Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:21 - 2:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:21. The testimony to which James first appeals is what happened to Abraham. The reference to Abraham is completely explained from his historical importance, and which is also indicated by ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν .
ἡμῶν ] because both James and his readers belonged to the nation of Israel sprung from Abraham. By the question with οὐ the thought is characterized as such to which all—thus all the opponents—must assent: Was not Abraham our father justified by works? The participial sentence which follows declares what works procured for him justification: when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
The reference to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and especially to his declaration in Rom_4:1 ff., has misled expositors into many arbitrary explanations of this verse, and particularly of the word ἐδικαιώθη . In order to have a sure foundation for interpretation, two things are to be examined,—(1) the context, and (2) the linguistic usage. (1) As regards the context, the question treated in this whole section is, How the Christian is saved;[142] comp. the question in Jam_2:14 : μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν ; and the connection of that section with the preceding, where the discourse is about the divine judgment (Jam_2:12 : κρίνεσθαι ; Jam_2:13 : ἡ κρίσις ). As James appeals to Abraham for his assertion that faith without works cannot save, it is evident that by ἐδικαιώθη he cannot mean something which happened to Abraham from himself, but only something which happened to him from God; so that the meaning cannot be, “Abraham justified himself by his works,” but only that “God justified him on the ground of his works.”[143] (2) As regards the linguistic usage, δικαιοῦν corresponds to the Hebrew äÇöÀãÌÄé÷ , which, as a judicial term, has the meaning: to declare one öÇãÌÄé÷ by an acquittal from guilt, and is opposed to äÇøÀùÑÄéòÇ (LXX.: καταγινώσκειν , καταδικάζειν ) = to declare one øÈùÑÈò by a sentence of condemnation; comp. Exo_23:7; Deu_25:1; 1Ki_8:32; 2Ch_6:23; Pro_17:15; Isa_5:23; Isa_50:8; Isa_53:11; in the Apocrypha, comp. Sir_10:29; Sir_13:22; Sir_23:11; Sir_34:5; Sir_42:2. δικαιοῦν has also the same meaning in the N. T., where, especially (besides the passages treating of the Pauline doctrine of justification), Mat_12:37, Rom_2:13, Luk_18:14 are to be compared. This judicial meaning of the word is here to be retained. It is true, as δικαιοῦν (similarly the English word “to justify”) occurs not only in the judicial sense, but, also more generally, as also äÇöÀãÌÄé÷ , in the sense “set forth as righteous”[144] (comp. Mat_11:19; Luk_7:29; Rom_3:4; 1Ti_3:16), the passage has been explained: “Abraham has been proved righteous,” or, “has proved himself righteous” (so already Calvin, and, in recent times, Philippi). But this explanation is unsuitable, since, according to this view, justification did not happen to Abraham from God (as must be conceived according to the context), but from his works; thus it was Abraham who justified himself by his works, i.e. proved himself to be righteous.[145] If we hold fast to the judicial meaning, then it is to be observed that, in the conception of the word, neither anything about the disposition of him who is the object of the declaration of righteousness, nor about the ground of justification (whether it rests in the judge or in the conduct of him who is justified), is indicated. For this reason the explanation of Wiesinger: a Deo justus agnitus, is incorrect, as the idea of a ratifying recognition of the already existing condition is not contained in the word. As little is it to be vindicated when Hofmann thinks that δικαιοῦσθαι here imports: “to become a δίκαιος , inasmuch as he then answered to the will of God relating to him;” for, on the one hand, by this a meaning (namely, being made a righteous person) is ascribed to the word which it has not; and, on the other hand, no one can make himself a righteous person by his works, but only can prove himself to be such.[146] James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared righteous (by God) ἐξ ἔργων . By ἐξ ἔργων the reason is specified, on Abraham’s part, on account of which a declaration of righteousness was granted to him. By these works are to be understood not all the works which Abraham has done, nor his whole pious life, but, as the clause ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ κ . τ . λ . shows, the actual offering of his son Isaac on the altar. The plural ἐξ ἔργων is used because the category, at first entirely general, is specified which here comes into consideration. It may appear surprising that James here should emphasize precisely that offering as the reason of the declaration of righteousness, since in the O. T. narrative (Genesis 22.) a δικαιοῦσθαι of Abraham is not mentioned. What James has in view is not “the judgment of God there; Gen_22:12 comp. with Jam_2:16 ff.” (Wiesinger); for in these words, which, moreover, only serve as an introduction to the declaration which follows, nothing is addressed to Abraham, but only it is testified of him that God in his action has recognised his fear of God. Not in this, but only in what God addresses to him on account of it, because He has recognised him as a God-fearing man, can James have found the declaration of Abraham’s righteousness. This is the bestowal of the promise (Jam_2:16-18) by which it is expressly said, “because thou hast done this thing” (Jam_2:16), and “because thou hast obeyed my voice” (Jam_2:18); by which is definitely brought forward that the promise was granted on account of his obedience—that is, on account of his works. What importance, with regard to the promise, the obedience of Abraham had in the eyes of God is clearly brought out from Gen_26:5, where God ratifies this same promise with Isaac in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws;” and not less is it to be observed when it is said in Sir_44:20 : ὃς συνετήρησεν νόμον ὑψίστου … καὶ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός · διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὅρκῳ ἔστησεν αὐτῷ κ . τ . λ . It is true that the same promise was made to Abraham at an earlier period, and that before he had done anything (Gen_12:2-3); but the difference is, that after the offering of his son it was imparted to him as an inalienable blessing on account of this action, and that at the close of his theocratic historical life. In this James could rightly recognise a formal declaration of Abraham’s righteousness on the part of God.
On the construction ἐδικαιώθη ἐκ , comp. Mat_12:37 : ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ , where the λόγοι are reckoned as that on the ground of which acquittal (or condemnation) takes place.
The words: ἀνενέγκας … ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ] are not, with Luther, to be translated: “when he had sacrificed his son upon the altar;” for ἀναφέρειν joined with ἐπί , with the accusative, is not to sacrifice, but to bring as a sacrifice to the altar (comp. 1Pe_2:24); it is therefore incorrect to supply the idea will (Estius: cum obtulisset = offere voluisset). Hottinger falsely explains ἐπὶ τ . θυσ . = before the altar. To the name Ἰσαάκ is emphatically added τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ; comp. Gen_22:16.
[142] Philippi erroneously maintains that the question here treated, is to prove that faith has to manifest itself by works if it is to be regarded as true faith. But James designates the faith of his opponents as νεκρά , not merely because it has no works, but because it cannot effect the σωτηρία which they expected from it.
[143] Correctly, Wiesinger: “In ἐδικαιώθη the passive sense is decidedly to be retained, and, indeed, a Deo …; not of the human judgment is the discourse here and in ver. 23, but of the divine; as it treats of the proposition in ver. 14, that only an active faith can save.” This is the more to be maintained, as the thought, that faith has to justify itself before men as living, is so void of importance that James could not lay such stress upon it.
[144] This is the prevailing meaning of äÇöÀãÌÄé÷ , which is differently modified according to the different circumstances to which it is referred. It is chiefly used of a judicial sentence, whether of God or of a human judge, by which one is declared öÇãÌÄé÷ ; yet it also occurs in another reference, namely, of every agency which causes one to appear as righteous, whether that agency is exercised by the person in question or by others. The N. T. δικαιοῦν corresponds to this usage. Strictly taken, it is accordingly not correct to translate δικαιοῦν by “proved to be righteous,” or “approved to be righteous,” as the ideas proving and approving, according to their proper and strict meaning, are not contained in it. Comp., however, the excellent treatment of the word in Cremer’s dictionary.
[145] Philippi explains the words: Abraham was justified before men by works, as a justified man before God by faith. But here there are evidently introduced into the idea δικαιοῦσθαι a series of more precise statements which are not contained in it. The explanation of Brückner is simpler, who considers ἑδικαιώθη to indicate: “that moral righteousness which displays itself on the ground of the activity of faith;” but also this interpretation is not to be considered correct for the reasons above stated. The unsuitableness of this and similar interpretations is particularly evident from ver. 24. It is also to be observed, that in these explanations the passive is converted into the middle voice. In the O. T., it is true, the hithpael of öÈãÇ÷ is translated in the LXX. by the preterite passive of δικαιοῦν (see Gen_44:16); but in the N. T. the passive of this verb never occurs in this meaning; the middle import is here rather expressed by the active with the reflex pronoun; comp. Luk_10:29; Luk_16:15.
[146] The following explanations are also incorrect: “he was loved as a righteous man” (Grotius); “he was made a partaker of the favour of God and of all the blessings springing from it” (Theile); “his justification was ratified by man” (Baumgarten). The translation: “he was pardoned” (Pott), is inaccurate, because the idea of pardon always supposes a crime, which δικαιοῦν does not. Also the explanation of Lange is arbitrary: δικαιοῦν , in the N. T. deeper sense, denotes that “God declares righteousness in the theocratical forum before the theocratical congregation conceived as permanent;” for how can the precise statement be contained in the simple verbal idea, before whom the declaration of righteousness was made?