Pulpit Commentary My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. Verses 1-13. - WARNING AGAINST RESPECT OF PERSONS. Verse 1. - The translation is doubtful, two renderings being possible.
(1) That of the A.V. and R.V., "Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons." (2) That of the R.V. margin and Westcott and Hort, "Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory?" According to this view, the section commences with a question, as does the following one, ver. 14. According to the former view, which is on the whole preferable, it is parallel to James 3:1. The faith of our Lord. "The faith" here may be either (1) objective (tides quae creditur), as in the Epistle of St. Jude 1:3, 20; or (2) subjective (tides qua creditur), "Have the faith which believes in," etc. (cf. Mark 11:22). Our Lord Jesus Christ. Exactly the same title occurs in Acts 15:26, in the letter written from the Apostolic Council to the Syrian Churches - a letter which was probably drawn up by St. James himself. The Lord of glory. The same title is given to our Lord in 1 Corinthians 2:8, and seems to be founded on Psalm 24:7, etc. The genitive, For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; Verses 2-4. - Proof that they were guilty of respect of persons. Observe the insight which this passage gives us into the cha-racier of the assemblies of the early Christians, showing
(1) that the entrance of a rich man was not entirely unknown, but (2) that it was probably exceptional, because so much was made of him. Notice (3) συναγωγή used here, and here only in the New Testament, of a Christian assembly for worship (cf. Ignatius, 'Ad Polye.,' c. 4, And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Verse 4. - The copula (
(1) "Are ye not divided in your own mind?" so the Syriac and R.V., which would imply that this respect of persons showed that they were halting between God and the world - in fact, double-minded. (2) "Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?" R.V. margin; this gives an excellent sense, but is wanting in authority, as there appears to be no other instance forthcoming of the passive with this meaning. (3) "Did you not doubt among yourselves?" this (doubt) is the almost invariable meaning of διακρίναομαι in the New Testament, and the word has already been used in this sense by St. James (James 1:6). Hence this rendering is to be preferred. So Huther, Plumptre, and Farrar, the latter of whom explains the passage as follows: "It shows doubt to act as though Christ had never promised his kingdom to the poor, rich in faith; and wicked reasonings to argue mentally that the poor must be less worthy of honor than the rich." Judges of evil thoughts (κριταὶ διαλογισμῶ Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? Verses 5-9. - Proof of the sinfulness of respect of persons. Verse 5. - Hearken (ἀ
But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Verse 6. - You have dishonored by your treatment the poor man, whom God chose; while those rich men to whom ye pay such honor are just the very persons who
(1) oppress you and (2) blaspheme God and Christ. Poor... rich. In the Old Testament we occasionally find the term "poor" parallel to "righteous" (Amos 2:6; Amos 5:12); and "rich" to "wicked" (Isaiah 53:9). St. James's use here is somewhat similar (see on James 1:9, etc.). "Christiani multi ex pauperibus erant: pauci ex divitibus" (Bengel). The "rich men" here alluded to are evidently such as was the Apostle Paul before his conversion. (1) They dragged the poor Christians before the judgment-seat (ἕλκουσιν ὑ (2) They blasphemed the honorable Name by which Christians were called. So Saul thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, and strove to make them blaspheme (Acts 26:9-11). (3) All this they did in person ( Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? Verse 7. - That worthy Name (
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: Verse 8 - What is the connection with the foregoing?
(1) As being the most excellent of all laws; as we might call it the sovereign principle of our conduct (cf. Plato 'Min.,' p. 317, c, (2) to take the expression as literal here - "the law of the kingdom" (cf. Plumptre, in loc.). Thou shalt love, etc. (Leviticus 19:18). The law had received the sanction of the King himself (Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:26-28). But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. Verse 9. - And are convinced, etc.; better, with R.V., being convicted by the law (ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑ
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Verse 10. - In this verse the subjunctives
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. Verse 11. - Do not commit adultery... do not kill. The order of the commandments is remarkable; what is now the seventh is placed bolero the sixth. This appears to have been the usual order at that time. In this order our Lord quotes them in Luke 18:20, and St. Paul in Romans 13:9. Philo also has the same order, and expressly comments on it, drawing from it an argument for the heinousness of adultery ('Dec.,' 12:24). In the Vatican Manuscript of the LXX. in Exodus 20:13-15 the order is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill." But the Alexandrian Manuscript has the usual order, which is also found in Matthew 19:18 and Mark 10:19 (according to the correct reading).
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. Verse 13. - A clear reminiscence of our Lord's teaching in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 7:1, etc.; Matthew 5:7):
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Verses 14-26. - WARNING AGAINST RESTING CONTENT WITH A MERE BARREN ORTHODOXY. Preliminary note: This is the famous passage which led to Luther's depreciation of the whole Epistle, which he termed a "right strawy" one. At first sight it appears, indeed, diametrically opposed to the teaching of St. Paul; for:
(1) St. Paul says (Romans 3:28)," We conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from ( (2) St. Paul speaks of Abraham as justified by faith (Romans 4; cf. Galatians 3:6, etc.); St. James says that he was justified by works (ver. 21). (3) St. Paul, or the Pauline author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, appeals to the case of Rahab as an instance of faith (Hebrews 11:31); St. James refers to her as an example of justification by works (ver. 25). The opposition, however, is only apparent; for: (1) The two apostles use the word ἔ (2) The word (3) The apostles are writing against different errors and tendencies: St. Paul against that of those who would impose the Jewish Law and the rite of circumcision upon Gentile believers; St. James against "the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the still weightier matters of a self-denying love" (Lightfoot on 'Galatians,' p. 370). [The tendency of the Jews to rely on their claim as "Abraham's children" is rebuked by the Baptist (Matthew 3:9) and by our Lord (John 8:39). So Justin Martyr speaks of the Jews of his day: (4) The apostles regarded the new dispensation from different standpoints. With St. Paul' it is the negation of law: "Ye are not under Law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14). With St. James it is the perfection of Law. But, as Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out, "the ideas underlying these contradictory forms of expression need not be essentially different." The mere ritual has no value for St. James. Apart from anything higher it is sternly denounced by him (James 1:20, etc.). The gospel is in his view a Law, but it is no mere system of rules, "Touch not, taste not, handle not;" it is no hard bondage, for it is a law of liberty, which is in exact accordance with the teaching of St. Paul, that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). But: (5) The question now arises. Granting that St. James does not contradict the doctrine of St. Paul, is he not opposing Antinomian perversions of it, and writing with conscious reference to the teaching of the apostle of the Gentiles, and the misuse which some had made of it? To this question different answers have been returned. "So long as our range of view is confined to the apostolic writings, it seems scarcely possible to resist the impression that St. James is attacking the teaching, if not of St. Paul himself, at least of those who exaggerated and perverted it. But when we realize the fact that the passage in Genesis was a common thesis in the schools of the day, that the meaning of faith was variously explained by the disputants, that diverse lessons were drawn from it - then the case is altered. The Gentile apostle and the Pharisaic rabbi might both maintain the supremacy of faith as the means of salvation; but faith with St. Paul was a very different thing kern faith with Maimonides, for instance. With the one its prominent idea is a spiritual life, with the other an orthodox creed; with the one the guiding principle is the individual conscience, with the other an external rule of ordinances; with the one faith is allied to liberty, with the other to bondage. Thus it becomes a question whether St. James's protest against reliance on faith alone has any reference direct or indirect to St. Paul's language and teaching. Whether, in fact, it is not aimed against an entirely different type of religious feeling, against the Pharisaic spirit which rested satisfied with a barren orthodoxy fruitless in works of charity" (Lightfoot on 'Galatians,' p. 164; the whole essay should be carefully studied). In favor of this view of the entire independence of the two writers, to which he inclines, Bishop Lightfoot urges: (a) That the object of the much-vaunted faith of those against whom St. James writes is "the fundamental maxim of the Law," "Thou believest that God is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4); not "the fundamental fact of the gospel," "Thou believest that God raised Christ from the dead" (Romans 10:9). (b) That the whole tone of the Epistle recalls our Lord's denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems directed against a kindred spirit. To these we may add: (c) That the teaching of St. Paul and St. James is combined by St. Clement of Rome ('Ep. ad Corinthians,' c. 12.) in a manner which is conclusive as to the fact that he was unaware of any divergence of view between them, whether real or apparent. We conclude, then, that the teaching of St. James has no direct relation to that of St. Paul, and may well have been anterior in time to his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. (For the opposite view, see Farrar's 'Early Days of Christianity,' vol. 2. p. 79, where an able discussion of the subject may be found.) Verses 14-17. - (1) First point: Faith without works is equivalent to profession without practice, and is therefore dead. Verse 14. - Omit the article (with B, C1), and read If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, Verses 15, 16. - Observe the practical character of the illustration chosen, from works of mercy (cf. James 1:27).
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Verse 16. - Depart in peace (ὑ
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Verse 17. - Being alone (
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Verses 18, 19. -
(2) Second point: Even the devils believe (πιστεύουσι). How worthless, then, must be faith ( Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Verse 19. -
(1) "Thou believest that God is one," R.V., reading Ὅ (2) "Thou believest that there is one God," A.V. and R.V. margin, reading Ὅ But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Verses 20-24. -
(3) Third point: Proof from the example of Abraham that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. In Genesis 15:6 we read of Abraham that "he believed in the Lord; and he accounted it to him for righteousness" (LXX., Ἐ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Verse 23. - And he was called the Friend of God. The expression comes from Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chronicles 20:7 (in the Hebrew, א; LXX., ὅ
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? Verse 25. -
(4) Fourth point: Proof from the case of Rahab the harlot of justification by works (cf. Joshua 2; Joshua 6:25). Rahab is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:31, where she also appears as Ῥ For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Verse 26. - Conclusion of the whole matter: "As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." The Pulpit Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010 by BibleSoft, inc., Used by permission Bible Hub |