James 2

James 2:1-99

CHAPTER 2

1-7. To court the rich and neglect the poorin the house of worship reverses real values.

In 2:1-7 the thought of the supreme importance of conduct, stated in 1:26-27, is further illustrated by an instance from a situation of common occurrence. With this instance the writer connects his reply to two excuses or pretexts (vv. 8-13, 14-26), which are perversions of true religion, and in so doing he is led to enter upon broader discussions. Ch. 2 is more original and less a repetition of current Jewish ideas than any other part of the epistle.

1. ἀδελφοίμου , marking transition to a new topic, cf. 1:19, 2:14, 3:1, 5:7, and see note on 1:2.

ἐνπροσωπολημψίαις “ with acts of partiality.” προσωπολημψία (found also Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, Polyc. Phil. 6), together with the cognate words προσωπολημπτεῖν (James 2:9), προσωπολήμπτης (Acts 10:34), ἀπροσωπόλημπτος (ecclesiastical writers), ἀπροσωπολήμπτως (1 Peter 1:17, Clem. Romans 1:3, Barn. 4:12), is a compound formed from the LXX translation of the O. T. phrase נ ָ ש ׂ ָ א פ ָ נ ִ י ם , λαμβάνεινπρόσωπον , Leviticus 19:15, Psalms 82:2, etc. (For an analogous compound, cf. ἐμοσχοποίησαν , Acts 7:41). These words were of course used only among persons acquainted with the Greek O. T., that is, Jews and Christians.

This group of expressions has had a history not unlike that of English “ favour,” “ favouritism,” etc., and, having often had originally an innocent sense, came in the O. T. to mean “ respect of persons” in the sense of improper partiality. The early uses related chiefly to partiality on the part of a judge. In later use any kind of improper partiality might be meant, whether judicial favouritism or, as here, selfish truckling to the powerful. For the meaning of the Hebrew expression, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, s. v. נ ָ ש ׂ ָ א , p. 916; cf. Lightfoot on Galatians 2:6, and, for some similar O. T. expressions, Mayor on James 2:1.

The plural denotes the several manifestations of favouritism; cf. Winer, § 27, 3; Hadley-Allen, § 636; cf. 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:20, 1 Peter 4:3.

ἐν denotes the state, or condition, in which the act is done; here the acts with which the action of the main verb is accompanied. Cf. 2 Peter 3:11 ὑπάρχεινἐνεὐσεβείαις , Colossians 3:22 ὑπακούετε … μὴἐνὀφθαλμοδουλίαις , James 1:21 ἐνπραΰτητι .

Warnings against contempt of the poor are common in the O. T., cf. Leviticus 19:15, Proverbs 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, etc.

μὴἔχετε . Not interrogative (R.V. mg., WH.), but imperative (A.V., R.V. text), as is better suited to the gnomic style of the epistle (cf. 1:2, 22, 3:1, 4:11, etc.), and to the following context.

The question “ Do ye, in accepting persons, hold the faith of our Lord?” would express doubt whether a faith accompanied by this fault is true faith in Jesus Christ at all.

But this makes a weak and unnatural opening to the paragraph, is too subtle and indirect for so straightforward a writer, and does not suit so well the transition to the following sentence with γάρ . This writer (e. g. in vv. 5, 6, 7) uses the question-form rather in argument than in exhortation. Note, too, the directness with which his other paragraphs open, e. g. 1:2, 5, 3:1, 5:7. Moreover, such a surprisingly drastic denial that the readers were Christian believers would require a clearer form of statement.

ἔχετετὴνπίστιν . Cf. 2:14, 18, 3:14, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:22, Luke 17:6, Acts 14:9, Romans 14:22, 1 Timothy 1:19, Philemon 1:5. ἔχω is used in its natural sense, with reference to “ having” an inner quality. This is a Greek usage, see L. and S. s. v. ἔχω A. I. 8. Cf. τηρεῖντὴνπίστιν , 2 Timothy 4:7, Revelation 14:12. For the whole phrase, cf. Herm. Mand. v, 2:3 τῶντὴνπίστινἐχόντωνὁλόκληρον .

τὴνπίστιν . The “ subjective” faith, not the later idea of a body of doctrine to be believed; so throughout this epistle, 1:3, 6, 2:5, 14-26, 5:15. Faith in Jesus Christ is the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian. See A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament2, 1896.

τοῦκυρίου . Objective genitive, cf. Mark 11:22, Galatians 2:16; Hermas, Sim. vi, 1:2, etc.

The view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube, 1891, and James Drummond, Epistle to the Galatians, 1893, p. 91, that these genitives after πίστις are subjective, not objective, is unnatural, and seems disproved by both Mark 11:22 and Galatians 2:16. See Sanday on Romans 3:22. Hort paraphrases: the faith “ which comes from Him and depends on Him,” but this is unnecessary.

τῆςδόξης . “ Glory” is the majesty and brightness of light in which God dwells, and which belongs also to the Messiah; see Sanday on Romans 3:23, G. B. Gray, art. “ Glory,” in HDB; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900.

The interpretation now most commonly given for this difficult expression is probably right. τῆςδόξης is genitive of characteristic , limiting the whole preceding phrase τοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , i. e. “ our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” The expression is a not altogether happy expansion of ὁκύριοςτῆςδόξης (1 Corinthians 2:8), cf. ὁθεὸςτῆςδόξης , Psalms 29:3, Acts 7:2, ὁπατὴρτῆςδόξης , Ephesians 1:17. By its solemnity the writer may intend to emphasise the inconsistency between the great privilege of Christian faith and this petty discrimination between rich and poor.

No convincing objection can be made to this interpretation, although there is no complete parallel to it. Among the other interpretations the following deserve mention:

(1) ταῖςπροσωπολημψίαιςτῆςδόξης , “ partiality arising from your own opinion,” or “ partiality arising from external glory” (admiratio hominum secundum externum splendorem, Michaelis). But the separation of the words is too great, and the meaning “ glory” for δόξα in this context too obvious, to permit this interpretation, and it is now held by no one.

(2) τὴνπίστιντῆςδόξης , “ faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Pesh.), or “ Christ-given faith in the glory” (i. e. the glory which we are to receive, Romans 8:18), or “ the glorious faith in Christ.” But the last two of these are forced, and the first involves too strange an order of words to be acceptable, in spite of such partial analogies as Acts 4:33, 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Cf. Buttmann, § 151, III; Winer, § 61, 4; for many illustrations of hyperbaton from LXX and secular authors, see Heisen, Novae hypotheses, pp. 768 ff.

(3) Various interpretations separate off some part of the phrase τοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , which is then connected with τῆςδόξης , and the two together taken as in apposition with the rest of the phrase. The least objectionable of these is perhaps that of Ewald, “ our Lord, Jesus Christ of glory” ; but this division is unnecessary, and it seems impossible that the writer should not have meant to keep together the whole of the familiar designation.

(4) A.V. and R.V. supply τοῦκυρίου , and translate “ the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.” There are abundant parallels for this latter phrase, but none for such a singular omission.

(5) Bengel, Mayor, Hort, WH. mg., and others take τῆςδόξης as in apposition to the preceding and as referring to Christ (perhaps as the Shekinah) under the title of “ the Glory.” But the evidence that this is a possible use of ἡδόξα (see the full note of Mayor3, pp. 79 ff., cf. Luke 2:31, Ephesians 1:17, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:3) is inadequate.

(6) Spitta and Massebieau think the words ἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ an interpolation by the Christian editor. This would leave the expression “ the Lord of glory,” referring, as in Enoch, to God. Beyschlag’ s answer to this, that an interpolator would not have broken the phrase τοῦκυρίουτῆςδόξης , is not quite satisfactory, since the natural words to follow τοῦκυρίου are ἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . But the interpolation is not sufficiently obvious to justify itself apart from the general theory to which it belongs. See the long note in Mayor.

2. γάρ explains the warning by pointing out that respect of persons is easily recognisable as sin. γάρ introduces οὐδιεκρίθητεκτλ ., v. 4.

εἰσέλθῃ , cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23-25.

συναγωγήν means “ meeting,” and it is not necessary here to distinguish between the “ meeting” as an occasion and as an assembled body of persons. It is the proper word for a Jewish religious meeting, but is occasionally used, chiefly by writers having some Jewish or Syrian connection, for a Christian meeting; cf. Herm. Mand. xi, 9 ὅτανοὖνἔλθῃὁἄνθρωποςὁἔχωντὸπνεῦματὸθεῖονεἰςσυναγωγὴνἀνδρῶνδικαίων ; Ign. Polyc. 4:2; Iren. Hæ r. iv, 31:1, 2; Epiph.

Hæ r. xxx, 18 συναγωγὴνδὲοὗτοι [the Ebionites] καλοῦσιτὴνἑαυτῶνἐκκλησίαν , καὶοὐχὶἐκκλησίαν . The Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialect used a single word [כ נ י ש ׁ ת א ] as well for “ synagogue” as for “ church.” In view of this wide-spread occasional use, no trustworthy inference as to the place of writing of the epistle, still less any conclusion as to its Jewish-Christian authorship, or as to the nationality of the persons addressed, can be drawn from the occurrence of this word here.

The material is fully collected and well discussed by Zahn, Einleitung, i, § 4, note 1; Harnack in his long note on Hermas, Mand. xi, 9; Schü rer, GJV, ii, § 27, notes 11 and 12.

The meaning “ place of meeting,” “ meeting-house,” natural if this were a Jewish synagogue, is wholly unlikely for a Christian writing. The only parallel to be adduced would be the inscription (from a locality not far from Damascus) ΣυναγωγὴΜαρκιωνιστῶν , κώμΛεβάβωντοῦκυκαὶςρἸηΧρηστοῦ , προνοίᾳΠαύλουπρεσβ , τοῦλχ͵ἔτους , Le Bas-Waddington, Inscript. grecques et lat. iii, no. 2558. The date is a.d. 318-319.

χρυσοδακτύλιος , cf. Luke 15:22, also Genesis 38:18, Genesis 38:25, 41:42, Isaiah 3:21; and see note in Mayor3, p. 83, and “ Ring,” in EB, HDB, and Dictt. Antt. for details of the custom of wearing rings.

For similar description of a rich gentleman, cf. Epictet. i, 22:18 ἥξειτιςγέρωνπολιὸςχρυσοῦςδακτυλίουςἔχωνπολλούς , Seneca, Nat. quæ st. vii, 31 exornamus anulis digitos, in omni articulo gemmam disponimus.

χρυσοδακτύλιος is found only here, but is correctly formed, cf. χρυσόχειρ in the same sense, χρυσοστέφανος , χρυσοχάλινος , etc.

ἐνἐσθῆτιλαμπρᾷ , cf. Luke 23:11.

The term λαμπρός seems here to refer to elegant and luxurious, “ fine,” clothes (cf. Revelation 18:14), but it can also be used of freshness or cleanness (Revelation 15:6) without reference to costliness, and sometimes (Acts 10:30) appears to mean “ shining.” Its natural opposite in all these senses is ῥυπαρός , “ dirty,” “ shabby,” as below, cf. Philo, De Joseph. 20, ἀντὶῥυπώσηςλαμπρὰνἐσθῆταἀντιδόντες . Mayor gives other instructive references. See also Lex.. s. vv. λαμπρός and ῥυπαρός .

For the same construction as vv. 2, 3, cf. vv. 15-16.

3. ἐπιβλέψητε , “ look,” i. e. with favour, “ have regard.” ἐπιβλέπειν has this sense also in Luke 1:48, Luke 9:38, apparently through the influence of the LXX usage; cf. 1 Samuel 1:11, 1 Samuel 9:16, Psalms 25:16, Psalms 69:16, Job 3:3, Judith 13:4, etc. The development of this sense in an appropriate context is a natural one; but in classical usage only Aristotle, Eth. Nic. iv, 2, p. 1120, is cited.

εἴπητε . Doubtless the speaker is one of the dignitaries of the congregation, cf. τὸὑποπόδιόνμου .

κάθου . This form of the imperative , found uniformly in O. T. and N. T., was doubtless in ordinary colloquial use, as is attested by its occurrence in comic writers of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c. and in post-classical usage. See Lex. s. v. and Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 3, note 3.

καλῶς . Usually explained as meaning “ in a good seat,” “ comfortably.” But the usage does not fully justify this (see Mayor’ s citations), and some polite idiom in the sense of “ please,” “ pray,” is to be suspected. In various Greek liturgies the minister’ s direction to the worshipping congregation, στῶμενκαλῶς , presents the same difficulty and suggests the same explanation. See F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western, vol. i, Oxford, 1896, pp. 43, 49, 383, 471. The Syrian liturgies sometimes merely carry this over, “ Stō men kalō s, ” but also render by, “ Stand we all fairly,” ibid. pp. 72, 74, 104. On the Jewish custom of distinguished places in the synagogue, cf. Matthew 23:6, Mark 12:39, Luke 11:43, Luke 20:46, and see “ Synagogue,” in EB and HDB

A noteworthy commentary on these verses is offered by a passage found in various ancient books of church order. Its oldest form is perhaps that in the Ethiopic Statutes of the Apostles (ed. Horner, 1904, pp. 195 f.): “ And if any other man or woman comes in lay dress [i. e. in fine clothes], either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place (for them) the lover of brothers or of sisters, having risen, will leave place for them.

“ … And if a poor man or woman either of the district or of the (other) districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be respecting the person of man but of God.”

See also the Syriac Didascalia apostolorum, 12; Apostolic Constitutions, ii, 58; E. v. d. Goltz, “ Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlicher Gemeindeordnungen,” in Sitzungsberichte der kgl. preuss. Akademie, 1906, pp. 141-157. There is no sufficient indication that the passage is dependent on James.

στῆθι , in contrast to κάθου .

στῆθιἢκάθουἐκεῖ ] B ff.

στῆθιἢκάθου ] sah.

στῆθιἐκεῖἢκάθου ] A 33 minn Cyr vg Jer Aug syrhcl.

στῆθιἐκεῖἢκάθουὧδε ] א C2KLP minn boh syrpesh.

στῆθιἐκεῖκαὶκάθου ] C*.

The reading of B ff makes the rough words an invitation to stand or to take a poor seat. So the Sahidic, which thus on the whole supports B ff. The readings of A al and א al seem to be different emendations, both due to the wish to make στῆθι explicit and so to create a better parallelism. But since the indefinite ἐκεῖ does not in itself imply any disrespect to the visitor, the effect is to lessen rather than intensify the rudeness of στῆθι , and the product is a weaker text than that of B ff (sah). The text of B ff is thus on both external (see p. 85) and internal grounds to be preferred.

ἢκάθουἐκεῖὑπὸτὸὑποπόδιόνμου , i. e. in a humble place. This is a sorry alternative to standing. Cf. Deuteronomy 33:3 ὑπόσε , “ at thy feet,” Luke 8:35, Luke 10:39, Acts 22:3 παρὰτοὺςπόδας .

These persons who come into the meeting are visitors, who may be won for the church, and the treatment of them at this critical moment reveals the real feeling of the members toward the relative worth of the different classes in society. The visitors seem clearly distinguished from the members of the congregation; and nothing indicates, or suggests, that they are members of sister churches. They are undoubtedly outsiders, whether Jews or Gentiles.

ὑπό ] B3 P 33 minn have emendation to the easier ἐπί .

4. οὐ ] Omitted by B ff minn. The repetition of — ΟΥΟΥ might suggest either the insertion or the omission of the word in transcription. The attestation and the greater intrinsic vigour of the sense speak for the omission.

KLP minn read καὶοὐ , the καί being added to indicate the apodosis.

διεκρίθητε . “ Ye have wavered,” “ doubted,” i. e. “ practically, by your unsuitable conduct, departed from and denied the faith of v. 1, and thus fallen under the condemnation pronounced in 1:6-8 against the δίψυχος .” Cf. 1:6 and note, 3:17 ἀδιάκριτος ; and, for the mode of argument, 1:8 δίψυχος , 4:8 ἁμαρτωλοί , δίψυχοι .

Of the various meanings proposed for διεκρίθητε this one, which is common in the N. T. although not attested in secular Greek, yields in the present context the best sense, being especially recommended by the allusion to the “ waverer” of 1:6. Cf. Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23, Romans 14:23, James 1:6, and the kindred sense “ hesitate” in Acts 10:20, Romans 4:20.

Other interpretations which have been given are classified as follows by Huther, whose elaborate note, as reproduced with additions by Beyschlag, pp. 103 f., should be consulted for the history of the exegesis.

διακρίνεσθαι = (1) separare;

(2) discrimen facere;

(3) judicare;

(4) dubitare .

Under each of these senses several interpretations are possible according as the verb is taken as an affirmation or a question, and under several of them a choice between an active and passive meaning is possible. Most of the interpretations are too remote from the natural suggestion of the context, or any natural meaning of the verb, to be worth considering, and none suits on the whole so well as the interpretation given above.

The renderings of A.V., “ Are ye not then partial?” and R.V. mg., “ Do ye not make distinctions?” are based on (2), the verb being given an active sense. This corresponds to the view of Grotius and others, and is perhaps not impossible, even with the passive aorist, but at best it would be unusual, it runs counter to all N. T. usage, and it gives an inherently weak and tautologous sense. To R.V. text, “ Are ye not divided?” no objection from the ordinary meaning of the verb can be brought, but it is less idiomatic and pointed than the rendering “ waver.”

κριταὶ means “ judges” ; it cannot mean “ approvers” (as Wetstein takes it).

κριταὶδιαλογισμῶνπονηρῶν , “ judges with evil thoughts,” gen. of quality. Evidently, like διεκρίθητε , this describes in language already familiar an admittedly wrong attitude. There is a play on words in διεκρίθητε , κριταί , which cannot be imitated in English, and which goes far to account for the introduction of κριταί into a context to which the idea of “ judging” in any proper sense is foreign. That προσωπολημψία is the characteristic sin of the bad judge may also have had its influence. The sentence must be taken to mean: “ You have passed judgments (i. e. on rich or poor) prompted by unworthy motives.”

For διαλογισμῶνπονηρῶν , cf. Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, and Psalms 56:5. διαλογισμός is in Biblical usage a general word which includes purpose as well as deliberation. See Lightfoot on Philippians 2:14; Hatch, Essays, p. 8.

5-7. The poor are the elect heirs of God, whereas the rich are your persecutors.

These verses are intended to reinforce the exhortation of v. 1 by pointing out how peculiarly heinous in the readers’ case is partiality in favour of the rich.

5. ἀκούσατε , as in diatribes, cf. Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, p. 32, with foot-notes.

ἀδελφοίμουἀγαπητοί , inserted here for emphasis, cf. 1:16, 3:12.

ὁθεὸςἐξελέξατο . Election is a Jewish idea, cf. e. g. Deuteronomy 4:37, Ps. Sol. 9:9; see Sanday, Romans, pp. 244 f. 248 ff.

τοὺςπτωχοὺςτῷκόσμῳ , “ the poor by the standard of the world,” τῷκόσμῳ is dative of reference, or “ interest,” cf. Acts 7:20 ἀστεῖοςτῷθεῷ , 2 Corinthians 10:4, see Hadley-Allen, § 771; Winer, § 31, 4, a. Cf. 1 Timothy 6:17 f., on which Schö ttgen quotes ע ו ל ם ע נ י י , Baba bathra 8, 2; ע ש ׁ י ר ב ע ל ם , ibid. 4, 1.

Others (Weiss, etc.) take τῷκόσμῳ as naming the possession which the poor lack. But the poor lack not “ the world” but the world’ s goods.

The election of the poor to privileges is not here said to be due to any merit of their poverty, but, in fact, poverty and election coincide. This does not deny that an occasional rich man may have become a Christian, nor affirm that all the poor have been chosen, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26-28, Matthew 19:23-26.

τῷκόσμῳ ] Bא AC.

ἐντῷκόσμῳ ] minn.

ἐντούτῳτῷκόσμῳ ] min1.

τοῦκόσμου ] A2C2KLP minn.

τοῦκόσμουτούτου ] minnpauc.

om min1.

The reading of the older uncials easily accounts for all the others.

πλουσίουςἐνπίστει , “ rich in the sphere of faith,” “ in the domain where faith is the chief good” ; i. e. rich when judged by God’ s standards. Cf. Luke 12:21, 1 Corinthians 1:5, 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 6:18, Ephesians 2:4; and rabbinical “ rich in the law” (i. e. learned), Wajjikra r. 33 on Proverbs 29:13 (Wetstein), Tanchuma 34, 3 (Schö ttgen on 1 Timothy 6:17).

The contrast of poor and rich in different spheres is a natural one. See quotations in Mayor3, p. 86, and Spitta, p. 63; cf. Revelation 2:9, Test. XII Patr. Gad 7:6.

Other modes of analysis of the meaning of ἐνπίστει do not affect the general sense of the phrase, but they seem less adapted to the context. Thus:

(1) “ rich by reason of faith” ;

(2) “ rich in having an abundance of faith,” cf. Ephesians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 1:5, 1 Timothy 6:18. This unduly limits the range of the “ riches.”

κληρονόμουςτῆςβασιλείας .

This expression corresponds to Matthew 25:34, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, 1 Corinthians 6:15:50 , Galatians 5:21, as well as to κληρονομεῖνζωὴναἰώνιον in Matthew 19:29, Matthew 25:34, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, Luke 18:18 (cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 102-104; E. Tr. pp. 125-127.

“ Heirs” are persons who are appointed to receive the inheritance. The kingdom is here thought of as still future . The kingdom is not further described, nor does James use the term again, and it is possible to say of the term here only that it denotes the great blessing which God offers to his chosen, being thus practically equivalent to salvation. Cf. Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:10, Luke 12:31 f.

See Westcott’ s note on Hebrews 6:12 for the history of the use of the term κληρονόμος .

βασιλείας ] AC read ἐπαγγελ [ε ]ίας .

ἧςἐπηγγείλατοτοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτόν . On the expression, cf. 2 Timothy 4:18, Ep. ad Diogn. 10.

Cf. 1:12, τὸνστέφανοντῆςζωῆςκτλ ., with note. Life and the kingdom are practically identical.

ἐπηγγείλατο does not refer to any one specific occasion, and hence is better translated “ has promised.” Cf. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, § 46, § 52. The “ promise” was implicit in the very conception of the kingdom.

6. ἠτιμάσατε , “ dishonoured,” i. e. by your truckling to the rich. On ἀτιμάζειν , cf. Proverbs 14:21 ὁἀτιμάζωνπένηταςἀμαρτάνει , 22:22, Ecclus. 10:23, Acts 5:41.

A.V. “ despised” is a possible translation (cf. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Otium norv. iii .2), 1899, p. 236, for good examples), but the context (v. 3) makes the R.V. “ dishonoured” preferable.

τὸνπτωχόν , generic. Mayor well recalls 1 Corinthians 11:22 for another case of dishonour to the poor in early Christian life.

καταδυναστεύουσιν , “ oppress,” cf. Wisd. 2:10, Amos 8:4, Jeremiah 7:6, Ezekiel 18:12.

For examples of such oppression, cf. James 5:4, James 5:6, and references in Spitta, p. 64, notes 9, 10, and 11; also Lucian, Nec. 20. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ . Ἐπειδὴπολλὰκαὶπαράνομαοἱπλούσιοιδρῶσιπαρὰτὸνβίονἁρπάζοντεςκαὶβιαζόμενοικαὶπάντατροποντῶνπενήτωνκαταφρονοῦντεςκτλ .

αὐτοί , “ Is it not they who,” etc. Similarly, v. 7. On αὐτός in nominative as personal pronoun with no intensive force, cf. Lex. s. v. αὐτός , II, 2.

ἕλκουσιν , so Acts 16:19, of “ dragging” into court, cf. Luke 12:58 κατασύρεινπρὸςτὸνκριτήν , Acts 8:3 , Acts 17:6; a usual meaning, see Lex.

This does not seem to refer to religious persecution, which was at least as likely to proceed from the side of the poor as of the rich, but to other oppression, with legal action, arising from the ordinary working of social forces in an oriental community and having to do with wages, debts, rents, and the like.

Many think, indeed, of religious persecution (as Acts 6:12). But this is not naturally suggested by καταδυναστεύουσιν (instead of which we should in that case expect διώκουσιν , cf. Matthew 5:10, Luke 21:12, Acts 7:52, Galatians 1:13). Nor is it made necessary by βλασφημοῦσιν , which seems to refer to a different act of hostility and is properly so punctuated by WH.

εἰςκριτήρια , “ before judgment-seats,” “ into courts,” cf. Sus. 49. On established courts throughout Palestine, see EB, “ Government,” § § 30, 31; Schü rer, GJV, § 23, II.

7. βλασφημοῦσιν . Blasphemy is injurious speech, especially irreverent allusion to God and sacred things.

For blasphemy from the Christian point of view, i. e. against Christ, cf. Acts 13:45, Acts 13:18:6, Acts 13:26:11, 1 Timothy 1:13, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Justin, Dial. § 117 ὄνομαβεβηλωθῆναικατὰπᾶσαντὴνγῆνκαὶβλασφημεῖσθαιοἱἀρχιερεῖςτοῦλαοῦὑμῶνκαὶδιδάσκαλοιεἰργάσαντο , Pliny, Ep. x, 97.5; Polyc. Mart. 9:3 λοιδόρησοντὸνΧριστόν . Cf. Hermas, Sim. ix, 19.1 (of apostates). On blasphemy against God by the rich among the Jews, cf. Enoch 5:4, 94:8 f. and other passages collected by Spitta, p. 65.

It is not natural to take this of “ those who profess to know God but by their works deny him” (Mayor), cf. Titus 1:16; Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4.Romans 2:24 (Isaiah 52:5) τὸγὰρὄνοματοῦθεοῦδι ʼ ὑμᾶςβλασφημεῖταιἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν , and the cognate passages, 2 Peter 2:2, 1 Timothy 6:1, Clem. Romans 1:1, Romans 1:2 Clem. Rom_13, etc., are all of a different tenor, although the language is similar; the verb is there in the passive, and the blasphemy comes from the discredit which is thrown upon the Christian religion by the faults of those who profess it.

τὸκαλὸνὄνοματὸἐπικληθὲνἐφ ʼ ὑμᾶς .

This means the name of Christ, to whom his followers belong, cf. 1 Peter 4:14-16. Cf. 2 Samuel 12:28, Amos 9:12, Isaiah 4:1, Isaiah 4:2 Macc. 8:15 ἔνεκατῆςἐπ ʼ αὐτοὺςἐπικλήσεωςτοῦσεμνοῦκαὶμεγαλοπρεποῦςὀνόματοςαὐτοῦ , 4 Ezra 10:22 et nomen quod nominatum est super nos profanatum est, etc. For more references, see Mayor3, p. 88, Spitta, p. 65. In all these passages the reference is to Israel, dedicated to God by receiving his name. This idea was naturally transferred to the Christians, with a reference in their case to the name of Christ. Cf.

Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4, τὸὄνομακυρίουτὸἐπικληθὲνἐπ ʼ αὐτούς , and other cases of the use of ὄνομα in Hermas, Sim. viii, ix, and xi, given in Heitmü ller, Im Namen Jesu, 1903, p. 92. The phrase does not necessarily refer to baptism, nor to any definite name by which Christians were known. See Harnack’ s note on Hermas, Sim. viii, 6.4.

6-7. It is very evident that “ the rich” here are not Christians. Those who maintain the opposite are driven to give to βλασφημοῦσιν the meaning rejected above. The rich are plainly neighbours who do not belong to the conventicle but may sometimes condescend to visit it.

No word, however, hints that the two classes do not worship the same God, and the whole tone of the passage seems to imply a less complete departure from the dominant religion of the community than would have been the case in Rome or any heathen city. If the whole surrounding population were heathen, the argument would have to be differently turned. Contrast the tone of Php 2:15 ff., Ephesians 4:17-19, Colossians 3:7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-9.

A settled and quiet state of things is indicated, in which the normal relations of the different classes of society prevail. The sense of missionary duty is not prominent.

The situation is thus that of a sect of some sort living in a community whose more powerful members, though worshipping the same God as the sect, do not belong to it.

8-11. The law of Love is no excuse for respect of persons. The cancelling of one precept by another is not permissible, for the whole law must be kept. The royal law is therefore not a license to violate other parts of the law.

These verses are a reply to a supposed excuse, viz. that the Christian is required by the law of love to one’ s neighbour to attend to the rich man. This excuse by the pretext of “ love” is parallel to the excuse by the pretext of “ faith,” vv. 14-26. Cf. also 1:13, 26. Like Matthew 5:17 ff., this passage is opposing a wrong and self-indulgent use of the principle that the law of love covers the whole law.

8. εἰμέντοι , “ if now,” “ if indeed.” The particle μέντοι , besides its common adversative force, “ but,” “ nevertheless” (so Proverbs 5:4, Proverbs 5:16:25, 26, Proverbs 5:22:9, 26:12, John 4:27, John 4:7:13, John 4:12:42, John 4:20:5, John 4:21:4, 2 Timothy 2:19), has a “ confirmative” meaning, as a strengthened μέν , hardly to be translated. In such cases it indicates an implied contrast, which appears in the present instance in the correlative δέ of v. 9. Cf. Jude 1:8, and see Kü hner-Gerth, Grammatik der griech. Sprache3, § 503, 3, g.

νόμονβασιλικόν , “ the royal law.” νόμος means the Law of God, as known to the readers through the Christian interpretation of the O. T. The article is probably omitted because νόμος is treated as a quasi-proper noun, as in 2:11, 12, 4:11; cf. λόγος , James 1:22, James 1:23.

Most take the “ royal law” to be identical with the γραφή (legum regina) quoted immediately. But νόμος is not used in the sense of εντολή , and it is therefore better to take βασιλικόν as a decorative epithet describing the law as a whole, of which the following precept is a part. The expression κατὰτὴνγραφήνκτλ . implies, indeed, that the perfect observance of this precept covers the observance of the whole law, as in Mark 12:31, Romans 13:8, Galatians 5:14, cf. Leviticus 19:18, John 15:12.

It is thus not necessary to make an unnatural distinction between νόμος here and in v. 9.

βασιλικόν , i. e. “ supreme.” Cf. Philo, De justitia, 4 βασιλικὴνδὲεἴωθενὀνομάζεινΜωυσῆςὁδὸντὴνμέσην , De congress. erud. grat. 10; 4 Macc. 14:2. The term either goes back to the tradition that kings are supreme sovereigns, or else is drawn from the use of βασιλεύς to mean the Roman emperor.

At the same time there may be here an allusion to the Stoic conception of the wise as “ kings,” parallel to the lurking allusion in 1:25 to the conception of the wise as alone “ free.” The Law of Christians is alone fit for “ kings.” Cf. the similar application of the word βασιλικός in Clem. Al. Strom. 6, 18, p. 825; 7, 12, p. 876, and the other passages quoted by Mayor3, p. 90; also 1 Peter 2:9. See Knowling’ s good note, p. 49, Zahn, Einleitung, 1, § 6, note 1, and for the Stoic paradox the references in Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, 1, p. 256, note 5.

As in 1:25, so here, the attribute of the law is decorative and suggestive only; it is not meant specifically to distinguish the true law from some other inferior one.

The interpretation of βασιλικόν as “ given by the King” (God or Christ) has nothing to recommend it. Equally little has Calvin’ s ingenious reference to “ the king’ s highway,” “ plana scilicet, recta, et œ quabilis.”

τὴνγραφήν , i. e. “ passage of Scripture” (Leviticus 19:18); cf. Mark 12:10, John 19:24, Lightfoot on Galatians 3:22.

τὸνπλησίον . Properly “ neighbour,” in LXX for Hebrew ד ֵ ע ַ , “ friend” , “ fellow countryman,” or “ other person” generally, and so, under the influence of the teaching of Jesus (Luke 10:25-37), equivalent to ὁἕτερος (cf. especially Romans 13:8, Romans 13:10, 15:2).

9. ἁμαρτίανἐργάζεσθε , cf. 1:20 and note. Such conduct is sin, directly forbidden by the law, and hence cannot be excused as a fulfilment of the royal law.

ἐλεγχόμενοιὑπὸτοῦνόμου . Cf. Leviticus 19:15 οὐλήμψῃπρόσωπονπτωχοῦοὐδὲθαυμάσειςπρόσωπονδυνάστου , ἐνδικαιοσύνῃκρινεῖςτὸνπλησίονσου , Deuteronomy 1:17, Deuteronomy 16:19.

10. ὅστις … τηρήσῃ , with ἄν omitted. Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 307, Blass-Debrunner, § 380.

τηρήσῃ ] Bא C minn ff vg boh.

τηρήσει ] KLP minnpler ff vg boh.

πληρώσει ] A minn.

πληρώσαςτηρήσει ] 33.

τελέσει ] minn, cf. v. 8.

The future is probably an emendation called out by the absence of ἄν .

The same thing has happened to πταίσῃ , for which KLP minnpler have πταίσει . The synonyms, and the conflation in 33, are interesting.

πταίσῃ , in sense of “ sin,” Romans 11:11, James 3:2, cf. Deuteronomy 7:25. See M. Aur. Anton. vii, 22 ἴδιονἄνθρωπονφιλεῖνκαὶτοὺςπταίοντας , Maximus Tyr. Diss. 26 τίςδὲἀνὴρἀγαθὸςὡςδιελθεῖνβίονἀπταίστως ;

ἐνἑνί , “ in one point,” neuter, since νόμος is not used of single precepts.

πάντωνἔνοχος . πάντων is neuter, and the genitive, as in classical Greek, denotes the crime. This is a rhetorical, way of saying that he is a transgressor of “ the law as a whole” (παραβάτηςνόμου , v. 11), not of all the precepts in it.

For similar emphasis on the several individual precepts which make up the law, cf. Matthew 5:19, and especially Test. XII Patr. Aser 2:5-10 (Charles’ s translation): “ Another stealeth, doeth unjustly, plundereth, defraudeth, and withal pitieth the poor: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. He who defraudeth his neighbour provoketh God, and sweareth falsely against the Most High, and yet pitieth the poor: the Lord who commandeth the law he setteth at nought and provoketh, and yet he refresheth the poor. He defileth the soul and maketh gay the body; he killeth many, and pitieth a few: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil.

Another committeth adultery and fornication, and abstaineth from meats, and when he fatteth he doeth evil, and by the power of his wealth overwhelmeth many; and notwithstanding his excessive wickedness he doeth the commandments: this, too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Such men are hares; for they are half clean, but in very deed are unclean. For God in the tables of the commandments hath thus declared.”

The roots of this verse evidently lie in rabbinical modes of emphasising the importance of certain special precepts and of every precept. Thus Shemoth rabba 25 fin., “ The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts” ; Shabbath, 70, 2, “ If he do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all severally.” Schö ttgen and Wetstein give many sayings of similar tenor from rabbinical writings of various dates.

Augustine, Ep. 167 ad Hier., draws a comparison with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices. The Stoic doctrine is that virtue is an indivisible whole, a man is either virtuous or vicious. The wise (or virtuous) is free from fault, the foolish (or vicious) does no right act; hence ἴσατὰἁμαρτήματακαὶτὰκατορθώματα . The character of every act depends on the controlling inner purpose and disposition. See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, i, pp., 251-263, with abundant references. This doctrine has plainly nothing to do with that of James.

11. μὴμοιχεύσῃς … μὴφονεύσῃς . Exodus 20:13, Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 5:17 f.. This order, in which the seventh commandment is mentioned before the sixth, is perhaps due to the order found in the LXX (Cod. B, not AF) of Exo_20. So Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, Philo, De decal. 12, 24, 32, De spec. leg. iii, 2; but not so Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:27.

C minnpauci syrhcl arm have conformed the text to the usual order by putting murder first. In the following sentence this is done by minnpauci arm.

οὐμοιχεύεις . οὐ follows the regular N. T. usage in present simple conditions. Cf. Buttmann, § 148; Burton, § 469; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 170 f.; Winer, § 55, 2, c (where it is said that εἰοὐ makes the negative emphatic). Here, since the negative belongs only to a part of the protasis and not to the rest , οὐ is in any case necessary.

12-13. General exhortation to remember the Judgment, which is the sanction of the law; together with special inculcation of the precept of mercy, violated by their respect of persons.

12. λαλεῖτε , ποιεῖτε , cf. 1:19, 23-25, 26, a section which seems to be in mind in this summarising exhortation.

The collocation is very common, e. g. Test. XII Patr. Gad 6:1, cf. Acts 1:1, Acts 7:22 ἐνλόγοιςκαὶἔργοιςαὐτοῦ (and commentaries), 1 John 3:18, and Lex. s. v. ἔργον , 3.

διὰνόμουἐλευθερίας , “ under the law of liberty.” Cf. 1:25; διά here indicates the “ state or condition in which one does or suffers something” ; see Lex. s. v. διά , A. I. 2; cf. e. g. Romans 2:12 διὰνόμουκριθήσονται .

13. γάρ introduces the reason why the sin of respect of persons will be punished with special severity. It involves a breach of the law of mercy, and that has as its consequence unmerciful punishment.

ἀνέλεος . Found only here for the usual ἀνηλεής , ἀνελεής , but regularly formed from the noun ἔλεος ; see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.

L minnpermu read ἀνίλεως .

On the thought, cf. Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 18:23-35, Psalms 18:25, Psalms 18:26, Ecclus. 28:2 ff., Test. XII Patr. Zab. 5 and 8. Jer. Baba q. viii, 10, “ Every time that thou art merciful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not merciful, God will not show mercy to thee,” Rosh hash. 17 a, “ To whom is sin pardoned? to him who forgives injury.”

κατακαυχᾶταιἔλεοςκρίσεως , “ mercy boasts over (or against)judgment.” ἔλεος is human mercy shown in practise, κρίσεως is God’ s condemnatory judgment, cf. James 5:12, John 5:24. This gives the converse of the previous sentence. As the unmerciful will meet with no mercy, so a record of mercy will prevent condemnation. Cf. 5:20 and Ecclus. 3:30, 40:17, Tob. 4:9-11. The doctrine (and need) of God’ s forgiving mercy is here assumed in regular Jewish fashion.

On the great importance ascribed to mercy as a virtue in Jewish thought, see Bousset, Religion des Judentums2, pp. 162 f.

The contrast of God’ s opposing attributes of mercy and justice does not seem to be in mind here. The contrast of ἔλεος and κρίσις is a natural one, and is found in both Greek and Jewish sources, cf. Diog. Laert. ii, 3:9, references to Bereshith r. in Wetstein, and the references in Spitta, p. 70, note 6.

κατακαυχᾶται is found elsewhere only in James 3:14, Romans 11:18, Zechariah 10:12, Jer_50[27]11 κατεκαυχᾶσθεδιαρπάζοντεςτὴνκληρονομίανμου , 50[27]38. It does not occur in secular writers. 1 Corinthians 15:55 well illustrates the meaning of this word.

κατακαυχᾶται ] B א Kñ minnpler ff m vg Aug boh.

κατακαυχάσθω ] A 33 minnpauc.

κατακαυχᾶσθε ] C2 syrpesh.

κατακαυχᾶσθε is insufficiently attested and is probably due to an error. κατακαυχάσθω is the harder reading, but the group A 33 points to an emendation.

ἔλεοςκρίσεως ] CKL minn read ἔλεονκρίσεως . Since the accusative yields no sense, this must have been understood as τὸἔλεον , attested by Ps.-Herodian, Epimerismoi, ed. Boissonade, 1819, p. 235, and not found elsewhere.

14-26. Neither does the possession of Faith give any license to dispense with good works

This touches another case of substitution of a sham for the reality; cf. 1:22-25, 26 f. 2:8 f.. As an excuse, faith is worth no more than love.

The fundamental idea of a warning against sham is common enough to all moralists. The special interest here is that James makes his contrast not between, e. g., sayings and doings, but between two terms important in Christian thought, viz., faith and works, and that in the course of his argument he uses other theological terms and reveals an acquaintance with many diverse theological conceptions and modes of thought.

14. Faith, if it does not lead to good works, is impotent to save

τίὄφελος , cf. v. 16, 1 Corinthians 15:32, and Ecclus. 20:30, 41:14, Job 21:15. ὄφελος is found in LXX only once (Job 15:3). Cf. τίγὰρὄφελος (note absence of the article, as here), Philo, De poster. Cain. 24, Quod deus immut. 33, De agric. 30; Teles (ed. Hense), p. 27 τίοὖνὄφελοςτὸοὕτωςἔχειν ; τίὄφελος was a common expression in the vivacious style of the moral diatribe. See Bultmann, Stil der paulinischen Predigt, p. 33.

ὄφελος ] BC* 102; cf. v. 16 (sine τό , BC*), 1 Corinthians 15:32 (sine τό , DFG).

τὸὄφελος ] א AC2KL minnfere omn, probably emendation.

ἀδελφοίμου . Marks a new paragraph, cf. 2:1, etc.

πίστιν . Introduced without the article as a new idea; cf. ἡπίστις , 5:15, and 1:3, 4, 15.

Cf. 1:3, 6, 2:1, 5, 14-27, 5:15. Faith (cf. especially 2:1) is here assumed to be the fundamental attitude of the Christian adherent, which makes him a Christian. No ground exists for thinking that this assumption was, or could be, doubted by any one. All Christians (cf. πιστοί , “ believers,” Acts 16:1, 2 Corinthians 6:15, 1 Timothy 5:16) have faith, and James uses the term, without any attempt at the formation of an exact psychological concept of the contents of faith, merely as the ordinary term familiar to all for a well-known inner state. The cases of the demons, Abraham, and Rahab all present an analogy to Christian faith which, while inadequate, is yet valuable for argument— the more so that Abraham and Rahab were recognised on all hands to have been “ justified.”

λέγῃ , “ say,” in presenting his claim to be approved of men and of God. Son 1:13 μηδεὶςλεγέτω , cf. 2:8. This word is not to be too much emphasised, as if it meant “ pretend,” and as if doubt were seriously thrown on the man’ s actual possession of faith. The inadequate and empty “ faith” which produces no works may be hardly worthy of the name, but it is not necessarily a deliberate hypocrisy.

The contrast is not between saying and doing , as it was in 1:22 between hearing and doing; it is rather between mere adherence to Christianity and conduct, or between church-membership and life .

ἔργα , cf. 1:25.

ἔργα seems here a recognised term for “ good deeds.” Cf. Matthew 5:16, Matthew 23:3, Romans 2:6, John 3:20, Titus 1:16, etc., etc., where τὰἔργα means “ conduct,” which is made up of an infinite number of separate ἔργα . For the use of the word in moral relations, cf. Proverbs 24:12 ὃςἀποδίδωσινἑκάστῳκατὰτὰἔργααὐτοῦ , Psalms 62:12, Apoc. Bar. 51:7 “ saved by their works,” 4 Ezra 7:35, Pirke Aboth, iii, 14; iv, 15, and many other passages referred to by Spitta, pp. 72-76.

On the expression ἔργαἔχειν , πίστινἔχειν , cf. 4 Ezra 7:77, Ezra 8:32, 13:23 “ even such as have works and faith toward the Almighty,” Apoc. Bar. 14:12 (the righteous) “ have with them a store of works preserved in treasuries.”

The ἔργα here do not appear as specifically ἔργανόμου ; the word merely denotes conduct as contrasted with faith. This contrast cannot be original with this writer (cf. 4 Ezra 9:7, 13:23).

The contrast of faith and works will appear wherever faith is held to be the fundamental characteristic of the true members of the religious community, while at the same time a body of laws regulating conduct is set forth as binding. It is inevitable that by some, whether in practise or in theory, the essential underlying unity of the two absolute requirements will be overlooked and one or the other regarded as sufficient. This will always call out protests like that of James, who represents the sound and sensible view that not one only but both of these requirements must be maintained.

In the discussions of the Apostle Paul the contrast is the same in terms, but its real meaning is different and peculiar. Paul’ s lofty repudiation of “ works” has nothing but the name in common with the attitude of those who shelter their deficiencies of conduct under the excuse of having faith. Paul’ s contrast was a novel one, viz. between the works of an old and abandoned system and the faith of a newly adopted one. His teaching was really intended to convey a doctrine of forgiveness.

Our author, on the other hand, with nothing either of Paul’ s subtlety or of his mystical insight into the act of faith and glorification of faith’ s contents, is led to draw the more usual contrast between the faith and works which are both deemed necessary under the same system. Hence, while faith is the same thing with both— an objective fact of the Christian life, the works of which they speak are different— in one case the conduct required by the Jewish law, in the other that demanded by Christian ethics. That the two in part coincided does not make them the same. One was an old and abandoned failure, impotent to secure the salvation which it was believed to promise, the other was the system of conduct springing from and accompanying a new life.

But this distinction, while it makes plain that James is not controverting what Paul meant, yet does not insure the full agreement of James and Paul, for Paul, although he would have heartily admitted the inadequacy of a faith which does not show itself in works, would never have admitted that justification comes ἐξἔργων . James has simply not learned to use Paul’ s theology, and betrays not the slightest comprehension of the thought of Paul about faith and the works of the Law.

The contrast between reliance on membership in the religious community and on conduct is as old as Amos and the Hebrew prophets, and comes out in the words of John the Baptist, and of Jesus in the Synoptics and John. All that James adds to these is the term “ faith,” to denote the essential element in the membership, and then an elaborate discussion in which the terms and instances of later Jewish theology are freely employed.

The use (see below) of the same formula which Paul seems to have created indicates that Paul had preceded James, but it is plain that James had made no study of Paul’ s epistles, and these formulas may have come to his knowledge without his having read Paul’ s writings, which, we must remember, the Book of Acts does not even mention. See Introduction, supra, pp. 35 f.

μὴδύναταιἡπίστιςσῶσαιαὐτόν ; cf. 1:21 (and note) 4:12, 5:15, 20.

This question is presented as if it admitted of but one answer, and that a self-evident one.

15-17. Illustration from the emptiness of words of charity as a substitute for deeds

This is not, like the closely similar verses, 2:2 f., a concrete instance of James’ s contention, but a little parable; for another parable to the same purport, cf: 2:26. The illustration is abruptly introduced, as in 3:11, 12.

The comparison has itself a moral significance, and the same thought is found in other literature, e.g. Plautus, Epid. 116 f. nam quid te igitur rettulit beneficum esse oratione si ad rem auxilium emortuomst?

15. ἐάν ] Bא 33 69 minn ff m.

ἐὰνδέ ] ACKL minnpler vg syrpesh. hel.

ἐὰνγάρ ] sah.

γυμνοί , “ naked,” in the sense of “ insufficiently clad” ; cf. Job 22:6 “ stripped the naked of their clothing,” Isaiah 20:2, Isaiah 20:3, 58:7, John 21:7 , Matthew 25:36 ff., Acts 19:16; see references in L. and S.

The plural after singular subjects connected by ἤ is in accord with the occasional usage of good Greek writers. See Hadley-Allen, § 608; Blass-Debrunner, § 135. Buttmann and Blass ascribe the plural here to the fact that the two nouns are of different genders, but this is not the case in all the examples from secular Greek.

ἐφημέρουτροφῆς , “ food for the day,” “ the day’ s supply of food.”

The word ἐφήμερος is not in the O. T., but this whole phrase is found in Diod. iii, 32; Dion. Hal. viii, 41; Aristides, xlix, ed. Dindorf, p. 537. It is an expression natural to secular Greek, and used here, much like the English “ daily bread,” to describe the poor person’ s need as urgent; cf. Philo, In Flacc. 17 πένητέςἐσμενκαὶμόλιςτὸἐφήμερονεἰςαὐτὰτὰἀναγκαῖαπορίζεινδυνάμεθα , Ps.-Plutarch, An vitios. p. 499 C προσαίτησινἐφημέρου Other extracts may be found in Mayor3, p. 97, and Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, 1899, pp. 236 f.

16. ὑπάγετεἐνεἰρήνῃ , “ good bye,” a Jewish expression; cf. Acts 16:36, Mark 5:34, Luke 7:50, Judges 18:6, 1 Samuel 1:17, 1 Samuel 1:20:42, 2 Samuel 15:9; cf. J. Friedmann, Der gesellschaftliche Verkehr und die Umgangsformeln in talmudischer Zeit, Berlin, 1914, p. 34.

θερμαίνεσθεκαὶχορτάζεσθε . The context requires that these be taken as passive; and, indeed, in order to say “ warm and feed yourselves” it would be necessary in the late usage of the N. T. to use the active with a reflexive pronoun, ὑμᾶςαὐτούς , ἑαυτούς ; cf. e. g. 1:22 παραλογιζόμενοιἑαυτούς . Cf. Blass-Debrunner, § 310.

That θερμαίνειν was commonly used of the effect of warm clothes is shown by Job 31:20, Haggai 1:6, but also by Plut. Quœ st. conviv. vi, 6, p. 691 D, and a curious passage (quoted by Wetstein) in which Galen (De vir. medic. simpl. ii) criticises the common neglect of writers to observe the distinction between that which warms and that which merely keeps off the cold.

δῶτε , plural after τις , which is treated as a kind of collective. See Hadley-Allen, § 609 a; Krü ger, § 58, 4, A. 5.

τὰἐπιτήδεια , “ the necessaries of life.” Not elsewhere in the N. T.; occasionally in LXX, but with no corresponding Hebrew word.

ὄφελος ] sine tov BC*; cf. v. 14.

17. οὕτως , making the application of the parable, cf. Luke 15:10, Luke 17:10.

ἐὰνμὴἔχῃἔργα , cf. vv. 18, 20, 26 ἡπίστιςχωρὶς [τῶν ] ἔργων .

Faith is said to “ have” works, perhaps in the sense of “ attendance or companionship” (Lex.. s. v. ἔχω I, 2, c).

νεκρά , cf. v. 26. The two things which are opposed are not faith and works (as with Paul) but a living faith and a dead faith. The dead faith is also called ἀργή (v. 20); cf. 1:26 μάταιος . It is not denied that faith can exist without works, but it is the wrong kind of faith.

On the figurative use of νεκρός for “ inactive and useless,” Romans 6:11, Romans 7:8, Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 9:14, cf. Epict. Diss. iii, 23:28 καὶμὴνἂσνμὴταῦτα (sc. a conviction of sin) ἐμποιῇὁτοῦφιλοσόφουλόγος , νεκρόςἐστικαὶαὐτὸςκαὶὁλέγων .

καθ ʼ ἑαυτήν , “ in itself” (R.V.), strengthens νεκρά , “ inwardly dead” ; not merely hindered from activity, but defective in its own power to act; see 2 Macc. 13:13, Acts 28:16, Romans 14:22, and secular references in Lex. s. v.

κατά , II, 1, e, cf. Genesis 30:40, Genesis 43:31.

Of the various renderings proposed the only other one deserving mention is that of Grotius and others, who give it this meaning of “ by itself,” “ alone” (ff sola), but interpret, “ faith without works is dead, being alone.” This involves a tautology, and in strictness would require the addition of the participle οὖσα .

18. A possible rejoinder in behalf of the censured persons, and its refutation.

Supposed bringer of excuses: “ One has pre-eminently faith, another has pre-eminently works.”

James: “ A live faith and works do not exist separately.”

ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις . An objection or defense suggested, as in 1:13, 2:8-11. For the half-dialogue form, cf. Romans 9:19, Romans 9:11:19, 1 Corinthians 15:35 ἀλλὰἐρεῖτις , 4 Macc. 2:24, Ep. Barn. 9:6, and innumerable passages in the Greek moralists. See Introduction, supra, p. 12.

The future here “ denotes a merely supposable case” (Lat. dicat), Winer, § 40, b, p. 280; Buttmann, § 139, 18; Viteau, Grec du N. T., Le verbe, § 43. Cf. Hebrews 11:32.

In reply to the censure upon those who rely on faith and neglect conduct, it is here suggested that one person has faith , another works, doubtless not in either case with perfect exclusiveness but in pre-eminent degree. This is a defense which suggests antinomianism, but includes a curious tolerance. While obviously weak— a weaker position, indeed, than downright antinomianism— it has a certain plausibility, and very likely fairly expresses the underlying unformulated philosophy of not a few persons.

The objector’ s words are contained in one sentence; then James replies with δεῖξόνμοικτλ . This sentence is evidently from the point of view of vv. 14-17, and is intended flatly and comprehensively to deny that faith and works are separate gifts, like, for instance, prophecy and healing.σύ , κἀγώ . The pronouns do not refer to James and the objector, but are equivalent to εἷς , ἕτερος , “ one,” “ another,” and are merely a more picturesque mode of indicating two imaginary persons. Very much the same is true of “ thou” and “ I” in the second half of the verse, where James has no idea of emphasising his own superior uprightness.

σύ cannot be made to refer to James (1) because James is contending not for faith but for works, and (2) because James’ s personality has up to this point been so little prominent , that some clear indication of such a direct contrast between him and the objector would be expected, at least ἐρεῖτιςἐμοί instead of ἐρεῖτις .

For a similar usage cf. the quotation from Bion in a fragment of the Cynic Teles (ed. Hense2, pp. 5 f., from Stobæ us, Anthol. iii, 1, 98 [Mein. v, 67]), μὴοὖνβούλουδευτερολόγοςῶντὸπρωτολόγουπρόσωπον · εἰδὲμὴ , ἀνάρμοστόντιποιήσεις . σὺμὲνἄρχειςκαλῶς , ἐγὼδὲἄρχομαι , φησὶ , καὶσὺμὲνπολλῶν , ἐγὼδὲἑνὸςτουτουῒπαιδαγωγὸςγενόμενος , καὶσὺμὲνεὔποροςγενόμενοςδίδωςἐλευθερίως , ἐγὼδὲλαμβάνωεὐθαρσῶςπαρὰσοῦοὐχὑποπίπτωνοὐδὲἀγεννίζωνοὐδὲμεμψιμοιρῶν .

Teles (c. 230 b.c.), quoting his predecessor Bion, is urging that every man must play the part that Fortune assigns him, and says: “ If, then, you are a second-class actor, don’ t envy the rô le of the first-class player. If you do, you will commit blunders. You are a ruler, I am a subject (says [Bion]); you have many under you, I, as a tutor, but this one; and you grow prosperous and give generously, while I cheerfully receive from you without fawning or degrading myself or complaining.”

It is to be noted that in the first sentence from Teles σύ is the man with the inferior actor’ s part, while in the rest of the passage σύ is the more prosperous man, in contrast to the speaker, who modestly presents himself as the representative of lesser worldly fortune. This is not unlike the way in which James (see below) fails to preserve strictly the rô les of his fragmentary dialogue.

On the “ ideal” second person in Greek , see Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, ix, 1900, p. 41, with many examples.

ἔχεις . To be taken as an affirmation not a question. ἔχεις and ἔχω are manifestly parallel. πίστιν means πίστινχωρὶςτῶνἔργων , or, at least, with a minimum of ἔργα . ἔργα is ἔργα with a minimum of πίστις .

δεῖξον , “ show,” “ prove,” “ demonstrate,” cf. James 3:13. Here begins the reply addressed to the objector. James replies, first, by a challenge to the objector to produce a case of faith standing by itself without accompanying works. This challenge rests on the assumption that such a “ dead” faith is really no faith at all. James, however, does not pursue that aspect of the matter, but proceeds, secondly , with the converse of the first challenge, in the form of an offer to show that any case of works supposed to stand by themselves without underlying faith is merely deceptive and really implies a co-existent faith.

On the form of expression, by challenge and offer, cf. Theoph. Ad Autol. i, 2 δεῖξόνμοιτὸνἄνθρωπόνσουκἀγώσοιδείξωτὸνθεόνμου , Epictet. i, 6.43 ἐγώσοιδείξω … σὺδ ʼ ἐμοὶδείκνυε and other references in Bultmann, p. 33.

χωρίς ]Bא ACP minn ff vg boh sah syrpesh. hel arm.

ἐκ ] KL minnlonge plu. An unfortunate conformation to the following clause, which spoils the sense.

It is interesting that in the English A.V. the influence of the Vulgate (sine) led to the rendering “ without,” which is not a correct translation of the Received Greek Text, which reads ἐκ .

χωρὶςτῶνἔργων ] CKL minnpler add σου , doubtless part of the same emendation which produced ἐκ .

κἀγώσοιδείξω . “ From the very existence of righteous conduct the fact of faith can be demonstrated, for without faith I could not do the works.” Note the elegant construction of this sentence in which the chiastic order πίστιν — ἔργων , ἔργων — πίστιν well corresponds to the natural emphasis.

κἀγώσοιδείξω ] Bא minn.

κἀγὼδείξωσοι ] ACKL minn vg. A weakening conformation to order of preceding δεῖξόνμοι .

ἐκτῶνἔργωνμου ] ff vg syrhcl omit μου , by a conformation to their text of the preceding clause.

πίστιν 3° ] Bא C 33 minn ff.

πίστινμου ] AKLR minnpler vg boh sah syrpesh. hel. Conformation to τὴνπίστινσου .

The interpretations of this difficult verse are very numerous and for the most part highly subtle and unsatisfactory. The interpretation presented above, which was given by Pott in Koppe’ s Novum Testamentum3, 1816, and by H. Bouman, Commentarius perpetuus in Jacobi epistolam, Utrecht, 1865, differs from others in taking σύ and ἐγώ in the defense as referring merely to two representatives of different types of religion, not to the writer of the epistle and the objector himself. Thereby one of the chief difficulties of the exegesis is overcome, namely, the difficulty that σύ and ἐγώ in the objection (v. 18 a) do not suit well the corresponding ἐμοί , μου , and σου , σοι , in the retort of James (v. 18 b). With any other mode of interpretation it seems impossible to gain a satisfactory sense from the passage.

The interpretations are divided into two main groups, according as ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις is taken (1) as interposing a reply in defense of the tendency censured in vv. 14-17, or (2) as introducing the reinforcement of an ally who adds his word in the same contention as that of James.

I. τις as an objector.

This interpretation (which I adopt) finds its support chiefly in the argument used above, that this is the only natural meaning of the phrase ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις in such a context. Under this view the words introduced by ἐρεῖ will not extend beyond ἔχω , v. 18 a, for δεῖξονκτλ . is evidently spoken in the interest of James’ s main contention. As to how the words (18 a) can express an objection, and what that objection is, opinions have been various. The first and most obvious difficulty in this view has always been that the objector seems to declare that James has faith, while the objector himself has works. That would reverse their respective parts, and the difficulty has been met in three ways.

1. Since the objection is quoted by James, σύ is taken as if from James’ s point of view and ἐγώ as if referring to James: “ But someone will say, ‘ Thou (i. e. the representative of the class just censured) hast faith, while I (James) have works.’ ” This is taken either (a) as a defense of the class censured, on the ground that several types of religion are alike admissible, or (b) as an attack upon James, who is declared to have only works (which are inferior to faith), whereas the person attacked has faith, the superior quality (so Weiss). To this, under either form, (a) or (b), James replies that faith cannot exist alone.

Both these explanations are exposed to the fatal difficulty that the objection of the defender is given in direct discourse (as, e. g., in 2:3) so that ἐγώ cannot possibly refer to James; the interpretation of Weiss is exposed to the further, equally fatal, objection that it is impossible to suppose that James could have introduced, in the mouth of a supposititious defender, such an insulting personal attack on himself. The rhetorical device of the objector’ s defense is very characteristic of Greek popular moral exhortation of this period, and is always adopted solely in order to state vividly a possible point of view, in itself not wholly unreasonable, but liable to the crushing rejoinder with which the author follows it. It must be assumed as intended to aid, not to hinder, the development of the main contention. To withdraw the reader’ s mind from the main subject by raising the question of the author’ s own character and principles would be a strangely inept turn. Moreover, for Weiss’ s view the precise bearing of the attack (through the supposed inferiority of works to faith) would have to be more clearly expressed. James nowhere lays himself open to the accusation that he thinks works can exist without faith.

2. A second way of meeting the difficulty is that of von Soden, WH. mg., and others, who take ἔχεις as a question, by which doubt is expressed of James’ s possession of faith; thus:

James: “ Faith without works is dead.”

Opponent: “ Hast thou any faith?”

James: “ I have works. Show me thy faith without works, and I will prove that I have faith.”

Apart from the fact that this interpretation gives the passage too much the character of personal debate, with an argumentum ad hominem, to suit the style proper to general hortatory moral writing, this theory fails because it does violence to the Greek. For (a), in order to call in question James’ s faith, the opponent would have had to say μὴσὺπίστινἔχεις ; (cf. e.g. v. 14). The present form of the question would be wholly weak and unnatural. (b) The theory neglects the obvious parallelism of σὺἔχεις , κἀγὼἔχω , in which the presence of καί and the lack of any sufficient introduction to the second part make it impossible to assume that we have a question and answer.

3. (a) In despair of any other solution, Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 11887, p. 874; 21902, ii, p. 547; E. Y. Hincks (Journal of Bibl. Literature, xviii, 1899, pp. 199-201), Baljon, Katholieke Brieven, 1904, p. 42, have declared the text corrupt, and propose to read against all Mss. (except the Latin Codex Corbeiensis [ff], the reading of which is admittedly a secondary correction) σὺἔργαἔχειςκἀγὼπίστινἔχω .

The meaning will then be, as in the explanation defended above, an appeal by the opponent to the equal value of various religious gifts, faith and works both being good in their own way. In the text as reconstructed each gift will be assigned to the right person, faith to the opponent, works to James.

But (1) this reconstruction of the text is too violent a procedure to be acceptable so long as any other explanation can be found, and (2) the resulting text is unsatisfactory. For James’ s own character and principles have not been in question, and to represent the defender as here drawing a sharp contrast specifically between James and himself is to make the words amount to an attack on James. Thus this solution is exposed to the same objections as that of Weiss already discussed.

(b) Of the same violent sort is the suggestion of Spitta, followed by Hollmann, that the objection originally introduced by ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις has fallen out, so that originally σὺπίστινἔχεις constituted the first words of James’ s rejoinder.

But such a rejoinder, in which the writer declares that he possesses these highly prized works, would be very unnatural, to say nothing of the fact that James would not have admitted voluntarily and gratuitously that his own faith required proof. And Spitta’ s attempt to reconstruct the objection introduced by ἐρεῖτις is weak (“ Aus dem Fehlen gewisser Werke kö nne nicht geschlossen werden, der Glaube sei nicht lebendig, und die Werke, auf welche Jakobus poche, kö nnten den Mangel der πίστις nicht ersetzen,” p. 79).

Hollmann’ s attempt is equally unconvincing: “ Allein da wird jemand sagen: [Was nü tzen Werke ohne Glauben? Ich aber habe Glauben!] Du hast Glauben und ich habe Werke? Zeige mir deinen Glauben” (in J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T. ii, 1908, p. 10).

4. The interpretation defended above is not open to any of these objections.

II. τις as an ally.

The unsatisfactoriness of the more usual of the interpretations above described has led a second group of interpreters to take the sentence introduced by ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις as coming not from an opponent but from a third party, who is an ally of James. The sentence σὺπίστινἔχειςκἀγὼἔργαἔχω is then taken to be merely the introduction, establishing a basis for argument, while δεῖξόνμοικτλ . contains the real gist of the utterance of τις : “ Nay, someone will say, ‘ Thou (the person censured by James) hast, or art supposed to have, faith, while I (the ally of James now speaking) really have works; in fact thy faith (since it cannot be demonstrated by works) is not only dead but practically non-existent, while my recognized works prove that I have faith as well.’ ”

Where the quotation from the imaginary ally stops is less easy to determine, and that is not very important, since in most forms of this theory the point of view of the ally and of James are identical. Some make it stop with v. 18, others carry the interjected remarks on to the end of v. 23. This latter view has the great disadvantage of separating the example of Abraham from the parallel instance of Rahab.

1. Under the more common form of this view (De Wette, Beyschlag, Mayor) the interrupting τις is thought of as another Christian; ἀλλά is taken as like immo vero (cf. John 16:2, Philippians 1:18, Luke 12:7, Luke 16:21); σὺπίστινἔχεις is given the meaning “ thou pretendest to have faith,” a pretense which is shown to be false in the sentence δεῖξόνμοικτλ .

But the natural sense of ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις is too clear to permit here this meaning of ἀλλά ; and it is not justifiable to make ἔχεις equivalent to λέγειςἔχειν . Further, the introduction of an ally, representing the same point of view, is wholly uncalled for, and cannot be accounted for on the ground either of “ modesty” (Mayor) or of “ dramatic vividness” (Beyschlag). It would have to be made more obvious by the context. James cannot thus boast of works, nor has he occasion to defend himself against any charge of lack of faith. This interpretation, although widely held, cannot be accepted.

2. A more plausible form of this theory, or rather an important advance upon it, is the interpretation of Zahn (Einleitung, i, § 4, note 4), based upon the view of Hofmann and Stier. Zahn accepts the view that τις is a kind of ally, but finds that the only ally that would suit the conditions is an unbelieving Jew, whose supposed words run through v. 19: “ Nay, if you maintain your practices, some Jew will say, ‘ Thou, as a Christian, hast thy faith, and I, as a Jew, my works; but thy conduct gives the lie to thy professions of faith, whereas my conduct shows that I have all the faith a man needs. Thy vaunted faith is no more than that of the demons.’ ” This is concrete and has advantages over most other interpretations. But the difficulty remains that ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖτις is more naturally taken as introducing not a reinforcement of James’ s position, but an objection or defense of those censured. Further, in the general style of this epistle (which is not a true letter addressed to a definite body of readers) such a reference to Jewish Christian argument would have to be made more explicit and clear.

And, finally, there is no evidence that faith and works were ever the accepted party cries of Jews and Christians. On the contrary, faith characterised the Jew, and not ἔργα but νόμος and περιτομή were what he claimed as his distinction, cf. Romans 9:4, Romans 9:5, Philippians 3:3. And the content of faith, as indicated in v. 19, is a monotheism which Jew and Christian shared. If faith, as such, were here thought of as that which distinguishes Christian from Jew, v. 19 could not possibly have been written.

Similar is the view of E. Haupt (Studien und Kritiken, vol. lvi, 1883, p. 187), who substitutes a non-christian moralist for the Pharisaic Jew. This is open to the same objections as Zahn’ s view, and to the additional one that, especially in Palestine, the defender of “ mere morality” seems less appropriate in such a tract than the polemical Jew.

For criticism of various views, besides the commentaries see Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie2, 1911, ii, p. 374, note 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ὅτιεἷςθεὸςἔστιν .

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

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

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

ὅτιεἷςθεὸςἔστιν ] BC minn3 ff Priscill.

ὅτιεἷςἐστινὁθεός ] א A min1 vg.

ὅτιὁθεὸςεἷςἐστιν ] KL minnpler.

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

ff quia unus deus;

Priscillian quia unus deus est;

vg quoniam unus est deus.

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

καλῶςποιεῖς , cf. v. 8, καλῶςποιεῖτε . “ This is good as far as it goes,” perhaps said with a slight touch of irony, as in Mark 7:9.

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

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

πιστεύουσιν . For illustration of this, cf. Matthew 8:29, Mark 1:24.

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

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

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

20-24. The argument from reason of v. 19 is followed by an argument from Scripture. In the great case of Abraham faith and works co-operated to secure justification.

20. θέλειςδὲγνῶναι . Introducing this new argument: “ Do you desire a proof?” Like the similar Romans 13:3 (see Lietzmann, ad loc. in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1906), this can be taken as an affirmative sentence with little difference of meaning.

ὦἄνθρωπεκενέ . This address to a single person corresponds with v. 14, v. 19, and v. 22. In v. 24 the writer falls out of the singular into the more natural but less forcible and pungent plural, perhaps because he is there giving a summary statement in conclusion. Direct address in the singular, and in harsh tone, is characteristic of the diatribe, so ὦταλαίπωρε , τάλας , σαννίων , μωρέ , πονηρέ , infelix, miser, stulte; cf. Bultmann, p. 14.

κενός means “ empty,” i. e. “ deficient,” and is used here much like “ fool” ; cf. the Aramaic ר ֵ י ק ָ א ῥακά , Matthew 5:22, also Paul’ s ἄφρων , “ thou fool,” 1 Corinthians 15:36, and ὦἄνθρωπε , Romans 2:1, Romans 9:20. See Trench, Synonyms, § xlix, and Mayor3, p. 102. It is used as a common term of disparagement in obvious senses in Hermas, Mand. xi, passim. The strong expression is called out by James’ s abhorrence of this sham faith.

The view of Hilgenfeld and others, that the Apostle Paul is meant as the ἄνθρωποςκενός hardly needs to be referred to.

ἀργή , “ ineffective,” “ barren” (R.V.), “ unprofitable,” “ unproductive of salvation,” cf. Matthew 12:36, 2 Peter 1:8, Wisd. 14:5 (with Grimm’ s note); this sense is common in classical Greek, where ἀργός is connected with such words as χώρα , γῆ , χρήματα , δόρυ , χρόνος , διατριβή . Cf. νεκρός , vv. 17, 26, in much the same sense.

There is possibly a little play on words here, between χωρὶςτῶνἔργων and ἀργή .

ἀργή ] BC* minn ff sah.

νεκρά ] א AC2KLR minnpler boh syrpesh. hcl. Conformation to v. 26.

21. Ἀβραὰμὁπατὴρἡμῶν . Cf. Matthew 3:9, Romans 4:1, Romans 4:4 Macc. 16:20, 17:6 (Codd. א V, and better reading), Pirke Aboth, v, 4:9, etc. On Abraham as the supreme example of faith, see EB and JE, art. “ Abraham,” Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 154-164.

The use of this phrase suggests that the writer was a Jew, but is not wholly conclusive, for the Christians held themselves to be the spiritual children of Abraham (cf. Galatians 3:7, Romans 4:16 f.). Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1, Clem. Rom. 31:2, which were addressed to readers not of Jewish extraction.

ἐδικαιώθη . Used here as a familiar and current term substantially equivalent to σῶσαι , v. 14.

δικαιοῦν means “ pronounce righteous,” “ acquit” (e.g. Exodus 23:7), and hence is used of God with reference to the great assize on the day of judgment. Like σώζειν , however (cf. Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:21) the word was used by anticipation, as it is here in James, to refer to the present establishment of a claim to (or acceptance of the gift of) such acquittal (e.g. Luke 18:14, Romans 8:30). The meaning of the word δικαιοῦν in Paul’ s use does not differ from that which he found already current, although his theological doctrine of justification, which he set forth with the aid of the word, was highly original.

Nor does the meaning in the present verse depart at all from the ordinary. The justification here referred to is not anything said by God in Genesis, but is the fulfilment of the promises there recorded. See Lex. s. v. δικαιόω ; HDB, “ Justification” ; Sanday, Romans, pp. 28-31.

For an account of many attempts to give a different meaning to ἐδικαιώθη , see Beyschlag, pp. 132 f.

ἐξἔργων .

Cf. Rom_4, especially v. 2, εἰγὰρἈβραὰμἐξἔργωνἐδικαιώθη , ἔχεικαύχημα · ἀλλ ʼ οὐπρὸςθεόνκτλ ., Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16 οὐδικαιοῦταιἄνθρωποςἐξἔργωννόμουκτλ . The contention of James corresponds to the usual Jewish view and to a somewhat superficial common sense.

Note how in Romans 4:1, as here, the case of Abraham is brought in as the great test case to which the readers’ minds are likely spontaneously to turn and to which the opponent will appeal. In each case the writer has to argue against the established idea of his readers, Paul against the Jew, James against the Christian who is using the justification of Abraham as a cloak for iniquity. Hence the abruptness of the opening in both cases.

ἀνενέγκαςκτλ ., Genesis 22:2, Genesis 22:9.

This was an ἔργον , and is here presented as the ground of Abraham’ s justification. See note on ἐπίστευσεν , v. 23.

That Abraham was justified and saved was of course recognised by all; that his justification depended not merely on the initial act of faith, but also on his confirmatory manifestation of this faith under trial is the contention of James. This, he thinks, becomes clear so soon as reference is made to the great incident of the sacrifice of Isaac, whereby (Genesis 22:1) the vital reality of Abraham’ s faith was tested, and on which followed (Genesis 22:15-18) a renewal of the promise. Abraham’ s failure to sustain this test would have shown his faith weak and doubtless have prevented his justification; thus the inference from the great representative case of Abraham to the situation of the readers themselves was unavoidable.

At the same time James’ s real contention in vv. 20-22 is not so much of the necessity of works as of the inseparability of vital faith and works. Not merely are works needed in order to perfect faith, but faith likewise aids works. This is all said in reply to the suggestion in v. 18 that faith and works are separable functions of the Christian life.

In this connection note the singular, βλέπεις , v. 22, and contrast, v. 24, ὁρᾶτε .

The article with θυσιαστήριον has reference to the well-known altar of the story (cf. Genesis 22:9).

ἀναφέρειν , in the sense of “ offer” (as a religious act), appears to be foreign to secular Greek , and due to the LXX, where it is common, mainly as a translation for ה ֶ ֽ ע ֱ ל ָ ה , less often for ה ִ ק ְ ט ִ י ר . In the LXX προσφέρειν is mainly used for ה ִ ק ְ ר ִ י ב . See Westcott’ s note on Hebrews 7:27.

θυσιαστήριον , likewise, in the sense of “ altar,” is not found in secular Greek writers; see Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 453-461.

22. ὅτι . The force of ὅτι probably runs through vv. 22 and 23.

ἡπίστις . The existence and efficiency of Abraham’ s faith (which has not previously been mentioned) is assumed, but alone it is declared not to have been adequate to secure justification.

συνήργειτοῖςἔργοιςαὐτοῦ .

συνήργει ] א *A ff read συνεργεῖ . The weight of ff is here diminished by the fact that it also renders ἐτελειώθη (for which there is no Greek variant) by the present tense confirmatur.

“ Faith helped works, and works completed faith,” sc. toward the end of justification, as v. 21 indicates. In this general statement the mutual relation of faith and works is made plain— the two are inseparable in a properly conducted life (cf. v. 18 b). It is thus hardly true to say that the whole emphasis here rests on τοῖςἔργοις . Bengel: duo commata quorum in priore si illud, fides, in altero operibus cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipietur, qua exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat.

The change of tense is due to the differing nature of the two words (“ linear” and “ punctiliar,” cf. J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 108 f.).

τοῖςἔργοις , dat. of advantage.

συνεργεῖν is a common enough Greek word, but is found in the LXX only in 1 Ezr 7:2; Ezra 7:1 Macc. 12:1, and in the N. T. only Mark 16:20, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 2 Corinthians 6:1. It means “ cooperate with,” “ assist,” “ help.” The E.V. “ wrought with” is misleading, because it tends to put too much emphasis on “ wrought” and not enough on “ with.”

Grimm interprets: “ Faith (was not inactive, but by coworking) caused Abraham to produce works,” and this view is held by many. V. 18 does, indeed, suggest that James had reached this conception of the relation of faith and works as source and product, but it is not expressed in v. 22, nor is it directly implied there. The persistent attempts to find it in v. 22 are ultimately due to Protestant commentators’ interest in the doctrine of the supremacy of faith. Not the power of vital faith to produce works, but the inseparability of faith and works is James’ s contention throughout this passage. The argument is directed against those who would excuse lack of works by appealing to their faith; faith alone, it is declared, is ineffective for securing salvation.

That συνήργει is used in conscious contrast to ἀργή is commonly affirmed, but this interpretation spoils the sense. James does not mean that Abraham’ s faith, being accompanied by (συν -) works, was effective , but that faith and works co-operated.

ἐτελειώθη , “ was perfected,” not as if previously, before the works, it had been an imperfect kind of faith, but meaning that it “ was completed” , and so enabled to do its proper work. If, when the test came, the faith had not been matched by works, then it would have been proved to be an incomplete faith. The works showed that the faith had always been of the right kind, and so “ completed” it.

Schneckenburger and many others take the opposite view, “ fides theoretica imperfecta est donec accedat praxis” ; but these plain people’ s faith was no such theologian’ s theory. Huther and Beyschlag think of faith as “ perfected,” in the sense of growing strong by exercise in works, but this is not exactly the writer’ s thought here. Calvin and others try to give to ἐτελειώθη the unlikely sense “ was shown to be perfect.” Others urge that the process was the complete development of what faith really was. The difficulties which the commentators find are due partly to dogmatic prepossession, partly to their error in supposing that James was a subtle theologian who did not write his practical maxims and swift popular arguments until he had thought out the exact definitions, psychological distinctions, and profound and elusive relations involved in the subject.

23 καὶἐπληρώθη . καὶ introduces the result of συνήργεικαὶἐτελειώθη .

ἡγραφή , viz. Genesis 15:6, quoted accurately from the LXX, except that all but two of the chief Mss. have καὶἐπίστευσεν for ἐπίστευσενδέ .

Paul’ s quotation in Romans 4:3 has δέ , but so do Philo, De mut. nom. 33; Clem. Romans 10:6; Justin Martyr, Dial. 92, so that the agreement need not be significant for the relation of James to Paul. See Hatch, Essays, p. 156, where the evidence is given in full.

The passage Genesis 15:6 (ἐλογίσθηκτλ .) is taken as a prophecy. As such, it was really fulfilled by Abraham’ s conduct set forth in Gen_22. “ And so, by the addition of conduct (whereby his faith was manifested) his faith was perfected, the Scripture promise that he should be justified was fulfilled, and he was called God’ s friend.” The same passage of Genesis is also used by Paul (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6) as proof of his doctrine of justification by faith; James, as if in reply, points out that what he has been saying in v. 21 shows that works had to come in and perfect this faith in order to bring about the desired end of justification.

ἐπίστευσεν .

In Genesis 15:6 the object of Abraham’ s faith is that God will fulfil the promise just given and grant him an heir. In 1 Macc. 2:52, Ἀβραὰμοὐκἐνπειρασμῷεὑρέθηπιστός , καὶἐλογίσθηαὐτῷδικαιοσύνη , Genesis 15:6 is alluded to, and the signal exhibition of this faith in the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen_22, note 22:1) appears to be in mind. So here in James the sacrifice of Abraham is the act which manifests the faith, cf. Genesis 22:16-18; and this seems to follow the ordinary Jewish understanding of the matter. In other passages of the N. T. the case is various.

Romans 4:17 ff. refers to the belief of God’ s promise of a son; Hebrews 11:8 ff. to the faith shown by Abraham’ s departure for an unknown country; Hebrews 11:9 to his residence in Canaan; Hebrews 11:17 ff. to the sacrifice of Isaac. Clem. Rom. 31 connects the sacrifice of Isaac with Abraham’ s righteousness and faith; Genesis 15:6 is quoted, but the precise nature of Abraham’ s faith is not indicated.

ἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην . From Genesis 15:6.

The same expression is found (of Phinehas) in Psalms 106:30, Psalms 106:31; cf. Genesis 15:6 (with Skinner’ s note), Deuteronomy 24:13, “ it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord, thy God,” Deuteronomy 6:25, Proverbs 27:14. It means that God accounted the act (here an act of faith) to be righteous, i. e. righteous in special and distinguished measure. The developed use of δικαιοσύνη to denote the possession of God’ s approval on the whole, and not merely with reference to a single act, necessarily enlarged the meaning of the expression, which in the N. T. is treated as equivalent to ἐδικαιώθη .

The name of God is avoided in the LXX translation by recasting the sentence and using the passive voice ἐλογίσθη for the active verb of the Hebrew (see Dalman, Worte Jesu, i, pp. 183 ff., Eng. transl., pp. 224-226). Similarly in Psalms 106:30 f., Psalms 106:1 Macc. 2:52.

καὶφίλοςθεοῦἐκλήθη .

This sentence, which is not to be included as a part of ἡγραφή , is parallel to ἡπίστιςἐτελειώθηκαὶἐπληρώθηἡγραφή , “ In this fact the promise implied in ἐλογίσθη was fulfilled.” The reward was greater than in the case of the justification and salvation of ordinary men.

“ Friend of God,” i. e. “ beloved by God,” appears to have been a designation commonly applied to Abraham. So Isaiah 41:8 ; Philo, De sobr. 11, M. p. 401 , Jubilees 19:9, 30:20, Test. Abraham, passim. The same idea is expressed in different language in 2 Chronicles 20:7 , Dan. 3:35, Daniel 3:4 Ezra 3:14, Philo, De Abrahamo, 19 , and Abraham’ s love to God is emphasised in Pirke Aboth, v, 4. Among modern Arabs the common designation of Abraham is “ the friend of God,” el khalil Allah, or el khalil (cf. Koran, sura iv, 124), and the name is even given to Hebron, his burial-place; cf. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, 1885, p. 269.

In view of this evidence it can only be said that Clem. Romans 10:1 , 17:2, Tertullian, Adv. Judœ os 2, unde Abraham amicus dei deputatus ? do not furnish proof of the dependence of Clement of Rome and Tertullian on James. In Iren. iv, 16:2, ipse Abraham sine circumcisione et sine observatione sabbatorum, credidit deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus dei vocatus est, the similar combination of Gen 15:6 and this sentence is probably a mere coincidence. See Introduction, pp. 87, 90 f.

It seems more likely that James writes here with the title already commonly applied to Abraham in mind than that he uses φίλος as merely equivalent to δικαιωθείς , as many (e. g. Spitta, pp. 82 f.) hold. Yet the repeated use in the Book of Jubilees (chs. 19, 30) of the expression “ written down as a friend of God,” in the sense of “ having been granted salvation,” and the connection in one instance (ch. 30) of this expression with the phrase, “ it became righteousness to them,” gives some plausibility to such a view. In any case φίλοςθεοῦἐκλήθη and ἐδικαιώθη relate to the same act of God, whether the former is a mere equivalent of the latter or has a larger meaning.

But to assume that James was thinking of the “ heavenly tablets” when he wrote ἐκλήθη is gratuitous. Jewish thought knew of other ways by which God could give a name besides inscribing it in a book.

24 ὁρᾶτε , direct address in plural, as everywhere in the epistle except vv. 18-23, cf. 4 Macc. 12:4, Clem. Romans 12:8.

KL minnpler add τοίνυν .

ἐκπίστεωςμόνον , i. e. without the aid and co-operation (cf. v. 22) of works. This is a formal and conclusive reply to the question of v. 14.

It is not to be inferred that James held to a justification by works without faith. Such a misunderstanding is so abhorrent to his doctrine of the inseparability of faith and works that it does not occur to him to guard himself against it. And the idea itself would have been foreign to Jewish as well as to Christian thought. The fate of the heathen does not come into the question.

25 An additional argument from Scripture: Rahab’ s justification came from works.

Ῥαὰβἡπόρνη , so Joshua 6:17, Joshua 6:23, Joshua 6:25; cf. Joshua 2:1-21, Joshua 2:6:17, 22-25, Hebrews 11:31, Matthew 1:5, Clem. Rom_12.

Older writers tried to soften the reference by taking πόρνη in some unnatural sense, as cook, landlady (here following Jewish guidance), or idolater; but the literal sense is the only possible one; see Lightfoot’ s note on Clem. Rom_12.

In Jewish midrash of various ages Rahab was the subject of much interest. She was believed to have become a sincere proselyte, to have married Joshua, and to have been the ancestress of many priests and prophets, including Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Her faith as implied in Joshua 2:11 was deemed notably complete, and was said to have evoked the express recognition of God himself; and she, with certain other proselyte women, was called “ the pious.” See JE, “ Rahab.” This evidence of special Jewish attention to Rahab, although the actual rabbinical passages are some of them late, fully justifies the assumption that the references to Rahab in Hebrews and Clement of Rome are independent of this verse in James; cf. Introduction, pp. 22, 87. It is noteworthy that none of the words used to describe Rahab’ s conduct are the same in Hebrews and in James. Clement of Rome may, of course, here as elsewhere, be dependent on Hebrews.

ἐξἔργων . The works consisted in the friendly reception and aid in escaping given to the spies, as described in Jos_2. The faith to which an opponent might have pointed (cf. Hebrews 11:31, Clem. Rom_12) is displayed in Rahab’ s words, Joshua 2:9-11, especially v. 11 ὅτικύριοςὁθεὸςὑμῶνθεὸς (so Cod. A) ἐνοὐρανῷἄνωκαὶἐπὶτῆςγῆςκάτω .

The choice of Abraham and Rahab as examples here is probably to be explained by observing that the one was the accepted and natural representative of faith and justification, while the other is an extreme case, where, if anywhere, James’ s argument might seem to fail. Notice καί , and a certain emphasis on ἡπόρνη , “ even though a harlot.” These two instances thus cover the whole wide range of possibilities. This is better than the view, long ago suggested, that the mention of Rahab, a proselyte from the Gentiles, shows that the epistle was addressed to Christian communities containing Gentiles as well as Jews (Zahn, Einleitung, § 4, Eng. transl. 1, p. 91).

ἀγγέλους ] CKmgL minn ff boh syrpesh. hcl read κατασκόπους , cf. Hebrews 11:31.

ἐκβαλοῦσα , “ sent out,” with no thought of any violence of action, cf. Matthew 9:38, Matthew 12:35, Luke 6:42, Luke 10:35.

26 Concluding statement

ὥσπερ . The deadness of faith without works is illustrated from a dead body. With works absent, faith is no more alive than is a body without the πνεῦμα .

The comparison is sometimes said to halt, because, whereas the death of the body is caused by the departure of the spirit, the deadness of faith is not caused, but only recognised, by its failure to produce works; and it is suggested that faith, as the source of activity, could better be compared with the spirit, and works with the body. But to the mind of James faith and works co-operate to secure justification, and by works faith is kept alive. So the body and the spirit co-operate to secure continued life, and by the spirit the body is kept alive. When v. 22 is given its true meaning, the parallel is seen to be better than is often thought.

γάρ ] B syrpesh arm omit. ff renders autem.

πνεύματος . This is most naturally taken of “ the vital principle by which the body is animated.”

A less probable interpretation takes πνεῦμα as meaning “ breath,” which the body is thought of as producing. This makes a more complete parallel to the relation of faith and the works which it ought to produce, but is forced. Cf. Psalms 104:29, Tob. 3:6; Q. Curtius Rufus, x, 19 illud scire debetis militarem sine duce turbam corpus esse sine spiritu.

Mayor J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, 1892, 21897, 31910.

Winer G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Thayer’ s translation, 21873.

Hadley-Allen J. Hadley, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges, revised by F. D. Allen, 1884.

L. and S. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 71883.

HDB J. Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1898-1902.

Buttmann A. Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Thayer’ s translation, 1876.

Heisen H. Heisen, Novae hypotheses interpretandae epistolae Jacobi, Bremen, 1739.

Zahn, Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 31906-1907.

Schü rer, E. Schü rer, Geschichte des jü dischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 41901-1909.

EB Encyclopœ dia Biblica, 1899-1903.

Lex. J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1886.

Hatch, Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889.

Bultmann R. Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, xiii), 1910.

Burton, E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 41900.

Blass-Debrunner A. Debrunner, Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte vö ilig neugearbeitete Auflage, 1913.

J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol I. Prolegomena, 1906, 31908.

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 21902.

Krü ger K. W. Krü ger, Griechische Sprachlehre fü r Schulen, 41861-1862.

Pott D. J. Pott, in Novum Testamentum Grœ ce, editio Koppiana, Gö ttingen, 31816.

Zahn Theodor Zahn

Trench, R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 121894.

JE The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906.