James · Chapter 2

V. 1. 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.

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. pistiv, faith, is put here for religion; and thv doxhv, 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.

Verses 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 crusodaktuliov 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 (rupara, 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 ou diekriqhte en eautoiv 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.

Verse 1. Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. See James 1:1. The whole of this chapter turns on charity, which is the excellence of pure religion. In the eyes of the omnipresent Being we are all but worms of the dust; and at the throne of grace the prince and the beggar bow in equal rank, and with equal piety and hope. The Lord of glory sheds a lustre on all his members, brightening the countenance far above that of rings and gems.

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 Acts 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.

V. 2. With gold rings-Which were not then so common as now.

Verse 2. If there come unto your assembly] eiv thn sunagwghn. Into the synagogue. It appears from this that the apostle is addressing Jews who frequented their synagogues, and carried on their worship there and judicial proceedings, as the Jews were accustomed to do. Our word assembly does not express the original; and we cannot suppose that these synagogues were at this time occupied with Christian worship, but that the Christian Jews continued to frequent them for the purpose of hearing the law and the prophets read, as they had formerly done, previously to their conversion to the Christian faith. But St. James may refer here to proceedings in a court of justice.

With a gold ring, in goodly apparel] The ring on the finger and the splendid garb were proofs of the man’s opulence; and his ring and his coat, not his worth, moral good qualities, or the righteousness of his cause, procured him the respect of which St. James speaks.

There come in also a poor man] In ancient times petty courts of judicature were held in the synagogues, as Vitringa has sufficiently proved, Deuteronomy Vet. Syn. l. 3, p. 1, c. 11; and it is probable that the case here adduced was one of a judicial kind, where, of the two parties, one was rich and the other poor; and the master or ruler of the synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid particular deference to the rich man, and neglected the poor man; though, as plaintiff and defendant, they were equal in the eye of justice, and should have been considered so by an impartial judge.

Verses 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 crusodaktuliov 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 (rupara, 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 ou diekriqhte en eautoiv 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.

2. If—St. James puts the case with an if. Yet he graphically narrates it in the (aoristic) past historic tense, as James 1:10, 11, (where see note,) as a transaction that had happened, (note on Hebrews 6:4-6,) and so might customarily happen. Unto your assembly—Or, as it is in the Greek, your SYNAGOGUE. See note on Matthew 4:23. The Jewish-Christian conservatism of St. James is strongly marked by his use of this word. The pentecostal Church continued to share in the Jewish service, and it is probable that Jewish synagogues sometimes were converted into Christian churches. Acts 3:1; 4. 1. The word, then, may have long been retained among the twelve tribes of James 1:1. There were five synagogues of foreign Jews in Jerusalem. Acts 6:9. In the Apocalypse the word is used of heretics. Revelation 2:9; 3:9. And in Hebrews 10:25, we have episynagogues. St. Ignatius applies the word to Christian churches, and Alford quotes from the post-apostolic “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs” the phrase, “in the synagogues of the Gentiles.” The term here indicates that the epistle was written after Christian houses of worship were established and customary. A man—He may be a Christian, or he may not; that does not vary the principle. But verses 6, 7 clearly show that such are not to be supposed Christians, but really persecutors and blasphemers of Christ. The visitor’s apparel, though doubtless conspicuously different, is not set in contrast with that of the rest of the assembly, but in contrast with that of the poor man. Gold ring—Literally, a man golden-ringed, in splendid dress.

V. 3. Ye look upon him-With respect.

Verse 3. Sit here under my footstool] Thus evidently prejudging the cause, and giving the poor man to see that he was to expect no impartial administration of justice in his cause.

Verses 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 crusodaktuliov 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 (rupara, 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 ou diekriqhte en eautoiv 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.

3, 4. Say—Huther well contrasts the opposite speeches: Thou… thou… sit… stand… here… there… in a good place… under (rather, at) my footstool. The dignified speaker has a footstool, and seems to be an official of the synagogue. It seems to be a regularly officered Church, with an edifice, and a furnishing; all indicating a mature period. The two clauses beginning with sit, stand, with an or between them, form not two, but one directive speech. Partial in yourselves—A much debated interpretation. Huther gives a large number of explications, all of which he justly rejects because they do not give the exact meaning of the Greek verb here used, which usually signifies to doubt, to hesitate, or, as used by St. James in James 1:6, to waver. But Alford, following Huther and others, adopts the first of these two definitions, and interprets it of a doubt of their own Christianity! He gives the following far-fetched paraphrase: “Did you not, in making such distinction between rich and poor, become of the number of those who doubt respecting their faith?” But certainly this discrimination was no doubt of the Christian faith! If, however, our English version had translated it as in James 1:6, waver, they would have furnished the true thought. If ye so discriminated, did you not waver (from the straight course)? The writer charges, that, under the fascinations of the gorgeous attire, they were induced to veer and vibrate from Christian integrity. Judges (possessed) of evil thoughts—The evil thoughts were the inward quality of the judges. They became evil-thoughted judges. The word judges is used, not in a judicial, but in an opinionative or discriminative sense, and might be rendered discriminators. Translate the whole, then, If ye have done all this, have ye not wavered (as Christians) and become evil-thoughted discriminators?

4. For the rich are generally persecutors and blasphemers, 5-7.

V. 4. Ye distinguish not-To which the most respect is due, to the poor or to the rich.

But are become evil-reasoning judges-You reason ill, and so judge wrong: for fine apparel is no proof of worth in him that wears it.

Verse 4. Are ye not then partial] ou diekriqhte. Do ye not make a distinction, though the case has not been heard, and the law has not decided?

Judges of evil thoughts?] kritai dialogismwn ponhrwn. Judges of evil reasonings; that is, judges who reason wickedly; who, in effect, say in your hearts, we will espouse the cause of the rich, because they can befriend us; we will neglect that of the poor, because they cannot help us, nor have they power to hurt us.

Verses 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 crusodaktuliov 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 (rupara, 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 ou diekriqhte en eautoiv 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.

3, 4. Say—Huther well contrasts the opposite speeches: Thou… thou… sit… stand… here… there… in a good place… under (rather, at) my footstool. The dignified speaker has a footstool, and seems to be an official of the synagogue. It seems to be a regularly officered Church, with an edifice, and a furnishing; all indicating a mature period. The two clauses beginning with sit, stand, with an or between them, form not two, but one directive speech. Partial in yourselves—A much debated interpretation. Huther gives a large number of explications, all of which he justly rejects because they do not give the exact meaning of the Greek verb here used, which usually signifies to doubt, to hesitate, or, as used by St. James in James 1:6, to waver. But Alford, following Huther and others, adopts the first of these two definitions, and interprets it of a doubt of their own Christianity! He gives the following far-fetched paraphrase: “Did you not, in making such distinction between rich and poor, become of the number of those who doubt respecting their faith?” But certainly this discrimination was no doubt of the Christian faith! If, however, our English version had translated it as in James 1:6, waver, they would have furnished the true thought. If ye so discriminated, did you not waver (from the straight course)? The writer charges, that, under the fascinations of the gorgeous attire, they were induced to veer and vibrate from Christian integrity. Judges (possessed) of evil thoughts—The evil thoughts were the inward quality of the judges. They became evil-thoughted judges. The word judges is used, not in a judicial, but in an opinionative or discriminative sense, and might be rendered discriminators. Translate the whole, then, If ye have done all this, have ye not wavered (as Christians) and become evil-thoughted discriminators?

4. For the rich are generally persecutors and blasphemers, 5-7.

V. 5. Hearken-As if he had said, Stay, consider, ye that judge thus. Does not the presumption lie rather in favour of the poor man? Hath not God chosen the poor-That is, are not they whom God hath chosen, generally speaking, poor in this world? who yet are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom-Consequently, the most honourable of men: and those whom God so highly honours, ought not ye to honour likewise?

Verse 5. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world] This seems to refer to Matthew 11:5: And the poor have the Gospel preached to them. These believed on the Lord Jesus, and found his salvation; while the rich despised, neglected, and persecuted him. These had that faith in Christ which put them in possession of the choicest spiritual blessings, and gave them a right to the kingdom of heaven. While, therefore, they were despised of men, they were highly prized of God.

Verses 5-7. Hearken — As if he had said, Stay, consider, ye that judge thus. Does not the presumption lie rather in favour of the poor man? Hath not God chosen the poor — That is, are not they whom God hath chosen, generally speaking, poor in this world, who yet are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom — Consequently the most honourable of men? And those whom God so highly honours, ought not ye to honour likewise? But ye — Christians, that know better; have despised — Htimasate, have dishonoured, or disgraced; the poor — By such conduct. Do not rich men, &c. — As if he had said, You have little reason to show so much respect to them, if you consider what their carriage toward you has been; those whom you court with so much respect and assiduity, oppress — Katadunasteuousin, tyrannise over you, and draw — Or drag; you before the judgment-seats — Are not most of the rich men your persecutors, rather than your friends? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name — Of God and of Christ; by which ye are called — And which deserves to be had in the highest esteem and veneration by all intelligent beings? The apostle speaks chiefly of rich heathen: but are Christians, so called, a whit behind them in persecuting the disciples of Jesus?

Ver. 5. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. Christ was sent to preach the gospel to the poor, to bind up the broken-hearted, and to comfort all that mourn. Matthew 11:5. Luke 4:18. The apostle also appeals to the Corinthian church, whether it were not obvious that the more numerous converts were from among persons of this description; and to the present day they constitute a large majority of the believing world. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. There is in this respect a correspondence between the servants and their blessed Lord, who had not where to lay his head. Not only are they the more numerous class of christians, but many among them are the most distinguished for piety, “rich in faith,” as well as heirs of the kingdom.

5. Hearken… brethren—In this earnest expostulation (5-7) St. James makes two points: 1. The poor are the chosen, and so wrong is done to them. 2. The rich are the oppressors and blasphemers, and so a wicked preference is given to them. Chosen—The (aorist) tense, Did not God choose? that is, (Gr. middle,) prefer for himself. The objects of his choice present three objective characteristics; they are poor in worldly goods, but (antithetically) rich in faith, and even heirs (heightening the antithesis) of a future royalty. The very nature of the antithesis shows the inadmissibility of Huther’s interpolating (followed by Alford) the words to be, and reading, chosen to be rich in faith. This to be, might just as authoritatively be interposed before poor, and so render, has not God chosen them to be poor? The worldly poverty, the spiritual richness, and the celestial heirship, all precede this choice, which is simply the divine preference in contrast with this, their human, rejection in the synagogue. God chose, but men (next verse) despised them. The kingdom—The future kingdom of heaven, as being yet subject of promise.

V. 6. Do not the rich often oppress you-By open violence; often drag you-Under colour of law.

Verse 6. Do not rich men oppress you] The administration of justice was at this time in a miserable state of corruption among the Jews; but a Christian was one who was to expect no justice any where but from his God. The words katadunasteuousin, exceedingly oppress, and elkousin eiv krithria, drag you to courts of justice, show how grievously oppressed and maltreated the Christians were by their countrymen the Jews, who made law a pretext to afflict their bodies, and spoil them of their property.

Verses 5-7. Hearken — As if he had said, Stay, consider, ye that judge thus. Does not the presumption lie rather in favour of the poor man? Hath not God chosen the poor — That is, are not they whom God hath chosen, generally speaking, poor in this world, who yet are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom — Consequently the most honourable of men? And those whom God so highly honours, ought not ye to honour likewise? But ye — Christians, that know better; have despised — Htimasate, have dishonoured, or disgraced; the poor — By such conduct. Do not rich men, &c. — As if he had said, You have little reason to show so much respect to them, if you consider what their carriage toward you has been; those whom you court with so much respect and assiduity, oppress — Katadunasteuousin, tyrannise over you, and draw — Or drag; you before the judgment-seats — Are not most of the rich men your persecutors, rather than your friends? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name — Of God and of Christ; by which ye are called — And which deserves to be had in the highest esteem and veneration by all intelligent beings? The apostle speaks chiefly of rich heathen: but are Christians, so called, a whit behind them in persecuting the disciples of Jesus?

6. Ye—Unlike God. Despised—Same (aorist) tense as chosen=chose. While God chose, ye despised. Both refer to the same objects and point of time. The poor—Singular number; the poor man in the above picture. Rich men oppress you—It is clear from this that it is not Christian rich men the apostle condemns. Rich here is an epithet for men of persecuting power, whether Jews or pagans. Not their wealth but their oppressiveness that made them guilty. See note on James 5:6. Draw—Greek, drag, a term of violence. Judgment seats—To rob them by unjust lawsuits, or to punish them for being deserters from Judaism.

V. 7. Do not they blaspheme that worthy name-Of God and of Christ. The apostle speaks chiefly of rich heathens: but are Christians, so called, a whit behind them?

Verse 7. Blaspheme that worthy name] They took every occasion to asperse the Christian name and the Christian faith, and have been, from the beginning to the present day, famous for their blasphemies against Christ and his religion. It is evident that these were Jews of whom St. James speaks; no Christians in these early times could have acted the part here mentioned.

Verses 5-7. Hearken — As if he had said, Stay, consider, ye that judge thus. Does not the presumption lie rather in favour of the poor man? Hath not God chosen the poor — That is, are not they whom God hath chosen, generally speaking, poor in this world, who yet are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom — Consequently the most honourable of men? And those whom God so highly honours, ought not ye to honour likewise? But ye — Christians, that know better; have despised — Htimasate, have dishonoured, or disgraced; the poor — By such conduct. Do not rich men, &c. — As if he had said, You have little reason to show so much respect to them, if you consider what their carriage toward you has been; those whom you court with so much respect and assiduity, oppress — Katadunasteuousin, tyrannise over you, and draw — Or drag; you before the judgment-seats — Are not most of the rich men your persecutors, rather than your friends? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name — Of God and of Christ; by which ye are called — And which deserves to be had in the highest esteem and veneration by all intelligent beings? The apostle speaks chiefly of rich heathen: but are Christians, so called, a whit behind them in persecuting the disciples of Jesus?

7. That worthy name—Christ. Called—This probably alludes (as do 1 Peter 4:14 and 16) to the name Christian, and indicates a time in which the name, starting from Antioch, had become general throughout the tribes.

5. And violating the divine law on this or any one point breaks the whole law, 8-13.

V. 8. If ye fulfil the royal law-The supreme law of the great King which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich, ye do well. Leviticus 19:18.

Verse 8. The royal law] nomon basilikon. This epithet, of all the New Testament writers, is peculiar to James; but it is frequent among the Greek writers in the sense in which it appears St. James uses it. basilikov, royal, is used to signify any thing that is of general concern, is suitable to all, and necessary for all, as brotherly love is. This commandment; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, is a royal law, not only because it is ordained of God, and proceeds from his kingly authority over men, but because it is so useful, suitable, and necessary to the present state of man; and as it was given us particularly by Christ himself, John 13:34; 15:12, who is our King, as well as Prophet and Priest, it should ever put us in mind of his authority over us, and our subjection to him. As the regal state is the most excellent for secular dignity and civil utility that exists among men, hence we give the epithet royal to whatever is excellent, noble, grand, or useful.

Verses 8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law — The supreme law of the great King, which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich; ye do well — The phrase, nomov basilikov, royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st, As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it may mean an excellent law. 2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called the laws of the kings of Persia, basilikoi nomoi, royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to love our neighbour, may be called the royal law, because it inspires us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in benevolence and clemency. The law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to such perfection, as it was to be practised among his followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new commandment, John 13:34; and his commandment, John 15:12. But if ye have respect to persons — In this partial manner, ye commit, ergazesqe, ye work, sin — That is, ye do a sinful action; and are convinced — Or rather convicted, by the law, which I have just now mentioned: for that law enjoins you to love your neighbours as yourselves, and consequently to do them justice. For whosoever shall keep the whole law — In every other instance; and yet offend in one point — Knowingly; he is guilty of all — He is liable to condemnation from the lawgiver, as if he had offended in every point. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that by observing any one precept of the law with care, men secured to themselves the favour of God, notwithstanding they neglected all the rest. Wherefore they recommended it to their disciples to make choice of a particular precept, in the keeping of which they were to exercise themselves. Whitby says, they commonly chose either the law of the sabbath, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of tithes, because they esteemed these the great commandments in the law. This corrupt Jewish doctrine St. James here expressly condemns; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill — The apostle’s meaning is, that all the commandments being equally enjoined by God, the man who despises the authority of God so far as to break any one of them habitually, would, in the like circumstances of temptation and opportunity, certainly break any other of them; consequently, in the eye of God, he is guilty of breaking the whole law: that is, he hath no real principle of piety or virtue in him.

8. Our apostle here states and denies an excuse of theirs, that their treatment of the rich was accordant with the law of love. The royal law— The golden rule, called royal because, perhaps, first clearly proclaimed by the royal Jesus; or, more probably, because it is the supreme law which comprehends the entire law over the relations of men to men. Do well— Your conduct is right if it accord with the royal law. But the question is, Does it accord with that law? He denies it, (9-13,) declares that it is such a transgression as makes them condemnable by the whole law, being a violation of the law of mercy, (verse 13,) namely, mercy to the poor man, so cruelly slighted.

V. 9. Being convicted-By that very law. Exodus 23:3.

Verse 9. But if ye have respect to persons] In judgment, or in any other way; ye commit sin against God, and against your brethren, and are convinced, elegcomenoi, and are convicted, by the law; by this royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; as transgressors, having shown this sinful acceptance of persons, which has led you to refuse justice to the poor man, and uphold the rich in his oppressive conduct.

Verses 8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law — The supreme law of the great King, which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich; ye do well — The phrase, nomov basilikov, royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st, As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it may mean an excellent law. 2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called the laws of the kings of Persia, basilikoi nomoi, royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to love our neighbour, may be called the royal law, because it inspires us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in benevolence and clemency. The law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to such perfection, as it was to be practised among his followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new commandment, John 13:34; and his commandment, John 15:12. But if ye have respect to persons — In this partial manner, ye commit, ergazesqe, ye work, sin — That is, ye do a sinful action; and are convinced — Or rather convicted, by the law, which I have just now mentioned: for that law enjoins you to love your neighbours as yourselves, and consequently to do them justice. For whosoever shall keep the whole law — In every other instance; and yet offend in one point — Knowingly; he is guilty of all — He is liable to condemnation from the lawgiver, as if he had offended in every point. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that by observing any one precept of the law with care, men secured to themselves the favour of God, notwithstanding they neglected all the rest. Wherefore they recommended it to their disciples to make choice of a particular precept, in the keeping of which they were to exercise themselves. Whitby says, they commonly chose either the law of the sabbath, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of tithes, because they esteemed these the great commandments in the law. This corrupt Jewish doctrine St. James here expressly condemns; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill — The apostle’s meaning is, that all the commandments being equally enjoined by God, the man who despises the authority of God so far as to break any one of them habitually, would, in the like circumstances of temptation and opportunity, certainly break any other of them; consequently, in the eye of God, he is guilty of breaking the whole law: that is, he hath no real principle of piety or virtue in him.

9. Respect to persons—Honouring the wicked because rich and oppressive, spurning the poor in spite of piety and humbleness. Commit sin—The reverse of do well. Convinced—Detected, convicted. The law—The royal law, which enjoins dealing according to merit, and, therefore, the whole law.

V. 10. Whosoever keepeth the whole law, except in one point, he is guilty of all-Is as liable to condemnation as if he had offended in every point.

Verse 10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, &c.] This is a rabbinical form of speech. In the tract Shabbath, fol. 70, where they dispute concerning the thirty-nine works commanded by Moses, Rabbi Yochanan says: But if a man do the whole, with the omission of one, he is guilty of the whole, and of every one. In Bammidar rabba, sec. 9, fol. 200, and in Tanchum, fol. 60, there is a copious example given, how an adulteress, by that one crime, breaks all the ten commandments, and by the same mode of proof any one sin may be shown to be a breach of the whole decalogue. The truth is, any sin is against the Divine authority; and he who has committed one transgression is guilty of death; and by his one deliberate act dissolves, as far as he can, the sacred connection that subsists between all the Divine precepts and the obligation which he is under to obey, and thus casts off in effect his allegiance to God. For, if God should be obeyed in any one instance, he should be obeyed in all, as the authority and reason of obedience are the same in every case; he therefore who breaks one of these laws is, in effect, if not in fact, guilty of the whole. But there is scarcely a more common form of speech among the rabbins than this, for they consider that any one sin has the seeds of all others in it. See a multitude of examples in Schoettgen.

Verses 8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law — The supreme law of the great King, which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich; ye do well — The phrase, nomov basilikov, royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st, As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it may mean an excellent law. 2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called the laws of the kings of Persia, basilikoi nomoi, royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to love our neighbour, may be called the royal law, because it inspires us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in benevolence and clemency. The law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to such perfection, as it was to be practised among his followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new commandment, John 13:34; and his commandment, John 15:12. But if ye have respect to persons — In this partial manner, ye commit, ergazesqe, ye work, sin — That is, ye do a sinful action; and are convinced — Or rather convicted, by the law, which I have just now mentioned: for that law enjoins you to love your neighbours as yourselves, and consequently to do them justice. For whosoever shall keep the whole law — In every other instance; and yet offend in one point — Knowingly; he is guilty of all — He is liable to condemnation from the lawgiver, as if he had offended in every point. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that by observing any one precept of the law with care, men secured to themselves the favour of God, notwithstanding they neglected all the rest. Wherefore they recommended it to their disciples to make choice of a particular precept, in the keeping of which they were to exercise themselves. Whitby says, they commonly chose either the law of the sabbath, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of tithes, because they esteemed these the great commandments in the law. This corrupt Jewish doctrine St. James here expressly condemns; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill — The apostle’s meaning is, that all the commandments being equally enjoined by God, the man who despises the authority of God so far as to break any one of them habitually, would, in the like circumstances of temptation and opportunity, certainly break any other of them; consequently, in the eye of God, he is guilty of breaking the whole law: that is, he hath no real principle of piety or virtue in him.

10. For—Refuting the claim that their fault was slight and venial. Offend in one point—Small as that point appears to you. Guilty of all—The royal law is a unit; you cannot violate a part of it alone. There may be different degrees of heinousness of violation, but if you have done a loveless act no part of the law acquits you; the whole law of love has been violated, and condemns you.

V. 11. For it is the same authority which establishes every commandment.

Verse 11. For he that said] That is, the authority that gave one commandment gave also the rest; and he who breaks one resists this authority; so that the breach of any one commandment may be justly considered a breach of the whole law. It was a maxim also among the Jewish doctors that, if a man kept any one commandment carefully, though he broke all the rest, he might assure himself of the favour of God; for while they taught that “He who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt, and so has he done who has broken even one precept,” (Mechilta, fol. 5, Yalcut Simeoni, part 1, fol. 59,) they also taught, “that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law;” (Kiddushin, fol. 39;) and they give for example, “If a man abandon idolatry, it is the same as if he had fulfilled the whole law,” (Ibid., fol. 40.) To correct this false doctrine James lays down that in the 11th verse. {James 2:11} Thus they did and undid.

Verses 8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law — The supreme law of the great King, which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich; ye do well — The phrase, nomov basilikov, royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st, As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it may mean an excellent law. 2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called the laws of the kings of Persia, basilikoi nomoi, royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to love our neighbour, may be called the royal law, because it inspires us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in benevolence and clemency. The law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to such perfection, as it was to be practised among his followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new commandment, John 13:34; and his commandment, John 15:12. But if ye have respect to persons — In this partial manner, ye commit, ergazesqe, ye work, sin — That is, ye do a sinful action; and are convinced — Or rather convicted, by the law, which I have just now mentioned: for that law enjoins you to love your neighbours as yourselves, and consequently to do them justice. For whosoever shall keep the whole law — In every other instance; and yet offend in one point — Knowingly; he is guilty of all — He is liable to condemnation from the lawgiver, as if he had offended in every point. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that by observing any one precept of the law with care, men secured to themselves the favour of God, notwithstanding they neglected all the rest. Wherefore they recommended it to their disciples to make choice of a particular precept, in the keeping of which they were to exercise themselves. Whitby says, they commonly chose either the law of the sabbath, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of tithes, because they esteemed these the great commandments in the law. This corrupt Jewish doctrine St. James here expressly condemns; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill — The apostle’s meaning is, that all the commandments being equally enjoined by God, the man who despises the authority of God so far as to break any one of them habitually, would, in the like circumstances of temptation and opportunity, certainly break any other of them; consequently, in the eye of God, he is guilty of breaking the whole law: that is, he hath no real principle of piety or virtue in him.

11. For—It is not meant that you have committed each and every mentionable act of transgression. The ten commandments are but so many specifications under the one law of love; they are but specifications of various ways in which that one whole law can be violated. Every specific violation is a violation of that one whole law. He—The same one undivided divine Authority is promulgator of the one law, which so branches into ten specifications. Violating any one specification impinges against that entire authority. It denies the supremacy of God. It is treason against the government of the universe. No adultery—You may be as chaste as “the icicle in Dian’s temple,” yet, if you murder, your virtue will not save you. There is to be no balancing of account with heaven between your vices and your virtues. Every vice breaks the whole law. A modern American poem described a western steamboat pilot who closed a life of profligacy with being blown up in order to save the lives of the passengers on board his boat. It assumes that his self-sacrifice in death would atone for his profligate life, and concludes by declaring that Christ would not severely judge “the man who died for men.” But the death was scarcely less profligate than the life. It was simply that same desperate recklessness of life, acting under an impulse of professional pride, as he would show in a fray for supremacy or advantage in any other matter. No such act could atone for the crimes against temperance, chastity, the rights of his fellow men, and the laws of God, which, as described in the poem itself, formed the staple of this bad hero’s existence. The writing of such poetry is as profligate and demoralizing as the life it heroizes.

V. 12. So speak and act-In all things.

As they that shall be judged-Without respect of persons. By the law of liberty-The gospel; the law of universal love, which alone is perfect freedom. For their transgressions of this, both in word and deed, the wicked shall be condemned; and according to their works, done in obedience to this, the righteous will be rewarded.

Verse 12. So speak ye, and so do] Have respect to every commandment of God, for this the law of liberty-the Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly requires; and this is the law by which all mankind, who have had the opportunity of knowing it, shall be judged. But all along St. James particularly refers to the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Verses 12, 13. So speak ye, and so do — In all things; as they that shall be judged — Without respect of persons; by the law of liberty — The gospel, (see on James 1:25,) the law of universal love, which alone is perfect freedom. For their transgression of this, both in word and deed, the wicked shall be condemned. And according to their works, done in obedience to this, the righteous will be rewarded. For he shall have judgment without mercy — In that day; who hath showed no mercy — To his poor brethren; and, or rather but, mercy — The mercy of God to believers, answering to that which they have shown, will then rejoice, or glory, over judgment.

12. Speak… do—The two great departments of external Christian morality; the manifestations of the character of the internal man. They must so speak and do in all respects, and especially in their dealings with the rich and the poor; for it must be remembered that that subject is still in sight. The law of liberty—As given by a royal lawgiver, and ruling with a royal authority, it is a royal law; as obeyed with a free, spontaneous heart, it is a law of liberty; as enjoining and inspiring universal comity, it is a law of love. Judged—For this law not only requires love, but judges and condemns the want of it as evidenced by the speak and do. This want they evidence in this case by their respect of persons. They do not deal with the poor according to the evangelical law of liberty.

V. 13. Judgment without mercy shall be to him-In that day. Who hath showed no mercy-To his poor brethren. But the mercy of God to believers, answering to that which they have shown, will then glory over judgment.

Verse 13. For he shall have judgment] He who shows no mercy to man, or, in other words, he who does not exercise himself in works of charity and mercy to his needy fellow creatures, shall receive no mercy at the hand of God; for he hath said, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. The unmerciful therefore are cursed, and they shall obtain no mercy.

Mercy rejoiceth against judgment.] These words are variously understood. 1. Mercy, the merciful man, the abstract for the concrete, exults over judgment, that is, he is not afraid of it, having acted according to the law of liberty, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 2. Ye shall be exalted by mercy above judgment. 3. For he (God) exalts mercy above judgment. 4. A merciful man rejoices rather in opportunities of showing mercy, than in acting according to strict justice. 5. In the great day, though justice might condemn every man according to the rigour of the law, yet God will cause mercy to triumph over justice in bringing those into his glory who, for his sake, had fed the hungry, clothed the naked, ministered to the sick, and visited the prisoners. See what our Lord says, Matthew 25:31-46.

In the MSS. and versions there is a considerable variety of readings on this verse, and some of the senses given above are derived from those readings. The spirit of the saying may be found in another scripture, I will have mercy and not sacrifice-I prefer works of charity and mercy to every thing else, and especially to all acts of worship. The ROYAL LAW, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, should particularly prevail among men, because of the miserable state to which all are reduced by sin, so that each particularly needs the help of his brother.

Verses 12, 13. So speak ye, and so do — In all things; as they that shall be judged — Without respect of persons; by the law of liberty — The gospel, (see on James 1:25,) the law of universal love, which alone is perfect freedom. For their transgression of this, both in word and deed, the wicked shall be condemned. And according to their works, done in obedience to this, the righteous will be rewarded. For he shall have judgment without mercy — In that day; who hath showed no mercy — To his poor brethren; and, or rather but, mercy — The mercy of God to believers, answering to that which they have shown, will then rejoice, or glory, over judgment.

13. For—Deep and solemn motive for the so speak and do. Mercy— Compassion or tenderness for the lowly, the unfortunate, or the guilty. This mercy would have inspired the Churches to honour and cherish, rather than to despise, the poor. Judgment without mercy—The law of love will be a law of condemnation; and in the day of judgment pure retribution without mercy will be the order of the day. Mercy, if exercised by us, not only does not condemn us, but it triumphs over and rejoiceth against judgment, and brings us acquittal and salvation.

6. The Christian synagogue rejects workless faith as unjustifying, 14-26.

St. James now inflexibly chases his brethren out of their last refuge and excuse for their sin toward the poor. Our works, say they, do, indeed, violate the law a little, but then we are justified by faith, and the law will not punish us for subordinate negligences. In other words, we are Christians, and will be saved in spite of our sins. This is antinomianism; and it often appears in various forms, practical and doctrinal, in the Church. Its effect is, as St. Paul says, to “make Christ the minister of sin,” and to demoralize Christianity. In his Epistle to the Romans Paul emphasizes the doctrine of justification by faith alone; yet guards against all antinomianism by insisting that it is a faith from which a holy life must result. Romans 6:1, 2. St. James, on the contrary, emphasizes the necessity of works—that is, a holy life—but secures the fact that the works, in order to be a true holy life, must spring from a living faith. Paul says, You are justified by a work-begetting faith; James says, You are justified by faith-begotten works. They disagree, not in doctrine, but in the emphasis they lay on the different parts of the doctrine.

V. 14. From James 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (James 2:21, 23, 25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:17, 31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13-21; and St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What profiteth it? Is enlarged on, James 2:15-17; though a man say, James 2:18, 19 can that faith save him? James 2:20. It is not, though he have faith; but, though he say he have faith. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant: but in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead, imaginary faith. He does not, therefore, teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works: nor does he oppose faith to works; but that empty name of faith, to real faith working by love. Can that faith "which is without works" save him?-No more than it can profit his neighbour.

Verse 14. What doth it profit-though a man say he hath faith] We now come to a part of this epistle which has appeared to some eminent men to contradict other portions of the Divine records. In short, it has been thought that James teaches the doctrine of justification by the merit of good works, while Paul asserts this to be insufficient, and that man is justified by faith. Luther, supposing that James did actually teach the doctrine of justification by works, which his good sense showed him to be absolutely insufficient for salvation, was led to condemn the epistle in toto, as a production unauthenticated by the Holy Spirit, and consequently worthy of no regard; he therefore termed it epistola straminea, a chaffy epistle, an epistle of straw, fit only to be burnt. Learned men have spent much time in striving to reconcile these two writers, and to show that St. Paul and St. James perfectly accord; one teaching the pure doctrine, the other guarding men against the abuse of it. Mr. Wesley sums the whole up in the following words, with his usual accuracy and precision: “From James 1:22 the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some already began to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating, James 1:21, 23, 25, the same phrases, testimonies, and examples which St. Paul had used, Romans 4:3; Hebrews 11:17, 31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is therefore no contradiction between the apostles; they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. This verse is a summary of what follows: What profiteth it, is enlarged on, James 2:15-17; though a man say, James 2:18, 19; can that faith save him? James 2:20. It is not though he have faith, but though he say, I have faith. Here therefore true living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but that empty name of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith which is without works save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour.”-Explanatory notes.

That St James quotes the same scriptures, and uses the same phrases, testimonies, and examples which St. Paul has done, is fully evident; but it does not follow that he wrote after St. Paul. It is possible that one had seen the epistle of the other; but if so, it is strange that neither of them should quote the other. That St. Paul might write to correct the abuses of St. James’ doctrine is as possible as that James wrote to prevent St. Paul’s doctrine from being abused; for there were Antinomians in the Church in the time of St. James, as there were Pharisaic persons in it at the time of St. Paul. I am inclined to think that James is the elder writer, and rather suppose that neither of them had ever seen the other’s epistle. Allowing them both to be inspired, God could teach each what was necessary for the benefit of the Church, without their having any knowledge of each other. See the preface to this epistle.

As the Jews in general were very strenuous in maintaining the necessity of good works or righteousness in order to justification, wholly neglecting the doctrine of faith, it is not to be wondered at that those who were converted, and saw the absolute necessity of faith in order to their justification, should have gone into the contrary extreme. Can faith save him?] That is, his profession of faith; for it is not said that he has faith, but that he says, I have faith. St. James probably refers to that faith which simply took in the being and unity of God. See on James 2:19, 24, 25.

Verses 14-17. What doth it profit — From James 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice; he now applies to those who neglected this under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (verses 21-25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, (Romans 4:3; Hebrews 11:17-31,) refutes, not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13-21. And St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What doth it profit — Of what advantage is it to him, though, or if, a man say he hath faith — It is not if he have faith, but if he say he hath it. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but an empty name or profession of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith, which is without works, save him? Surely not. It can no more save him than it can profit his neighbour. For if a brother or sister be naked, &c. — Destitute of food and clothing; and one of you — Who calls himself a Christian, say to them, We sincerely pity your case, and feel the tender emotions of that love which our relation to each other requires; depart therefore, in peace — Whithersoever ye are going; be ye warmed and filled — Be clothed and fed by some humane person: but notwithstanding all these kind speeches, ye give them not — Either food or raiment, or any money to purchase the things necessary for the body; what doth it profit? — What is the advantage of being addressed with such hypocritical professions of love? Will such speeches feed and clothe the poor and destitute? Will they not rather seem a cruel mockery than a real kindness? Even so faith — A belief of the gospel, and of the great truths contained in it, how zealously soever it may be professed, and how orthodox soever those articles are to which an assent is given; if it have not works — If it do not produce love to God and all mankind, and obedience to his will, yea, the various fruits of righteousness; if it do not work by love, it is but a dead, empty notion, of no more profit to him that has it than bidding the naked be clothed is to him. It can neither convey spiritual life to the soul here, (which all true faith does,) nor entitle any one to eternal life hereafter.

Ver. 14. What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works. St. Paul has said, “that a man is justified by faith.” St. James here affirms, “that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” The question then is, how these seemingly contradictory assertions may be fairly reconciled. In order to this we are to consider the following things. That as these Epistles were written to different persons, so the occasion and subject of them were also different. St. Paul had to do with those who thought to be justified partly by faith in Christ, and partly by their own works, or the works of the law: and therefore his design, in excluding works from justification, was only to deny the sufficiency of the works of the jewish law, or those that were thought meritorious, as being wrought by our own strength. In asserting therefore, in opposition to such works, that we are justified by faith, he meant no more than that we are justified in an evangelical way. In affirming more particularly, that we are justified by faith, he intended a practical belief, including evangelical obedience. St. James wrote to those who confessed the free justification of a sinner through faith in Christ, but who nevertheless did not duly consider that a true lively and justifying faith necessarily brings forth the fruit of righteousness. He therefore proves that where these fruits of faith are wanting, true faith itself is wanting; and that all ungodly and carnal professors of Christ have but a dead faith, which in no respect is able to help or save them; by works meaning no more than evangelical obedience, in opposition to a naked and empty faith. St. Paul’s aim and drift is to prove affirmatively, that true faith unites us to Christ, and thereby saves us. The design of St. James is negatively to prove that a dead unfruitful faith, which is but a bare image of true believing, cannot profit a man. Moreover, they do not speak of justification in the same meaning of the word, but in a different sense.

The justification which St. Paul ascribes to faith without works, means absolution from sins which were committed before believing in Christ; and the not having those sins imputed, but being admitted to peace and favour with God, upon entrance into covenant with him by baptism. This cannot possibly be owing to their good works, because, till interested in Christ, and assisted by his grace, men can have no such works to owe it to. But the justification spoken of by St. James is that other, whereby the scriptures signify the full and final justification of good men, in their last great account, as is evident from the whole tenour of his argument in this place.

But supposing there had been any disagreement in this matter (as indeed there is not) it is most reasonable to follow St. James’s explanation of it, not only because his expressions are so clear and positive as not to be justly liable to any ambiguity, seeing he wrote this sometime after St. Paul wrote the other; and consequently, as he was perfectly instructed by the divine author of both, so he was capable of explaining the true meaning of the other inspired apostle, and to confute those false principles which some men had built upon the mistake of it. And the rather still, because this epistle, in the opinion of several of the ancients, as well as of learned moderns (as were likewise the first epistle of St. John, the second of St. Peter, and that of St. Jude) was written partly to rectify the mistakes which some had fallen into, through their misunderstanding some of St. Paul’s writings.

14. Hath faith… not works—A believer, but not a righteous doer; a Christian, but not a conscientious liver; pious, but not honest. He holds to a humble Christianity, but despises the poor, and is obsequious to the persecutor.

Verse 15. If a brother or sister be naked] That is, ill-clothed; for gumnov, naked, has this meaning in several parts of the New Testament, signifying bad clothing, or the want of some particular article of dress. See Matthew 25:36, 38, 43, 44, and John 21:7. It has the same comparative signification in most languages.

Verses 14-17. What doth it profit — From James 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice; he now applies to those who neglected this under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (verses 21-25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, (Romans 4:3; Hebrews 11:17-31,) refutes, not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13-21. And St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What doth it profit — Of what advantage is it to him, though, or if, a man say he hath faith — It is not if he have faith, but if he say he hath it. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but an empty name or profession of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith, which is without works, save him? Surely not. It can no more save him than it can profit his neighbour. For if a brother or sister be naked, &c. — Destitute of food and clothing; and one of you — Who calls himself a Christian, say to them, We sincerely pity your case, and feel the tender emotions of that love which our relation to each other requires; depart therefore, in peace — Whithersoever ye are going; be ye warmed and filled — Be clothed and fed by some humane person: but notwithstanding all these kind speeches, ye give them not — Either food or raiment, or any money to purchase the things necessary for the body; what doth it profit? — What is the advantage of being addressed with such hypocritical professions of love? Will such speeches feed and clothe the poor and destitute? Will they not rather seem a cruel mockery than a real kindness? Even so faith — A belief of the gospel, and of the great truths contained in it, how zealously soever it may be professed, and how orthodox soever those articles are to which an assent is given; if it have not works — If it do not produce love to God and all mankind, and obedience to his will, yea, the various fruits of righteousness; if it do not work by love, it is but a dead, empty notion, of no more profit to him that has it than bidding the naked be clothed is to him. It can neither convey spiritual life to the soul here, (which all true faith does,) nor entitle any one to eternal life hereafter.

15. If—An illustrative case, in which a fellow Christian is to be supplied with necessaries of life. The firm faith that he will be supplied with food without accordant action will leave him to starvation. So a sentimental belief in all the charities, virtues, pieties, and moralities, will do no good to the world or to the believer until resolved into action.

Verse 16. Be ye warmed and filled] Your saying so to them, while you give them nothing, will just profit them as much as your professed faith, without those works which are the genuine fruits of true faith, will profit you in the day when God comes to sit in judgment upon your soul.

Verses 14-17. What doth it profit — From James 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice; he now applies to those who neglected this under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (verses 21-25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, (Romans 4:3; Hebrews 11:17-31,) refutes, not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13-21. And St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What doth it profit — Of what advantage is it to him, though, or if, a man say he hath faith — It is not if he have faith, but if he say he hath it. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but an empty name or profession of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith, which is without works, save him? Surely not. It can no more save him than it can profit his neighbour. For if a brother or sister be naked, &c. — Destitute of food and clothing; and one of you — Who calls himself a Christian, say to them, We sincerely pity your case, and feel the tender emotions of that love which our relation to each other requires; depart therefore, in peace — Whithersoever ye are going; be ye warmed and filled — Be clothed and fed by some humane person: but notwithstanding all these kind speeches, ye give them not — Either food or raiment, or any money to purchase the things necessary for the body; what doth it profit? — What is the advantage of being addressed with such hypocritical professions of love? Will such speeches feed and clothe the poor and destitute? Will they not rather seem a cruel mockery than a real kindness? Even so faith — A belief of the gospel, and of the great truths contained in it, how zealously soever it may be professed, and how orthodox soever those articles are to which an assent is given; if it have not works — If it do not produce love to God and all mankind, and obedience to his will, yea, the various fruits of righteousness; if it do not work by love, it is but a dead, empty notion, of no more profit to him that has it than bidding the naked be clothed is to him. It can neither convey spiritual life to the soul here, (which all true faith does,) nor entitle any one to eternal life hereafter.

V. 17. So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him.

Verse 17. If it hath not works, is dead] The faith that does not produce works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. They had faith, such as a man has who credits a well-circumstanced relation because it has all the appearance of truth; but they had nothing of that faith that a sinner, convinced of his sinfulness, God’s purity, and the strictness of the Divine laws, is obliged to exert in the Lord Jesus, in order to be saved from his sins.

Verses 14-17. What doth it profit — From James 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice; he now applies to those who neglected this under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (verses 21-25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, (Romans 4:3; Hebrews 11:17-31,) refutes, not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13-21. And St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What doth it profit — Of what advantage is it to him, though, or if, a man say he hath faith — It is not if he have faith, but if he say he hath it. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but an empty name or profession of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith, which is without works, save him? Surely not. It can no more save him than it can profit his neighbour. For if a brother or sister be naked, &c. — Destitute of food and clothing; and one of you — Who calls himself a Christian, say to them, We sincerely pity your case, and feel the tender emotions of that love which our relation to each other requires; depart therefore, in peace — Whithersoever ye are going; be ye warmed and filled — Be clothed and fed by some humane person: but notwithstanding all these kind speeches, ye give them not — Either food or raiment, or any money to purchase the things necessary for the body; what doth it profit? — What is the advantage of being addressed with such hypocritical professions of love? Will such speeches feed and clothe the poor and destitute? Will they not rather seem a cruel mockery than a real kindness? Even so faith — A belief of the gospel, and of the great truths contained in it, how zealously soever it may be professed, and how orthodox soever those articles are to which an assent is given; if it have not works — If it do not produce love to God and all mankind, and obedience to his will, yea, the various fruits of righteousness; if it do not work by love, it is but a dead, empty notion, of no more profit to him that has it than bidding the naked be clothed is to him. It can neither convey spiritual life to the soul here, (which all true faith does,) nor entitle any one to eternal life hereafter.

17. Dead—It has no vital existence, being alone, and not embodied in good doing.

V. 18. But one-Who judges better.

Will say-To such a vain talker.

Show me, if thou canst, thy faith without thy works.

Verse 18. Show me thy faith without thy works] Your pretending to have faith, while you have no works of charity or mercy, is utterly vain: for as faith, which is a principle in the mind, cannot be discerned but by the effects, that is, good works; he who has no good works has, presumptively, no faith.

I will show thee my faith by my works.] My works of charity and mercy will show that I have faith; and that it is the living tree, whose root is love to God and man, and whose fruit is the good works here contended for.

Verses 18-20. Yea, a man — Who judges better; may say — To such a vain talker, in order to bring matters to a short issue; thou hast faith — Thou sayest; and I make it appear by my life and conversation that I have works — Which naturally spring from that principle. Show me thy faith without thy works — If thou canst. Or, ek twn ergwn sou, by thy works, as the most and the best copies read it, and as it is read in the margin. And I will show thee my faith by my works — Let us, without contending about different explications of faith, make it manifest to each other that our profession is solid, by its substantial effects upon our tempers and lives. As if he had said, The only way in which thou canst show thy faith is by thy works; but as thou hast no works to produce, thou never canst show thy faith in this way. Thou believest that there is one God — I allow that thou dost: but this only proves that thou hast the same faith which the devils have. 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. But wilt thou — Art thou willing; to know — Indeed thou art not, thou wouldest fain be ignorant of it: O vain — Kene, empty, man — Devoid of all true religion; that faith without works — A persuasion of the truths of the gospel, if it produces no real fruits of holiness; is dead — As to any valuable purpose that can be expected from it. Indeed it cannot justly be said to be faith, as a dead carcass is not a man. By a dead faith, then, St. James means a faith which, because it has no influence on a man’s actions, is as incapable to justify him, as a dead carcass is to perform the offices of a living man.

18. May (wisely) say—That is, the advocate of works evidencing his faith, may say to the mere holder of faith without works, thus. Show… without… works—And prove thyself an antinomian. And I… faith by… works—And prove myself a duty-doing believer. I hold faith and duty in correspondence and symmetry with each other. My faith inspires my works, and my works evidence my faith.

Works are rightly said to justify a man by evidencing his faith. Yet this is not all. Works are a direct justification of faith before God. According to Paul it is by the act of submitting and self-consecrating faith alone that a man comes into reconciliation and justification with God. But the condition of the continuance of that state of justification is not faith alone, but faith with works correspondent to that faith. And those works justify, not only indirectly, as evidence of the trueness of the faith, but directly, being graciously accepted by God as works of righteousness and true holiness.

V. 19. 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.

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; frissousi, they shudder with horror, they believe and tremble, are increasingly tormented; but they can neither love nor obey.

Verses 18-20. Yea, a man — Who judges better; may say — To such a vain talker, in order to bring matters to a short issue; thou hast faith — Thou sayest; and I make it appear by my life and conversation that I have works — Which naturally spring from that principle. Show me thy faith without thy works — If thou canst. Or, ek twn ergwn sou, by thy works, as the most and the best copies read it, and as it is read in the margin. And I will show thee my faith by my works — Let us, without contending about different explications of faith, make it manifest to each other that our profession is solid, by its substantial effects upon our tempers and lives. As if he had said, The only way in which thou canst show thy faith is by thy works; but as thou hast no works to produce, thou never canst show thy faith in this way. Thou believest that there is one God — I allow that thou dost: but this only proves that thou hast the same faith which the devils have. 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. But wilt thou — Art thou willing; to know — Indeed thou art not, thou wouldest fain be ignorant of it: O vain — Kene, empty, man — Devoid of all true religion; that faith without works — A persuasion of the truths of the gospel, if it produces no real fruits of holiness; is dead — As to any valuable purpose that can be expected from it. Indeed it cannot justly be said to be faith, as a dead carcass is not a man. By a dead faith, then, St. James means a faith which, because it has no influence on a man’s actions, is as incapable to justify him, as a dead carcass is to perform the offices of a living man.

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 1 Corinthians 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 Romans 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.

V. 20. But art than willing to know-Indeed thou art not: thou wouldest fain be ignorant of it.

O empty man-Empty of all goodness.

That the faith which is without works is dead-And so is not properly faith, as a dead carcase is not a man.

Verse 20. But wilt thou know] Art thou willing to be instructed in the nature of true saving faith? Then attend to the following examples.

Verses 18-20. Yea, a man — Who judges better; may say — To such a vain talker, in order to bring matters to a short issue; thou hast faith — Thou sayest; and I make it appear by my life and conversation that I have works — Which naturally spring from that principle. Show me thy faith without thy works — If thou canst. Or, ek twn ergwn sou, by thy works, as the most and the best copies read it, and as it is read in the margin. And I will show thee my faith by my works — Let us, without contending about different explications of faith, make it manifest to each other that our profession is solid, by its substantial effects upon our tempers and lives. As if he had said, The only way in which thou canst show thy faith is by thy works; but as thou hast no works to produce, thou never canst show thy faith in this way. Thou believest that there is one God — I allow that thou dost: but this only proves that thou hast the same faith which the devils have. 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. But wilt thou — Art thou willing; to know — Indeed thou art not, thou wouldest fain be ignorant of it: O vain — Kene, empty, man — Devoid of all true religion; that faith without works — A persuasion of the truths of the gospel, if it produces no real fruits of holiness; is dead — As to any valuable purpose that can be expected from it. Indeed it cannot justly be said to be faith, as a dead carcass is not a man. By a dead faith, then, St. James means a faith which, because it has no influence on a man’s actions, is as incapable to justify him, as a dead carcass is to perform the offices of a living man.

20. Wilt thou—Willest thou? for it is a matter of will. Thou canst know if it is thy will to know. Vain man—Literally, empty man; vacant of the truth he might know.

V. 21. Was not Abraham justified by works-St. Paul says he was justified by faith, Romans 4:2, &c.: yet St. James does not contradict him; for he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Genesis 15:6. St. James, of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Paul's sense, (that is, accounted righteous,) by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. James's sense, (that is, made righteous,) by works, consequent to his faith. So that St. James's justification by works is the fruit of St. Paul's justification by faith.

Verse 21. Was not Abraham our father] Did not the conduct of Abraham, in offering up his son Isaac on the altar, sufficiently prove that he believed in God, and that it was his faith in him that led him to this extraordinary act of obedience?

Verse 21. Was not, &c. — As if he had said, Take an instance of this in the most celebrated of all the patriarchs, our father Abraham. Was not he justified by works — Did not his works manifest the truth and liveliness of his faith; when — In consequence of the full persuasion he had of a divine command to do it; he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? — Intending, in obedience to what he apprehended to be the will of God, actually to have slain him, and to have trusted in God to accomplish the promise of a numerous seed to descend from him, by raising him from the dead: see notes on Hebrews 11:17-19. St. Paul says Abraham was justified by faith, (Romans 4:2, &c.,) yet St. James does not contradict him. For he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Genesis 15:6; St. James of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Paul’s sense; that is, accounted righteous by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. James’s sense, that is, made righteous by works, subsequent to his faith: so that St. James’s justification by works is the fruit of St. Paul’s justification by faith.

21. Abraham—As Abraham is the instance discussed by St. Paul, (Romans 4:1-13 and Galatians 3:6-9,) we deem it very probable, but by no means certain, that James has Paul’s statements in view, and purposes to give, not a disputation in order to refute them, but a counter statement in order to correct those who overstated Paul’s. Our father— Namely, of both unconverted and converted Jew. Offered—But did not fulfil the offering by actual sacrifice. Upon—Or at.

V. 22. Thou seest that faith-For by faith Abraham offered him, Hebrews 11:17.

Wrought together with his works-Therefore faith has one energy and operation; works, another: and the energy and operation of faith are before works, and together with them. Works do not give life to faith, but faith begets works, and then is perfected by them.

And by works was faith made perfect-Here St. James fixes the sense wherein he uses the word justified; so that no shadow of contradiction remains between his assertion and St. Paul's. Abraham returned from that sacrifice perfected in faith, and far higher in the favour of God. Faith hath not its being from works, (for it is before them,) but its perfection. That vigour of faith which begets works is then excited and increased thereby, as the natural heat of the body begets motion, whereby itself is then excited and increased. See 1 John 3:22.

Verse 22. Seest thou how faith wrought] Here is a proof that faith cannot exist without being active in works of righteousness. His faith in God would have been of no avail to him, had it not been manifested by works; for by works-by his obedience to the commands of God, his faith was made perfect-it dictated obedience, he obeyed; and thus faith eteleiwqh, had its consummation. Even true faith will soon die, if its possessor do not live in the spirit of obedience.

Verse 22. Seest thou — Or thou seest then, in this instance; how faith wrought together with his works — And animated him to great zeal and self-denial in them. Therefore faith has one energy and operation, works another. And the energy and operation of faith are before works, and together with them. Works do not give life to faith, but faith begets works, and then is completed by them. And by works was faith made perfect — “The command to offer Isaac for a burnt-offering, (Genesis 22:2,) appearing directly contrary to the promise, (Genesis 21:12,) In Isaac shall thy seed be called, Abraham’s faith was thereby put to the severest trial. Yet it was not staggered by the seeming contrariety of the divine revelation: Abraham reasoned with himself, (Hebrews 11:19,) that God was able to raise Isaac even from the dead; and firmly believing that he would actually do so, he therefore set himself to obey the divine command without the least gain-saying. James therefore had good reason to say that Abraham’s faith co-operated with his works in procuring him the promises confirmed with an oath, because it was his faith in God which enabled him to perform the difficult works, requisite to the offering of Isaac as a burnt- offering. He had equally good reason to say, by works his faith was perfected, or rendered complete; because, if, when tried, he had refused to obey, his would not have been a complete faith. In this passage, therefore, 1st, James hath declared that faith and works are inseparably connected, as cause and effect, and that good works must flow from faith as their principle.” 2d, He here fixes the sense wherein he uses the word justified; so that no shadow of contradiction remains between his assertion and St. Paul’s. Abraham returned from that sacrifice perfected in faith, and far higher in the favour of God. Faith hath not its existence from works; for it is before them; but its perfection. That vigour of faith which begets works is then excited and increased thereby: as the natural heat of the body begets motion, whereby itself is then excited and increased: see 1 John 3:22.

22. Faith wrought… works—As remarked in our notes on the passages referred to in our last note, Abraham was a believer years before the offering of Isaac, and justified. That act of self-surrendering faith by which a man enters into reconciliation with God was performed years before. Yet every signal external act of faith was a renewal of the first. Abraham’s justification came, as Paul says, from his faith alone. Yet the faith which alone justifies is never really alone: it ever combines with works. Faith made perfect—Had Abraham died at the instant of his first justification he would have been completely justified by faith alone. But his faith would have wanted its proper counterpart in actual works, and so have been in a sense imperfect. Yet it was saving in its quality, being of such a nature and power as would generate works but for the cessation of life. In other words, it was such a self-surrender to, trust in, and oneness of heart and spirit with, God, as would have poured forth works in accord with God’s will. Or, to vary the statement, on condition of such self-surrendering faith a full flow of the divine Spirit is poured into the heart, inspiring a life and course of action accordant with the divine will. When, then, this internal faith is answered to by the correspondent act and course of life, it becomes completed, made perfect.

V. 23. And the scripture-Which was afterwards written. Was hereby eminently fulfilled, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness-This was twice fulfilled,-when Abraham first believed, and when he offered up Isaac. St. Paul speaks of the former fulfilling; St. James, of the latter.

And he was called the Friend of God-Both by his posterity, 2 Chronicles 20:7; and by God himself, Isaiah 41:8 so pleasing to God were the works he wrought in faith. Genesis 15:6

Verse 23. The scripture was fulfilled] He believed God; this faith was never inactive, it was accounted to him for righteousness: and being justified by thus believing, his life of obedience showed that he had not received the grace of God in vain. See Clarke’s notes on “Genesis 15:6”; “Romans 4:3”; “Galatians 3:6”; where this subject is largely explained.

The friend of God.] The highest character ever given to man. As among friends every thing is in 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.

Verses 23, 24. And the scripture — Which was afterward written, was hereby eminently fulfilled. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. This was twice fulfilled, when Abraham first believed, and when he offered up Isaac. St. Paul speaks of the former fulfilling, and St. James of the latter. And he was called the friend of God — Both by his posterity, (2 Chronicles 20:7,) and by God himself, Isaiah 41:8. So pleasing to God were the works he wrought in faith! “The passage of Scripture which St. James here says was fulfilled, contains two assertions: 1st, That Abraham believed God; 2d, That his believing God was counted to him for righteousness. By the offering of Isaac that scripture was confirmed or proved to be true in both its parts. For, 1st, By offering Isaac, in the firm expectation that God would raise him from the dead, and fulfil in him the promise of the numerous seed, Abraham showed that he believed God in the firmest manner. 2d, By offering Isaac, Abraham had the promise, that God would count his faith to him for righteousness, renewed and confirmed in a solemn manner with an oath.” — Macknight. Ye see then — By this instance of the great father of the faithful, (for the characters of the children are to be estimated in the same manner as those of the father,) that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only — It is by no means sufficient, in order to our salvation, that the great principles of religion be credited, if they have not their practical influence on the heart and life.

23. Fulfilled—By the external act of faith the works the faith received a consummation, a perfection, whereby the very Scripture declaring his justification by faith, was visibly fulfilled.

V. 24. Ye see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only-St. Paul, on the other hand, declares, "A man is justified by faith," and not by works, Romans 3:28. And yet there is no contradiction between the apostles: because, 1. They do not speak of the same faith: St. Paul speaking of living faith; St. James here, of dead faith. 2. They do not speak of the same works: St. Paul speaking of works antecedent to faith; St. James, of works subsequent to it.

Verse 24. Ye see then how] It is evident from this example that Abraham’s faith was not merely believing that there is a God; but a principle that led him to credit God’s promises relative to the future Redeemer, and to implore God’s mercy: this he received, and was justified by faith. His faith now began to work by love, and therefore he was found ever obedient to the will of his Maker. He brought forth the fruits of righteousness; and his works justified-proved the genuineness of his faith; and he continued to enjoy the Divine approbation, which he could not have done had he not been thus obedient; for the Spirit of God would have been grieved, and his principle of faith would have perished. Obedience to God is essentially requisite to maintain faith. Faith lives, under God, by works; and works have their being and excellence from faith. Neither can subsist without the other, and this is the point which St. James labours to prove, in order to convince the Antinomians of his time that their faith was a delusion, and that the hopes built on it must needs perish.

Verses 23, 24. And the scripture — Which was afterward written, was hereby eminently fulfilled. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. This was twice fulfilled, when Abraham first believed, and when he offered up Isaac. St. Paul speaks of the former fulfilling, and St. James of the latter. And he was called the friend of God — Both by his posterity, (2 Chronicles 20:7,) and by God himself, Isaiah 41:8. So pleasing to God were the works he wrought in faith! “The passage of Scripture which St. James here says was fulfilled, contains two assertions: 1st, That Abraham believed God; 2d, That his believing God was counted to him for righteousness. By the offering of Isaac that scripture was confirmed or proved to be true in both its parts. For, 1st, By offering Isaac, in the firm expectation that God would raise him from the dead, and fulfil in him the promise of the numerous seed, Abraham showed that he believed God in the firmest manner. 2d, By offering Isaac, Abraham had the promise, that God would count his faith to him for righteousness, renewed and confirmed in a solemn manner with an oath.” — Macknight. Ye see then — By this instance of the great father of the faithful, (for the characters of the children are to be estimated in the same manner as those of the father,) that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only — It is by no means sufficient, in order to our salvation, that the great principles of religion be credited, if they have not their practical influence on the heart and life.

24. By works… justified—Not that by merit-work (except so far as faith itself is a work, note, Romans 3:27) a man is first brought into justification. But he is justified by work as an external completion of his faith. Not by faith only—For if the faith be alone, and without the working element of faith, namely, the hearty will for work, it is mere speculative faith, as above said, and so dead and unjustifying.

V. 25. After Abraham, the father of the Jews, the apostle cites Rahab, a woman, and a sinner of the Gentiles; to show, that in every nation and sex true faith produces works, and is perfected by them; that is, by the grace of God working in the believer, while he is showing his faith by his works.

Verse 25. Rahab the harlot] See Clarke’s notes on “Joshua 2:1”, &c., and “Hebrews 11:31”, &c. Rahab had the approbation due to genuine faith, which she actually possessed, and gave the fullest proof that she did so by her conduct. As justification signifies, not only the pardon of sin, but receiving the Divine approbation, James seems to use the word in this latter sense. God approved of them, because of their obedience to his will; and he approves of no man who is not obedient.

Verses 25, 26. Likewise also, &c. — After Abraham, the father of the Jews, the apostle cites Rahab, a woman and a sinner of the Gentiles, to show that in every nation and sex true faith produces works, and is perfected by them; that is, by the grace of God working in the believer, while he is showing his faith by his works: see note on Hebrews 11:31. “Rahab’s faith consisted in her attending to, and reasoning justly on, what she had heard concerning the dividing of the waters of the Red sea for a passage to the Israelites, and concerning the destruction of Sihon and Og. For from these things she concluded that the God of the Israelites was the true God, and sole Governor of the universe; and, firmly believing this, she renounced her former false gods, and concealed the Israelitish spies at the hazard of her life. In this she showed a disposition of the same kind with that which Abraham showed, when he left his country and kindred at God’s command. And as Abraham, for that great act of faith and obedience, was rewarded with the promise of Canaan, so Rahab, as the reward of her faith and works, was not destroyed with the unbelieving inhabitants of Jericho.” For as the body without the spirit is dead — Has no sense or feeling, no vital heat, action, or energy, but is a mere carcass, how fair and entire soever it may appear, and will at length fall into putrefaction and dissolution; so such a faith as is without works is dead also — Now appears as a carcass in the sight of God, is useless, yea, loathsome and offensive. Two things, then, of great importance must be attended to on this subject. 1st, That the best outward works without faith are dead; they want their root and vital principle; for it is only by faith that any thing which we do is really good, as being done with an eye to the glory of God, and in obedience to him. 2d, That the most plausible profession of faith without works is dead, as the root is dead when it does not vegetate, when it produces no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we must see to it that we have both. We must not think that either of them, without the other, will justify and save us. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we must take care that we stand in it.

25. Rahab the harlot—See note, Hebrews 11:31. Received the messengers—An act resulting from her faith in Jehovah, God of Israel, performed bravely in spite of danger, terminating in her incorporation into the people of God and into the line of the Messiah. Note, Matthew 1:2. As it was through her memorable adhesion to Israel that Israel came into Canaan, her faith was a hinging fact in Israel’s history, and so commemorated with great interest.

Verse 26. For as the body without the spirit is dead] There can be no more a genuine faith without good works, than there can be a living human body without a soul.

WE shall never find a series of disinterested godly living without true faith. And we shall never find true faith without such a life. We may see works of apparent benevolence without faith; their principle is ostentation; and, as long as they can have the reward (human applause) which they seek, they may be continued. And yet the experience of all mankind shows how short-lived such works are; they want both principle and spring; they endure for a time, but soon wither away. Where true faith is, there is God; his Spirit gives life, and his love affords motives to righteous actions. The use of any Divine principle leads to its increase. The more a man exercises faith in Christ, the more he is enabled to believe; the more he believes, the more he receives; and the more he receives, the more able he is to work for God. Obedience is his delight, because love to God and man is the element in which his soul lives. Reader, thou professest to believe; show thy faith, both to God and man, by a life conformed to the royal law, which ever gives liberty and confers dignity.

“Some persons, known to St. James, must have taught that men are justified by merely believing in the one true God; or he would not have taken such pains to confute it. Crediting the unity of the Godhead, and the doctrine of a future state, was that faith through which both the Jews in St. James’ time and the Mohammedans of the present day expect justification. St. James, in denying this faith to be of avail, if unaccompanied with good works, has said nothing more than what St. Paul has said, in other words, Rom. 2, where he combats the same Jewish error, and asserts that not the hearers but the doers of the law will be justified, and that a knowledge of God’s will, without the performance of it, serves only to increase our condemnation.”-Michaelis.

JAMES

Verses 25, 26. Likewise also, &c. — After Abraham, the father of the Jews, the apostle cites Rahab, a woman and a sinner of the Gentiles, to show that in every nation and sex true faith produces works, and is perfected by them; that is, by the grace of God working in the believer, while he is showing his faith by his works: see note on Hebrews 11:31. “Rahab’s faith consisted in her attending to, and reasoning justly on, what she had heard concerning the dividing of the waters of the Red sea for a passage to the Israelites, and concerning the destruction of Sihon and Og. For from these things she concluded that the God of the Israelites was the true God, and sole Governor of the universe; and, firmly believing this, she renounced her former false gods, and concealed the Israelitish spies at the hazard of her life. In this she showed a disposition of the same kind with that which Abraham showed, when he left his country and kindred at God’s command. And as Abraham, for that great act of faith and obedience, was rewarded with the promise of Canaan, so Rahab, as the reward of her faith and works, was not destroyed with the unbelieving inhabitants of Jericho.” For as the body without the spirit is dead — Has no sense or feeling, no vital heat, action, or energy, but is a mere carcass, how fair and entire soever it may appear, and will at length fall into putrefaction and dissolution; so such a faith as is without works is dead also — Now appears as a carcass in the sight of God, is useless, yea, loathsome and offensive. Two things, then, of great importance must be attended to on this subject. 1st, That the best outward works without faith are dead; they want their root and vital principle; for it is only by faith that any thing which we do is really good, as being done with an eye to the glory of God, and in obedience to him. 2d, That the most plausible profession of faith without works is dead, as the root is dead when it does not vegetate, when it produces no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we must see to it that we have both. We must not think that either of them, without the other, will justify and save us. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we must take care that we stand in it.

Ver. 26. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James speaks here in the language of the Nazarene christians, many of whom had belonged to the pharisees; but he does not say more in favour of works than Paul. The loose state of oriental morals rendered strong words necessary. Faith is the first to save, to give life and love to the soul, that works may follow. There is no discord between Paul and James; an expletive in most sentences relieves the whole.

26. As the body… so faith—Reciprocally, we may make faith the body and works the spirit necessary to its life; or works the body of which faith is the spirit. Faith is the dead body without works; for it is truly without the active will-power, without which it is the mere dead speculative belief, like that of the demons in verse 19.

St. James’s paragraph here on faith and works has, from its marked antithesis to Paul’s language of the same point, furnished a fruitful topic for discussion to commentators and theologians. Huther, in a brief excursus, summarizes its history. Before the Reformation no difficulty of reconciliation was felt. Luther opened the query with a strong and repeated rejection of the epistle from the canon as contradictory to Paul, unapostolic, and unauthentic. The consistency of James with Paul has, nevertheless, been recognised by the German scholars, Neander, Wiesinger, and Hengstenberg; but denied by De Wette, Baur, and other rationalists. Huther reconciles the two (as Fletcher of Madeley, in his “Checks,” did before him) by saying that Paul speaks of present justification, which is truly by faith, and James of our justification at the day of Judgment, which is “according to” our works, as is attested by many Scripture passages. But so far as time comes into view this distinction fails; for God’s judicial estimate of us is ever now, “according to” our present moral state. The final judgment is but the closing public pronunciation of the final sum total of our character. God’s present judgment is as much “according to” our works as his final. And in this, our moral sum total under God’s adjudication, faith is properly viewed as one of the works “according to” which we are judged. And thus we are justified by works. And yet this is not precisely the view that St. James in this paragraph presents.

Huther places in contrast the words of the two apostles thus: James says, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24.) Paul says, (Galatians 2:16,) “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by… faith.” Again, James, (James 2:21,) “Was not Abraham… justified by works?” and Paul, (Romans 4:2,) “If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.” In regard to which we remark: (1.) James does not here, or any where else, deny, but does assume, that we are justified by faith. (2.) Nor does he deny that it is faith which alone, and in itself, justifies; he only denies that the faith which alone justifies is ever alone and unattended by works. (3.) And even in the alone justifying faith there is a virtual inchoate work which (verse 22) requires to be verified and perfected in the consequent external work. Works, therefore, though never justifying without faith, do have, as inhering in faith, an auxiliary justifying effect. And that view Paul never denies, but frequently implies. See our notes on Romans 2:6; 3:27. With Paul it is working faith, faith with work present and prospective in it, that justifies. It is only merit-work that he denies. But so pointedly antithetical are James’s propositions to Paul’s, that we hold them as intended by him to be the corrective of the effect of Paul’s trenchant statements in the mind of the Church. 4. That there was a standing antithesis, without real contradiction, between Paul and James, is evinced by the “from James” of Galatians 2:12, (where see note, with our note on Acts 15:6;) and we believe that antithesis is here stated, and was, on James’s part, intentional and wise.

(5.) How truly James’s statements do stand as a perpetual corrective of the antinomianism often inferred from Paul’s language in successive periods of the Church, is well illustrated by Wesley’s experience with the Moravians, given in our vol. iv, p. 209. So antinomian had they become by implicitly following Luther and overstraining Paul, that he took to expounding James to bring them to the right position. Not one moment do we hesitate to place the words of this illustrious apostle, James of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord himself, lineal son of David, and hereditary king of the twelve tribes, as coequal in authority with Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Both were apostles, but neither of the twelve. (6.) All this indicates that the Epistle of James is subsequent to that to the Romans; long enough subsequent for that great epistle to have powerfully influenced the mind of the Church. And this passage, like 2 Peter 3:15, 16, is a clear allusion to the doctrinal statements of Paul, implying their perversion by many of his readers.