which makes the hair stand on end and contracts the surface of the skin making "gooseflesh." Rev., much better, shudder.

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