us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits 0 of his creatures.
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow h to speak, slow e to wrath:
no reason why it should be done, or that the exercise of his will was arbitrary, but only that his will determined the matter, and that that alone is the cause of our conversion. It is not to be inferred that there are not in all cases good reasons why God wills as he does, though those reasons are not often stated to us, and perhaps we could not comprehend them if they were.# The object of the statement here seems to be to direct the mind to God as the source of good, and not of evil; and among the most eminent illustrations of his goodness is this, that by his mere will, without any external power to control him, and where there could be nothing but benevolence, he has adopted us into his family, and given us a most exalted condition, as renovated beings, amonghis creatures. 1 Begat he us. The Greek word here is the same which in ver. 15 is rendered "bringeth forth" — "sin bringeth forth death." The statement here is perhaps designedly made in contrast with that, and the object is to refer to a different kind of production, or bringing forth, under the agency of sin, and the agency of God. The meaning here is that we owe the beginning of our spiritual life to God. T[ With the word of truth. By the instrumentality of truth. It was not a mere creative act, but it was by truth as the seed or germ. There is no effect produced in our minds in regeneration which the truth is not fitted to produce, and the agency of God in the case is to secure its fair and full influence on the soul. H That we should be a kind of first-frtdts of his creatures. Comp. Eph. i. 12. For the meaning of the word rendered first-fruits, see Notes on Rom. viii. 23. Comp. Rom. xi. 6; xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; xvi. 15; Rev. xiv. 4. It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It denotes properly that which is first taken from any thing: the portion which was usuallyofleredtoGod. Thephrasehere does not primarily denote eminence in honor ordegree,but refers rather to time — the first in time; and in a secondary sense it is then used to denote the honor attached to that circumstance. The meaning here is, either (1) that, P, 2 under the Gospel, those who were addressed by the apostles had the honor of being first called into his kingdom as a part of that glorious harvest which it was designed to gather in this world, and that the goodness of God was manifested in thus furnishing the firstfruits of a most glorious harvest; or (2) the reference may be to the rank and dignity which all who are born again would have among the creatures of God in virtue of the new birth.
19. Wherefore, my beloved brethren. The connection is this: "Since God is the only source of good, since he tempts no man, and since by his mere sovereign goodness, without any claim on our part, we have had the high honor conferred on us of being made the first-fruits of his creatures, we ought to be ready to hear his voice, to subdue all our evil passions, and to bring our souls to entire practical obedience." The necessity of obedience, or the doctrine that the Gospel is not only to be learned but practiced, is pursued at length in this and the following chapter. The particular statement here (ver. 19-21) is that religion requires us to be meek and docile; to lay aside all irritability against the truth, and all pride of opinion, and all corruption of heart, and to receive meekly the engrafted Word. See the analysis of the chapter. H Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak. That is, primarily, to hear God; to listen to the instructions of tlmttruth by which we have been begotten, and brought into so near relation to him. At the same time, though this is the primary sense of the phrase here, it may be regarded as inculcating the general doctrine that we are to be more ready to hear than to speak; or that we are to be disposed to learn always, and from any source. Our appropriate condition is rather that of learners than instructors; and the attitude of mind which we should cultivate is that of a readiness to receive information from any quarter. The ancients have some sayings on this subject which are well worthy of our attention: " Men have two ears, and but one tongue, that they should hear more than they speak." " The ears are al-
20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
21 Wherefore lay apart a all filthiness and superfluity of naughti-
ways open, ever ready to receive instruction; but the tongue is surrounded with a double row of teeth, to hedge it in, and to keep it within proper bounds." See Benson. So Valerius Maximus, vii., 2: " How noble was the response of Xenocrates! When he met the reproaches of others with a profound silence, some one asked him why he alone w.as silent? Because, says he, I have sometimes had occasion to regret that I have spoken, never that I was silent." See Wetstein. So the son of Sirach: "Be swift to hear, and with deep consideration (tv fxaKpoSv/uLia) give answer." Chap. v. 11. The Jewish Rabbins have some similar sentiments. " Talk little and work much." — Pirkey Aboth., c. i., 15. " The righteous speak little and do much; the wicked speak much and do nothing. ' ' — Bava Metsia, fol. 87. A sentiment similar to that before us is found in Eccl.v. 2: "Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God." So Prov. x. 19: " In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin." xiii. 3: "He that keepeth his mouth, keepeth his life." xv. 2: "The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright, but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness." H Slow to wrath. That is, we are to govern and restrain our temper; we are not to give indulgence to excited and angry passions. Comp. Prov. xvi. 32: "He that is slow to anger is greater than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit, than he that taketh a city." See also, on this subject, Job v. 2;' Prov. xxxvii. 8; xi. 17; xiii. 10; xiv. 16; xv. 18; xix. 19;xxii.24; xxv.28; Eccl.vii.9: Rom. xii.17; lThess.v.14; 1 Pet. iii. 8. The particular point here is, however, not that we should be slow to wrath as a general habit of mind, which is indeed most true, but in reference particularly to the reception of the truth. We should lay aside all anger and wrath, and should come to the investigation of truth with a calm mind, and an unperturbed spirit. A state of wrath or anger is always unfavorable to the investigation of truth. Such an investigation demands a calm spirit, and he whose mind is excited and enraged is not in a condition to see the value of truth, or to weigh the evidence for it.
20. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Does not produce in the life that righteousness which God requires. Its tendency is not to incline us to keep the law, but to break it; not to induce us to embrace the truth, but to reject it. The meaning of this passage is not that our wrath will make God either more or less righteous; but that its tendency is not to produce that upright course of life, and that love of truth, which God requires. A man is never sure of doing right under the influence of excited feelings; he may do that which is in the highest sense wrong, and which he will regret all his life. The particular meaning of this passage is that wrath in the mind of man will not have any tendency to make him righteous. It is only that candid state of mind which will lead him to embrace the truth which can be hoped to have such an effect.
21. Wherefore. In view of the fact that God has begotten us for his own service; in view of the fact that excited feeling tends only to wrong, let us lay aside aft that is evil, and submit ourselves wholly to the influence of truth. 1" Lay apart all filthiness. The word here rendered filthiness occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means properly filth; and then is applied to evil conduct considered as disgusting or offensive. Sin may be contemplated as a wrong thing; as a violation of law; as evil in its nature and tendency, and therefore to be avoided; or it may be contemplated as disgusting, offensive, loathsome. To a pure mind this is one of its most odious characteristics; for to such a mind sin in any form is more loathsome than the most offensive object can be to the senses. If And superfluity of naughtiness. Literally, "abounding of evil." It is rendered by Doddridge, " overflowing of malignity;" by Tindal, " superfluity of maliciousness;" by Benson, "superfluity of malice;" by Bloomfield, "petulance." The phrase "superfluity of naughtiness," or of evil, does not exactly express the sense, as if we were only to lay aside that which abounds, or which is
ness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers a of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and nofc a doer, he is like
superfluous, though we might retain that which does not come under this description; but the object of the apostle is to express by strong and emphatic language his deep abhorrence of the thing referred to in any form. He had just spoken of sin in one aspect, as filthy, loathsome, detestable; here he designs to express his abhorrence of it by a still more emphatic description, and he speaks of it not merely as an evil, but as an evil abounding, overflowing; an evil in the highest degree. The thing referred to had the essence of evil in it (/ox/aa); but it was not merely evil, it was evil that was aggravated, that was overflowing, that was eminent in degree (Tripiaaiia). The particular reference in these passages is to the reception of the truth, and the doctrine taught is that a corrupt mind, a mind full of sensuality and wickedness, is not in a condition favorable to the reception of the truth. It is not fitted to see its beauty, to appreciate its value, to understand its just claims, or to welcome it to the soul. Purity of heart is the best preparation always for seeing the force of truth. H And receive with meekness. That is, open the mind and heart to instruction, and to the fair influence of truth. Meekness, gentleness, docility, are everywhere required in receiving the instructions of religion, as they are in obtaining knowledge of any kind. See Notes on Matt, xviii. 2, 3. 1 The engrafted word. The Gospel is here represented under the image of that which is implanted or engrafted from another source— by a figure that would be readily understood, for the art of engrafting is every where known. Sometimes the Gospel is represented under the image of seed sown (comp. Mark vi. 14, scq.); but here it is under the figure of a shoot implanted or engrafted, that produces fruit of its own, whatever may be the original character of the tree into which it is engrafted. Compare Notes on Rom. xi. 17. The meaning here is that we should allow the principles of the Gospel to be thus engrafted on our nature; that however crabbed or perverse our nature may be, or however bitter and vile the fruits which it might bring forth of its own accord may be, it may, through the engrafted Word, produce the fruits of righteousness. If Which is able to save your souls. It is not, therefore, a weak and powerless thing, merely designed to show its own feebleness, and to give occasion for God to work a miracle; but it has power, and is adapted to save. Comp. Notes on Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Tim. iii. 15.
22. Bid be ye doers of the word and not hearers only. Obey the Gospel, and do not merely listen to it. Comp. Matt. vii. 21. If Deceiving your oion selves. It is implied here that by merely hearing the Word but not doing it, they would deceive their own souls. The nature of this deception was this, that they would imagine that that was all which was required, whereas the main thing was that they should be obedient. If a man suppose that by a mere punctual attendance on preaching, or a respectful attention to the truth as preached, he has done all that is required of him, he is laboring under a most gross self-deception. And yet there are multitudes who seem to imagine that they have done all that is demanded of them when they have heard attentively the Word preached. Of its influence on their lives, and its claims to obedience, they are utterly regardless.
23, 24. For if any be, etc. The ground of the comparison in these verses is obvious. The apostle refers to what all persons experience, the fact that we do not retain a distinct impression of ourselves after we have looked in a mirror. While actually looking in the mirror, we see all our features, and can trace them distinctly; when we turn away, the image and the impression both vanish. When looking in the mirror, we can see all the defects and blemishes of our person; if there is a scar, a deformity, a feature of ugliness, it is distinctly before the mind; but when we turn away, that is "out of sight, and out of mind." Whenunseen. it gives no uneasiness; and, even it capable of correction, we take no pains
unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh « into the
perfect law of liberty, b and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man e shall be blessed in his * deed.
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not
to remove it. So when we hear the Word of God. It is like a mirror held up before us. In the perfect precepts ofthelaw,and the perfect requirements of the Gospel, we see our own shortcomings and defects,and perhaps think that we will correct them. But we turn away immediately, and forget it all. If, however, we were " doers of the word," we should endeavor to remove all those defects and blemishes in our moral character, and to bring our souls into conformity with what the law and the Gospel require. The phrase "natural face" (Gi\, "face of birth") means the face or appearance which we have in virtue of our natural birth. The word glass here means mirror. Glass was not commonly used for mirrors among the ancients, but they were made of polished plates of metal. See Notes on Isa. iii. 24, and Job xxxvii. 18.
24. For he beholdeth himself. While he looks in the mirror he sees his true appearance. H And goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth. As soon as he goes away, he forgets it. The apostle does not refer to any intention on his part, but to what is known to occur as a matter of fact. H What manver of man he was. How he looked; and especially if there were any thing in his appearance that required correction.
25. But whoso looketh (irapaKixj/a^). This word means to stoop down near by any thing; to bend forward so as to look at any thing more closely. See the word explained in the Notes on 1 Pet. i. 12. The idea here is that of a close and attentive observation. The object is not to contrast the manner of looking in the glass, and in the law of liberty, implying that the former was a careless beholding, and the latter an attentive and careful looking, as Doddridge, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, and others suppose, for the word used in the former case (na- Tsv6i}(Tt) implies intense or accurate observation, as really as the word used here; but the object is to show that if a man would attentively look into, and continue in the law of liberty, and not do as one who wrent away and forgot how he looked, he would be blessed. The emphasis is not in the manner of looking — it is on the duty of continuing or persevering in the observance of the law. f The perfect law of liberty. Referring to the law of God, or his will, however made known, as the correct standard of conduct. It is called the perfect \aw, as being wholly free from all defects; being just such as a law ought to be. Comp. Psa. xix. 7. It is called the law of liberty, or freedom, because it is a law producing freedom from the servitude of sinful passions and lusts. Comp. Psa. cxix. 45. See Notes on Rom. vi. 16-18. H And continueth therein. He must not merely look at the law, or to see what he is by comparing himself with its requirements, but he must yield steady obedience to it. See Notes on John xiv. 21. TI This man shall be blessed in his deed. Marg., doing. The meaning is that he will be blessed in the very act of keeping the law. It will produce peace of conscience; it will impart happiness to his mind; it will exert a food influence over his whole soul, sa. xix. 11: "In keeping of them there is great reward."
26. Jf any man among you seem to be religious. Pious, or devout. That is, if he do not restrain his tongue, his other evidences of religion are worthless. A man may undoubtedly have many things in his character which seem to be evidences of the existence of religion in his heart, and yet there may be some one thing that will show that all those evidences are false. Religion is designed to produce an effect on our whole conduct; and if there is any one thing in reference to which it does not bring us under its control, that one thing may show that all other appearances of piety are worthless.
his tongue, a but deceivetli his
own vain. 27 Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit b the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted c from the world.
^And bridleth not his tongue. Does not restrain or curb it, as a horse is restrained with a bridle. There may have been some reason why the apostle referred to this particular sin which is now unknown to us; or he may perhaps have intended to select this as a specimen to illustrate this idea, that if there is any one evil propensity which religion does not control, or if there is any one thing in respect to which its influence is not felt, whatever other evidences of piety there may be, this will demonstrate that all those appearances of religion are vain. For religion is designed to bring the whole man under control, and to subdue every faculty of the body and mind to its demands. If the tongue is not restrained, or if there is any unsubdued propensity to sin whatever, it proves that there is no true religion. If But deceiveth his own heart. Implying that he does deceive his heart by supposing that any evidence can prove that he is under the influence of religion if his tongue is unrestrained. Whatever love, or zeal, or orthodoxy, or gift in preaching or in prayer he may~have, this one evil propensity will neutralize it all, and show that there is no true religion at heart. Tf This man's religion is vain. As all religion must be which does not control all the faculties of the body and the mind. The truths, then, which are taught in this verse, are, (1.) That there may be evidences of piety which seem to be very plausible or clear, but which in themselves do not prove that there is any true religion. There maybe much zeal, as in the case of the Pharisees; there may be much apparent love of Christians, or much outward benevolence; there may be an uncommon gift in prayer; there may be much self-denial, as among those who withdraw from the world in monasteries or nunneries; or there may have been deep conviction for sin, and much joy at the time of the supposed conversion, and still there may be no true religion. Each and all of these things may exist in the heart where there is no true religion. (2.) A single unsubdued sinful propensity neutralizes all these things, and shows that there is no true religion. If the tongue is not subdued — if any sin is indulged, it will show that the seat of the evil has not been reached, and that the soul as such has never been brought into subjection to the law of God. For the very essence of all the sin that there was in the soul may have been concentrated on that one propensity. Every thing else which may be manifested may be accounted for on the supposition that there is no religion; this can not be accounted for on the supposition that there is any.
27. Pure religion. On the word here rendered religion {$rpi}aKiiu), see Notes on Col. ii. 18. It is used here evidently in the sense of piety, or, as we commonly employ the word, religion. The object of the apostle is to describe what enters essentially into religion; what it will do when it is properly and fairly developed. The phrase "pure religion" means that which is genuine and sincere, or which is free from any improper mixture. If And undefiled before God and the Father. TJhat which God sees to be pure and undefiled. Rosenmuller supposes that there is a metaphor here taken from pearls or gems, which should be pure, or without stain. 1 Is this. That is, this enters into it; or this is religion such as God approves. The apostle does not say that this is the whole of religion, or that there is nothing else essential to it; but his general design clearly is to show that religion will lead to a holy life, and he mentions this as a specimen, or an instance, of what it will lead us to do. The things which he specifies here are in fact two: (1.) That pure religion will lead to a life of practical benevolence; and (2.) That it will keep us unspotted from the world. If these things are found, they show that there is true piety. If they are not, there is none. 1 To visit the toidows and fatherless in their affliction. To go to see; to look after; to be ready to aid them. This is an instance or specimen of what true religion will do, showing that it will lead to a life of practical benevolence. It may be remarked in respect to this— (1.) That this has always been regarded as an essential thing in true religion, for (a) it is thus an imitation of God, who is " a father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows in his holy habitation" (Psa. lxviii. 5), and who has always revealed himself as their friend (Deut. x. 18; xiv. 29; Psa, x. 14; lxxxii. 3; Isa. i. 17; Jer. vii. 7; xlix. 11; Hos. xiv. 3); (6) religion is represented as leading its friends to do this, or this is required every where of those who claim to be religious. Isa. i, 17; Deut. xxiv. 17; xiv. 29; Exod. xxii. 22; Job xxix. 11-13. (2.) Where this disposition to be the real friend of the widow and the orphan exists, there will also exist other corresponding things ■which go to make up the religious character. This will not stand alone. It will show what the heart is, and prove that it will ever be ready to do good. If a man, from proper motives, is the real friend of the widow and the fatherless, he will be the friend of every good word and work, and we may rely on him in any and every way in doing good. H And to keep himself unspotted from the world. Comp. Notes on Rom. xii. 2; James iv. 4; 1 John ii. 15-17. That is, religion will keep us fi;om the maxims, the vices, and the corruptions which prevail in the world, and makfcus holy. These two things may, in fact, be said to constitute religion. If a man is truly benevolent, he bears the image of that God who is the fountain of benevolence; if he is pure and uncontaminated in his walk and deportment, he also resembles his Maker, for he is holy. If he have not these things, he can not have any wellfounded evidence that he is a Christian; for it is always the nature and tendency of religion to produce these things. It is, therefore, an easy matter for a man to determine whether he has any religion; and equally easy to see that religion is eminently desirable. Who can doubt that that is good which leads to compassion for the poor and the helpless, and which makes the heart and the life pure.
This chapter is made up of three parts, or three subjects are discussed:
I. The duty of impartiality in the treatment of others. Ver. 1-9. There should be no favoritism on account of rank, birth, wealth, or apparel. The case to which the apostle refers for an illustration of this is that where two persons should come into an assembly of Christian worshipers, one elegantly dressed, and the other meanly clad, and the wrorshipers should show special favor to the former, and should assign to the latter a more humble place. The reasons which the apostle assigns why they should not do this are, (a) that God has chosen the poor for his own people, having selected his friends mainly from them; (&) because rich men in fact oppressed them, and showed that they were worthy of no special regard; (c) because they were often found among the revilers of Christians, and in fact despised their religion; and (d) because the law required that they should love their neighbors as themselves, and if they did this, it was all that was demanded; that is, the love of the man was not to be set aside by the love of splendid apparel.
II. The duty of yielding obedience to the whole law in order to have evidence of true religion. Ver. 10-13. This subject seems to have been introduced in accordance with the general principles and aims of James (see the Introd.), that religion consists in obeying the law of God, and that there can be none when this is not done. It is not improbable that, among those to whom he wrote, there were some who denied this, or who had embraced some views of religion which led them to doubt it. He therefore enforces the duty by the following considerations: (1.) That if a man should obey every other part of the law, and yet be guilty of offending in one point, he was in fact guilty of all; for he showed that he had no genuine principle of obedience, and was guilty of violating the law as a whole. Ver. 10. (2.) Every part of the law rests on the same authority, and one part, therefore, is as binding as another. The same God who has forbidden murder has also forbidden adultery, and he who commits the one offense as really violates the law as he who is guilty of the other. Ver. 11. (3.) The judgment is before us, and we shall be tried on impartial principles, not with reference to obeying one part of the law, but with reference to its whole claim, and we should so act as becomes those who expect to be judged by the whole law, or on the
Y brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,
question whether their lives have been conformed to every part of it. Vs. 12, 13.
III. The subject of justification, showing that works are necessary in order tbat a man may be justified, or esteemed righteous before God. Ver. 14-26. For a general view of the design of this part of the epistle, see Introd., § 5, (2). The object here is to show that in fact no one can be regarded as truly righteous before God who does not lead an upright life, and that if a man profess to have faith, and have not works, he can not be justified; or that, if he have real faith, it will be shown by his works. If it is not shown by works corresponding to its nature, it will be certain that there is no true religion, or that his professed faith is worth nothing. The "stand-point" from which James views the subject is not that faith is either unnecessary or worthless, or that a man is hot justified by faith rather than by his own works in the sense of its being the ground of acceptance with GoU— in other words, the place where the apostle takes his position, and which is the point from which he views the subject, is not before a man is justified to inquire in what way he may be accepted of God, but it is after the act of justification by faith, to show that if faith do not lead to good works, it is "dead," or is of no value; and that in fact, therefore, the evidence of justification is to be found in good living, and that when this is not manifest, all a man's professed religion is worth nothing. In doing this, he (a) makes the general statement, by a pointed interrogatory, that faith can not profit; that is, can not save a man unless there are also works. Ver. 14. He then (6) appeals, for an illustration, to the case of one who is hungry or naked, and asks what mere faith could do in his case if it were not accompanied with proper acts of benevolence. Ver. 15- 17. He then (c), by a strong supposable case, says that real faith will be evinced by works, or that works are the proper evidence of its existence. Ver. 18. He then {d) shows that there is a kind of faith which even the devils have on one of the most important doctrines the Lord of glory, with respect a of persons. 2 For if there come unto your 1 as- of religion, and which can be of no value; showing that it can not be by mere faith, irrespective of the question of what sort the faith is, that a man is to be saved. Ver. 19. He then (e) appeals to the case of Abraham, showing that in fact works performed an important part in his acceptance with God; or that if it had not been for his works— that is, if there had been no spirit of true obedience in his case, he could have had no evidence that he was justified, or that his works were the proper carrying out or fulfillment of his faith. Ver. 20-24. He then (/) shows that the same thing was true of another case recorded in the Old Testament— that of Rahab (ver. 25); and observes (ver. 26) that faith without works has no more claim to being true religion than a dead body, without a soul, can be regarded as a living man.
1. My brethren. Perhaps meaning brethren in two respects, as Jews and as Christians. In both respects the form of address would be proper. U Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is the distinguishing thing in the Christian religion, for it is this by which man is justified, and hence it comes to be put for religion itself. See Notes on 1 Tim. iii. 9. The meaning here is, "Do not hold such views of the religion of Christ as to lead you to manifest partiality to others on account of their difference of rank or outward circumstances." H The Lord of glory. The glorious Lord; he who is glorious himself, and who is encompassed with glory. See Notes on 1 Cor. ii. 8. The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord should be in no way dishonored. IF With respect of persons. That is, you are not to show respect of persons, or to evince partiality to others on account of their rank, wealth, apparel,etc. Comp. Prov. xxiv. 23; xxviii. 21; Lev. xix. 15; Deut. i. 17; x. 17; 2 Chron. xix. 7; Psa. xl. 4. See the subject explained in the Notes on Acts x. 34; Rom. ii. 11.
2. For if there come unto your assembly. Marg., as in Gr., synagogue. It is remarkable that this is the only place in the New Testament where the word synagogue is applied to the Christian
sembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
church. It is probably employed here because the apostle was writing to those who had been Jews; and it is to be presumed that the word synagogue would be naturally used by the early converts from Judaism to designate a Christian place of worship or a Christian congregation, and it was probably so employed until it was superseded by a word which the Gentile converts would be more likely to employ, and which would, in fact, be better and more expressive — the word church. The wprd synagogue (a-vvaywyi)) would properly refer to the whole congregation, considered as assembled together, without respect to the question whether all were truly pious or not; the word church (t/c/cXtjata) would refer to the assembly convened for worship as called out, referring to the fact that they were called out from the world, and convened as worshipers of God, and would, therefore, be more applicable to a body of spiritual worshipers. It is probable that the Christian church was modeled, in its general arrangements, after the Jewish synagogue,but there would be obviously some disadvantages in retaining the name as applicable to Christian worship. It would be difficult to avoid the associations connected with the name, and hence it was better to adopt some other name which would be free from this disadvantage, and on which might be ingrafted all the ideas which it was necessary to connect with the notion of the Christian organization. Hence the word church, liable to no such objection as that of synagogue, was soon adopted, and ultimately prevailed, though the passage before us shows that the word synagogue was in some places, and for a time, employed to designate a Christian congregation. We should express the idea here by saying, "If a man of this description should come into the church." ^A man with a gold ring. In dicative of rank or property. Rings were common ornaments of the rich; and probably then, as now, of those who desired to be esteemed to be rich. For proof that they were commonly worn, see the quotations in Wetstein, in loc. H In goodly apparel. Rich and splendid dress.
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here J in a good
Comp. Luke xvi. 19. H A poor man in vile raiment. The Greek here is, filthy, foul; the meaning of the passage is, in sordid, shabby clothes. The reference here seems to be, not to those who commonly attended on public worship, or who were members of the church, but to those who might accidentally drop in to witness the services of Christians. See 1 Cor. adv. 24. 3. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing. If you show him superior attention on account of his rich and gay apparel, giving him a seat by himself, and treating^ others with neglect or contempt. Religion does not forbid proper respect to rank, to office, to age, or to distinguished talents and services, though even in such cases it does not require that we should feel that such persons have any peculiar claims to salvation, or that they are not on a level with all others as sinners before God; it does not forbid that a man who has the means of procuring for himself an eligible pew in a church should be permitted to do so, but it requires that men shall be regarded and treated according to their moral worth, and not according to their external adorning; that all shall be considered as in fact on a level before God, and entitled to the privileges which grow out of the worship of the Creator. A stranger coming into any place of worship, no matter what his rank, his dress, or his complexion, should be treated with respect, and every thing should be done that can be done to win his heart to the service of God. H And say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place. Marg., as in Gr., well, or seemly; that is, in an honorable place near the pulpit, or in some elevated place where he would be conspicuous. The meaning is, you treat him with distinguished marks of respect merely from the indications that he is a rich man, without knowing any thing about his character. ^And say to the poor, Stand thou there. Without even the civility of offering him a seat at all. This may be presumed not often io occur in a Christian church; yet it practically does sometimes,when no disposition is evinced to furnish a stranger with a scat. Tf Or sit here under
place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
my footstool. Perhaps some seats in the places of worship were raised, so that even the footstool would he elevated above a lower seat. The meaning is that he would be treated as if he were not worth the least attention.
4. Are ye not partial in yourselves? Among yourselves. Do you not show that you are partial. ^ And are become judges of evil thoughts. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting this passage, yet the sense seems not to be difficult. There are two ideas in it: one is, that they showed by this conduct that they took it upon themselves to be judges, to pronounce on the character of men who were strangers, and on their claims to respect (Comp. Matt. vii. 1); the other is, that in doing this, they were not guided by just rules, but that they did it under the influence of improper " thoughts." They did it, not from benevolence, not from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character, but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honor to men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real worth. The wrong in the case was in their presuming to "judge" these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction, and then by doing it under the influence of such an unjust rule. The sense is, that we have no right to form a decisive judgment of iinii on their first appearance, as we do when we treat one with respect and
, the other not; and that when we make up our opinion in regard to them, it should be by some other means of judgingthan the question whether they can wear gold rings and dress well or not. Beza and Doddridge render this, " Ye become judges who reason ill."
5. Hearken, my beloved brethren. The apostle now proceeds to show that the rich as such had no special claim to their favor, and that the poor in fact might be made more entitled to esteem than they were. For a view of the arguments by which he does this, comp. the analysis of the chapter. 1 llath
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, a Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich b in faith, and heirs of1 the kingdom e which he hath promised to them that love him?
not God chosen the poor of this world? Those who are poor so far as this world is concerned, or those who have not wealth. This is the first argument which the apostle suggests why the poor should not be treated with neglect. It is that God has had special reference to them in choosing those who shouldbehis children. The meaning is not that he is not as willing to save the rich as the poor, for he has no partiality; but that there are circumstances in the condition of the poor which make it more likely that they will embrace the offers of the Gospel than the rich, and that in fact the great mass of believers is taken from those who are in comparatively humble life. Comp. Notes on 1 Cor. i. 26-28. The fact that God has chosen one to be an "heir of the kingdom" is as good a reason now why he should not be treated with neglect as it was in the times of the apostles. U Mich in faith. Though poor in this world's goods, they are rich in a higher and more important sense. They have faith in God their Saviour; and in this world of trial and of sin that is a more valuable possession than piles of hoarded silver or gold. A man who has that is sure that he will have all that is truly needful for him in this world and the next; a man who has it not, though he may have the wealth of Croesus, will be utterly without resources in respect to the great wants of his existence. "Give what thou wilt, without thee we are poor; Aud with thee rich, take what thou wilt
Faith in God the Saviour will answer more purposes and accomplish more valuable ends for man than the wealth of the Indies could, and this the poor may have as well as the rich. Comp. Rev. ii. 9. ^ And heirs of the kingdom, etc. Marg., that. Compare Notes on Matt. v. 3.
6. But ye have despised thepoor. Koppe reads this as an interrogation. "Do ye despise the poor?" Perhaps it might be understood somewhat iron-
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment
7 Do they not blaspheme that ° worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law, ac-
ically: "You despise the poor, do you, and are disposed to honor the rich! Look then and see how the rich treat you, and see whether you have so much occasion to regard them with any peculiar respect." The object of 'the apostle is to fix the attention on the impropriety of that partiality which many were disposed to show to the rich, by reminding them that the rich had never evinced toward them any such conduct as to lay the foundation of a claim to the honor which they were disposed to render them. H Do not rich men oppress you. Referring probably to something in their conduct which existed particularly then. The meaning is not that they oppressed the poor as such, but that they oppressed those whom James addressed. It is probable that then, as since, a considerable portion of those who were Christians were in fact poor, and that this would have all the force of a personal appeal; but still the particular thought is, that it was a characteristic of the rich and the great whom they were disposed peculiarly to honor to oppress and crush the poor. The Greek here is very expressive: " Do they not imperiously lord it over you?" The statement here will apply with too much force to the rich in every age. T[ And draw you before the judgment seats. That is, they are your persecutors rather than your friends. It was undoubtedly the case that many of the rich were engaged in persecuting Christians, arid that on various pretenses they dragged them before the judicial tribunals.
7. Do they not blaspheme that worthy name? This is another argument to show that the rich had no special claim to the honor which they were disposed to show them. The "worthy name" here referred to is, doubtless, the name of the Saviour. That which is here affirmed would, of course, accompany persecution. They who persecuted Christians would revile the name which they bore. This has always occurred. But besides this, it is no improbable supposition that many of those who were not disposed to engage in open persecution would revile the name of Christ by speaking contemptuously of him and his religion. This has been sufficiently common in every age of the world to make the description here not improper. And yet nothing has been more remarkable than the very thing adverted to here by James, that, notwithstanding this, many who profess to be Christians have been more disposed to treat even such persons with respect and attention than they have their own brethren, if they were poor; that they have cultivated the favor, sought the friendship, desired the smiles, imitated the manners, and coveted the society of such persons, rather than the friendship and the favor of their poorer Christian brethren. Even though they are known to despise religion in their hearts, and not to be sparing of their words of reproach and scorn toward Christianity; though they are known to be blasphemers, and to have the most thorough contempt for serious, spiritual religion, yet there is many a professing Christian who would prefer to be at an entertainment given by such persons than at a prayer-meeting where their poorer brethren are assembled; who would rather be known by the world to be the associates and friends of such persons than of those humble believers who can make no boast of rank or wealth, and who are looked upon with contempt by the great and the gay.
8. If ye fulfill the royal law. That is, the law which he immediately mentions requiring us to love our neigh-, bor as ourselves. It is called a " royal law," or kingly law, on account of its excellence or nobleness; not because it is ordained by God as a king, but because it has some such prominence and importance among other laws as a king has among other men; that is, it is majestic, noble, worthy of veneration. It is a law which ought to govern and direct us in all our intercourse with men — as a king rules his subjects. II According to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Lev. xix. 18. Comp. Matt. xix. 19. See it ex-
cording to the Scripture, a Thou slialt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect h to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the
plained by the Saviour, in the parable of the good Samaritan. Luke x. 25-37. In regard to its meaning, see Notes on Matt. xix. 19. 1 Ye do well. That is, " if you fairly comply with the spirit of this law, you do all that is required of you in regulating your intercourse with others. You are to regard all persons as your 'neighbors,' and are to treat them according to their real worth; you are not to be influenced in judging of them, or in your treatment of them, by their apparel, by their complexion, or by the circumstances of their birth, but by the fact that they are fellow-beings.'"' This is another reason why they should not show partiality in their treatment of others, for if, in the true sense, they regarded all others as "neighbors," they would treat no one with neglect or contempt.
9. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin. You transgress the plain law of God, and do wrong. See the references on ver. 1. If And are convinced of the law as transgressors. Gr., "By the /aw." The word convinced is now used in a somewhat different sense from what it was formerly. It now commonly refers to the impression made on a man's mind by showing him the truth of a thing which before was doubted, or in respect to which the evidence was not clear. A man who doubted the truth of a report or a proposition, may be convinced or satisfied of its truth; a man who has done wrong, though he supposed he was doing what was proper, may be convinced of his error. So a man may be convinced that he is.a sinner, though before he had no belief of it, and no concern about it; and this may produce in his mind the feeling which is technically known as conviction, producing deep distress and anguish. See Notes on John xvi. 8. Here, however, the word does not refer so much to the effect produced on the mind itself, as to the fact that the law would hold such a one to be guilty; that is, the law pronounces what is done to be wrong. Whether they would be personally convinced of it, and troubled about it as convicted sinners, would be a different question, and one to which the apostle does not refer; for his object is not to show that they would be troubled about it, but to show that the law of God condemned this course, and would hold them to be guilty. The argument here is not from the personal distress which this course would produce in their own minds, but from the fact that the law of God condemns it.
10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law. All except the single point referred to. The apostle does not say that this in fact ever did occur, but he says that if it should occur, and that a man had failed only in one point, he must be judged to be guilty of all. The case supposed seems to be that of one who claimed that he had kept the whole law. The apostle says that even if this should be admitted for the time to be true in all other respects, yet if he had failed in any owe particular— in showing respect to persons, or in any thing else— he could not but be held to be a transgressor. The design of this is to show the importance of yielding universal obedience, and to impress upon the mind a sense of the enormity of sin from the fact that the violation of any one precept is in fact an offense against the whole law of God. The whole law here means all thelaw of God; all that he has required; all that he has given to regulate our lives. H And yet offend in one point. In one respect; or shall violate any one of the commands included in the general word law. The word offend here means properly to stumble, to fall; then to err, or fail in duty. See Notes on Matt. v. 29; xxvi. 31. ^ He is guilty of all. He is guilty of violating the law as a whole, or of violating the law of God:is such; he has rendered it impossible that he should be justified and saved by the law. This does not affirm that he is as guilty as if he had violated every law of God,or that all sinners are of equal grade because all have violated some one or more of the laws of God; but the meaning is, that he is guilty of violating the law of God as
whole law, and yet offend in one point, lie a is guilty of all.
11 For 1 he that said, * Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not
such; he shows that he has not the true spirit of obedience; he has exposed himself to the penalty of the law, and made it impossible now to be saved by it. His acts of obedience in other respects, no matter how many, will not screen him from the charge of being a violator of the law, or from its penalty. He must be held and treated as a transgressor for that offense, however upright he may be in other respects, and must meet the penalty of the law as certainly as though he had violated every commandment. One portion of the law is as much binding as another, and if a man violate any one plain commandment, he sets at naught the authority of God as such. This is a simple principle which is every where recognized, and the apostle means no more by it than occurs every day. A man who has stolen a horse is held to be a violator of the law as such, no matter in how many other respects he has kept it, and the law condemns him for it. He can not plead his obedience to the law in other things as a reason why he should not be punished for this sin; but however upright he may have been in general, even though it may have been through a long life, the law holds him to be a transgressor, and condemns him. He is as really condemned, and as entirely thrown from the protection of law, as though he had violated every command. So of murder, arson, treason, or any other crime. The law judges a man for what he has done in this specific case, and he can not plead in justification of it that he has been obedient in other things. It follows, therefore, that if a man has been guilty of violating the law of God in any one instance, or is not perfectly holy, he can not be justified and saved by the law though he should have obeyed it in every other respect, «ny more than a man who has been guilty of murder can be saved from the gallows because he has, in other respects, been a good citizen, a kind father, an honest neighbor, or has been compassionate to the poor and the needy. He can not plead his act of truth in one case as an offset to the sin of false-
kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as
hood in another; he can not defend himself from the charge of dishonesty in one instance by the plea that he has been honest in another; he can not urge the fact that he has done a good thing as a reason why he should not be punished for a bad one. He must answer for the specific charge against him, and none of these other things can be an offset against this one act of wrong. Let it be remarked, also, in respect to our being justified by obedience to the law, that no man can plead before God that he has kept all his law except in one point. Who is there that has not, in spirit at least, broken each one of the ten commandments? The sentiment here expressed by James was not new with him. It was often expressed by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been an admitted principle among the Jews. See Wetstein, in loc, for examples.
11. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. That is, these are parts of the same law of God, and one is as obligatory as the other. If, therefore, you violate either of these precepts, you transgress the law of God as such, and must be held to be guilty of violating it as a whole. The penalty of the law will be incurred whatever precept you violate.
12. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. On the phrase, "the law of liberty," see Notes on chap. i. 25. Comp. Notes on chap. iv. 11. The meaning is, that in all our conduct we are to act under the impression of the truth that we are soon to be brought into judgment, and that the law by which we are to be judged is tha't by which it is contemplated that we shall be set free from the dominion of sin. In the rule which God has laid down in his Word, called "the law of liberty," or the rule by which true freedom is to be secured, a system of religion is revealed by which it is designed that man shall be emancipated not only from one sin, but from all. Now, it is with reference to such a law that we are to be judged; that is, we shall not be able to plead on our trial that we were under a ne-
they that shall be judged by the law a of liberty.
13 For he b shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed
cessityofsinning,butweshallbejudged under that law by which the arrangement was made that we might be free from sin. If we might be free from sin, if an arrangement was made by which we could have led holy lives, then it will be proper that we shall be judged and condemned if we are not righteous. The sense is, " In all your conduct, whatever you do or say, remember that you are to be judged, or that you are to give an impartial account; and remember also that the rule by which you are to be judged is that by which provision is made for being delivered from the dominion of sin and brought into the freedom of the Gospel." The argument here is, that he who habitually feels that he is soon to be judged by a law under which it was contemplated that he might be, and should be, free from the bondage of sin, has one of the strongest of all inducements to lead a holy life. 13. For he shall have judgment loithout mercy, that hath showed no mercy. This is obviously an equitable principle, and is one which is every where found in the Bible. Prov. xxi. 13: " Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but will not be heard." 2 Sam. xxii. 26, 27: "With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful, and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory." Comp. Psa. xviii. 25, 26; Matt. vi. 15; vii.1,2. The idea which the apostle seems to design to convey here is that there will certainly be a judgment, and that we must expect that it will be conducted on equitable principles; that no mercy is to be shown when the character is not such that it will be proper that it should b3; and that we should habitually feel in our conduct that God will be impartial, and should frame our lives accordingly. 1[ And mercy rejoieeth against judgment. Marg., glorieth. Gr., boasts, glories, or exults. The idea is that of glorying over, as where one is superior to another, or has gained a victory over another. The reference all along here is to the judgment, the trial of the great day; and the apostle is stating the principles on which the trial at that day will be conducted— on which one class shall be condemned, and the other ac- I quitted and saved. In reference to one class, the wicked, he says that where there has been no mercy shown to others — referring to this as one evidence of piety— that is, where there is no true piety, there will be judgment Without mercy; in the other case there will be, as it were, a triumph of mercy, or mercy will appear to have gained a victory over judgment. Strict justice would indeed plead for their condemnation, but the attribute of mercy will triumph, and they will be acquitted. The attributes of mercy and justice would seem to come in conflict, but mercy would prevail. This is a true statement of the plan of salvation, and of what actually occurs in the redemption of a sinner. Justice demands, as what is its due, that the sinner should be condemned; mercy pleads that he may be saved — and mercy prevails. It is not uncommon that there seems to be a conflict between the two. In the dispensations of justice before human tribunals, this often occurs. Strict justice demands the punishment of the offender; and yet there are cases where mercy pleads, and where every man feels that it would be desirable that pardon should be extended to the guilty, and where we always rejoice if mercy triumph. In such a case, for example, as that of Major Andre, this is strikingly seen. On the one hand, there was the undoubted proof that he was guilty; that he had been taken as a spy; that by the laws of war he ought to be put to death; that as what he had done had tended to the ruin of the American cause, and as such an act, if unpunished, would always expose an army to surprise and destruction, he ought, in accordance with the law of nations, to die. On the other hand, there were his youth, his high attainments, his honorable connections, his brilliant hopes, all pleading that he might live, and that he might be pardoned. In the bosom of Washington the promptings of justice and mercy thus came into collision. Both could not be gratified, and there seemed to be but one course to be pursued. His sense of justice was shown in the act by which he signed the death-warrant; his feelings of compassion, in the fact Unit when he did it his eyes poured no mercy, and mercy ' rejoiceth a against judgment.
14 What * doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and" have not works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be you warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what c doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being 2 alone.
forth a flood of tears. How every generous feeling of our nature would have heen gratified if mercy could have triumphed, and the youthful and accomplished officer could have been saved! In the plan of salvation, this does occur. Respect is done to justice, but mercy triumphs. Justice, indeed, pleaded for the condemnation of the sinner, but mercy interposed, and he is saved. Justice is not disregarded, for the great Redeemer of mankind has done all that is needful to uphold it, but there is the most free and full exercise of mercy; and, while the justice of God is maintained, every benevolent feeling in the breasts of all holy beings can be gratified in the salvation of countless thousands of the guilty. 14. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith? The apostle here returns to the subject adverted to in chap. i. 23-27, the importance of a practical attention to the duties of religion, and the assurance that men can not be saved by a mere speculative opinion, or merely by holding correct sentiments. He doubtless had in his eye those who abused the doctrine of justification by faith, by holding that good works are unnecessary to salvation, provided they maintain an orthodox belief. As this abuse probably existed in the time of the apostles, and as the Holy Ghost saw that there would be danger that in later times the great and glorious doctrine of justification by faith would be thus abused, it was important that the error should be rebuked, and that the doctrine should be distinctly laid down that good works are necessary to salvation. The apostle, therefore, in the question before us, impliedly asserts that faith would not ' ' profit ' ' at all unless accompanied with a holy life, and this doctrine he proceeds to illustrate in the following verses. See the analysis of the chapter, III., and Introd.,§5, (2). In order to a proper interpretation of this passage, it should be observed that the stand-point from which the apostle views this subject is not before a man is converted, inquiring in what way he may be justified before God, or on what ground his sins may be forgiven, but it is after a man is converted, showing that that faith can have no value which is not followed by good works; that is, that it is not real faith, and that good works are necessary if a man would have evidence that he is justified. Thus understood, all that James says is in entire accordance with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. U Can faith save him? It is implied in this question that faith can not save him, for very often the most emphatic way of making an affirmation is by asking a question. The meaning here is, that that faith which does not produce good works, or which would not produce holy living if fairly acted out, will save no man, for it is not genuine faith.
15,16, 17. If a brother or sister be naked, etc. The comparison in these verses is very obvious and striking. The sense is, that faith in itself, without the acts that correspond to it, and to which it would prompt, is as cold, as heartless, as unmeaning, and as useless as it would be to say to one who was destitute of the necessaries of life, " Depart in peace." In itself considered, it might seem to have something that was good; but it would answer none of the purposes of faith unless it should prompt to action. In the case of one who is hungry or naked, what he wants is not good wishes or kind words merely, but the acts to which good wishes and kind words prompt. And so in religion, what is wanted is not merely the abstract state of mind which would be indicated by faith, but the life of goodness to which it ought to lead. Good wishes and kind words, in order to make them what they should be for the welfare
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith 1 without thy works,
of the world, should be accompanied with corresponding action. So it is with faith. It is not enough for salvation, without the benevolent and holy acts to which it would prompt, any more than the good wishes and kind words of the benevolent are enough to satisfy the wants of the hungry, and to clothe the naked, without correspondent action. Faith is not and can not be shown to be genuine, unless it is accompanied with corresponding acts, as our good wishes for the poor and needy can be shown to be genuine, when we have the means of aiding them, only by actually ministering to their necessities. In the one case, our wishes would be shown to be unmeaning and heartless; in the other, our faith would be equally so. In regard to this passage, therefore, it may be observed (1) that in fact faith is of no more value, and has no more evidence of genuineness, when it is unaccompanied with good works, than such empty wishes for the welfare of the poor would be when unaccompanied with the means of relieving their wants. Faith is designed to lead to good works. It is intended to produce a holy life — a life of activity in the service of the Saviour. This is its very essence; it is what it always produces when it is genuine. Religion is not designed to be a cold abstraction; it is to be a living and vivifying principle. (2) There is a great deal of that kindness and charity in the world Which is expressed by mere good wishes. If we really have not the means of relieving the poor and the needy, then the expression of a kind wish may be in itself an alleviation to their sorrows, for even sympathy in such a case is of value, and it is much to us to know that others feel for us; but if we have the means, and the object is a worthy one, then such expressions are mere mockery,and aggravate rather than soothe the feelings of the sufferer. Such wishes will neither clothe norfeed them; they will only make deeper the sorrows which we ought to heal. But how much of this is there in the world, Where the sufferer can not but feel that all these wishes, however kindly expressed, are hollow and false, and and I a will show thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is where he can not but feel that relief would be easy! (3) In like manner, there is much of this same kind of worthless/aiM in the world— faith that is dead; faith that produces no good works; faith that exerts no practical influence on the life. The individual professes indeed to believe the truths of the Gospel; he may be in the Church of Christ; he would esteem it a gross calumny to be spoken of as an infidel; but as to any influence which his faith exerts over him, his life would be the same if he had never heard of the Gospel. There is not one of the truths of religion which is "bodied forth" in his life; not a deed to which he is prompted by religion; not an act which could not be accounted for on the supposition that he has no true piety. In such a case, faith may with propriety be said to be dead. II Being alone. Marg., by itself. The sense is, "being by itself;" that is, being destitute of any accompanying fruits or results, it shows that it is dead. That which is alive bodies itself forth, produces effects, makes itself visible; that which is dead produces no effect, and is as if it were not.
18. Yea, a man might say, etc. The word which is rendered "yea" ('AW') would be better rendered by but. The apostle designs to introduce an objection, not to make an affirmation. The senscis,uSomeonemightsay,"or,"To this it might be urged in reply." That is, it mightpcrhaps be said that religion is not always manifested in the same way, or we should not infer, because it is not always exhibited in the same form, that it does not exist. One man may manifest it in one way, and another in another, and still both have true piety. One may be distinguished for his faith, and another for his works, and both may have real religion. This objection would certainly have some plausibility, and it was important to meet it. It would seem that all religion was not to be manifested in the same way, as all virtue is not; and that it might occur that one man might be particularly eminent for one form of religion, and another for another; as one man may be distinguished for zeal, and another for meekness, and another for integrity, and another for truth, and another for his gifts in prayer, and another for his large-hearted benevolence. To this the apostle replies, that the two things referred to, faith and works, are not independent things which may exist separately, without the one materially influencing another — as, for example, charity and chastity, zeal and meekness— but that the one is the germ or source of the other, and that the existence of the one is to be known only by its developing itself in the form of the other. A man could not show that he possessed the one unless it develop itself in the form of the other. In proof of this, he boldly appeals to any one to show a case where faith existed without works. He adds that he was himself willing to submit to this just trial in regard to the point, and to demonstrate the existence of his own faith by his works. 1 Thou hast faith, and Ihave works. You have one form or manifestation of religion in an eminent or prominent degree, and I have another. You are characterized particularly for one of the virtues of religion, and I am for another, as one man may be particularly eminent for meekness, another for zeal, and another for benevolence, and each be a virtuous man. The expression here is equivalent to saying, "One may have faith, and another works." l Show me thy faith without thy works. That is, you who maintain that faith is enough to prove the existence of religion; that a man may be justified and saved by that alone, and where it does not develop itself in holy living; or that all that is necessary in order to be saved is merely to believe. Show the reality of any such faith, if it can be done; let any real faith be shown to exist without a life of good works, and the point will be settled. J, says the apostle, will undertake to exhibit the evidence of my faith in a different way— in a way about which there can be no doubt, and which is the appropriate method. It is clear, if the common reading here is correct, that the apostle meant to deny that true faith could be evinced without appropriate works. It should be said, however, that there is a difference of reading here of considerable importance. Many manuscripts and printed editions of the New Testament, instead of without [works] (x<*>- pi's), read/rom or by(U), as in the other part of the verse — " Show me thy faith by thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." This reading is found in Walton, Wetstein, Mill, and in the received text generally; the other {without) is found in many MSS., and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, English, and Armenian versions, and is adopted by Beza, Castalio, Grotius, Bengel, Hammond, Whitby, Drusius, Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and is now commonly regarded as the correct reading. It may be added that this reading seems to be demanded by the similar reading in ver. 20: "But wilt thou know that faith without works (XWjOts twv 'ipywv) is dead?" evidently implying that something had been said before about "faith without works." This reading, also, is so natural, and makes so good sense in the connection, that it would seem to be demanded. Doddridge felt the difficulty in the other reading, and has given a version of the passage which showed his g^rcat perplexity, and which is one ot the most unhappy that he ever made. 11 And I will show thee my faith by my loorks. I will furnish in this way the best and most certain proof of the existence of faith. It is implied here that true faith is adapted to lead to a holy life, and that such a life would be the appropriate evidence of the existence of faith. By their fruits the principles held by men are known. See Notes on Matt. vii. 16.
19. Thou believest that there is one God. One of the great and cardinal doctrines of religion is here selected as an illustration of all. The design of the apostle seems to have been to select one of the doctrines of religion, the belief of which would — if mere belief in any doctrine could — save the soul; and to show that even this might be held as an article of faith by those who could be supposed by no one to have any claim to the name of Christian. He selects, therefore, the great fundamental doctrine of all religion — the doctrine of the existence of one Supreme Being — and shows that if even this were held in such a way as it might be, and as it was held by devils, it could not save men. The apostle here is not to be supposed to be addressing such a one as Paul, who held to the doetrine that we are justified by faith; nor is he to be supposed to be combating the doctrine of Paul, as some have maintained (see the Introd.); but ho
one God; thou doest well: the devils" also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain
man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father is to be regarded as addressing one who maintained, in the broadest and most unqualified sense, that provided there were faith, a man would be saved. To this he replies that even the devils might have faith of a certain sort, and faith that would produce sensible effects on them of a certain kind, and still it could not be supposed that they had any true religion, or that they would be saved. Why might not the same thing occur in regard to man? 1 Thou doest well. So far as this is concerned, or so far as it goes. It is a doctrine which ought to be held, for it is one of the great fundamental truths of religion. 1j The devils. The demons — to. duLfxovia. There is properly but one being spoken of in the New Testament as the devil— 6 Sidfio- Xos, and the /Satan — 6 2aravas (Matt, xii. 26; Mark iv. 15; Luke x. 18) — though demo?is are frequently spoken of in the plural number. They are represented as evil spirits, subject to Satan, or under his control, and engaged with him in carrying out his plans of wickedness. These spirits or demons were supposed to wander in desert and desolate places (Matt. xii. 43), or to dwell in the atmosphere (see Notes on Eph. ii. 2); they were thought to have the power of working miracles, but not for good (Rev. xvi. 14; comp. John x. 21); to be hostile to mankind (John viii. 44); to utter the heathen oracles (Acts xvi. 17); to lurk in the idols of the heathen (1 Cor. x. 20); and to take up their abodes in the bodies of men, afflicting them with various kinds of diseases. Matt. vii. 22; ix. 34: x. 8; xvii. 18; Mark vii. 29, 30; Lukc'iv. 33; viii. 27, 30, et swpe. It is of these evil spirits that the apostle speaks when he says that they believe. H Also believe. That is, particularly, they believe in the existence of one God. How far their knowledge may extend respecting God, we can not know; but they are never represented in the Scriptures as denying his existence, or as doubting the great truths of religion. They are never described as atheists. That is a sin of this world only. They are not represented as skeptics. That too is a peculiar sin of the earth; and probably, in all the universe besides, there are no beings who doubt or deny the existence of God, or the other great truths of religion. *[[ And tremble. The word here used (cppiaaia) occurs no- means properly to be rough, uneven, jaggy, sc.,with bristling hair; to bristle, to stand on end, as the hair does in a fright; then to shudder or quake with fear, etc. Here the meaning is, that ihere was much more in the case referred to than mere speculative faith. There was a faith that produced some effect, and an effect of a very decided character. It did not, indeed, produce good works or a holy life, but it made it manifest that there ivas faith; and, consequently, it followed that the existence of mere faith was not all that was necessary to save men, or to make it certain that they would be secure, unless it were held that the devils would be justified and saved by it. If they might hold such faith, and still remain in perdition, men might hold it, and go to perdition. A man should not infer, therefore, because he has faith, even that faith in God which will fill him with alarm, that therefore he is safe. He must have a faith which will produce another effect altogether — that which will lead to a holy life.
20. But wilt thou know? Will you have a full demonstration of it? will you have the clearest proof in the case? The apostle evidently felt that the instances to which he was about to refer, those of Abraham and Rahab, were decisive. ^Ovainman. The reference by this language is to a man who held an opinion that could not be defended. The word vain here used (kivos) means properly empty, as opposed to full — as empty hands, having nothing in them; then fruitless, or without utility or success; then false, fallacious. The meaning here properly would be "empty" in the sense of being void of understanding, and this would be a mild and gentle way of saying of one that he was foolish, or that he maintained an argument that was without sense. James means, doubtless, to represent it as>a perfectly plain matter— a matter about which no man of sense could have any reasonable doubt. If we must call a mem foolish, as is sometimes necessary,
justified by works, when a he had « offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
let us use as mild aud inoffensive a term as possible — a term which, while it will convey our meaning, will not unnecessarily wound and irritate. 1[ That faith without works is dead. That the faith which does not produce good works is useless in the matter of salvation. He does not mean to say that it would produce no effect, for in the case of the demons it did produce trembling and alarm; but that it wmild be valueless in the matter of salvation. The faith of Abraham and of Kahab was entirely different from this.
21. Was not Abraham our father. Our progenitor, our ancestor; using the word father, as is frequently done in the Bible, to denote a remote ancestor. Comp. Notes on Matt. i. 1. A reference to his case would have great weight with those who were Jews by birth, and probably most of those to whom this epistle was addressed were of this character. See the Introd. H Justified by works. That is, in the sense in which James is maintaining that a man professing religion must be justified by his works. He does not affirm that the ground of acceptance with God is that we keep the law; nor that our good works make an atonement for our sins, and that it is on their account that we are pardoned; nor does he deny that it is necessary that a man should believe in order to be saved. In this sense, he does not deny that men are justified by faith; and thus he does not contradict the doctrine of the apostle Paul. But he does teach that where there are no good works, or where there is not a holy life, there is no true religion; that that faith which is not productive of good works is of no value; that if a man have that faith only, it would be impossible that he could be regarded as justified, or could be saved; and that, consequently, in that large sense, a man is justified by his works; that is, they are the evidence that he is a justified man, or is regarded and treated as righteous by his Maker. The point on which the apostle has his eye is the nature of saving faith; and his design is to show that a mere faith which produces no more effect than that of the demons can not save. In this he states no
22 1Seestthouhowfaith6wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
doctrine which contradicts that of Paul. The evidence to which he appeals in regard to faith is good works and a holy life; and where these exist, it shows that the faith is genuine. The case of Abraham is directly in point. He showed that he had that 'kind of faith which was not dead. He gave the most conclusive evidence that his faith was of such a kind as to lead him to implicit obedience and to painful sacrifices. Such an act as that referred to— the act of offering up his son— demonstrated, if any thing could, that his faith was genuine, and that his religion was deep and pure. In the sight of heaven and earth it would justify him as a righteous man; that is, it would prove that he was a righteous man. In regard to the strength of his faith, and the nature of his obedience in this sacrifice, see Notes on Heb. xi. 19. That the apostle here can not refer to the act of justification as that term is commoqly understood, referring to the moment when a man is accepted of God as righteous, is clear from the fact that, in a passage of the Scriptures which he himself quotes, that is declared to be consequent on his believing: "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." The act here referred to occurred long subsequent to that, and was thus a fulfillment or confirmation of the declaration of Scripture, which says that " he believed God." It showed that his faith was not merely speculative, but that it was an active Srinciple leading to holy living. See otes on ver. 23. This demonstrates that what the apostle refers to here is the evidence by which it is shown that a man's faith is genuine, and not to the question whether the act of justification, when a sinner is converted, is inconsequence of believing. Thus the case proves what James purposes to prove, that the faith which justifies is only that which leads to good works, Tf When he had offered Isaac his son on the altar. This was long after he believed, and was an act which, if any could, would show that his faith was genuine and sincere. On the meaning of this passage, see Notes on Heb. xi. 17.
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, a Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness: and he was called6 the friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by
23. Secst thou. Marg., Thou seest. Either rendering is correct, and the sense is the same. The apostle means to say that this was so plain that they could not but see it. f How faith wrought tvith his works {awnpyti). Co-operated with. The meanhlg of the word is, to toork together with any one; to co-operate (1 Cor. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 1); then to aid, or help (Mark xvi. 20), to contribute to the production of any result, where two or more persons or agents are united. Comp. Rom. viii. 28. The idea here is, that the result in the case of Abraham — that is, his salvation, or his religion — was secured, not by one of these things alone, but that both contributed to it. The result which was ultimately reached— to wit, his acceptance with God, and his salvation — could not have been obtained by either one of them separately, but both, in some sense, entered into it. The apostle does not say that, in regard to the merit which justifies, they came in for an equal share, for he makes no affirmation on that point; he does not deny that in the sight of God, who foresees and knows all things, he was regarded as a justified man the moment he believed; but he looks at the result as it was — at Abraham as he appeared under the trial and in the result of his faith — and says that in that result there was to be seen the co-operation of faith and good works. Both contributed to the end, as they do now in all cases where there is true religion. 1 And by works was faith made perfect. Made complete, finished, entire. It was so carried out as to show its legitimate and fair results. This does not mean that the faith in itself was defective before this, and that the defect was remedied by good works; or that there is any deficiency in what the right kind of faith can do in the matter of justification, which is to be helped out by good works; but that there was that kind of completion which a thing has when it is fully developed, or is fairly carried out.
23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith. That is, the fair and full meaning of the language of Scripture was expressed by this act, showing in the highest sense that his faith was genuine; or, in other words, the declaration that he truly believed was con filmed or established by this act. His faith was thus shown to be genuine, and the fair meaning of the declaration that he believed God was carried out in the subsequent act. The passage here referred to occurs in Gen. xv. 6. That which it is said Abraham believed, or in which he believed God, was this: " This shall not be thine heir (viz., Eliezer of Damascus); but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." And again: "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them. And he said nnto him, So shall thy seed be." Ver. 3-5. The act of confiding in these promises was that act of which it is said that "he believed in the Lord; andhe counted it to him for righteousness." The act of offering his son on the altar, by which James says this Scripture was fulfilled, occurred some twenty years afterward. That act confirmed or fulfilled the declaration. It showed that his faith was genuine, and that the declaration that he believed in God was true; for what could do more to confirm that than a readiness to offer his own son at the command of God? It can not be supposed that James meant to say that Abraham was justified by works without respect to faith, or to deny that the primary ground of his justification in the sight of God was faith, for the very passage which he quotes shows that faith was the primary consideration: "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed," etc. The meaning, therefore, can only be that this declaration received its fair and full expression when Abraham, by an act of obedience of the most striking charactei long after he first exercised that faith by which he was accepted of God, showed that his faith was genuine. If he had not thus obeyed, his faith would have been inoperative and of no value. As it was, his act showed that the declaration of the Scripture that he "&<?- lieved" was well founded. H Abraham believed God, and it was imputed, etc. See this passage fully explained in the Notes on Rom. iv. 3. % And he was
works a a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab Hhe harlot6 justified by works, when she had received the rues-
sengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the 1 spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
called the friend of God. In virtue of his strong faith and obedience. See 2 Chron. xx. 7: "Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend forever?" Isa. xli. 8: '* But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.'''' This was a most honorable appellation; but it is one which, in all cases, will result from true faith and obedience. 24. Ye see then. From the course of reasoning pursued, and the example referred to. If How that by works a mart is justified, and not by faith only. Not by a cold, abstract, inoperative faith. It must be by a faith that will produce good works, and whose existence will be shown to men by good works. As justification takes place in the sight of God, it is by faith, for he sees that the faith is genuine, and that it will produce good works if the individual who exercises faith shall live, and he justifies men in view of that faith, and of no other. If he see that the faith is merely speculative; that it is cold and dead, and that it would not produce good works, the man is not justified in his sight. As a matter of fact, therefore, it is only the faith that produces good works that justifies; and good works, therefore, as the proper expression of the nature of faith, foreseen by God as the certain result of faith, and actualtyper/bj-maZas seen by men, are necessary in order to justification. In other words, no man will be justified who has not a faith which will produce good works, and which is of an operative and practical character. The ground of justification in the case is faith, and that only; the evidence of it — the carrying it out — the proof of the existence ofthe faith — is good works; and thus men are justified and saved, not by mere abstract and cold faith, but by a faith necessarily connected with good works, and where good works perform an important part. James, therefore, does not contradict Paul, but he contradicts a false explanation of Paul's doctrine. He does not deny that a man is justified in the sight of God by faith, for the very passage which he quotes shows that he believes that; but he does deny that a man is justified by a faith which would not produce good works, and which is not expressed by good works; and thus he maintains, as Paul always did, that nothing else than a holy life can show that a man is a true Christian, and is accepted of God.
25. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works? In the same sense in which Abraham was, as explained above, showing by her act that her faith was genuine, and that it was not a mere cold and speculative assent to the truths of religion. Her conduct showed that she truly believed God. If the act referred to had not been performed, it would have shown that her faith was not genuine, and she could not have been justified. God saw her faith as it was. He saw that it would produce acts of obedience, and he accepted her as righteous. The act which she performed was the public manifestation of her faith— the evidence that she was justified. See the case of Rahab fully explained in the Notes on Heb. xi. 31. It may bo observed here that we are not to suppose that every thing in the life and character of this woman was approved. She is commended for her faith, and for the fair expression of it; a faith which, as it induced her to receive the messengers of the true God and to send them forth in peace, and as it led her to identify herself with the people of God, was also influential, we have every reason to suppose, in inducing her to abandon her former course of life. When we commend the faith of a man who has been a profane swearer, an adulterer, a robber, or a drunkard,we do not commend his former life, or give a sanction to it. We commend that which has induced him to abandon his evil course, and to turn to the ways of righteousness. The more wicked his former course has been, the more wonderful and the more worthy of commendation is that faith by which he is reformed and saved.
20. For as the body without Vie spirit ift dead. Marg., breath. The Greek word— irvivfia— is commonly used to denote spirit or soid, as referring to the intelligent nature. The meaning here is that the body is animated or kept alive by the presence of the soul, and that when that is withdrawn, hope departs. The body has no life independent of the presence of the soul. *|f So faith without works is dead also. There is as much necessity that faith and works should be united to constitute true religion, as there is that the body and soul should be united to constitute a living man. If good works do not follow, it is clear that there is no true and proper faith: none that justifies and saves. If faith produce no fruit of good living, that fact proves that it is dead; that it has no power, and that it is of no value. This shows that James was not arguing against real and genuine faith, nor against its importance in justification, but against the supposition that mere faith was all that is necessary to save a man, whether it is accompanied by good works or not. He maintains that if there is genuine faith, it will always be accompanied by good works, and that it is only that faith which can justify and save. If it lead to no practical holiness of life, it is like the body without the soul, and is of no value whatever. James and Paul both agree in the necessity of true faith in order to salvation; they both agree that the tendency of true faith is to produce a holy life; they both agree that where there is not a holy life there is no true religion, and no salvation. We may learn, then, from the whole doctrine of the New Testament on the subject, that unless we believe in the Lord Jesus we can not be justified before God; and that unless our faith is of that kind which produces holy living, it has no more of the characteristics of true religion than a dead body has of a living man.
Reconciliation of Paid and James. At the close of the exposition of this chapter, it may be proper to make a few additional remarks on the question in what way the statements of James can be reconciled with those of Paul on the subject ofjustification. A difficulty has always been felt to exist on the subject; and there are, perhaps, no readers of the New Testament who are not perplexed with it. Infidels, and particularly Voltaire, have seized the occasion which they supposed they found here to sneer against the Scriptures, and to pronounce them to be contradictory. Luther felt the difficulty to be so great that, in the early part of his career, he regarded it as insuperable, and denied the inspiration of James, though he afterward changed his opinion, and believed that this epistle was a part of the inspired canon; and one of Luther's followers was so displeased with the statements of James as to charge him with willful falsehood. Dr. Dwight's Theology, Serm. lxviii. The question is, whether the statements of Paul and James can be reconciled, or can be shown to be so consistent with each other that it is proper to regard them both as inspired men? Or are their statements so opposite and contradictory that it can not be believed that both were under the influence of an infallible Spirit? In order to answer these questions, there are two points to be considered: I. What the real difficulty is; and, II. How the statements of the two writers can be reconciled; or whether there is any way of explanation which will remove the difficulty.
I. What the difficulty is. This relates to two points: (1) that James seems to contradict Paul in express terms; and, (2) that both writers make use of the same case to illustrate their opposite sentiments.
(1.) That James seems to contradict Paul in express terms. The doctrine of Paul on the subject ofjustification is stated in such language as the following: "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Kom. iii. 20. "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. iii. 28. "Being justified by faith." Rom. v. 1. " Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." Gal.ii.10. Comp.Rom.iii.24,26; Gal. iii. 11; Titus iii. 5, 0. On the other hand, the statement of James seems to be equally explicit that a man is not justified by faith only, but that good works come in for an important share in the matter. " Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" Ver. 21. " Seest thou how faith wrought with his works." Ver. 22. " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Ver. 24.
(2.) Both writers refer to the same case to illustrate their views — the case of Abraham. Thus Paul (Rom. iv. 1- 3) refers to it to prove that justification is wholly by faith. " For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." And thus James (vs. 21, 22) refers to it to prove that justification is by works: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"
The difficulty of reconciling these statements would be more clearly seen if they occurred in the writings of the same author; by supposing, for example, that the statements of James were appended to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and were to be read in connection with that chapter. Who, the infidel would ask, Avould not be struck with the contradiction? Who would undertake to harmonize statements so contradictory? Yet the statements are equally contradictory, though they occur in different writers, and especially when it is claimed for both that they wrote under the influence of inspiration.
II. The inquiry, then, is how these apparently contradictory statements may be reconciled, or whether there is any way of explanation that will remove the difficulty. This inquiry resolves itself into two— whether there is any theory that can be proposed that Would relieve the difficulty; and whether that theory can be shown to be well founded.
(1.) Is there any theory which would remove the difficulty — any explanation which can be given on this point which, if true, would show that the two statements may be in accordance with each other and with truth?
Before suggesting such an explanation, it may be further observed that, as all history has shown, the statements of Paul on the subject of justification are liable to great abuse. All the forms of Antinomianism have grown out of such abuse, and are only perverted statements of his doctrine. It has been said that if Christ has freed us from the necessity of obeying the law in order to justification; if he has fulfilled it in our stead, and borne its penalty, then the law is no longer binding ©n those who are justified, and they are at liberty to live as they please. It has been further said that if we are saved by faith alone, a man is safe the moment he believes, and good works are therefore not necessary. It is possible that such views as these began to prevail as early as the time of James, and, if so, it was proper that there should be an authoritative apostolic statement to correctthem,andto check these growing abuses. If, therefore, James had, as it has been supposed he had, any reference to the sentiments of Paul, it was not to correct his sentiments or to controvert them, but it was to correct the abuses which began already to flow from his doctrines, and to show that the alleged inferences did not properly follow from the opinions which he held; or, in other words, to show that the Christian religion requires men to lead holy lives, and that the faith by which it is acknowledged that the sinner must be justified is a faith which is productive of good works.
Now all that is necessary to reconcile the statements of Paul and James is to suppose that they contemplate the subject of justification from different points of view, and with reference to different inquiries. Paul looks at it before a man is converted, with reference to the question how a sinner may be justified before God; James after a man is converted, with reference to the question how he may show that he has the genuine faith whichjustifies. Paul affirms that the sinner is justified before God only by faith in the Lord Jesus, and not by his own works; James affirms that it is not a mere speculative or dead faith whichjustifies, but only a faith that is productive of good works, and that its genuineness is seen only by good works. Paul affirms that whatever else a man has, if he have not faith in the Lord Jesus, he can not be justified; James affirms that no matter what pretended faith a man has, if it is not a faith which is adapted to produce good works, it is of no value in the matter of justification. Supposing this to be the true explanation, and that these are the " stand-points " from which they view the subject, the reconciliation of these two writers is easy; lor it was,. and is still true, that if the question is asked how a sinner is to be justified beforcGod, the answer is to be that of Paul— that it is by faith alone, "without the works of the law;" if the question be asked how it can be shown what is the kind of. faith that justifies, the answer is that of James— that it is only that which is productive of holy living and practical obedience..*-■■•*
(2.) Is this a true theory? Can it be shown to be in accordance with the statements of the two writers? Would it be a proper explanation if the same statements had been made by the same writer? That it is a correct theory, or that it is an explanation founded in truth, will be apparent if (a) the language used by the two writers will warrant it; (6) if it accord with a fair interpretation of the declarations of both writers; and (c) if, in fact, each of the two writers held respectively the same doctrine on the subject.
(a) Will the language bear this explanation? That is, will the word justify, as used by the two writers, admit of this explanation? That it will, there need be no reasonable doubt; for both are speaking of the way in which man, who is a sinner, may be regarded and treated by God as if he were righteous— the true notion of justification. It is not of justification in the sight of men that they speak, but of justification in the sight of God. Both use the word justify in this sense —Paul as affirming that it is only by faith that it can be done; James as affirming, in addition, not in contradiction, that it is by a faith that produces holiness, and no other.
(6) Does this view accord with the fair interpretation of the declarations of both writers?
In regard to Paul, there can be no doubt that this is the point from which he contemplates the subject, to wit, with reference to the question how a sinner may be justified. Thus, in the Epistle to the Komans, where his principal statements on the subject occur, he shows, first, that the Gentiles can not be justified by the works of the law (chap, i.); and then that the same thing is true in regard to the Jews (chaps, ii., iii.), by demonstrating that both had violated the law given them, and were transgressors; and then
(chap. iii. 20) he draws his conclusion, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" — the whole argument showing conclusively that he is contemplating the subject before a man is justified, and with reference to the question how he may be.
In regard to James, there can be as little doubt that the point of vie w from which he contemplates the subject is after a man professes to have been justified by faith, with reference to the question what kind of faith justifies, or how it may be shown that faith is genuine. This is clear, (a) because the whole question is introduced by him with almost express reference to that inquiry: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" Ver. 14. That is, can such faith— can this faith (v tt terns) save him? In other words, he must have a different kind of faith in order to be saved. The point of James's denial is not that faith, if genuine, would save; but it is that such a faith, or a faith without works, would save, (b) That this is the^very point which he discusses is further shown by his illustrations. Vs. 15, 16, 19. He shows (vs. 15, 16) that mere faith in religion would be of no more value in regard to salvation than, if one were naked and destitute of food, it would meet his wants to say, "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;" and then (ver. 19), that even the demons had a certain kind of faith in one of the cardinal doctrines of religion, but that it was a faith which was valueless— thus showing that his mind was on the question what is true and genuine faith, (c) Then he shows by the case to which he refers (ver. 21-23)— the case of Abraham— that this was, in fact, the question before his mind. He refers not to the act when Abraham first believed—the act by which as a sinner he was justified before God; but to an act that occurred twenty years after— the offering up of his son Isaac. See Notes on' those verses. He affirms that the faith of Abraham was of such a kind that it led him to obey the will of God; that is, that it produced good works. Though, as is implied in the objection mentioned above, he docs refer to the same case to which Paul referred— the case of Abraham— yet it is not to the same act of Abraham.