Prejudice and the Poor
In chapter 2 James expands upon the theme of worldliness and the care of widows. Worldliness shows up not only as personal ambition but also in a church’s paying regard to someone’s worldly power and position rather than dealing only on the basis of that person’s spiritual position in Christ. This issue, in turn, leads to the statement of the need for generosity and to a warning against a complacent orthodoxy that stops short of gospel obedience (2:14–26).
2:1 My brothers recognizes the readers’ status as church members. Don’t show favoritism: Despite the fact that God shows no partiality (Deut. 10:17; Gal. 2:6), human beings who serve under his authority and supposedly copy his character must be continually warned against being partial (e.g., Deut. 1:17; Lev. 19:15; Ps. 82:2; Prov. 6:35; 18:5). A glance at who is elected to office in the church and who sits on denominational committees would quickly indicate that despite the very negative view Jesus took of wealth (e.g., Mark 10), James’ reproof is still relevant today. The church ought to show no partiality, no concern about the outward beauty, wealth, or power of a person.
This is demanded of us as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. The only basis of the church is faith in a single Lord. Belief and commitment save rich and poor alike, and all pledge allegiance to a Lord whose life and teaching ignored, if not despised, worldly position. Furthermore, this Lord is living, exalted, glorious; he will return to manifest his glory and judge the world. Partiality is a violation of his character and an insult to him; it is therefore a serious sin.
2:2–4 Having stated his topic, James gives an example based on realistic (even if hypothetical) events in the church. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes: The words describe a person walking in, neatly dressed in clean (lit., “shining”) clothes. The gold ring on his finger announces his wealth. One can feel the uneasy deference of the group already present. Next, a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. He owns only one set of clothes, so they are filthy rags. Used to being rejected, he slinks in the door only to feel those assembled draw back from him as he expected; the trashy state of his clothes declares him to be human trash, of no value in worldly terms.
The church responds to the economic status of the rich man: Here’s a good seat for you. He eases himself into the most comfortable chair, to the warm smiles of all present. The poor man, however, receives only a cold You stand there, or Sit on the floor by my feet. The room is crowded; let him reverence his betters by standing, or even sitting at their feet. Most of those present, of course, try not to even notice him.
What makes this treatment even worse is that the two parties pictured are at a judicial gathering, a church court assembled to try a dispute between them. The details of differing clothes and standing and sitting can be paralleled in Jewish judicial practice. First Corinthians 6:1–11 mentions that such assemblies, which would have legal authority since at this time the church was viewed as a sect of Judaism and Jewish synagogues, had authority to set up their own courts (beth-din) and impose fines or beatings. Certainly in other situations (e.g., worship), posture in church meetings would be uniform (all would sit or stand) and a person’s role would be more carefully prescribed. But these two Christians have a dispute, and one thing is clear to the church from the start: the wealthy man must not be offended.
James condemns this behavior on two grounds. First, you have discriminated among yourselves. Christ had made them all one: In him there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female; but all are one, one new person in Christ (Gal. 3:28). They, however, are conveniently ignoring this fact and distinguishing on the basis of wealth and status in the world, denying the practical effect of Christ’s work.
Second, they have become judges with evil thoughts. A host of Old Testament passages warns against judicial prejudice, for example: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly” (Lev. 19:15). If, as the Old Testament claims, God is an impartial judge and if they claim to judge according to his standards, how dare they act unjustly, prejudicing their decision in favor of the rich man because they covet his wealth and power?
While looking at the specific example James gives, however, one must not ignore the wider application. Would he be any happier if the poor person were cold-shouldered in a worship meeting? Would the poor person be any less wronged if the preferential treatment were given the rich in the choice for office in the church? Or would the discrimination be any less glaring if the pastoral staff listened carefully to “prime donors” but brushed aside the suggestions of the poor? As specific as the example is, it functions as a general condemnation of discriminatory behavior.
2:5 James begins his logical attack on the practice (2:5–7) with a plea, Listen, my dear brothers, calling to their attention that he is referring to something they already know: Has not God chosen those who are poor? James uses the familiar election terminology of Israel (Deut. 4:37; 7:7) and the church (Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:9), but he applies it specifically to the poor. Most of the members of the early church were poor (“few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing” [1 Cor. 1:26]), and the Jerusalem church was especially poor (2 Cor. 8:9); but James is saying more than this. God particularly elected those who are poor in the eyes of the world (for it is only with respect to the world’s values that they are poor) to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him. On the one hand, this makes the poor virtually identical to the one who endures in 1:12, for both receive what God promised those who love him. On the other hand, James is applying the teaching of Jesus, for it was Jesus who said he came particularly “to preach good news [or the gospel] to the poor” (Luke 4:18) and who further said, “Blessed are you who are poor; for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). Jesus selected the poor as the special recipients of his kingdom; James picks up this idea adding those who love him to limit the promise to the poor who respond to the good news. If there are any favorites in God’s eyes, they are the poor, for God has a very different way of viewing them than the world has. The world sees them as poor, unimportant, but God sees them as rich (in faith) and heirs of the Kingdom, a reversal of perspective.
2:6–7 The church lacks God’s perspective: You have insulted the poor. God condemns the same crime in the Old Testament (e.g., Prov. 14:21; cf. Sirach 10:22). The church that shames the poor in any way (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:22) has stepped outside of God’s will and no longer acts on behalf of God.
The church, however, has shown preference for the rich class, who are its oppressors. First, it is the rich who are exploiting you. The idea of the wealthy and powerful exploiting the poor and weak is deeply rooted in the Old Testament (Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 18:7; Amos 4:1; 8:4; Mal. 3:5). The poor person needed a loan and the rich gave it to him—for a price (despite the fact that taking interest, i.e., profiting from another’s need, was forbidden, e.g., Exod. 22:25–26). If there was a dispute, the rich man hired the best lawyer. They set up society so that the poor got poorer, and the rich richer.
Second, they are dragging you into court. When the poor could not repay a loan, the rich dragged them into court to foreclose. Or they may have brought charges of libel against those who complained, or perhaps they even accused the Christians of disturbing the peace and order of the community. In all these ways, Christians experienced some persecution that was simply oppression of all poor by the rich, but sometimes they were singled out because their religion made them especially vulnerable—what judge felt bad about being especially hard on the followers of the despised Galilean?
Third, the rich are … the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong. Now James adds a specifically religious charge. The name of Jesus was given to Christians, or (more literally) called over them at baptism. They now belong to him, and he was their Lord. But the rich were speaking evil of this name, either by making fun of Jesus or by insulting his followers. It is not clear whether they were doing this in court as part of their oppression or whether they were insulting Christ in the synagogues and markets. Neither action would have been righteous.
The church, however, had also chosen to insult the poor (whom God honors), and by the same action it had chosen to favor the rich and thus to identify with the oppressing class. It is often the case that an oppressed group takes on the characteristics of its oppressors; when this happens to the church, it is not just pathetically ironic but is a moral reversal, for the people who name the name of Christ are now acting like the people who blaspheme the name of Christ.
2:8–9 James now proceeds to the biblical argument: If you really keep the royal (i.e., of the kingdom) law … you are doing right. The kingdom in this context (cf. 2:5) is the kingdom of God. While the full glory of this kingdom is still future, the Christian has already entered it and stands under its authority. The law of the kingdom is the Old Testament as interpreted and edited by Jesus, as in Matthew 5–6. To say that one is doing right when he or she obeys Jesus’ law is a massive understatement: Jesus himself presents his teaching as a matter of life and death (Matt. 7:13–27).
The law is found in Scripture, for Jesus generally interpreted the Old Testament rather than speaking without any reference to previous revelation. The specific command that James cites, Love your neighbor as yourself, is a favorite of both Jesus (he cites Lev. 19:18 six times in the synoptic Gospels) and the church (Rom. 13:19; Gal. 5:14). It was frequently seen as summing up the law, but James’ reason for citing it may be in Proverbs 14:21: “He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy (poor).” The poor person is, according to scripture, the neighbor they should love. But these Christians are showing favoritism; they are discriminating against the poor, and this is to break this commandment, for it is all connected, as the apocryphal Jewish Testament of Issachar states (in 5:2), “Love the Lord and your neighbor and have compassion on the poor and feeble.”
Therefore they sin. Their actions are not unfortunate or regrettable or something they should not have done, but simply sin. James is not afraid to use a stark, piercing word to underline the situation, for beating around the bush does not lead to repentance. They are convicted by the law as lawbreakers: In this phrase one has a picture of God’s last judgment. The person in the dock sees not James, but the personified Law itself, stand up, point its accusing finger, and state, “That person is a transgressor.” Such a charge is serious, for Jewish Christians knew that to knowingly transgress the law invited God’s judgment upon them.
2:10 The reason behind this conclusion is a truism: Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. The statement does not mean that it is just as bad no matter which commandment one breaks (e.g., stealing a shoe is as bad as murder) but rather that if one breaks a law one demonstrates an underlying attitude toward the lawgiver and thus is simply a criminal. Deuteronomy 27:26 puts it this way, “Cursed is the [one] who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” The particular offense may have been more or less serious, but the person stands under a curse whichever commandment he or she has broken. James’ argument is important in that he is showing that the rebellion against God is more important than the specific act and that no deliberate transgression of God’s teachings is unimportant.
2:11 James illustrates his point using two well-known laws (Exod. 20:13–14; Deut. 5:17–18). For he, that is, God, gave both laws. Thus though a Mafia hit man, for example, may pride himself on his marital fidelity while he murders, this does not excuse him in any way before God. He is still simply a lawbreaker.
The choice of the two laws may also be significant. Although it is less likely that adultery is referring to their adultery with the world (wealth) in 4:4, the reversed order and the fact that in biblical and Jewish tradition murder was often connected to the failure to love one’s neighbor or care for the poor may be a sign that their discrimination against the poor brings them under this very charge. If you do … commit murder may not be entirely hypothetical in James’ mind.
2:12 James’ conclusion sums up his biblical argument. In all one’s actions one should keep the final judgment in mind. The word pair speak and act covers all human behavior (cf. Acts 1:1; 7:22; 1 John 3:18). And both speech and action appear in his example (2:2–4). The command to look at all behavior in the light of judgment fits the situation excellently.
The standard of judgment is the law gives freedom, or the law of liberty. The idea has already been mentioned in 1:25, where obedience to this perfect law brings blessing. It is the same as the law of the kingdom of 2:8, namely, the Old Testament as interpreted by Jesus, which will be the standard of judgment (cf. Matt. 7:15–23; Luke 6:43–45). James does not think of this as a forbidding concept, for this law is freeing in that it points away from the bondage of sin and shows the way of life.
2:13 To back up this argument from scripture (i.e., because) and to begin to shift the focus to the next section, James adds a proverbial saying: judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. God is merciful, as any reader of the Old Testament should know. Exodus 34:5–6 states that when God revealed to Moses his nature and pronounced his name he described himself as “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (cf. Deut. 4:31; Ps. 103:8–14, which connects this to his judging “in favor of the oppressed”). If this is God’s personal standard of righteousness, then it follows that his true followers should copy him. “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, cf. Hos. 4:1; 6:6; 12:6; Prov. 14:21; Dan. 4:27). Or again, “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.’ ” (Zech. 7:9). Not to show mercy is to step outside of God’s covenant and to invite God in return to judge by the same strict standard.
This teaching was made even more explicit in the intertestamental and rabbinic periods. Sirach states, “Does [a person] have no mercy toward a man like himself and yet pray for his own sins?” (Sirach 28:4; cf. 27:30–28:7; Tobit 4:9–11; Testament of Zebulun 8:8), and “Rabbi Barabbi said, ‘To him who is merciful to the created, Heaven is merciful, but to him who is unmerciful to the created, Heaven is also unmerciful’ ” (b. Shabbath 151b).
Jesus taught, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). This is underlined in his teaching on forgiveness (Matt. 6:14–15), his response to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:7, quoting Hos. 6:6), his parable on forgiveness (Matt. 18:21–35), and his parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31–46). Therefore it is the unified witness of the Gospels that Jesus followed standard Jewish teaching and taught that God would show mercy only to those obeying him and doing likewise.
James’ use of this saying shows that he had learned Jesus’ tradition carefully, for it becomes his clinching argument. Even if the logical and biblical arguments have not convinced the reader that justice and love demand that the poor be treated honorably, then the Christian must still honor the poor person out of mercy and the fear of God’s judgment.
Furthermore, mercy triumphs over judgment! This is the positive side of the proverb. It is—as the parables of Jesus cited above show—mercy, that is, a person’s faithful submission and obedience to God, that conquers judgment. This cuts two ways, for the mercy will destroy both one’s judging of others and God’s judgment of oneself.
Significant in the choice of words here is the fact that mercy in scripture is not simply charitable evaluation of others but caring for the poor, that is, charity. This not only reflects the previous section of honoring the poor but asks why the Christians were not themselves caring for the poor.
James now focuses on charity and its relevance to faith within the overall topic of the care and appreciation of the poor. The structure is parallel to 2:1–13: in each section James opens with a topic verse, then has an example, a logical argument, and a two-part biblical argument.
2:14 My brothers indicates a new departure in the argument. What good is it … if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? The question is purely rhetorical. The form of the question implies James’ expectation of a negative answer: No good at all!
The situation is that of saying one has faith but lacking deeds. In this passage, faith has a special meaning for James, that is, orthodox belief conventionally expressed (like “religion” in 1:26). This person can pass the test of orthodoxy, asserting belief in Jesus as Savior. The problem is that his or her lifestyle is identical to that of Jewish (or pagan) neighbors (except for the form of worship): there is no evident self-giving, no detachment from and sharing of wealth. James’ response is, What good is it?
Again James asks, Can such faith save him? The form of this second question also implies the negative answer. There is no salvation for the person who stops short of discipleship. If faith is only intellectual, only expressed in religious practices, it will not save. The Old Testament also condemns piety without action, as do John the Baptist (Luke 3:7–14), Jesus (Matt. 7:15–27), and Paul (Rom. 1:5; 2:6–8; 6:17–18; Gal. 6:4–6). James follows the rest of scripture: faith without actions (discipleship) will never save.
2:15 James clarifies his point with an example: Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. James does not pick a hard situation. This is not a case of someone outside the Christian faith (so there can be no “Do you expect us to feed the whole world?” response), nor is this a case of a need in a distant church (like Paul’s collection for Jerusalem). This is someone in the community (a brother or sister) who clearly has a need, for the person needs clothes (either lacking the outer garment that was worn in public places and kept one warm at night or else having clothes in such a ragged condition that they could keep no one warm) and does not have daily food. The example, while hypothetical (suppose) is both demanding and realistic, for in a marginal society like that in the New Testament it was not unusual for people to lack basic necessities. In fact, in the 40s and 50s famine and starvation conditions hit Judea repeatedly.
2:16 If one of you says to him: This indicates the response of a member of the church: The member of the church who is impoverished has come to another member, and that Christian is turning the brother or sister down.
The words are very pious: I wish you well is a standard farewell in the Jewish church; keep warm and well fed shows that the material needs of the person have been recognized—the expression is probably a prayer. But if you do nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? James assumes that the Christian could do more than pray; he or she owns two garments and more than enough food for the day. Simple obedience to the gospel teaching on sharing could supply the need, but the resort to prayer salved the conscience and covered up the fact that the cupboard and closet were shut. Such prayers are useless.
2:17 In the same way, faith: The example was a specific example of orthodox language and intellectual belief without gospel obedience. The same is true for intellectual belief in general; if it remains a pious conviction (by itself) and fails to result in obedience to the commands of Christ (not accompanied by action), it is totally unprofitable (dead). For Paul it was only “faith expressing itself through love” that mattered (Gal. 5:6), rather than religious ritual works. For James it is faith that leads to action that saves. Action (obedience to Christ) is no more an “added extra” or a higher optional level of sanctification than breath is an “added extra” to a body (cf. 1:26; 2:14; 2:20; and 2:26).
2:18 Having given the example, James proceeds to argue his case, employing the lively style of imaginative dialogue, which was as popular with preachers of all types then as it is today.
But someone will say means that just as Paul anticipates an objection in 1 Corinthians 15:35 or Romans 9:19 so James anticipates one here. The objection is: You have faith; I have deeds, in other words, the claim that faith and action are different gifts. Did not Paul write about varieties of gifts but the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4–10)? Faith is a gift and so is charity (Rom. 12:8). Is there any reason for one to suspect that faith and action would come together in the same person any more than healing and tongues or prophecy and evangelism?
James answers with a demand that is common to this kind of speech: Show me [or “prove to me”] your faith without deeds. A better translation would be “Prove your faith without action.” This demand is impossible to meet. Like a horse that cannot be seen, smelled, touched, or ridden, that eats invisible grass and leaves no mark on the ground, such faith is indemonstrable and suspect. Faith is seen in lifestyle, or as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, “If I had all … faith but had not love, I am nothing.”
On the other hand, I will show you my faith by what I do. Though a claim to faith without resultant life is suspect, so conversely Christian action demands one posit a motivation behind it. No one lives like Jesus without faith in Jesus. The sermon preached by a life of action does not need to buttonhole people to get a hearing; instead, people hearing the unwritten sermon of action request an explanation in terms of the faith that motivates it.
2:19 James has not yet put to rest the specter of dead orthodoxy, so he turns to the assertion of belief itself and accepts it at face value. You believe that there is one God. Good! This is the most basic teaching of Judaism and Christianity, being the first part of the Shema. This confession of faith was recited two times a day by every Pharisaic Jew, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:4–5; the fullest form of the Shema included Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41). Such a confession of faith was a starting place for Christians as well, for Jesus had referred to it as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28–34). Paul would assert “there is only one God” (Rom. 3:30). Hermas would later write that the most basic tenet of Christianity is “First of all, believe that God is one” (Mandate 1). So although Christians believe more than this, this belief is the starting point.
But James’ praise is partly tongue-in-cheek: Even the demons believe that—and shudder. The orthodoxy of the demons was well known not only in Judaism but also in the New Testament, where the demons frequently give fuller confessions of Christ than the apostles (Mark 1:24; 5:7; Acts 16:17; 19:15). Their problem is that their response to the name of God (the reminder of their orthodox knowledge) is to shudder, because they are in rebellion against that God. All their orthodox knowledge simply makes them tremble, for their “faith” does not lead to obedient action. Likewise, those who can only claim an orthodox confession of faith are doing no better than Satan if they have not committed themselves to lives of obedience.
2:20 James has completed his theological argument but will add concrete scriptural illustrations. Before citing these passages he adds (as was common in the homiletic style of the day): You foolish man. The address seems strong—hardly polite—and it is, as the term fool indicates, not primarily an intellectual error, but a moral error. Yet the strong language was normal for that day: One need only cite Jesus (Matt. 23:17; Luke 24:25) or Paul (1 Cor. 15:36; Gal. 3:1) to be able to guess accurately that Jewish teachers of all types and Greek teachers as well used similar language.
The content of the appeal is almost equally strong: Do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? This suggests that it is the person’s willful ignorance that is demanding more proof and may make it impossible to accept the proof. A searching mind receives evidence quickly, but the willfully ignorant can never be shown enough evidence. Yet James makes the charitable assumption and continues the discussion.
2:21 The first character discussed is our ancestor Abraham. A gentile Christian could have written this expression, thinking of the church as the New Israel (Rom. 4; Gal. 2:7, 29), but it is more likely the unconscious reference of a Jewish Christian. Yet, in a sense, Abraham is the father of all the faithful, and the reference fits all Christians.
Abraham was considered righteous. With this translation the NIV correctly differentiates James’ terminology from that of Paul. James uses the standard meaning of this term, “declared right by God” or “considered righteous by God”, whereas Paul uses the same language in a unique way (“make [a sinner] right”). James’ meaning clearly flows from the Old Testament passage which lies behind his conclusion, Genesis 22:12, in which God says, “Now I know that you fear God,” the “now I know” being the declaration of righteousness. (This difference in meaning, of course, is another indication that James had not had contact with Paul’s work.)
The basis of the declaration was actions: It was for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. Abraham’s faith in God was real because it governed Abraham’s life. The word what he did is plural, because in selecting the offering of Isaac James points to the Jewish tradition in which this was the capstone of all Abraham’s actions. “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52). The tests referred to are a series of ten tests, culminating in the sacrifice of Isaac, which were Abraham’s works of charity: “Abraham woke up charity which slept. For he opened an inn, and received within it the passersby” (Midrash on Psalms on Ps. 110:1). The basis of his legendary charity was Genesis 18 as interpreted by tradition. Thus Genesis 15:6 was seen as an anticipatory declaration in the light of subsequent action revealing true faith. The declaration of righteousness comes in two ways: First is the fact that God inexplicably aborts the sacrifice, as this later Jewish story illustrates:
The angels then broke into loud weeping, and they exclaimed: “The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth, he [God] hath broken the covenant. Where is the regard of Abraham, he who took the wayfarers into his house, gave them food and drink, and went with them to bring them on their way?… for the slaughtering knife is set upon his throat.” [Then God in response acknowledges Abraham’s righteousness by ordering him to stop.]
Second is the “now I know” statement of Genesis 22:12; Abraham had a lived-out faith that had resulted in righteous actions that in turn were declared right by God.
2:22 James continues: You see. Surely the point of the passages cited was clear; His faith and his actions were working together. (Or, “his faith worked with his actions.”) But where did the faith come from? The answer lies in the Jewish traditions about Abraham. These asserted that Abraham, who lived in an idolatrous culture, had contemplated nature, and this had led him to the one God. He had rejected idolatry, burned the local house of gods, and committed himself to the one God (the story is narrated in the apocryphal book of Jubilees 11–12). Thus Abraham was the originator of the creed “there is one God” (James 2:19).
Given this background, it is clear that a Jewish Christian would understand how faith and actions worked together. Unlike Terah in the legends, who agrees with Abraham’s faith but through fear of the people tells Abraham to keep quiet and hold this faith in his heart, Abraham acts consistently with his faith. His faith works with or directs his actions.
Furthermore, his faith was made complete by what he did. The idea is not that faith was perfected in the sense of it having been less than faith before, but that faith is brought to maturity through action (cf. 1:4, 15). There is a mutuality: Faith informs and motivates action; action matures faith. James is not rejecting one for the other but is instead insisting that the two are totally inseparable.
2:23 James draws two conclusions. First, and the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Although Paul also cites this passage (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6), he and James interpret it differently. For Paul the point is that Abraham believed God and was declared righteous before he was circumcised and thus before keeping the ritual law. James (like 1 Macc. 2:52) sees the two parts of the sentence as separate statements. The first is Abraham believed God, or “had faith in God.” That was true; all Jewish tradition witnessed to his belief that God is one. The second is it was credited to him as righteousness, or better, “God declared him righteous.” This was also true. Abraham expressed his faith at every turn, whether in welcoming strangers (charity), refusing reward from the king of Sodom, or offering his son Isaac. Thus both parts of the sentence are true, and the scripture in Genesis makes the same point about Abraham as James has been arguing.
The second conclusion is and he was called God’s friend. Unlike the first conclusion, this is not a direct biblical quotation but a rough paraphrase of the sense of Isaiah 41:8 or 2 Chronicles 20:7. Its significance is that the Jews connected the title “friend” with Abraham’s faithfulness and obedience under testing. Thus the apocryphal Jewish work Jubilees, after recounting the completion of the tenth test of Abraham, concludes, “he was found faithful, and was recorded on the heavenly tablets as the friend of God” (19:9). In harmony with this idea, James points out that the fact that God refers to Abraham as a friend also shows that he had more than an intellectual faith; he had an active faithfulness expressed in obedience.
2:24 James summarizes: You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. This summary, which is addressed to the “my brothers” of 2:14, not the objector of 2:18, causes a problem, for it appears that James is contradicting Paul, who writes in Romans 3:28, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (cf. Rom. 3:20; 4:16). This problem can be resolved by careful interpretation.
First, by what he does means for James works of love and charity (as in 1:27), whereas Paul is always concerned about “observing the law,” meaning specifically the ritual law, for example, circumcision, dietary regulations, sacrifices. Paul expected every Christian to do works of love and charity (e.g., Eph. 2:10; Gal. 6:9–10) and also believed that those who failed to follow through in this area were not among the “saved” (e.g., Gal. 5:19–21; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Rom. 1:28–32).
Second, a person is justified is a poor translation (unlike that in 2:21 above), for it reads the Pauline meaning of this term (the forgiveness which repentant sinners receive at God’s judgment seat when they put their trust in Christ) into James. James is still using the older and more standard meaning of the term, “a person is declared to be righteous by God” or “is considered righteous by God” and this “on the basis on what he does” (and not on the basis of what ideas he agrees to).
Third, not by faith alone means for James “by intellectual belief that God is one” or “that Jesus is Lord,” whereas faith for Paul means personal commitment to Christ that leads inevitably to obedience because one is convinced that Jesus is Lord. For Paul the concern is to prove that one is not “saved” by ritual actions (“observing the law,” or the “works of the law”). He would never consider separating faith and actions the way James does, except to refute such a separation (e.g., Rom. 6–8). Therefore, though Paul uses “alone” with ritual works (Rom. 4:16), James uses it with faith to show its illegitimate total separation from action.
James’ point is that God will not approve a person just because he or she is very orthodox or can pass a test in systematic theology. He will declare someone righteous only if this faith is such that the person acts on it and produces the natural result of commitment, obedient action. With such a point Paul would not disagree.
2:25 James continues, introducing a second illustration, Rahab the prostitute, whose words and actions in Joshua 2:1–21 fascinated the Jews as well as the early Christians (Heb. 11:31). Again the translation considered righteous is the correct one. Again there is a faith-action combination. Rahab had faith, for in Joshua 2:9–10 she confesses a faith that came from reflection on what God had done for Israel. But her faith was not enough to deliver her; she had to act by giving lodging to the spies and then sending them off in a different direction, which meant risking her life. Hebrews 11:31 similarly stresses faith-motivated action: “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” Faith alone would not have saved her, but when faith led to action the spies declared her righteous. She became one of the promised people and an ancestor of David (and Jesus) because her faith was that of committed action, not intellectual reflection.
2:26 With so, James welds together the themes of 2:14 and 2:17 to form a concluding verse: As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. A body without spirit (or breath) is a corpse. Jews were aware that it was when a person “breathed his last” or “gave up his spirit” (the words for breath and spirit being identical in both Greek and Hebrew) he was dead (John 19:30; Luke 23:46; Ecclesiastes 3:21; 8:8; 9:5). A dead body is a liability that must be buried. Likewise faith that remains intellectual belief is dead. It cannot save; it is a liability, for it can deceive a person as to his or her true spiritual state. Only when faith becomes full commitment and is joined to actions does it have value.
Additional Notes
2:1 The term for partiality (prosōpolēmpsia) was coined by the Christian ethical tradition on the basis of the Old Testament statements about God and applied especially to God’s judgment (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17). See further E. Lohse, “Prosōpolēmpsia,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 779–80.
The phrase our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is awkward Greek. S. S. Laws, James, pp. 95–97; and J. B. Mayor, James, pp. 80–82, argue for a titular use parallel to John 14:6, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory.” Some ancient translations believe the faith is what is glorious, i.e., “the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The translation that this commentary prefers, on the analogy of Eph. 6:24 and James 1:25, is that of the NIV our glorious Lord Jesus Christ (see further M. Dibelius, James, p. 128; J. H. Ropes, James, p. 187). If this is the correct interpretation then Christ is seen as the expression of God’s own glory, which surrounded his presence in the Old Testament, particularly when he acted to save Israel. In the New Testament this reference is especially applied to God’s coming salvation of his people, i.e., his eschatological deliverance (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; John 1:14; 17:5; Rom. 8:17; 1 Cor. 2:8; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13). By using this term James removes his readers’ focus from their present situation and reminds them that the present world is transitory. See further S. Aalen, “Glory, Honor,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 44–48.
On Jesus and the Bible’s attitude toward wealth see further R. Sider, Cry Justice (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), pp. 124–46.
2:2 The rich man in the example is never called rich in the Greek text. He is simply referred to as a person with a gold ring and fine clothes, from which his wealth is correctly inferred. James never uses the Greek word for rich (plousios) when writing about wealthy Christians (cf. 4:13–17) but does when referring to pagans (1:10–11; 2:6; 5:1–6). The rich are by definition outside the kingdom (cf. Luke 6:24). The other person, however, is expressly called poor (ptōchos), for that is almost a title for the Christian community (cf. 2:5).
The person enters your meeting; James uses synagōgē instead of the usual term for church, ekklēsia (5:14). Synagōgē occasionally refers to Christian gatherings until the time of Ignatius and Hermas (Mandate 11.9, 13–14) as W. Schrage, “Synagōgē,” TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 840–41 shows, but it is unusual, being chosen because James is not referring to an assembly for worship but to a special assembly. The word itself means a gathering.
It is in Jewish sources that one reads of the importance of similar clothing and posture in judicial assemblies (e.g., Deut. Rabba 5:6 on Deut. 16:19; b. Shebuot 30a; 31a; t. Sanhedrin 6:2; Aboth de R. Nathan 1:10; Sipra Kedoshim 4:4 on Lev. 19:15). For further data see R. B. Ward, “Partiality in the Assembly.”
2:4 Have you not discriminated …? is in some translations phrased as a statement rather than a question. The Greek text does have a question, but the form of the question makes it clear that he is not really expressing doubt but making his charge in interrogative form.
Become judges with evil thoughts can be translated “evilly motivated judges” like the “unjust judge” of Luke 18:6. Cf. the Jewish condemnation of such behavior: e.g., Prov. 18:5; Psalms of Solomon 2:18; b. Berakoth 6a.
2:5 God’s election of Israel is further discussed by L. Coenen, “Elect,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 539–42.
God’s interest in the poor was not only a major part of the Old Testament tradition (e.g., Deut. 15; Prov. 19:17; Ps. 35:10) but also very much a part of the intertestamental period; e.g., 1 Enoch 108:7–15; Psalms of Solomon 5; Gen. Rabba 71:1. See further E. Bammel, “Ptōchos,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 895–98; R. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977), pp. 59–86; R. Foster, The Freedom of Simplicity (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), pp. 15–51.
The promise of the kingdom of God to the poor is found throughout the New Testament, e.g., Matt. 5:3, where “poor in spirit” should be interpreted as those poor who have the proper spirit of dependence on God; it cannot be expanded to include people who have no real needs in life. The kingdom is further discussed in Matt. 25:34; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:21. In all these cases the kingdom is equivalent to salvation. See further G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 57–69.
2:6 In making his charges against the rich, James again uses rhetorical questions expecting a positive answer, which the NIV has correctly restructured into question-and-answer form.
Note the shift of number that happens in this verse. They dishonor the poor person (singular). This person is one of their own group, an individual. But the rich are a class (plural), a group outside the church. At this point the author shifts to the word “rich” (plousios, cf. 2:2), for he is not referring to a wealthy individual in the church but to an oppressing class that the church as a group is imitating.
When the Old Testament speaks of “oppression,” e.g., Ezek. 22:7, 29; Heb. 1:4; Zech. 7:10, it rarely calls the oppressor “the rich” but normally uses the term “the violent.” However, it is clear that the oppressors are invariably wealthy and powerful. Thus it is not surprising to see a shift in later Judaism and the New Testament to identify the term “rich” with oppression. See further E. Bammel, “Ptōchos,” TDNT, vol. 6, p. 888.
The idea of dragging one before the judges is not a use of the usual term for arresting a person. It indicated injustice or persecution, as in Acts 16:19; 21:20.
2:8 Some see the royal law as a Jewish reference to the kingship of Yahweh. Others, e.g., Dibelius, James, p. 143, view it as a law having sovereign authority, citing 4 Macc. 14:2 as a parallel. Still others believe this epithet royal refers to its rank among other commands (cf. Matt. 12:31). Probably the reference is to its being a law of the kingdom of which Jesus is king, first, because that sense of kingdom appears in 2:5; second, because James uses the term “law” (which normally refers to a body of law), not commandment (which refers to a single law); and third, because this sense of royal most underlines the seriousness of their action. See further, V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), pp. 179–80.
2:9 On the connection between love and caring for the poor see also G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927), vol. 2, pp. 84–88.
The term sin is found frequently in James, e.g., 4:17; 5:16, 17, 20. His goal (5:20) is to turn sinners from the error of their ways. Jesus also spoke about doing sin (Matt. 7:23).
The idea of being a transgressor or lawbreaker is found in Rom. 2:25, 27; Gal. 2:8 and also in the Talmud, e.g., b. Shabbath 11a. See further S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology.
2:10 The idea of the unity of the law is found in such Jewish writings as 4 Macc. 5:20 and Testament of Asher 2:5, as well as rabbinic writings. It also occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, e.g., Matt. 5:18–19, with its emphasis on the least commandment, or Gal. 5:3, where Paul insists that one cannot take the law piecemeal.
2:11 The reversed order of the commands in the Decalogue does appear in a few Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament as well as in Luke 18:20 and Rom. 13:9, so one cannot be sure that James’ order is deliberate. Yet Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Amos 8:4; Sirach 34:26; Testament of Gad 4:6–7, and 1 John 3:15 all associate murder with the failure to care for the poor. Thus there was a strong Jewish and Christian tradition for James to use. James is conceptually so close to 1 John that this parallel passage may be very significant.
2:12 James speaks frequently of judgment, e.g., 1:19; 3:1–12; 4:11–16, and 5:12 speak of words being judged, and 1:27; 4:1–10; 5:1–6 speak of deeds. But Jesus also gave solemn warnings in Matt. 12:36; 25:31–45.
J. B. Adamson, James, pp. 118–19, contrasts the law of liberty of 2:12 with the law of ordinances in 2:10–11, seeing a law-grace dichotomy consonant with his reformed theology. But there is no evidence in the text that this was in James’ mind. He feels perfectly comfortable with enjoying grace within a structure of ethical rules.
2:13 Judgment without mercy is not injustice but rather strict justice without forgiveness. See further E. E. Urbach, The Sages.
Mercy triumphs over judgment in the sense of “boast in triumphant comparison with other,” as R. Bultmann points out (“Katakauchaomai,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 653–54). In comparison with the strictness of judgment, mercy is more powerful.
The sense of mercy meaning charity is already evident in the Old Testament passages cited. For example, the wider context of Zech. 7:9 explicitly mentions caring for the poor as the focus of mercy. In the New Testament the Greek for mercy, eleos, or merciful, eleēmones (Matt. 5:7), is closely related to giving alms or charity, eleēmosynē (Matt. 6:2). New Testament mercy is not reactive, simply not giving someone what he or she deserves, but proactive, i.e., meeting the needs of another whether or not that person has a formal claim on the giver (Luke 10:37, the good Samaritan). Furthermore, mercy is pre-eminently an attribute of God and thus a characteristic taken on by those being transformed into God’s likeness in Christ.
2:14 The what good is it form also appears in 1 Cor. 15:32. The second rhetorical question (Can such faith save him?) begins with the Greek negative mē, which introduces questions expecting a negative answer.
That save refers to salvation in the final judgment is seen when one considers the judgment already spoken of in 2:13; the references to such salvation in 1:21; 4:12; 5:20 and the general meaning of save in the New Testament. See further W. Foerster, “Sōzō,” TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 990–98.
For the prophetic denunciation of piety without works, see e.g., Amos 5:21–24; Micah 4:1–4, and J. Miranda, Marx and the Bible, pp. 111–60. Paul is in full agreement: The works Paul is against are the “works of the law,” the ritual actions of the law, like circumcision, used to gain salvation. When it comes to evil (e.g., Gal. 5:19–21), he can say that those doing certain things “will not possess the kingdom of God.” On the other hand, he points out that the whole purpose of salvation is good works (Eph. 2:10). Jews had a similar faith-works position. See m. Aboth 1:2 or S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 214, or G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927), vol. 2, pp. 168–69.
2:15 The without clothes in Greek is literally “naked.” This means, however, the lacking of an outer garment (Job 22:6; 24:7; 31:9; Isa. 20:5; 58:7; Matt. 25:36; John 21:7; 2 Cor. 11:27). Rabbi Akiba and his wife had only one outer garment between them, so one stayed home while the other wore the garment to the market or the rabbinic school. At night they buried themselves in straw to keep warm.
The without … daily food in Greek is not the same as Matt. 6:11 but means the same. James has used a form more common in classical Greek
2:16 Go, I wish you well is the common Hebrew dismissal, which was actually blessing the person (Judg. 18:6; 1 Sam. 1:17; 20:42; Mark 5:34; Acts 16:36). The wish for peace (Hebrew shalôm, which means health or wholeness) was taken so seriously that 2 John 10–11 prohibits Christians from giving such greetings to false teachers.
The physical needs are the food and clothing the person cannot survive without. Any Jew or Jewish Christian would have understood the imperative of charity in such a case, for as R. Hiyya said: “He who turns his eyes away from almsgiving is as if he worshipped idols” (b. Kettubim 68a, from C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology [New York: Schocken Books, 1974], p. 413; see further pp. 412–39). Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) taught that the failure to meet an obvious need despite having the means damns a person.
2:17 The term by itself is particularly close to the body-breath analogy and might have suggested it to James (2:26).
2:18 Although the general meaning of the passage is clear, the language is so difficult some scholars have assumed that part of this verse has disappeared. Two other positions have merit. One argues that the voice is favorable to James and restates his position of 2:17: “You (claim to) have faith, and I (you admit) have works. Show me your ‘faith’ apart from your works (you cannot, naturally), and I will show you my faith by means of my works” (see further J. B. Mayor, James, pp. 124–25, 135–37). In that case the voice merges back into James’ voice in v. 20 or 21. Grammatically this is possible, but the stumbling block is the fact that in other places in Greek literature the someone will say introduction always introduces a hostile or opposing voice (see also Luke 4:23; Rom. 11:9; 4 Macc. 2:24; Barnabas 9:6; Josephus, Wars 8.363). A second position, followed in the NIV and this commentary, argues that this sentence is an objection and that although “you” and “I” are used in the Greek they are simply a distributive “one … another.” Thus the “you” and “I” refer to no one in particular but indicate two different individuals. (M. Dibelius, James, p. 156, cites a similar example in Teles.) Though this explanation is grammatically awkward, it is consonant with the introductory phrase and does not resort to emendation. See further J. H. Ropes, James, pp. 208–14; C. L. Mitton, James, pp. 108–9; S. S. Laws, James, pp. 123–24.
2:19 The fact that James writes you believe that rather than “you believe in” shows that he is thinking of intellectual belief rather than personal commitment. See further R. Bultmann, “Pisteuō,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 210–12.
The form of the Shema in this verse is translated in the NIV “there is one God,” following one set of Greek manuscripts. However, the reading “God is one,” found in other manuscripts, is probably the one James actually wrote. Though the Shema was the beginning point for Christians in a pagan world (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:9), it was not the end point of faith. For the Jew as well, the Shema was not the end, for it led to keeping the law as an expression of faith. The fact that James cites the Shema may also be connected to his citation of Abraham in 2:21, for Abraham was believed in Judaism to have discovered and taught this truth that God is one, despite his pagan environment and persecution. See further R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 79–83.
That the demons shudder or tremble was also known outside Christianity. For example, in the apocryphal work 1 Enoch, when Enoch sees the fallen angels, he states, “Then I spoke to them all together, and they were all afraid, and fear and trembling seized them” (1 Enoch 13:3; cf. 69:1, 14). One reason for the trembling was that the name of God was invoked in exorcisms. See further A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1927, 1978), especially p. 260; and J. Jeremias, “Paul and James,” ExpTim 66 (1955), p. 370.
2:20 The term for you foolish man (used differently in 4:5) is the Greek equivalent for raca of Matt. 5:22 (“you fool,” NIV; RSV; “you good-for-nothing,” GNB). In the Septuagint kenos is used in Judg. 9:4; 11:3, meaning moral error rather than intellectual lack. Similar strong language occurs in the Stoic Epictetus and the Christian Hermas: “And she cried out with a loud voice and said, ‘Oh, foolish man! Do you not see the tower is still being built?’ ” (Vision 3.8.9). See further A. Oepke, “Kenos,” TDNT, vol. 3, p. 659.
The term useless in faith without deeds is useless is not the same word used in 2:17, 26 or 1:26. It is a term meaning “sterile,” “unproductive,” “useless” (Matt. 12:36; 20:3, 6; 1 Tim. 5:13; Titus 1:13; 2 Pet. 1:8), forming (in Greek) a wordplay with actions.
2:21 Our ancestor Abraham was sometimes used by the Gentiles; 1 Clement 31:2 asks, “Why was our forefather Abraham blest? Was it not because he acted in righteousness and dependability through faith?” but Jews referred to him far more frequently this way, e.g., Isa. 51:2; 4 Macc. 16:20; Matt. 3:9; John 8:39; m. Aboth 5:2).
The tests of Abraham are referred to in a variety of late Jewish literature, e.g., Aboth de. R. Nathan 32; m. Aboth 5:3; Jubilees 17:17; 19:8; Pirke R. Eliezer 26–31, as is his great charity: Testament of Abraham, recension A, 1.17; Targum Ps.-Jonathan on Gen. 21:33; Aboth de R. Nathan 7. Translation of the last-named as well as of the Midrash on Psalms passage cited in the text can be found in C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology, pp. 415 and 564 respectively. See further L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, p. 281. Further passages are cited in R. B. Ward, “pp. 286–90; and P. H. Davids, “Tradition and Interpretation in the Epistle of James,” pp. 113–16.
On the concept of declaring right at the end of a test see further B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son, esp. p. 27.
2:22 Gen. 15:6 (cf. James 2:23) speaks of faith, but that does not explain the particular emphasis James gives to it. Furthermore, although only the Jubilees version was cited, there are multiple versions of the Abraham legend. In the midrash Genesis Rabba 98:3, for example, the Shema is traced back to Abraham. Josephus has his version in Antiquities 1.154–157 (1.7.1 in Whiston’s division): “[Abraham] was the first that ventured to publish this notion that there was but one God, the Creator of the universe.” Philo also refers to the legend (Legum Allegoriae 3.228; De Virtue 216). Thus all Jews in the New Testament period thought of Abraham as the first to discover monotheistic faith.
2:23 The form of argument is a typical Jewish exegesis or midrash, with a first text (the Abraham history) having already been discussed and now secondary texts being added. The scripture was fulfilled is not in the sense of prediction fulfillment, but in the sense of the scripture agreeing with the scriptural narrative. See further R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, pp. 32–38.
The Jews frequently referred to the Gen. 15:6 passage, Abraham believed God. Not only 1 Macc. 2:52 uses it but also Jubilees 15:6; Philo (De Abrahamo 262; Quod Deus sit Immutabilis 4); and several passages in early rabbinic midrash. James’ use follows this moderate tradition, not that, for example, of the Targum Ps.-Jonathan (on Gen. 15:6), where the faith of Abraham is itself seen as a work.
It was credited to him as righteousness is passive in the Greek Old Testament (“it was reckoned to him for righteousness”) but active in Hebrew (“he accounted it to him [as?] righteousness”). James apparently understands this active sense and thus sees Abraham’s faith as one part of the sentence, and “he accounted him righteous” as the second part. The idea of accounting was understood in James’ day as entering in the heavenly books. See further H. W. Heidland, “Logizomai,” TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 284–92.
That Abraham was counted God’s friend and that this was connected to his deeds is clear from Jubilees 30:20; 2 Esdras 3:14; and 1 Clement 10:1 (who shares James’ tradition), as well as the passage cited. See further J. Jeremias, “Abraam,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 8–9.
2:24 The you see is a shift from second person singular (the “you” of 2:18, 19, 20, 22) to second person plural.
The supposed James-Paul conflict is a major issue. J. T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament, pp. 115–28, sets James against Paul in such a way as to force the reader to reject one or the other. Luther, for whom the problem was also acute, opted for Paul and almost rejected James from the canon. Luther was correct that if James knew and understood Paul’s doctrine so that he used his words with the same meanings, then James is directly contradicting Paul. What Luther failed to understand was that he was reading Paul’s meaning backwards into James. James uses words so differently from Paul that if he had ever heard Paul’s teaching (as he might not have before A.D. 49), he had only heard it in the form of second- or third-hand slogans, which had taken on a meaning that Paul would have rejected.
The three critical terms discussed illustrate this point. The first is the Greek ergon, which in James means what he does (charity, kindness, virtue), whereas in Paul it is always joined to the word “law” (nomos) and always means ritual acts, except in Gal. 5:19 and 6:4 where it is used positively. The second is dikaioō, which is translated in Paul correctly as “put right with God,” whereas James uses it as it is used forty-four times in the Septuagint for “declared to be right by God.” Where Paul’s new meaning is read into James, total misunderstanding results. Finally there is the word faith (pistis), which James uses in three ways himself, for true commitment (2:5), for Christianity (2:1), and for intellectual belief (2:14–26). He only has problems with this last type of “faith” and then only if unconnected to works (faith alone). Paul normally uses it in one of the two first meanings, which include the actions about which James is so adamant.
James’ teaching, then, is that of Matt. 7:15–21, that all one’s orthodox assertions will not substitute for obedience as a proof of heart commitment when it comes to the final judgment. Paul believed the same (1 Cor. 13:2; 2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:6; 6:4; Eph. 4:17ff.; Col. 3:5ff.), but James is closer in phrasing and life-setting to his master Jesus.
See further J. Jeremias, “Paul and James,” ExpTim 66 (1955–1956); J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), pp. 9–14; E. L. Allen, “Controversy in the New Testament,” NTS 1 (1954–1955), pp. 143–49; and especially H. C. Hahn. “Work,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 1147–52; H. Seebass and C. Brown, “Righteousness,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 352–77; O. Michel, “Faith,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 393–607.
2:25 Rahab was viewed by Jesus as the archetypal proselyte to Judaism, and traditions about her abounded. In Christian literature, not only Heb. 11:31 (which stresses her action) praises her, but also 1 Clement 12:1, 8, which is part of a larger section, 1 Clement 9–12. In this section, after a brief mention of Enoch and Noah, Abraham is treated thoroughly as one “called the friend, proved faithful in that he obeyed the words of God.” Especially “his faith and hospitality” are named. Lot, who comes next, is cited for “hospitality and piety.” Then Clement continues, “Because of her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved.” Thus in the early church Rahab was grouped with Abraham, perhaps because both turned from their respective pagan environments to serve God. It is no coincidence that James cites both in order. Furthermore, both are cited as examples of faith and charity, for in the East hospitality was an important form of charity (e.g., Heb. 13:2). See further H. Chadwick, “Justification by Faith and Hospitality,” SP 4 (1961), p. 281.
2:26 In Gen. 2:7 the first human is formed of spirit, or breath, and body. The union of the two produces a living being, whether in creation or in the womb (Eccles. 11:5). When one dies, the spirit or breath returns to God and the body crumbles into dust (Eccles. 12:7). Spirit and breath are identical words in Hebrew and in Greek (rûaḥ and pneuma respectively), so breathing one’s last is often seen as giving up spirit (e.g., Gen. 49:33; cf. John 19:30; Luke 23:46; and Mark 15:37 for three descriptions of the same death). For the Jew and Christian death is never welcome. Their Greek neighbors rejoiced in the freeing of the immortal soul from the prison of the body. The Christian, by way of contrast, did not want to be unclothed (without a body), but clothed with a resurrected body (2 Cor. 5:1–10; cf. 1 Cor. 15); the redemption of the body was the real hope (Rom. 8:23). James follows normal Christian practice in seeing a corpse as useless and bad.
