However, if you fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom. For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you tells them, “Go in peace. Be warmed and filled;” yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder. But do you want to know, vain man, that faith apart from works is dead? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected. So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith. In the same way, wasn’t Rahab the prostitute also justified by works, in that she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 Now follows a plainer declaration; for he expressly points…
Now follows a plainer declaration; for he expressly points out the cause of the last reproof, for they were officiously attentive to the rich, not from love, but on the contrary, from a vain desire of attaining their favor: And it is in anticipation, by which he obviated an excuse on the other side; for they might have objected and said, that he ought not to be blamed, who humbly submiteth himself to the unworthy. James, indeed, concedes that this is true, but he shews that it was falsely pretended by them, because they shewed this submission of homage, not from love to their neighbors, but from respect of persons.
In the first clause, then, he acknowledges as right and praiseworthy, as the duties of love which we perform towards our neighbors. In the second, he denies that the ambitious respect of persons ought to be deemed as of this kind, for it widely differs from what the law prescribes. And the hinge of this answer turns on the words “neighbor” and “respect of persons,” as though he had said, “If you pretend that there is a sort of love in what you do, this may be easily disproved; for God bids us to love our neighbors, and not to shew respect of persons.” Besides, this word “neighbor” includes all mankind: he, then, who says, that a very few, according to his own fancy, ought to be honored, and others passed by, does not keep the law of God, but yields to the depraved desires of his own heart. God expressly commends to us strangers and enemies, and all, even the most contemptible. To this doctrine the respect of persons is wholly contrary. Hence, rightly does James assert, that respect of persons is inconsistent with love.
Read full note →
8 If ye fulfill the royal law. The law here I take simply as the rule of life; and to fulfill, or perform it, is to keep it with real integrity of heart, and as they say, roundly, (rotunde;) and he sets such a keeping in opposition to a partial observance of it. It is said, indeed, to be a royal law, as it is the royal way, or road; that is, plain, straight, and level, which, by implication, is set in opposition to sinuous by-paths and windings.
Allusion however is made, as I think, to servile obedience which they rendered to the rich, when they might, by serving in sincerity their neighbors, be not only free men, but live as kings.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 The Law is said to be royal and like…
The Law is said to be royal and like the King’s highway, for that it is plain and without turnings, and that the Law calleth everyone our neighbor, without respect, whom we may help by any kind of duty.
The conclusion: Charity which God prescribeth cannot agree with the accepting of persons, seeing that we must walk in the King’s highway.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv8–26 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to…
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Ver. 8. If ye fulfil the royal law] Acknowledging God’s sovereignty, and sending a lamb to the ruler of the earth, Isa 16:1, seeking the help of that free or noble spirit of his, Psa 51:13, that royal, ruling spirit, as the Greek version there hath it.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv8–26 If ye fulfil; or, perfect; the word signifnies to…
If ye fulfil; or, perfect; the word signifnies to accomplish perfectly, but no more is meant by it than sincerity in observing the duties of the law in an indifferent respect to one as well as another, which he seems to oppose to their partiality in the law, by respecting some and neglecting others.
The royal law; either the law of God the great King, or Christ the King of saints; or rather, the royal law is the king’s law, i.e. the great law which is the same to all, rich and poor, the common rule by which all are to act, as, the king’s way, Num 21:22, i.e. the great plain way in which all are to travel. Here may likewise be a tacit reflection on the servile disposition of these accepters of men’s persons, evil becoming them that pretended to be governed by the royal law, which was to be observed with a more free and king-like spirit.
Read full note →
According to the Scripture: see Mat 22:39; Gal 5:14.
Ye do well; ye are not to be blamed, but commended. The apostle seems here to answer an objection they might make in their own defence; that in the respect they gave to rich men, they did but act according to the law which commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves: to this he replies partly in this verse by way of concession, or on supposition; that if the respect they gave to rich men were indeed in obedience to the law of charity, which commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves, then they did well, and he found no fault with them; but the contrary he shows in the next verse.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26 Observe here, 1. The honourable title put upon the…
Observe here, 1. The honourable title put upon the law of God a royal law: Royal in its author, Jesus Christ, Heb 12:25. Christ’s voice shook Mount Sinai: Royal in its precepts, the duty it requires of us is noble and excellent, nothing but what is our interest as men, our honour and happiness as Christians, and what tends to the perfecting and ennobling of our natures: Royal in its rewards: true, our work can deserve no wages; however, our royal Master will not let us work for nothing. Satan, as a master, is bad, his work much worse; but his wages worst of all. Christ is a royal Master, obedience to his law is royal service: and how royal is his reward, in making us kings and priests unto God on earth, and crowned kings and princes with God in heaven!
Observe, 2. Our duty declared, with relation to this royal law, namely, to fulfil it: If ye fulfil the royal law, according to the Scriptures, that is, if ye pay a sincere respect to the whole duty of the law, if you come up in your obedience to that universal love of God and your neighbour which the law requires, ye do well; where by neighbour, we are to understand every one to whom we may be helpful; the command to love him as ourselves shews the manner, not the measure, of our love; the kind, not the degree; the parity and likeness, not the equality of proportion; we must mind the good of our neighbour as really and truly, though not so vehemently and earnestly, as our own.
Read full note →
Observe, 3. How the apostle convicts them for walking contrary to this law, in honouring the rich and despising the poor, and in judging according to men’s outward quality and condition: If ye have respect to persons in this manner, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. How does the law convince? Not only by reproving, but by proving: it shews us a rule, and faith, "There ye have departed from it; here is a line, and there ye have transgressed it; either gone over it, or gone beside it."
Learn hence, that the rule of the word discovers wickedness fully to the conscience of the sinner who winks hard, and is loth to lie under the convictions of it.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv8, 14 The apostle, having condemned the sin of those who…
The apostle, having condemned the sin of those who had an undue respect of persons, and having urged what was sufficient to convict them of the greatness of this evil, now proceeds to show how the matter may be mended; it is the work of a gospel ministry, not only to reprove and warn, but to teach and direct. Col 1:28, Warning every man, and teaching every man. And here,
I. We have the law that is to guide us in all our regards to men set down in general. If you fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, you do well, Jam 2:8. Lest any should think James had been pleading for the poor so as to throw contempt on the rich, he now lets them know that he did not design to encourage improper conduct towards any; they must not hate nor be rude to the rich, any more than despise the poor; but as the scripture teaches us to love all our neighbours, be they rich or poor, as ourselves, so, in our having a steady regard to this rule, we shall do well. Observe hence, 1. The rule for Christians to walk by is settled in the scriptures: If according to the scriptures, etc. It is not great men, nor worldly wealth, nor corrupt practices among professors themselves, that must guide us, but the scriptures of truth. 2. The scripture gives us this as a law, to love our neighbour as ourselves; it is what still remains in full force, and is rather carried higher and further by Christ than made less important to us. 3. This law is a royal law, it comes from the King of kings. Its own worth and dignity deserve it should be thus honoured; and the state in which all Christians now are, as it is a state of liberty, and not of bondage or oppression, makes this law, by which they are to regulate all their actions to one another, a royal law. 4. A pretence of observing this royal law, when it is interpreted with partiality, will not excuse men in any unjust proceedings. In is implied here that some were ready to flatter rich men, and be partial to them, because, if they were in the like circumstances, they should expect such regards to themselves; or they might plead that to show a distinguished respect to those whom God in his providence had distinguished by their rank and degree in the world was but doing right; therefore the apostle allows that, so far as they were concerned to observe the duties of the second table, they did well in giving honour to whom honour was due; but this fair pretence would not cover their sin in that undue respect of persons which they stood chargeable with; for,
Read full note →
II. This general law is to be considered together with a particular law: "If you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors, Jam 2:9. Notwithstanding the law of laws, to love your neighbour as yourselves, and to show that respect to them which you would be apt to look for yourselves if in their circumstances, yet this will not excuse your distributing either the favours or the censures of the church according to men's outward condition; but here you must look to a particular law, which God, who gave the other, has given you together with it, and by this you will stand fully convicted of the sin I have charged you with." This law is in Lev 19:15, Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt though judge thy neighbour. Yea, the very royal law itself, rightly explained, would serve to convict them, because it teaches them to put themselves as much in the places of the poor as in those of the rich, and so to act equitably towards one as well as the other. Hence he proceeds,
III. To show the extent of the law, and how far obedience must be paid to it. They must fulfil the royal law, have a regard to one part as well as another, otherwise it would not stand them in stead, when they pretended to urge it as a reason for any particular actions: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all, Jam 2:10. This may be considered, 1. With reference to the case James has been upon: Do you plead for your respect to the rich, because you are to love your neighbour as yourselves? Why then show also an equitable and due regard to the poor, because you are to love your neighbour as yourself: or else your offending in one point will spoil your pretence of observing that law at all. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, if he offend in one point, wilfully, avowedly, and with continuance, and so as to think he shall be excused in some matters because of his obedience in others, he is guilty of all; that is, he incurs the same penalty, and is liable to the same punishment, by the sentence of the law, as if he had broken it in other points as well as that he stands chargeable with. Not that all sins are equal, but that all carry the same contempt of the authority of the Lawgiver, and so bind over to such punishment as is threatened on the breach of that law. This shows us what a vanity it is to think that our good deeds will atone for our bad deeds, and plainly puts us upon looking for some other atonement. 2. This is further illustrated by putting a case different from that before mentioned (Jam 2:11): For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. One, perhaps, is very severe in the case of adultery, or what tends to such pollutions of the flesh; but less ready to condemn murder, or what tends to ruin the health, break the hearts, and destroy the lives, of others: another has a prodigious dread of murder, but has more easy thoughts of adultery; whereas one who looks at the authority of the Lawgiver more than the matter of the command will see the same reason for condemning the one as the other. Obedience is then acceptable when all is done with an eye to the will of God; and disobedience is to be condemned, in whatever instance it be, as it is a contempt of the authority of God; and, for that reason, if we offend in one point, we contemn the authority of him who gave the whole law, and so far are guilty of all. Thus, if you look to the law of the old, you stand condemned; for cursed is every that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them, Gal 3:10.
IV. James directs Christians to govern and conduct themselves more especially by the law of Christ. So speak and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty, Jam 2:12. This will teach us, not only to be just and impartial, but very compassionate and merciful to the poor; and it will set us perfectly free from all sordid and undue regards to the rich. Observe here, 1. The gospel is called a law. It has all the requisites of a law: precepts with rewards and punishments annexed; it prescribes duty, as well as administers comfort; and Christ is a king to rule us as well as a prophet to teach us, and a priest to sacrifice and intercede for us. We are under the law to Christ. 2. It is a law of liberty, and one that we have no reason to complain of as a yoke or burden; for the service of God, according to the gospel, is perfect freedom; it sets us at liberty from all slavish regards, either to the persons or the things of this world. 3. We must all be judged by this law of liberty. Men's eternal condition will be determined according to the gospel; this is the book that will be opened, when we shall stand before the judgment-seat; there will be no relief to those whom the gospel condemns, nor will any accusation lie against those whom the gospel justifies. 4. It concerns us therefore so to speak and act now as become those who must shortly be judged by this law of liberty; that is, that we come up to gospel terms, that we make conscience of gospel duties, that e be of a gospel temper, and that our conversation be a gospel conversation, because by this rule we must be judged. 5. The consideration of our being judged by the gospel should engage us more especially to be merciful in our regards to the poor (Jam 2:13): For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath shown no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. Take notice here, (1.) The doom which will be passed upon impenitent sinners at last will be judgment without mercy; there will be no mixtures or allays in the cup of wrath and of trembling, the dregs of which they must drink. (2.) Such as show no mercy now shall find no mercy in the great day. But we may note, on the other hand, (3.) That there will be such as shall become instances of the triumph of mercy, in whom mercy rejoices against judgment: all the children of men, in the last day, will be either vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy. It concerns all to consider among which they shall be found; and let us remember that blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv8–26 If ye fulfil the royal law,.... Which is the…
If ye fulfil the royal law,.... Which is the law of love to men, without distinction of rich and poor, high and low, bond and free; and is so called, because it is the law of the King of kings; hence the Syriac version renders it, "the law of God", it is the law of Christ, who is King of saints; and because it is a principal law, the chief of laws; as love to God is the sum of the first and great commandment in the law, and may be called the king of laws; so love to the neighbour is the second and next unto it, and may very well bear the name of the queen of laws, and so has royalty in it; and indeed this last is said to be the fulfilling of the law, Rom 13:8 and it is also submitted to, and obeyed by such who are made kings and priests to God; and that in a royal manner, with a princely spirit, willingly, and with all readiness: the same word, in the Hebrew language, signifies "princes", and to be willing. The Jews frequently ascribe royalty to the law, and often speak of , "the crown of the law" (w); and they suppose the Israelites had crowns upon their heads, when the law was given them on Mount Sinai, in which were engraven the name of God, and which they were stripped of when they made the golden calf (x): now this royal law is fulfilled, when it is regarded without respect of persons,
according to the Scripture, in Lev 19:18
Read full note →
thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself; and which is to be understood of every nation, without distinction of Jews and Gentiles, and of persons of every state and condition, rich and poor, without any difference: and when this law is so observed, it is commendable:
ye do well: that which is right, and which is a man's duty to do; this, when done from right principles, and to a right end, is a good work, and is doing a good work well.
(w) Pirke Abot, c. 4. sect. 13. & Abot R. Nathan, c. 41. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 28. 2. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 4. fol. 183. 2. & sect. 14. fol. 215. 2. & Midrash Kohelet, fol. 73. 4. Targum Jon in Deut. xxxiv. 5. (x) Vid. Targum. Jon. & Jerus. in Exod. xxxii. 25. & xxxiii. 4.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 If ye fulfil the royal law - The supreme…
If ye fulfil the royal law - The supreme law of the great King which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich, ye do well. Lev. xix, 18.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv8–26 Verse 8. The royal law] νομον βασιλικον. This epithet,…
Verse 8. The royal law] νομον βασιλικον. This epithet, of all the New Testament writers, is peculiar to James; but it is frequent among the Greek writers in the sense in which it appears St. James uses it. βασιλικος, royal, is used to signify any thing that is of general concern, is suitable to all, and necessary for all, as brotherly love is. This commandment; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, is a royal law, not only because it is ordained of God, and proceeds from his kingly authority over men, but because it is so useful, suitable, and necessary to the present state of man; and as it was given us particularly by Christ himself, Joh 13:34; Joh 15:12, who is our King, as well as Prophet and Priest, it should ever put us in mind of his authority over us, and our subjection to him. As the regal state is the most excellent for secular dignity and civil utility that exists among men, hence we give the epithet royal to whatever is excellent, noble, grand, or useful.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv8, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25 Jas 2:8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law —…
Jas 2:8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law — The supreme law of the great King, which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich; ye do well — The phrase, νομος βασιλικος, royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st, As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it may mean an excellent law. 2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called the laws of the kings of Persia, βασιλικοι νομοι, royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to love our neighbour, may be called the royal law, because it inspires us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in benevolence and clemency. The law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to such perfection, as it was to be practised among his followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new commandment, Joh 13:34; and his commandment, Joh 15:12. But if ye have respect to persons — In this partial manner, ye commit, εργαζεσθε, ye work, sin — That is, ye do a sinful action; and are convinced — Or rather convicted, by the law, which I have just now mentioned: for that law enjoins you to love your neighbours as yourselves, and consequently to do them justice. For whosoever shall keep the whole law — In every other instance; and yet offend in one point — Knowingly; he is guilty of all — He is liable to condemnation from the lawgiver, as if he had offended in every point. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that by observing any one precept of the law with care, men secured to themselves the favour of God, notwithstanding they neglected all the rest. Wherefore they recommended it to their disciples to make choice of a particular precept, in the keeping of which they were to exercise themselves. Whitby says, they commonly chose either the law of the sabbath, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of tithes, because they esteemed these the great commandments in the law. This corrupt Jewish doctrine St. James here expressly condemns; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill — The apostle’s meaning is, that all the commandments being equally enjoined by God, the man who despises the authority of God so far as to break any one of them habitually, would, in the like circumstances of temptation and opportunity, certainly break any other of them; consequently, in the eye of God, he is guilty of breaking the whole law: that is, he hath no real principle of piety or virtue in him.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 If ye fulfil the royal law - That is,…
If ye fulfil the royal law - That is, the law which he immediately mentions requiring us to love our neighbor 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.
According to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself - Lev 19:18. Compare Mat 19:19. See it explained by the Saviour, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Luk 10:25-37. In regard to its meaning, see the notes at Mat 19:19.
Read full note →
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, or their complexion, or 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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21 If then you fulfil the royal law,...thou shalt love,…
If then you fulfil the royal law,...thou shalt love, &c. you do well. By these words, the apostle explains what he had said before of the particular respect paid to rich and powerful men, that if these were no more than some exterior marks paid them without any injustice or interior contempt of such as were poor, so that they took care to comply with that royal precept given to every one by Almighty God, the King of kings, thou shalt love thy neighbour, that is, every one without exception, as thyself; in this you do well; and the respect of persons was less blameable. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv8–26 The Greek may be translated, "If, however, ye fulfil,"…
The Greek may be translated, "If, however, ye fulfil," &c., that is, as ALFORD, after ESTIUS, explains, "Still I do not say, hate the rich (for their oppressions) and drive them from your assemblies; if you choose to observe the royal law . . . well and good; but respect of persons is a breach of that law." I think the translation is, "If in very deed (or 'indeed on the one hand') ye fulfil the royal law . . . ye do well, but if (on the other hand) ye respect persons, ye practice sin." The Jewish Christians boasted of, and rested in, the "law" (Act 15:1; Act 21:18-24; Rom 2:17; Gal 2:12). To this the "indeed" alludes. "(Ye rest in the law): If indeed (then) ye fulfil it, ye do well; but if," &c.
royal--the law that is king of all laws, being the sum and essence of the ten commandments. The great King, God, is love; His law is the royal law of love, and that law, like Himself, reigns supreme. He "is no respecter of persons"; therefore to respect persons is at variance with Him and His royal law, which is at once a law of love and of liberty (Jam 2:12). The law is the "whole"; "the (particular) Scripture" (Lev 19:18) quoted is a part. To break a part is to break the whole (Jam 2:10).
Read full note →
ye do well--being "blessed in your deed" ("doing," Margin) as a doer, not a forgetful hearer of the law (Jam 1:25).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 5. And violating the divine law on this or…
5. And violating the divine law on this or any one point breaks the whole law, Jas_2:8-13.
8. Our apostle here states and denies an excuse of theirs, that their treatment of the rich was accordant with the law of love.
Read full note →
The royal law— The golden rule, called royal because, perhaps, first clearly proclaimed by the royal Jesus; or, more probably, because it is the supreme law which comprehends the entire law over the relations of men to men.
Do well— Your conduct is right if it accord with the royal law. But the question is, Does it accord with that law? He denies it, (9-13,) declares that it is such a transgression as makes them condemnable by the whole law, being a violation of the law of mercy, (Jas_2:13,) namely, mercy to the poor man, so cruelly slighted.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv8–26 8. If ye fulfil the royal law according to…
8. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture] The Greek gives a particle which is not expressed in the English, “If, however, ye fulfil …” Nothing that the writer has said in disparagement of wealth and the wealthy is to lead men to anything at variance with the great law of love; that law embraces rich and poor alike. The position of the verb in the Greek gives it a special emphasis. The “law” which follows may be called “royal” or “kingly,” either (1) in the sense in which Plato speaks (Minos ii. 566) of a just law as kingly or sovereign, using the same adjective as St James, or (2) as coming from God or Christ as the true King and forming part of the fundamental code of the kingdom. In a Greek writer the first would probably be the thought intended. In one like St James, living in the thought of a Divine kingdom, and believing in Jesus as the King, the latter is more likely to have been prominent. This agrees too more closely with the uniform use of the word in the LXX. in a literal and not a figurative sense. The law which follows, from Lev_19:18, had been solemnly affirmed by the true King (Mat_22:39). One who accepted it in its fulness was ipso facto not far from the Kingdom (Mar_12:34). Believing this to have been the main thought present to St James’s mind, it is yet probable enough that he chose the word so that those who were not as yet believers in Christ might see in the commandment of love, the law of God as the Great King.
ye do well] The words seem to point to those who, like the scribe in Mar_12:32-33, were ready enough to accept the law in theory but shrank from its practical application. We almost trace a tone of irony in the words: “In that case, if you attain a completeness which you never have attained, ye do well.” “Right well,” or “nobly,” or more colloquially “excellent well,” comes closer to the force of the adverb.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv8–26 (8) If ye fulfil the royal law.—Better paraphrased thus,…
(8) If ye fulfil the royal law.—Better paraphrased thus, If, however, ye are fulfilling the Law, as ye imagine and profess ye are doing, the royal law, according to the Scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye are doing well; but . . . . Mark the touch of irony in the defence which St. James puts into the mouths of his hearers. It were certainly a sweet proof of neighbourly affection, that exemplified in Jas_2:3. The “royal,” or “kingly law,” is, of course, God’s, in its highest utterance; and may be taken as an illustration of what a law really consists: viz., a command from a superior, a duty from an inferior, and a sanction or vindication of its authority. There is much confusion of thought, both scientific and theological, with regard to this; were it not so we should hear less of the “laws of nature,” and divers other imaginary codes which the greatest legist of modern times has called “fustian.” The sovereign law of love, thus expressed by the Apostle, is one so plain that the simplest mind may be made its interpreter; and the violation of it is at once clear to the offender.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26 What is the connection with the foregoing? Mentoi is…
What is the connection with the foregoing? Mentoi is ignored altogether by the A.V Translate, with R.V, howbeit if ye fulfill, etc.; Vulgate, tamen. According to Huther, St. James here meets the attempt which his readers might, perhaps, make to justify their conduct towards the rich with the law of love; whilst he grants to them that the fulfillment of that law is something excellent, he designates proswpolhptein directly as a transgression of the law. Alford thinks that the apostle is simply guarding his own argument from misconstruction a view which is simpler and perhaps more natural. The royal law. Why is the law of love thus styled? (The Syriac has simply "the law of God.")
(1) As being the most excellent of all laws; as we might call it the sovereign principle of our conduct (cf. Plato "Min.," p. 317, c, To ojrqomov ejstiv). Such an expression is natural enough in a Greek writer; but it is strange in a Jew like St. James (in the LXX basilikov is always used in its literal meaning); and as the "kingdom" has been spoken of just before (ver. 5), it is better
Read full note →
(2) to take the expression as literal here law of the kingdom" (cf. Plumptre, in loc. ). Thou shalt love, etc.. (Lev_19:18) The law had received the sanction of the King himself (Mat_22:39; Luk_10:26-28)
Vers. 8-11.
Stumbling in one point.
In these verses James takes the high ground that "respect of persons" is a transgression of the law by which we are to be judged; anal one which, like every other, involves the guilt of breaking the whole law.
I TO RESPECT PERSONS IS TO COMMIT SIN. (Vers. 8, 9.) It involves disobedience to the royal law. " This is a noticeable expression. Any Divine commandment may be described as "royal," seeing that it emanates from the supreme Sovereign of the universe. Rather, however, may the moral law receive this epithet because it is regal in its own character. God"s law is the law of love; and love is kingly. The Divine nature itself is the foundation of virtue; and "God is love." Hence the Divine law is the eternal rule and final standard of rectitude. It possesses supreme excellence and supreme authority. Every other system of legislation, and all other rules of duty, ought to be subordinate to "the royal law." This law, we know, cannot be unjust; for it is a transcript of the moral perfection of the Divine nature, and is therefore the Alpha and Omega of all laws. The royal law is to be fulfilled according to the Scripture;" for, while its ultimate source is in the nature of God, the one authoritative record of it to which sinful men have access is to be found in the Bible. We must consult "the law and the testimony" if we would ascertain the edicts of the great King, and learn the "newness of the spirit" in which these are to be obeyed. God"s Word lays bare before us our half-buried and forgotten moral convictions; it restores the weather-worn inscriptions upon the gravestones of our sin-dead hearts. The apostle cites, as the great precept which forbids respect of persons, the words of Lev_19:18, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" the same precept which our Lord had employed as his summary of the principle underlying the last six commandments. We are to love our neighbor, i.e. any one to whom we have it within our power to become helpful, even although he may be a stranger and a Samaritan. Those who discharge this duty aright "do well." But, enlightened love for ones neighbor is inconsistent with respect of persons. We may not limit the precept either to our wealthy neighbor or to our poor neighbor. Indeed, to show partiality is not so much to trait the precept as to discard it altogether. Favoritism is the outcome of selfishness, rather than of the love that "seeketh not its own." Those, therefore, who practice it are not guilty of a trifling impropriety, but of direct and palpable sin, both against the Old Testament law anti "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.
II TO TRANSGRESS IN ONE POINT IS TO TRANSGRESS THE WHOLE LAW. (Vers. 10, 11.) Let no one plead that respect of persons in the Church is so trivial a fault that it ought to be overlooked, especially in view of the social and pecuniary benefits which may be expected to result from it. The apostle assures us that partiality is a sin, and that he who indulges in it disobeys the whole moral law. To unthinking minds this latter assertion may sound very doubtful doctrine, leading them to ask Is this statement of the nature of casuistry, or is it sober truth in the form of paradox? Does it not seem contrary to true moral perspective to affirm that a man who is noted for his blameless life "becomes guilty of all" when he "stumbles in one point"? Do not some sins, like some diseases, shut out the possibility of others which lie in an opposite direction? But a little consideration will reveal the deep moral truth of this saying. For:
1. The Lawgiver is one. (Ver. 11.) Every precept of the law possesses the same Divine authority. The sixth commandment is invested with the same solemn sanctions as the seventh. God spake all these words." To disregard any one precept, therefore, is to violate the entire authority by which the whole Law has been ordained. It follows from this that:
1. The Law itself is one. How immeasurably "the royal law" is exalted, in its grand essential unity, above human systems of jurisprudence! The common law of England has to submit to have its defects supplied, and its rigors mitigated, by equity; but how very far yet are our common law and equity and statute law from coalescing into a unity! But the Divine legislation forms a perfect code; for it is a perfect reflection and expression of the mind or" God. The Bible jurisprudence knows no distinction between law and equity. It is independent of glosses and commentaries. It
2. abhors legal fictions. Having for its Author the God of love, its vital unity is found in the principle of loving obedience. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law". (Rom_13:10) So, to "stumble in one point" is to break the whole law. For, as has been said, the law is a seamless robe, which is torn although only a part be torn; or a musical harmony, which is marred if one voice be singing out of tune; or a necklace of pearls, from which a single pearl cannot be dropped without breaking the string upon which the others hang, and letting them fall to the ground.
3. The spirit of obedience is one. True reverence for the law is inspired by love to the Lawgiver; and therefore obedience is impartial, and strives to be perfect. Our first parents, in eating the forbidden fruit, fell from the spirit of obedience, and dishonored the whole law. In like manner, the man who habitually breaks one of the commandments shows that in principle he is disloyal, and that he would transgress any other precept were he exposed to similar temptation to do so.
CONCLUSION. We should not be able to contemplate this subject without being impressed with such considerations as these:
1. The obligation which rests upon us to render perfect obedience to the law of God.
2. The impossibility of our doing so in our own strength, or during the present life.
3. The necessity of clothing ourselves with the righteousness of Christ. C.J.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 12, 13, 14 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
Jam_2:8-9
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
Read full note →
My neighbour
The good old word neighbour means one who, because he lives in a near dwelling or home, is specially related to us; and upon the relation which it signifies there have been builded more than one of the institutions of Anglo-Saxon civil society.
From its earliest times among that people the bond between neighbours was so definite and intimate, that in the eye of the law one neighbour was held to be responsible for the security and well-being of another. If a man was murdered, the neighbours were in the first instance accounted responsible; and it was only when they had purged themselves by finding and convicting the real murderer, that they were held to be acquitted. So also in case of dispute or disagreement between any two neighbours, twelve or more of the other neighbours were summoned as an assize to determine the matter. There is no doubt that it was upon this ancient custom that our great institution of trial by jury was founded; and it is upon the same custom, the same ancient and sacred bond of neighbourhood, that what may be called the very corner-stone of our public liberty rests--that is, the right and the duty of local self-government in all matters not expressly delegated to the national power. Now, if we go back to first principles, we find that the enactment on which all human society rests is, the royal law given by God Himself and re-enacted by His Son. You will observe that love to ones neighbour is likened to love to God. Let us try, then, to get at the principle on which love to God must rest, and this will be the principle of love to our neighbour. Why, then, should we love God with heart, mind, soul, strength? It is because in God man finds the ideals which are the prototypes of all that is noble in himself, and which therefore he must love if he would be true to his own better nature and higher destiny. And the obligation of man to love his neighbour as himself lies in the fact that it is in his neighbour that man gets his clearest revelation of God--more clear than any revelation in words or works. It is in the soul of man when looked at with the eyes of neighbourliness that man gets his best vision of the majesty and beauty of God. Now in the light of these considerations, think first of the dignity and discipline that belong to society. If we take society now as we know it, the social intercourse of Christian men and women under well-known rules of politeness and good manners, we find that it has a dignity of its own that entitles it to be considered one of the loftiest results of Christian civilisation. It was not till comparatively recent times that this great commonwealth of men and women was organised in the civilised world; and even now it is only among the English-speaking peoples and their congeners that it has attained a free development. This great commonwealth has its own gentle and gracious laws; its silent tribunals which noiselessly but unerringly enforce them; its dignities, its honours, its joys, its labours, its duties, its delights, the movements of which constitute the characteristic economy of modern civilised life. Now, the discipline of it will be apparent, when it is considered that the one principle which regulates it throughout is self-sacrifice. It is a great truth that the principle of the Cross underlies all good manners. Self-denial, self-control, self-sacrifice, the very essence of Christianity, are actually put into practice in the behaviour of good society. Men must restrain their baser impulses and instincts. Selfishness, if it exist at all, must at least be dissembled or concealed. Self-assertion must be abandoned. No man can even seem to be a gentleman who does not put into practice those principles of the Cross of Christ which the gospel commends to us; and no man can really be a gentleman unless be have those principles in his heart. The discipline of polite society, therefore, is of much importance in the culture of the Christian life, since it is the actual putting into practice of its principles, which, like all principles, cannot be fully appropriated until we use them. Little need be said of the educational influence of society. To see Christian men and women at their best; to turn toward them the best, side of our nature; to abjure pride; to banish self-seeking and selfishness; to follow, if only for an hour, lofty ideals; to enjoy the bright flashes of wit, the sustained delight of high converse; to think not of self but of others, and to lose ones self in gracious ministry to others--this of itself ought to be aa educating, ennobling employment, which would train men for ideal pursuits, both here and hereafter. And this brings me to my next topic--the dangers which beset society. First, there is selfishness--the selfishness which is always seeking its own good, its own advancement, its own advantage, in, through, or by means of society. This it is which so often makes society a mere vulgar competition, hospitality a mere sham and bargain, like the publicans giving merely to receive as much again. Akin to this danger, and no less base, is the frivolous or calculating worldliness which makes society a mere means of vulgar and pretentious display--a display which excludes the poor, which alienates classes, which works ruin to many a household, and which, like a dry-rot, soon makes the society where it prevails a mere sham. The last danger I shall mention is unreality.
In society it is so easy to be unreal; to pretend to feel more than one does feel; to seem glad when one is not glad, and sorry when one is not sorry; to say smooth and false things, because smooth and false things are so easy to be said. What is the remedy? A return to the great first principle on which society is founded--love to ones neighbour because he is a neighbour, and because he is a man. (Bp. S. S. Harris.)
The royal law
1. The law which is here called royal is the law of love and righteousness, prescribing what duty to every one pertaineth, and it containeth that part of the law which in the second table is delivered, teaching us to love without contemning, to prefer one without disdain of another, to regard the rich without neglect of the poor brethren.
2. This law of love is therefore called the royal law--
(1) Because it is from a king, not mortal but immortal: even the
King of kings and Lord of lords, even from God.
3. This law, furthermore, is called royal because it is like the kings highway. So the law of God, which is the law of love, is open, plain, without turnings, of all men to be done.
4. The law of love being this royal law, and for these causes so called, it enjoineth men to love their neighbours as themselves.
(1) That Gods law requireth love, who readeth the Scriptures and seeth not?
(2) The persons whom we must love are our neighbours, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(3) The manner how we must love is, as ourselves. And every man unfeignedly, fervently, continually loveth himself, so must we also love our neighbours. (R. Turnbull.)
Love to the neighbour
The word neighbour in this royal law had, through the lapse of ages, acquired a narrow meaning, mainly because mens thoughts and sympathies were less comprehensive than the Divine purpose. But Christ gave new applications to it, and a more expansive spiritual interpretation. The neighbour with Him was no longer confined to the same tribe, or to the dwellers in the same valley or nation, but became co-extensive with human suffering and misfortune throughout the vast family of mankind. Love thy neighbour as thyself. It is easy for most persons to love themselves, and to accept what appears to be for their own advantage. It is quite right, too, for a man to love himself. But his love to himself is not to be supreme and all-absorbing. He has to love other persons. The neighbour, you will observe, is put on the same level as self. Look at the question in this way. Suppose you loved others as well as you love yourself. That might be an agreeable thing to them to possess the confidence of your love; and suppose you in return were loved by them as much as they loved themselves, that ought to be a source of comfort to you. Put in this light the royal law does not seem a hard one, does it? And if it operated universally in society, and through all circles, the effect would be very beneficent and delightful, would it not? Yea, doubtless, say you, but that is not where the shoe pinches. It is when we have to love others, or the neighbour who does not love us, where the gist of the difficulty lies. Men ask, Am I to love a man who does not love me, nay, who may be utterly indifferent to me or even hate me? In a question of this nature no arguments we might urge would dislodge the man of carnal mind from his stronghold of indifference. But to a man who accepts the teaching of Christ we must affirm His Divine testimony (Mat_5:44-48). This interpretation of the royal law by the Master Himself settles at once, for those who acknowledge His authority, the degree and manner in which we are to love our neighbours, whether friends or enemies. Our love to our neighbour is to exhibit the same qualities, sincerity, constancy, activity, as the love which we cherish for ourselves. Attempts have been made to exclude the element of degree from the meaning of the words as thyself, on the ground that, from the constitution of human nature, obedience to such a command is impossible. But it would need much weightier reasons to prove that this thought of degree was not intended in the terms of the royal law. What is it in our neighbour we have to love as ourselves? And this suggests another question--What is it in thyself that thou hast to love? In what sense and to what extent is a man to love himself? Many persons love to pamper themselves, to indulge themselves, to amuse themselves; but these are as far from loving themselves truly, as the night from the day. For a man to love himself, as the Scriptures teach, means that he loves the best that is in him. I cannot love myself as I ought unless I keep my body, with all its powers and passions, under; unless I keep conscience and Christ enthroned in my heart. All that is false, cruel, deceptive, oppressive, slanderous, and dishonourable, I must repudiate, if I would love myself as the royal law teaches. We are not required by this royal law to love the sinful, the offensive, the evil characteristics and dispositions in our neighbour, any more than we are required to love these things in ourselves. But I am to love my neighbour in regard to things affecting his moral and spiritual well-being, and concerning his character and destiny for eternity. I am to help my neighbour to attain these higher, and holier, and better ends of his being, as certainly as I desire to help myself in the acquisition of these aims. Now briefly glance at the similarity of manner which love to self and love to the neighbour should exhibit. I ought to love myself with a sincere, active, and constant love. In like manner I am to display these same qualities in the love of my neighbour. Observe the wisdom and beauty of this saying, and how it is employed as a guide to a higher moral life. Self-love is ever present with us; inordinate self-love is the cause of most of the excesses and sins of our life. Christ takes hold of this very self-love and makes it the occasion and means of rising into a juster love of others. He appeals to the solicitude that we have regarding our own health, business reputation, and the desire to avoid self-injury, to cherish similar feelings toward others. The same motives that influence us in these things with respect to ourselves are to operate on behalf of our neighbour. If we are eagerly solicitous for our own spiritual welfare--our growth in peace, holiness, and righteousness of living, this, then, is to be the guide as to the manner and extent of our love for the spiritual good of our fellow-men. Love them in these ways as thou lovest thyself. (D. Jackson.)
Love of neighbour
Every man, so far as he is a man at all, is to be loved. But you will say, That rule, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, is in any case an impractical and an impossible rule. It is true that as thyself does not define the degree, it indicates the manner. Nor does it, of course, exclude differences. Blood is thicker than water. We must love best our nearest and dearest, our brethren and companions, our fellow countrymen, the good, the worthy, the large-hearted, the household of faith. Still even with these limitations to minds tainted by selfishness and vulgarised by custom, the commandment still appears doubtless an Utopian rule. Gods saints have felt it to be the most natural thing in the world. I could have wished myself to be anathema from Christ, says St. Paul, on behalf of my brethren. Smaller natures have been quite shocked by the expression, yet Moses had cried long before: Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin; and if not blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written. Danton in the French revolution was no Christian, yet even Danton could exclaim: Be my name branded if only France be freed; and the mission preacher who revived religious life in England exclaimed, Let George Whitefield perish if God be glorified. Surely even we must often enough have had the feeling that we care more for those whom we love than for ourselves. Surely for our children we must have prayed with Enoch Arden, Save them from this, whatever comes to me. In truth this care for others more than ourselves is the one distinguishing mark which separates the ignoble from the noble life. What is it which makes the life of frivolous, godless women, and debauched sottish men so inherently contemptible? It is their selfishness: they have shifted the centre of gravity from mankind to their own paltry greedy egotism; to whom applies the stern question of Carlyle, Art thou a vulture, then, and only carest to get for thyself so much carrion? Love to our neighbour has been the illumination of the world: it has kindled the scholars lamp, and nerved the reformers courage, and supported the statesmans strength, and enabled the truth-seeker to live on in the oppression of a perpetual sitting amidst corrupt Churches and an evil world. It is love to our neighbour which has over and over again purged the slum and built the orphanage and gathered little children into schools; it has bad compassion on the poor, it has given bread to the hungry, and covered the naked with a garment; it has held forth the Bible to the nations, it has launched the lifeboat, it has taken the prodigal by the right hand and opened the door of repentance to the harlot and the thief. It was love to our neighbour which burned like the fire of God upon the altar of their hearts, in a Carey, and a Livingstone, a Romilly, a Howard, a Clarkson; sent missionaries to the heathen, modified the ferocities of penal law, purified the prison, set free the slaves. It was love to our neighbour which, energising even an age of torpor and of mammon worship, sent Wesley to fan the flame amidst the dying embers of religion, and Gordon to toil among his ragged boys, and Coleridge Pattison to die by the poisoned arrows of savages, and Father Damien to waste away at loathly Molokai, a leper among the lepers. It is a dim reflection of the love of Him who lived and died to redeem a guilty world. It differentiates the worldly life and its low aims from the noble and Christian life as ready to do good even to them which despitefully use it and persecute it. Every true life comes nearest to the life of Christ by love to its neighbour, and this love which has next to nothing to do with any form of external religiosity is the essence and epitome of all pure religion; it is the end of the commandments; it is the fulfilling of the law. (Archdeacon Farrar.)
Love the law of the kingdom
The doctrine which bases all the relations of employer and employed upon self-interest is a doctrine of the pit; it has been bringing hell to earth in large installments for a great many years. You can have hell in your factory, or you can have heaven there, just as you please. If it is hell that you want, build your business on the law of hell, which is--Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Out of that will come fightings perennial and unrelenting. If it is heaven that you want, then build your business on the law of the kingdom of heaven, which is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. That will put you in the path of peace.
I am as good as you v. You are as good as I
James Russell Lowell touched a chord, with a master hand, when, some little time ago, he said: The Republic has gone on far too long on the principle I am as good as you, and she must now begin on the other principle, You are as good as I. These two principles illustrate, most forcibly, the respective principles of superstition and religion, of selfishness and sacrifice. Going on the principle of superstition and selfishness, the old world sickened and died, slain by its own hand. I am as good as you, filled the earth with demons and chimeras dire, whose chief employment it was to prey upon their authors. Christianity struck the note of fraternity, and pride gave place to humility, when the apostles went forth to declare to all men, You are as good as I.
Love of our neighbour
No one loves a person whom he does not wish should be better. (St. Gregory.)
Love of our neighbour not to be limited by desert
If you fancy that your love of your neighbour is to go no further than desert, consider what your condition is like to be if God shall so deal with you; that is, according to your desert. (Bishop Wilson.)
The royal law
The law may be called royal or kingly, either--
1. In the sense in which Plato speaks (Minos 2:566), of a just law as kingly or sovereign, using the same adjective as St. James, or--
2. As coming from God or Christ as the true king, and forming part of the fundamental code of the kingdom. In a Greek writer the first would probably be the thought intended. In one like St. James, living in the thought of a Divine kingdom, and believing in Jesus as the King, the latter is more likely to have been prominent. (Dean Plumptre.)
The suffering of injustice
When Athens was governed by the thirty tyrants, Socrates the philosopher was summoned to the senate house, and ordered to go with some other persons they named, to seize one Leon, a man of rank and fortune, whom they determined to put out of the way, that they might enjoy his estate. This commission Socrates flatly refused, and, not satisfied therewith, added his reasons for such refusal: I will never willingly assist an unjust act. Chericles sharply replied, Dost thou think, Socrates, to talk always in this high style, and not to suffer? Far from it, added he; I expect to suffer a thousand ills, but none so great as to do unjustly. (K. Arvine.)
Neighbourly consideration
We may think that great workers must be so absorbed as to forget others. Not so with Turner. A painter had sent in a picture to the Academy. In opposition to the rest of the hanging committee, Turner insisted, We must find a good place for this young mans picture. Impossible I impossible! No room! was the decision. Turner said no more, but quietly removed one of his own pictures and hung up the other in its place. On another occasion, when his picture of Cologne was hung between two portraits, their painter complained that Turners bright sky had thrown his pictures into the shade. At the private view, an acquaintance of Turners, who had seen the Cologne in all its splendour, led some friends to see the picture. He started back in amazement. The golden sky had become dim, and the glory was gone. He ran up to the artist, Turner, Turner! what have you been doing? Oh, whispered Turner, poor Lawrence was so unhappy! Its only lampblack, it will all wash off after the exhibition. It was only a wash of lampblack over his sky; but in the doing of this deed his character was lit up with a glory all his own.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv14, 19 Chapter 12
Chapter 12
FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION , OF THE TEACHING OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL-THE RELATION OF LUTHER TO BOTH.
Read full note →
Jam_2:14-26
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is One; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead."- Jam_2:14-26
THIS famous passage has been quoted in full, because one needs to have the whole of it before one in order to appreciate the value of the arguments used on this side and on that as to its relation to the teaching of St. Paul on the connection between faith and works; for which purpose mere extracts will not do; and also because considerable changes, some of them important, have been made throughout the passage by the Revisers, and these will influence the impression derived from reading the passage as a whole.
It might be thought that here, at any rate, we have got, in this singularly practical and undogmatic Epistle, a paragraph which is, both in intention and in effect, distinctly doctrinal. It seems at first sight to be a careful exposition of St. Jamess views as to the nature and value of faith and its relation to conduct. But a little attention will prove to us that throughout the passage St. James is as practical in his aim as in any part of the letter, and that whatever doctrinal teaching there may be in the passage is there because the practical purpose of the writer could not be fulfilled without involving doctrine, and not at all because the writers object is to expound or defend an article of the Christian faith. He has agenda rather than credenda in his mind. An orthodox creed is assumed throughout. What needs to be produced is not right belief, but right action.
In this affectionate pastoral St. James passes in review the defects which he knows to exist in his readers. They have their good points, but these are sadly marred by corresponding deficiencies. They are swift to hear, but also swift to speak and slow to act. They believe in Jesus Christ; but they dishonor Him by dishonoring His poor, while they profess to keep the law of charity by honoring the rich. They are Orthodox in a Monotheistic creed; but they rest content with that, and their orthodoxy is as barren as a dead tree. It is with this last defect that St. James is dealing in the passage before us. And as so often, {Jam_1:12; Jam_1:19; Jam_2:1; Jam_3:1; Jam_3:13; Jam_4:1; Jam_4:13; Jam_5:1; Jam_5:7; Jam_5:13} he clearly states his main point first, and then proceeds to enforce and elucidate it.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save Him? That faith" is literally "the faith," or "his faith"; viz., such faith as he professes, a faith that produces nothing. There is no emphasis on "say." St. James is not insinuating that the man says he has faith, when he really has none. If that were the case, it would be needless to ask, "Can his faith save him?" The question then would be, "Can his profession of faith save him?" But St. James nowhere throws doubt on the truth of the unprofitable believers professions, or on the possibility of believing much and doing nothing. Why, then, does he put in the "say"? Why not write, "If a man have faith"? Perhaps in order to indicate that in such cases the mans own statement is all the evidence there is that he has faith. In the case of other Christians their works prove them to be believers; but where there are no works you can only have the mans word for it that he believes. The case is parallel to that sketched by our blessed Lord, which St. James may have in his mind. "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy Name, and by Thy Name cast out devils, and by Thy Name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity". {Mat_7:21-23} In this case it is manifest that the profession of faith is not mere empty hypocrisy; it is not a saying of "Lord, Lord," to one who is not believed to be the Lord. It is a faith that can remove mountains, but divorced from the love which makes it acceptable. The two, which God hath joined together, have by mans self-will been put asunder.
The relation, therefore, of the teaching of St. James to that of His Divine Brother is clear: the two are in perfect harmony. What is its relation to the teaching of St. Paul? Omitting minor differences, there are in the main three answers to this question:
(1) The writer of this Epistle is deliberately contradicting and correcting the teaching of St. Paul
(2) St. James is correcting prevalent misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable misunderstandings, of the teaching of St. Paul.
(3) St. James writes without reference to, and possibly without knowledge of, the precise teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles respecting the relation between faith and works.
(1) Those who hold the first of these three views naturally maintain that the Epistle is not genuine, but the production of some one of a later age than St. James, who wished to have the great authority of his name to cover an attack upon the teaching of St. Paul. Thus F. C. Baur maintains that the doctrine of this Epistle must be considered as intended to correct that of Paul. This, which is taken from the second edition of his work on the "Life and Work of St. Paul," published after his death in 1860, by his pupil Zeller, may be taken as his matured opinion. In his history of the "Christian Church of the First Three Centuries," published in 1853, he expresses himself a little less positively: "It is impossible to deny that the Epistle of James presupposes the Pauline doctrine of justification. And if this be so, its tendency is distinctly anti-Pauline, though it may not be aimed directly against the Apostle himself. The Epistle contends against a one-sided conception of the Pauline doctrine, which was dangerous to practical Christianity." In both works alike Baur contends that the Epistle of James cannot be genuine, but is the product of some unknown writer in the second century. The opinions that our Epistle is directed against the teachings of St. Paul, and that it is not genuine, naturally go together. It is against all probability that St. James, who had supported St. Paul in the crisis at Jerusalem in A.D. 50, {Acts 15} and who had given to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, {Gal_2:9} should attack St. Pauls own teaching. But to deny the authenticity of the Epistle, and place it in a later age, does not really avoid the difficulty of the supposed attack on St. Paul, and it brings with it other difficulties of a no less serious character. In any case the letter is addressed to Jewish Christians; {Jam_1:1} and what need was there to put them on their guard against the teaching of a man whom they regarded with profound distrust, and whose claim to be an Apostle they denied? It would be as reasonable to warn Presbyterians against the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Besides all which, as Renan has shown, the letter sketches a state of things which would be inconceivable after the outbreak of the war which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem; i.e., it cannot be placed later than A.D. 66.
Dr. Salmon justly observes, "To a disciple of Baur there is no more disappointing document than this Epistle of James. Here, if anywhere in the New Testament, he might expect to find evidence of anti-Pauline rancor. There is what looks like flat contradiction between this Epistle and the teaching of St. Paul But that opposition to Paul which, on a superficial glance, we are disposed to ascribe to the Epistle of James, disappears on a closer examination. I postpone for the moment the question whether we can suppose that James intended to contradict Paul; but whether he intended it or not, he has not really done so; he has denied nothing that Paul has asserted, and asserted nothing that a disciple of Paul would care to deny. On comparing the language of James with that of Paul, all the distinctive expressions of the latter are found to be absent from the former. St. Pauls thesis is that a man is justified not by works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. James speaks only of works without any mention of the law, and of faith without any mention of Jesus Christ, the example of faith which he considers being merely the belief that there is one God. In other words, James is writing not in the interests of Judaism, but of morality. Paul taught that faith in Jesus Christ was able to justify a man uncircumcised and unobservant of the Mosaic ordinances. For this Pauline teaching James not only has no word of contradiction, but he gives no sign of ever having heard of the controversy which, according to Baur, formed the most striking feature in the early history of the Church…Whatever embarrassment the apparent disagreement between the Apostles has caused to orthodox theologians is as nothing in comparison with the embarrassment caused to a disciple of Baur by their fundamental agreement."
We may, therefore, safely abandon a theory which involves three such difficulties. It assigns a date to the Epistle utterly incompatible with its contents. It makes the writer warn Jewish Christians against teaching which they, of all Christians, were least likely to find attractive. And after all, the warning is futile; for the writers own teaching is fundamentally the same as that which it is supposed to oppose and correct. Besides all which, we may say with Reuss that this Tubingen criticism is merely baseless ingenuity. It "overlooks the unique originality of the Epistle"; and to ascribe to the writer of it "any ulterior motives at all is simply a useless display of acuteness."
(2) This last remark will not predispose us to regard with favor the second hypothesis mentioned above-that in this passage St. James is correcting prevalent misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable misunderstandings, of the teaching of St. Paul. There is no trace of any such intention, or of any anxiety on the subject. The purpose of the passage is not doctrinal at all, but, like the rest of the Epistle, eminently practical. The writers object throughout is to inculcate the necessity of right conduct. Readiness in hearing the Word of God is all very well, and correctness of belief in God is all very well; but without readiness to do what pleases Him it is as useless as a dead vine. Whether St. James remembered the words, "We reckon that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law," {Rom_3:28} must remain doubtful; for, as has been pointed out in a previous exposition, there is some reason for believing that he had seen the Epistle to the Romans. But there is no reason for believing that he was acquainted with the parallel statement in the Epistle to the Galatians, "We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believe on Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified". {Jam_2:15-16} Of one thing, however, we may feel confident, that, had St. James been intending to give the true meaning of either or both of these statements by St. Paul, in order to correct or obviate misunderstanding, he would not have worded his exposition in such a way that it would be possible for a hasty reader to suppose that he was contradicting the Apostle of the Gentiles instead of merely explaining him. He takes no pains to show that while St. Paul speaks of works of the law, i.e., ceremonial observances, he himself is speaking of good works generally, which St. Paul no less than himself regarded as a necessary accompaniment and outcome of living faith.
Moreover, was there any likelihood that the Jewish Christians would thus misinterpret St. Paul? Among Gentile Christians there was danger of this, because they misunderstood the meaning of the Christian liberty which he so enthusiastically preached. But with Jewish converts the danger was that they would refuse to listen to St. Paul in anything, not that they would be in such a hurry to accept his teaching that they would go away with a wrong impression as to what he really meant. And precisely that doctrine of St. Paul which was so liable to be misunderstood St. James proclaims as clearly as St. Paul does in this very Epistle. He also declares, more than once, that the Gospel is the "law of liberty". {Jam_1:25; Jam_2:12} Had St. James been writing to Gentiles, there might have been some reason for his putting his readers on their guard against misinterpreting St. Pauls manner of preaching the Gospel: in writing "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" there was little or no reason for so doing.
(3) We fall back, therefore, upon the far more probable view that in this passage St. James is merely following the course of his own argument, without thinking of St. Pauls teaching respecting the relation between faith and works.
How much of St. Pauls teaching he knew depends upon the date assigned to this Epistle, whether before A.D. 50 or after A.D. 60. At the later date St. James must have known a good deal, both from St. Paul himself, and also from many Jews of the Dispersion, who had heard the preaching of the Apostle in his missionary journeys, had seen some of his letters and brought both good and evil reports of his work to the Church at Jerusalem. Each year, at the Passover and other festivals, James would receive multitudes of such visitors. But it does not follow that because he knew a good deal about St. Pauls favorite topics, and his manner of presenting the faith to his hearers, therefore he has his teaching in his mind in writing to Jewish converts. The passage before us is thoroughly intelligible, if it is treated on its own merits without any reference to Pauline doctrine; and not only so, but we may say that it becomes more intelligible when so treated.
At the opening of the Epistle St. James insists on the necessity of faith: "knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience" (Jam_1:3); and "Let him ask in faith, nothing doubting" (Jam_1:6). Then he passes on to insist upon the necessity of practice: "Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves" (Jam_1:22); and "Being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh" (Jam_1:25). At the beginning of the second chapter he does exactly the same. He first assumes that as a matter of course his hearers have faith (Jam_2:1), and then goes on to show how this must be accompanied by the practice of charity and mercy towards all, and especially towards the poor (Jam_2:2-13). The passage before us is precisely on the same lines.
It is assumed that his readers profess to have faith (Jam_2:14; Jam_2:19); and St. James does not dispute the truth of this profession. But he maintains that unless this faith is productive of a corresponding practice, its existence is not proved, and its utility is disproved. It is as barren as a withered tree, and as lifeless as a corpse. Three times over he asserts, with simple emphasis, that faith apart from practice is dead (Jam_2:17; Jam_2:20; Jam_2:26). All which tends to show that the present paragraph comes quite naturally in the course of the exhortation, without any ulterior motive being assumed to explain it. It is in close harmony with what precedes, and thoroughly in keeping with the practical aim of the whole letter. We see how easily it might have been written by any one who was in earnest about religion and morality, without having heard a word about St. Pauls teaching respecting faith in Christ and works of the law.
It has been already pointed out that a letter addressed by a Jewish Christian to Jewish Christians would not be very likely to take account of St. Pauls doctrine, whether rightly or wrongly understood. It has also been shown that St. James, as is natural in such a letter, makes frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and also has numerous coincidences with portions of that now much-neglected Jewish literature which forms a connecting-link between the Old and the New, especially with the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. It was in the period in which that literature was produced that discussions as to the value of faith in God, as distinct from the fear of God, and in particular as to the faith of Abraham, the friend of God, began to be common among the Jews, especially in the Rabbinical schools. We find evidence of this in the Apocrypha itself. "Abraham was a great father of many people…and when he was proved he was found faithful" (Ecclus. 44:19, 20). "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness," {RAPC 1Ma 2:52} where the interrogative form of sentence may have suggested the interrogation of St. James. It will be observed that in these passages we have the adjective "faithful" (πιστος); not. yet the substantive "faith" (πιστος). But in the composite and later work which in our Bibles bears the name of the Second Book of Esdras we have faith frequently spoken of. "The way of truth shall be hidden, and the land shall be barren of faith" (5:1). "As for faith, it shall flourish, corruption shall be overcome, and the truth, which hath been so long without fruit, shall be declared" (6:28) "Truth shall stand, and faith shall wax strong" (7:34). And in two remarkable passages faith is spoken of in connection with works. "And every one that shall be saved, and shall be able to escape by his works, and by faith, whereby ye have believed, shall be preserved from the said perils, and shall see My salvation" (9:7, 8). "These are they that have works and faith towards the Most Mighty" (13:23). With Philo faith and the faith of Abraham are common topics. He calls it "the queen of the virtues," and the possessor of it "will bring a faultless and most fair sacrifice to God." Abrahams faith is not easy to imitate, so hard is it to trust in the unseen God rather than in the visible creation; whereas he without wavering believed that the things which were not present were already present, because of his most sure faith in Him Who promised. Other instances might be quoted from Jewish literature; but these suffice to show that the nature of faith, and the special merit of Abrahams faith, were subjects often discussed among Jews, and were likely to be familiar to those whom St. James addresses. This being so, it becomes probable that what he has in his mind is not Pauline doctrine, or any perversion of it, but some Pharisaic tenet respecting these things. The view that faith is formal orthodoxy-the belief in one God-and that correctness of belief suffices for the salvation of a son of Abraham, seems to be the kind of error against which St. James is contending. About faith in Christ or in His Resurrection there is not a word. It is the cold Monotheism which the self-satisfied Pharisee has brought with him into the Christian Church, and which he supposes will render charity and good works superfluous, that St. James is condemning. So far from this being a contradiction to St. Paul, it is the very doctrine which he taught, and almost in the same form of words. "What doth it profit (τι δφελος), my brethren," asks St. James, "if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing," says St. Paul. "And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing." (ουδεν ωφελουμαι).
St. Paul and St. James are thus found to be agreed. It remains to be shown that in spite of his own statements to the contrary, Luther was as fully agreed with the latter as with the former. When he writes about St. James, Luthers prejudices lead him to disparage a form of teaching which he has not been at the pains to comprehend. But when he expounds St. Paul he does so in words which would serve excellently as an exposition of the teaching of St. James. In his preface to the Epistle to the Romans he writes thus: "But faith is a Divine work in us, that changes us and begets us anew of God"; {Joh_1:13} and kills the old man, and makes of us quite other men in heart, courage, mind, and strength, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. Oh, it is a living, active, energetic, mighty thing, this faith, so that it is impossible that it should not work what is good without intermission. It does not even ask whether good works are to be done, but before one asks it has done them, and is ever doing. But he who does not do such works is a man without faith, is fumbling and looking about him for faith and good works, and knows neither the one nor the other, yet chatters and babbles many words about both.
"Faith is a living deliberate confidence in the grace of God, so sure that it would die a thousand times for its trust. And such confidence and experience of Divine grace make a man merry, bold, and joyful towards God and all creatures; all which the Holy Spirit does in faith. Hence the man without compulsion becomes willing and joyful to do good to every one, to serve every one, to endure everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. Therefore it is impossible to sever works from faith; yea, as impossible as to sever burning and shining from fire."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv8–26 8. The royal law according to the scripture. The…
8. The royal law according to the scripture. The law of love for one's neighbor, which is the fulfillment of the law. See Gal. 5:14.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv10, 14, 21, 25 Jas_2:10.—Omit word “point”; insert “precept” or “commandment.” Because the…
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Jas_2:10.—Omit word “point”; insert “precept” or “commandment.” Because the law is only the various application of one essential principle.
Read full note →
Jas_2:13.—Render, “For the judgment shall be merciless to him that wrought not mercy.” Rejoiceth against.—Or, “triumphs over.” Shakespeare has, “When mercy seasons justice”; “The quality of mercy is not strained,” etc.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Jas_2:10-13
The Law of Liberty.—That is the name for the law under which the Christian is placed; the law by which the Christian regulates all his life, conduct, and relations. One of the old divines puts it in the following quaint way: “I hear it said that a Christian may do what he likes. And so he may. Only a Christian is a man with a fresh set of likes.” The law of liberty can only be given to those who can be entrusted with it. It is a familiar point of apostolic teaching, that the formal law of Judaism proved ineffectual to the production of righteousness. St. James presents this truth in one form here. That old law so held together that the breaking of one part of it involved the penalty of the whole. The breaker was a transgressor, and as such must be dealt with. For the moment St. James takes the strictly Jewish standpoint. He wanted to deal with men who prided themselves on keeping the greater and more evident laws—as the young rich ruler did—but thought that very little importance attached to breaking it in its smaller provisions, or in matters that did not very manifestly disturb social order. They would wholly shrink back from “killing” or “adultery,” but they were quite indifferent to “despising the poor,” which, indeed, was hardly associated with that searching law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” But that really is the very essence of the second table of the Mosaic law, and therefore in breaking that law they broke it all. But St. James would have them understand that, as Christians, they were under a new law, one that was at once more searching and more inspiring, one that concerned itself about both the great and the little in Christian life and conduct. If they responded to the call of that law in merciful consideration of one another and kindly treatment of one another, they need be under no fear of judgment. Under the “law of liberty,” “mercy rejoices over judgment.”
I. The “law of liberty” frees from the bondage of the older law.—Because men were not able to go alone, not able to guide their moral or social life of themselves, therefore a formal law was given, stating precisely what they should do, and what they should not. It was a book of rules for their guidance in all relationships. But when a man wants to do the good and the right, he can put his book of rules on the shelf. That book is just as valuable as ever it was, only it does not now concern him, he does not need it; the new life in him can find all good and befitting expressions. The Christian has no evil word to say of the old law. “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Only he does not need it; because the very essence of it—love to God and his neighbour—is in him.
II. The “law of liberty” allows him to be a “law unto himself.”—When can a man be a law unto himself? When he is a man. It is the very mission of Christianity to make men; to nourish that self-restraint which ensures that no bodily passion and no external temptation shall prove overwhelming. A child cannot be a law unto himself. A youth can, only with important limitations. A man ought to be able to rule himself. A man in Christ Jesus ought, and can. He is free; but free unto holiness, free to do right. Christ was a “law unto Himself.”
III. The “law of liberty” permits a man to bind himself to Christ.—The free man need not be without attachments, without examples, without guidance, without a master. He is free in this sense—that he allows no one, and nothing, to put bonds on him. But he is free to put bonds on himself; and when he does so, he never thinks of them as bonds, he never calls them bonds. He is free to bind himself to Christ, but His service is perfect freedom. It were not freedom if the man were not free to choose his friend or his master.
IV. The “law of liberty” enables a man to use the old law when he pleases.—If he is free to put it away on the shelf, he is free also to take it down. In the free endeavour to adjust his life and relations, he may often find in the old law good counsel and guidance. He discovers its practical and experimental value, but has no such sense of its constraint as properly came upon the Jew. St. James intimates that if men order their conduct, as Christians, according to the “law of liberty,” they will never be servile to the rich and never despise the poor. Mercy will be sure to tone all their judgments.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Jas_2:10. Offending in One Point.—A law is the expression of the meaning of the law-making power. The constitution of the United States is the declaration of the method by which the law-making power—the people of the United States—intends to govern. A law will be right and beneficent in the proportion of the moral elevation of the power promulgating the law. A bad king, other things being equal, will promulgate bad laws. A community debased in moral tone will establish for itself correspondingly deteriorated laws. On the other hand, a supremely good governing power will express itself by law supremely good. God is the governor of the universe, and God is the supremely good; therefore the law which He has promulgated must be the expression of a nature infinitely good, and so must itself be infinitely good. This infinitely good law of God is stated for us,—in man’s moral constitution; in the Ten Commandments; in the condensed universal formula for right living by the Lord Jesus, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul and strength and mind, and thy neighbour as thyself”; still further, this law of God is taken out of a merely cold and mechanical and dead statement, and set before us and illustrated in the living person Jesus Christ. Our scripture declares that though a man keep the whole of this law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Why? Because, first, of the essential unity of the Divine Lord. The law of God is not made up of parts dissimilar in authority. You are under no less obligation to love your neighbour as yourself than to love God with your whole being. The sanctions sustaining either part of the law are just the same. The law of God is the expression of the one nature of God. Each particular of the law is equally holy with every other, and equally good with every other, and equally authoritative with every other. “For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” The law of God is a complete circle. It makes little difference whether you break into the circle at what you call the top or bottom or on either side; if it be fractured anywhere, it is broken. Here is some most precious statue, perfect save that it is broken as to its least finger. Is the statue whole? Is the unity of its beauty unimpaired? Is it not henceforth for ever a broken thing? In some true sense do not features and feet and limbs and hands share in the damaged unity? Is it not really true that that broken finger, offending though only in that one point against the law of wholeness, is yet guilty of breaking the entire law of wholeness? That perfect statue is the law of God. God’s law possesses in itself the majestic unity of perfection. It is the expression of the one perfect nature of Jehovah. Each least particular of it is essential to the unity and completeness of the whole. And if you break it in one particular, you for ever damage that law’s oneness, and do, in a most true sense, break it all, and so are guilty of it all. Profoundly true are these words of Milton: “If the law allow sin, it enters into a kind of covenant with sin; and if it do, there is not a greater sinner in the world than the law itself.” Because, second, that disposition which would break one point would, other things being equal, break any other point. “He who would, for sound religious reasons, keep one precept, would, from the same conscientious motive, abstain from breaking all the rest; and, on the other hand, he who would not for any religious reasons abstain from breaking one, has nothing within himself which would restrain him from breaking all the rest.” Because, third, the sin in one point inevitably spreads into sin in other points. As a fire that breaks out in one place, but soon consumes the whole dwelling.—Anon.
God’s Law is a Whole.—As a chain is snapped by failure of the weakest link, so the whole law, in its harmony and completeness as beheld by God, is broken by one offence of one man; and the penalty falls, of its own natural weight and incidence, on the culprit.
I. The requirement.—Keep the whole law.
II. The failure.—Stumble at one point.
III. The Divine reading of the failure.—It is virtually breaking all the laws, for it is breaking the thing—the law. The man who fails stands before God, not for a particular offence, but for breaking the law. This, however, must not be so presented as to lead men to assume that God recognises no degrees of criminality. What has to be impressed is the large moral significance of apparently insignificant moral offences.—Anon.
A Law of Liberty.—That is, a law which secures a man freedom for righteousness; and consequently comes down severely on a man when that freedom is abused.
Jas_2:12. The Dual-sphere of Relations.—“So speak ye, and so do.” A man finds expression for what is in him by speech and by action. He is known by his fruits in conduct; but it is also true that he is known by his fruits in conversation. A man comes into association with others and influences others by the substance and tone of his talk and by the example of his actions. But the importance of a man’s conduct-sphere is often exaggerated. It is when it is said that “three-fourths of life is conduct.” It is when the speech-sphere is not adequately and harmoniously estimated along with the conduct-sphere.
I. A man’s speech judged by the law of liberty.—The law of liberty is that law of liberty which orders a man’s life when he wants to do right. A man becomes free of law, and a law unto himself, when the love of righteousness is fully established in him. But this law of liberty becomes, in the use of the man himself concerning himself, the sternest and most searching law. It ensures such speech, such conversation, as becometh the gospel of Christ.
II. A man’s conduct judged by the law of liberty.—Apply the explanation of the law of liberty, given above, to the sphere of man’s actions and relations. When a man is right-minded, and attempts to rule his own conduct, there is a guarantee of righteousness. This truth is set forth in his characteristic way by the apostle John, when he says of the man ruled by the law of liberty, the love of righteousness, “He cannot sin, because he is born of God.” But the application of Christian principles to the sphere of conduct is much more constantly dealt with than their application in the sphere of conversation. And many an earnest Christian spoils the witness of his life because he does not pay due regard to the witness of his lips. It is not without special significance that the word “conversation” is used in the New Testament. It means the whole turning about of our relations, but it evidently includes the element of speech.
Jas_2:13. The Relativity of Mercy and Judgment.—The psalmist puts mercy and judgment together in a way that is somewhat surprising: “Also unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for Thou renderest to every man according to his work.” It is as if he had said of God, “His mercy is judgment”; “His judgment is mercy.” It would be no real mercy if God did not judge and punish His creatures. It would be no judgment of the Divine Father of men if mercy were not at the very heart of it. St. James here suggests that—
1. Usually mercy and judgment go together, hand in hand.
2. Occasions may occur which require judgment to go first, and mercy keep in the background. The special case referred to is that of the man who has showed no mercy to his fellow-man; a case illustrated by our Lord’s parable of the unforgiving servant. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”
3. Occasions may arise in which mercy stands forth to do her work, and judgment must lag behind. We can think of cases in which the mercifulness and charity of a man may put an arresting hand on judgment and “hide a multitude of sins.—R. T.
Mercy rejoiceth against Judgment.—Mercy is dear to God, and intercedes for the sinner, and breaks his chains, and dissipates the darkness, and quenches the fires of hell, and destroys the worm, and rescues from the gnashing of teeth. To her the gates of heaven are opened. She is the queen of virtues, and makes men like to God, for it is written, “Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luk_6:36). She has silver wings like the dove, and feathers of gold, and soars aloft, and is clothed with Divine glory, and stands by the throne of God; when we are in danger of being condemned, she rises up and pleads for us, and covers us with her defence, and enfolds us in her wings. God loves mercy more than sacrifice (Mat_9:13).—John Chrysostom.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2
Jas_2:10. Offending in One, Guilty in All.—The Rev. Mr. Leupolt, of India, found some difficulty in getting the idea contained in the above verse impressed upon the minds of the natives. Argument was resorted to, but without avail. “Never,” says he, “could I make the common people understand me without a parable.” In this parable he described a scene on the Ganges. “The day was dismal; the wind roared, the thunder pealed, the lightning was vivid, the waves of the Ganges rapid; the infuriated elements threatened destruction to every vessel on its waters; no boat could outlive the storm for any length of time. But see I—what is that? It is a boat in distress, filled with people, rapidly hurried along by the waves. Between the peals of thunder the shrieks of the people are heard. They fear the rocks on the shore, to which the current is driving them. What can be done for them? Could they but be drawn into the creek, they would be safe. Those on the shore look anxiously around, and discover a chain near them. A man instantly fastens a stone to a rope, binds the other end to the chain, and flings the stone into the boat. The rope is caught. The people eagerly lay hold on the chain, while those on shore begin to draw them, amid the raging elements, towards the creek. They already rejoice at the prospect of deliverance; but when they are within a few yards of the land one link of the chain breaks. I do not say ten links, but one link, in the middle of the chain. What shall these distressed people do now? Shall they still cling to the unbroken links? ‘No, no!’ says one of my hearers, ‘overboard with the chain, or it will sink them sooner.’ ‘What, then, shall they do?’ ‘Cast themselves upon the mercy of God,’ exclaimed another. ‘True,’ I replied; ‘if one commandment be broken, it is as though all of them were broken. We cannot be saved by them; we must trust in the mercy of God, and lay hold on the almighty hand of Christ, which is stretched out to save us.’ I have frequently used this parable, and always found it to answer.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v14 14-18. We see in these verses that the only…
ARGUMENT 8
FAITH AND WORK
Read full note →
14-18. We see in these verses that the only possible method of manifesting our faith is by our works, the legitimate fruit.
19. “Dost thou believe that there is one God? Thou doest well: the demons also believe and tremble.” The devil and his myrmidons are utterly dead, spiritually, yet possessing wonderful intellectual power. Man is a trinity, similitudinous to God, consisting of spirit, mind and body. The conscience, will and affections constitute the human spirit. The conscience survived the fall, still ringing out the voice of God in the soul of the most abandoned reprobates, always taking God’s side of the controversy. The will, the king of humanity, so long as we remain in sin being on the devil’s side, is turned over to God in conversion, ever afterward deciding with God in every emergency, while depravity still survives in the deep regions of the affections, till eliminated by entire sanctification. The mind embraces the intellect, the judgment, the memory and the sensibilities. Since the apostasy from the apostolic experience of Pentecostal baptism, the pulpits have been mainly filled by dichotomists, confounding the spirit with the mind, and, consequently, preaching mentalities instead of spiritualities. At the present day the popular preachers feed the mind and let the soul starve to death. The churches are thronged with people having nothing but intellectual faith, just like the devils; meanwhile they are spiritually dead. In common parlance, spirit, heart and soul are synonymous. While God says, in the Bible, “Speak comfortably to my people,” the Hebrew says, “Speak to the heart of my people.” During the last five Sundays I have heard five Doctors of Divinity in five great churches of this city (San Francisco) preach at 11 A.M. Those five sermons were to the mind exclusively, giving nothing to the poor soul for the conviction of a sinner, the conversion of a penitent or the sanctification of a Christian; meanwhile the multitudes walk down to hell. The human spirit, and not the mind, is the immortal being, destined to live forever in the flames of hell or the glories of heaven. The Lord multiply the holiness people a thousand times, as it is incumbent on them to give the Gospel to the world.
20-23. Here James refers to the notable case of Abraham when he offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah. Whereas God had repeatedly assured him that Isaac was to be the progenitor of Christ the Savior of the world, when, in flat contradiction, He ordered him to sacrifice his son for a burnt offering, the faith of the patriarch staggered not at the irreconcilable dilemma. Meanwhile he proposes to offer him for a sacrifice; his heroic faith leaps to the conclusion that God will surely raise him from the dead (Heb 11:19), and send him home rejoicing to meet his mother. Thus Abraham’s obedience confirmed and perfected his faith.
24. This verse shows conclusively the utter inadequacy and futility of a disobedient faith.
25. “In a similar manner was not Rahab the tavern keeper also justified by works, receiving the spies and sending them another way?” The Hebrew word zonash simply means a woman keeping a public house, without regard to her moral character. In this case we have clear revelation that she was a good woman, a friend of Israel and a believer in Jehovah, and hereby James mentioned her along with Abraham as an example of Christian faith made perfect by obedience. Having espoused the cause of Israel she became the wife of Salmon, a Hebrew, and one of the honored mothers of our Lord.
26. This verse assures us that faith without works is dead, being alone. The plain and simple meaning of dead faith is no faith at all, just as a dead horse is no horse practically. The Bible is a plain book, needing nothing but common sense and the Holy Ghost to understand it. Martin Luther, a great and good man, living in an age when Biblical exegesis was in its infancy, discarded the Epistle of James as spurious, because of its irreconcilable antagonism to the grand Pauline epistles on justification by faith alone, without works. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without deeds of law.” These apparent contradictions of Paul and James all evanesce on a fair exegesis. Paul is expounding the justification of a sinner whose work is all in Satan’s kingdom, and belongs to him. Hence the utter futility and nonsense in his attempt to procure justification by his good works. Let him do ever so much good work, as a matter of necessity he must do it in the devil’s kingdom, therefore Satan gets it all. Regeneration must bring him into the kingdom of God before he can possibly render obedience to divine law. James is describing the justification of a Christian, as we see abundantly evinced by the case of Abraham offering up Isaac forty-one years after he had been justified as a sinner by faith alone. Genesis 15 and Rom 4:22. In the gracious economy there are four justifications:
(1) In infancy, without either faith or works, by the free grace of God in Christ.
(2) In case of the guilty adult sinner by faith alone, when in the full and final abnegation and abandonment of all sin in the profound realization of his utter ruin and meatness for hell fire, in final desperation he casts himself on the mercy of God in Christ. Then the Father freely and fully forgives him for Christ’s sake only. The foolish dogma of a sinner’s justification by works has populated hell with millions, this vainly and ignorantly treating the vicarious atonement of Christ with contempt.
(3) After the sinner has been justified freely by the work of Christ received and appropriated by faith only, he must then be justified as a Christian (not in the sense of pardon, but approval), throughout the remainder of his life. James is addressing Christians, who can not be justified by faith only. A faith which remains alone is Satan’s counterfeit every time. Such a faith never brings justification but condemnation. Justifying faith is always active and obedient. Hence a Christian must constantly prove his faith by his works, like Abraham. When he ceases to obey God, his faith falters, and his experience dies.
(4) When we all stand before the Great White Throne in final judgment, we will be justified by works alone. Rev 22:12 and Mat 25:34. Our final judgment will have nothing to do with the heaven or hell problem; but with our reward in heaven and retributions in hell, which will be determined entirely by our works.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v14 Division 3. (Jas 2:14-26.)
Division 3. (Jas 2:14-26.)
The manifestation of faith by works.
Read full note →
We come now to that part of the epistle which has been more commented on, perhaps, certainly more misinterpreted, than any other part. Faith, as we have seen, is indeed, in a certain sense, the apostle’s subject all the way through. The works upon which he dwells are the works of faith. If that is not found in them, they are no good works for him. On the other hand, faith that hath not works is not faith. It is not to the dishonor of faith to say so: no, his argument is, that faith is such a fruitful principle that if the tree be there, its fruit will be surely found. The apostle’s subject here is the manifestation of faith by works. He is not in the least speaking of justification before God, as we have already said. That is not his subject, nor has the apostle Paul, whose subject it is, left such an important modification of his doctrine (as by many this is thought to be) to come in this disjointed manner from the mouth of another long afterwards. If it were indeed so, it would be a hopeless matter to follow the reasoning of any one writer by itself. He might have left out some important thing which should have been considered, and the absence of which would vitiate the whole argument. As has already been said, the apostle Paul distinctly leaves room for what James says here, when he says of Abraham that if he were justified by works he would have whereof to glory, and adds, "but not before God." No one can find, throughout what is said here, any hint that a man is justified by works before God. The whole question is one of the reality of profession. Christians are professedly believers, but what doth it profit if any one say he hath faith but hath not works? It is simply a question of saying it -professed faith. But can faith that is in profession merely, as here, save him? It was but a fair word. Who would think that it could profit if any were naked or lacking daily food, and one should say to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," and yet do nothing to furnish them with that which was needful? What would they think of it? The profession of faith merely would be nothing better than such a profession of works, which would falsify itself at once to any one. Faith, then, that has not works is dead in itself. There is no principle of fruit in it, and this, for us, is the test of its reality. We see at once that he is not thinking of God who knows the heart, but of man who does not know it, and who can only judge of it by the outward conduct. "Some one will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith apart from works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." It is plain that that is the only possible way, and it is equally plain that it is simply a question of manifestation before man. He does, indeed, assert that the faith that saves is that which is fruitful, but who questions that? and who could possibly desire to have it otherwise? It is a blessed thing to know that that which in itself is the humblest thing possible, and which turns one away from self to Another, is yet that which, by bringing into the presence of the great unseen realities, must of necessity have its corresponding fruit in life and walk. He takes in the mere Jew here, orthodox in his monotheism; but what had it wrought in him? It was, surely, well to believe that God is One, and the demons believe that too, but their faith is thus far fruitful that at least it makes them shudder; but the faith that is merely of lip, and cannot demonstrate itself, is really of no value.
And now he brings forward the case of Abraham, our father, to whose faith God Himself had borne witness. It is not, of course, in his purpose here to cite the Scripture which speaks thus simply as sufficient, however sufficient it was to that there was faith in Abraham. He does not say, as Paul does, that Abraham was justified by faith when "he believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Was that not true, then? It must certainly have been true, for the Scripture itself asserts it. But his point is that this faith, as to which God had pronounced, issued in works which justified Abraham as a believer -justified what was said by God, that "he believed God." Thus, he does not refer to what the fifteenth of Genesis brings before us, but takes us on to what came long years after in that magnificent display of faith on Abraham’s part, when he offered Isaac his son, his only son, upon the altar, at the command of God. Plainly, that was a work that needed itself to be justified by the faith that was in it. It was a faith which this rendered indisputable. It was plain to see how faith wrought with his works in this case, and by works the faith was made perfect; that is, it came thoroughly to fruition. Paul’s argument is as to the justification of the ungodly; James’ is as to the justification of one already accepted as a believer. It is a justification which we have to pronounce. The Scripture was here fulfilled which saith, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." It was not merely now that Scripture spoke, but that Abraham’s conduct spoke as to the truth of the Scripture. God had said that Abraham believed Him. His own conduct made it plain he did so. Thus he came into the blessed place of one whom God could call His friend; and thus "we see that a man is justified by works, and not by his faith only;" for if he had only his faith to speak of, no one could take account of it at all.
In Rahab the harlot we find even more conspicuously, in one way, the truth of this. She was but "Rahab the harlot." There were no good works, in the way men speak, that she could produce, surely, for her justification; but the works which justified her now were simply works that evidenced her faith, and which had all their value in it. She realized that the messengers were, as it were, the messengers of God. She saw and owned God in them. In that way she received them, although they had come to spy out the city in which she dwelt, that they might destroy it. Plainly, if it were not before God that she bowed in this, her works were not merely unprofitable, but only evil. The seeing God made the whole difference. It was God Himself who was pronouncing the judgment: how could she resist Him? Thus she had a faith which did not ennoble her: it was, as we know, accompanied, in fact, by deception, although such deception, no doubt, as men think all right in similar cases. But if the apostle were seeking moral works by which faith was to be enriched, works which had in themselves that natural excellence which men see in works of charity and such like, certainly he would not have taken up the poor harlot Rahab as an example of them. No, it is simply the evidence of faith that he is seeking, and that in order to show us that profession merely is nothing; there must be reality; and "as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." It is mere barren orthodoxy, as we are accustomed to say; and yet, with a Jew, how much his faith counted for! There was, and there is continually, the need of the warning; and the warning is simple enough if, instead of taking merely fragmentary expressions, we look at what is put before us here in its proper connection. He will not dishonor faith, as men so often dishonor it, by putting it as if it were something merely to stand side by side with works, so that one is to be estimated by the two together. No, says the apostle, the faith is that which produces the works, the life of them, and that which makes a man’s works to be acceptable to God in order to be acceptable at all. Such is the character of the faith that saves, and that does not make it, then, the works that save, or that help to save. The works simply distinguish it from the mere barren profession, which, barren as it is, men will at all times seek to make something of.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv14, 23 Jas 2:14-23.
James
FAITH WITHOUT WORKS
Read full note →
Jas 2:14-23.
JAMES thrice reiterates his point in this passage, and each repetition closes a branch of his argument. In verse 17 he draws the inference from his illustration of a worthy sympathy which does nothing; in verse 20 he deduces the same conclusion from the speech put into the mouth of an imaginary speaker; in verse 24 he draws it from the life of Abraham. We shall best get hold of the scope of these verse, by taking them three parts separately.
I. Now, most misconceptions of a writer’s meaning are due to imperfect definition of terms.
James was no metaphysician, and he does not stop to put precisely what he means by’ faith.’ Clearly he meant by it the full evangelical meaning of trust when he used it in the earlier part of the letter {Jas 1:3; Jas 1:6; Jas 2:1-5}. As clearly he here means a mere intellectual belief of religious truth, a barren orthodoxy. If that undeniable explanation of his terminology is kept steadily in view, much of the difficulty which has been found in bringing his teaching into harmony with Paul’s melts away at once. There is a distinct difference of tone and point of view between the two, but they entirely agree in the worthlessness of such a ‘faith,’ if faith it can be called. Probably Paul would not have called it so, but James accepts the ‘saying’ of the man whom he is confuting, and consents to call his purely intellectual-belief faith. And then he crushes it to atoms as hollow and worthless, in which process Paul would gladly have lent a hand.
We may observe that verse 14 begins with supposing the case of a mere lip ‘faith,’ while verse 17 widens its conclusion to include not only that, but any ‘faith,’ however real, which does not lead to works. The logic of the passage would, perhaps, hang better together if verse 14 had run ‘if a man have faith’; but there is keen irony as well as truth in the suggestion that a faith which has no deeds often has abundant talk. The people who least live their creeds are not seldom the people who shout loudest about them. The parslysis which affects the arms does not, in these cases, interfere with the tongue. James had seen plenty of that kind of faith, both among Pharisees and Jewish Christians, and he had a holy horror of loose tongues {Jas 3:2-12}. That kind of faith is not extinct yet, and we need to urge James’s question quite as much as he did: ‘Can that faith save?’ Observe the emphasis on ‘ that’ which the Revised Version rightly gives.
The homely illustration of the very tender sympathy which gushes inwards, and does nothing to clothe naked backs or fill empty stomachs, perhaps has a sting in it, Possibly the very orthodox Jewish Christians with whom James is contending were less willing to help poor brethren than were the Gentile Christians.
But, in any case, there is no denying the force of the parallel. Sympathy, like every other emotion, is meant to influence action. If it does not, what is the use of it? What is the good of getting up fire in the furnace, and making a mighty roaring of steam, if it all escapes at the waste-pipe, and drives no wheels? And what is the good of a ‘faith’ which only rushes out at the escape-pipe of talk? It is ‘dead in itself.’ Rom 2:17-29 shows Paul’s way of putting the same truth. Emotion and beliefs which do not shape conduct are worthless Faith, if it have not works, is dead.
II. The same conclusion is arrived at by another road in verses 18-20.
James introduces an imaginary speaker, who replies to the man who says that he has faith. This new interlocutor ‘says’ his say too. But he is not objecting, as has been sometimes thought, to James, but to the first speaker, and he is expressing James’s own thought, which the Apostle does not utter in his own person, perhaps because he would avoid the appearance of boasting of his own deeds. To take this speaker as opposing James brings hopeless confusion, What does the new speaker say? He takes up the first one’s assertion of having ‘faith’; he will not say that he himself has it, but he challenges the other man to show his, if he can, by any other way than by exhibiting the fruits of faith, while he himself is prepared and content to be tested by the same test. That is to say, talk does not prove the possession of faith; the only possible demonstration that one has it is deeds, which are its fruits. If a man has {true} faith, it will mould his conduct. If he has nothing to produce but his bare assertion, then he cannot show it at all; and if no evidence of its existence is forthcoming, it does not exist.
Motion is the test of life. A ‘faith’ which does nothing, which moves no limb, is a corpse. On the other hand, if grapes grow ruddy and sweet in their clusters, there must be a vine on which they grow, though its stem and root may be unseen. ‘What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.’ True faith will be fruitful. Is not this Paul’s doctrine too? Does not he speak of ‘faith that worketh by love?’ Is it not his principle, too, that faith is the source of conduct, the active principle of the Christian life, and that if there are no results of it in the life, there is none of it in the heart?
But the second speaker has a sharp dart of irony in his quiver {verse 13}. ‘You plume yourself on your monotheistic creed, do you, and you think that that is enough to make you a child of God’s? Well, that is good, as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. You have companions in it, for the demons believe it still more thoroughly than you do; and, what is more, it produces more effect on them than on you. You do nothing in consequence of your belief; they shudder, at any rate - a grim result, but one showing that their belief goes deeper than yours. The arrow gains in point and keenness if we observe that James quotes the very words which are contained in the great profession of monotheism which was recited morning and evening by every Jew {Deu 6:4, etc.}. James seems, in verse 20, to speak again in his own name, and to reassert his main thought as enforced by this second argument.
III. He has been arguing from the very nature of faith, and the relation between it and conduct.
Now he turns to history and appeals to Abraham’s case. In these verses he goes over the same ground as Paul does in Romans 5., and there is a distinct verbal contradiction between verse 24 here and Rom 3:28; but it is only verbal. Are the two apostles writing in ignorance of each other’s words, or does the one refer to the other, and, if so, which is the earlier? These are interesting questions, to deal with which satisfactorily would more than exhaust our space.
No doubt the case of Abraham was a commonplace in rabbinical teaching, and both Paul and James had been accustomed to hear his history commented upon and tortured in all sorts of connections. The mere reference to the patriarch is no proof of either writer having known of the other; but the manner of it raises a presumption in that direction, and if either is referring to the other, it is easier to understand Paul if he is alluding to James, than James as alluding to Paul.
Their apparent disagreement is only apparent. For what are the’ works’ to which James ascribes justifying power? Verse 22 distinctly answers the question. They are acts which spring from faith, and which in turn, as being its fruits, ‘perfect’ it, as a tree is perfect when it has manifested its maturity by bearing. Surely Paul’s doctrine is absolutely identical with this He too held that, on the one hand, faith creates work, and on the other, works perfect faith. The works which Paul declares are valueless, and which he calls ‘the works of the law,’ are not those which James asserts ‘justify.’ The faith which James brands as worthless is not that which Paul proclaims as the condition of justifying; the one is a mere assent to a creed, the other is a living trust in a living Person.
James points to the sacrifice of Isaac as ‘justifying’ Abraham, and has in mind the divine eulogium, ‘Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me,’ but he distinctly traces that transcendent act of an unquestioning devotion to the ‘faith’ which wrought with it, and was perfected by it. He quotes the earlier divine declaration {Gen 15:6} as ‘fulfilled’ at that later time, By which very expression is implied, not only that the root of the sacrifice was faith, but that the words were true in a yet higher sense and completer degree, when that sacrifice had ‘perfected’ the patriarch’s faith.
The ultimate conclusion in verse 24 has to be read in the light of these considerations, and then it appears plainly that there is no contradiction in fact between the two apostles. ‘The argument.., has no bearing on St. Paul’s doctrine, its purport being, in the words of John Bunyan, to insist that "at the day of doom men shall be judged according to their fruit." It will not be said then, Did you believe? but, Were you doers or talkers only?’ {Mayor, Epistle of St.. James, LXXXVIII}.
No doubt, the two men look at the truth from a somewhat different standpoint. The one is intensely practical, the other goes deeper. The one fixes his eye on the fruits, the other digs down to the root. To the one the flow of the river is the more prominent; to the other, the fountain from which it rises, But they supplement, and do not contradict, each other. A shrewd old Scotsman once criticised an elaborate ‘Harmony’ of the Gospels, by the remark that the author had ‘spent a heap of pains in making four men agree that had never cast [fallen] out.’ We may say the same of many laborious reconciliations of James, the urgent preacher of Christian righteousness, and Paul, the earnest proclaimer that ‘a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv9, 11, 14, 21, 22, 23 Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").
sin
Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv10, 14, 21 The will of God to be kept in all…
The will of God to be kept in all parts:
v. 10. For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend-in one point, he is guilty of all.
Read full note →
v. 11. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.
v. 12. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
v. 13. For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
The solidarity, the unity of the will of God is here brought out. For in connection with the fact that a carnal preference of persons is a transgression of the holy will of God, the apostle argues: For whoever keeps the whole Law, offends, however, in a single thing, has become guilty of all. A person might argue that an offense of the kind as explained by the apostle really did not amount to much, that the fault, if it might be designated so, would surely be overlooked by God. But as a matter of fact, he that transgresses, stumbles, becomes guilty in any single point pertaining to the Law of God, no matter how insignificant it might seem by comparison, is considered a transgressor of all. To profane one commandment means to have broken all.
This is now illustrated: For He that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, also said, Thou shalt not kill; if, then, thou dost not commit adultery, but committest murder, thou becomes a transgressor of the Law. The will of the Lord is one and cannot be divided any more than His essence and qualities can be divided. Both adultery and murder are prohibited by God, and the adulterer cannot offer as an excuse that he has murdered no one, nor can the murderer escape by pleading that he has not become guilty of adultery. In either case the Law has been transgressed; in either case the guilty one is punished according to the same rule, which says that the soul which sinneth shall die.
The advice of the apostle therefore is: So speak and so act as those that want to be judged through the law of freedom. The Christians, as Christians, are not under the Law, but under grace. Their life of sanctification is governed by the law of freedom, that is, they govern their words and actions by their love toward God, by their relation to their heavenly Father as His dear children. Because they are free and have become the servants of righteousness, they find their delight in speaking and acting as it pleases their heavenly Father and Christ. It is in this way, according to this standard, that the Christians want to be judged.
Those that do not want to heed this fact will be compelled to heed the warning: For the judgment is merciless to him that did not practice mercy; but mercy will boast in the face of judgment. If a person does not practice mercy and charity in this life, also in his behavior toward his neighbor of low degree, then the judgment will likewise deny him mercy; he will be treated according to the full measure of justice and be condemned. If, however, a Christian has shown himself merciful at all times, full of charity to all men under all circumstances, then he need not fear the Last Judgment, but may exult at the thought of it, since God, out of His boundless mercy, will then dispense mercy. See Mat 5:7.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 21, 25 you fulfill
you fulfill
The word "you" refers to the Jewish believers. (See: Forms of You)
Read full note →
fulfill the royal law
"obey God's law." God originally gave laws to Moses, recorded in the books of the Old Testament.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself
James is quoting from the book of Leviticus.
your neighbor
"all people" or "everyone"
you do well
"you are doing well" or "you are doing what is right"
if you favor
"give special treatment to" or "give honor to"
committing sin
"sinning." That is, breaking the law.
convicted by the law as lawbreakers
Here the law is spoken of as if it were a human judge. AT: "guilty of breaking God's law" (See: Personification)
translationWords
law
word of God
neighbor
sin
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 2:8-13 James applies biblical evidence to counter the common…
2:8-13 James applies biblical evidence to counter the common practice of favoring rich and powerful people.
2:8 Christians are to obey (literally fulfill) the royal law, just as Jesus fulfilled the law by his coming (Matt 5:17) and his teaching (Matt 22:34-40). • The law is called royal because it belongs to the Kingdom (Jas 2:5) and was articulated by our glorious Lord (King). • as found in the Scriptures: James changes from a general reference to the law to a specific written commandment from the holiness code (Lev 19). It specifies how our love for God is to be expressed in relationships with other people (see Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5). • “Love your neighbor as yourself”: This quotation from Lev 19:18 requires identifying with the neighbor as though the neighbor were yourself.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.