Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:22 - 2:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:22. The direct inference from the preceding. Since the necessity of faith to the attainment of salvation was not contested by those with whom James disputed, but only the necessity of works; and since James (Jam_2:21) had adduced the example of Abraham to prove that only a faith which is not ἀργή and χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων profits: in this verse it can only be intended to represent how important to Abraham were his works, but not how important to him was his faith. This thought is thus clearly and evidently expressed in the second hemistich: καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων κ . τ . λ . On the other hand, the first hemistich: ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ , has been generally understood by expositors as if the necessity of faith was intended to be brought forward. In this meaning Bengel says: duo commata, quorum in priore, si illud, fides, in altero opcribus cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipitur, qua exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat. According to this, James would have expressed in the first hemistich, that faith was not wanting to Abraham, that rather it was this from which his works sprung, that accordingly Abraham was justified ἐξ ἔργων , because they were works of faith. The same explanation is given by Erasmus, Tremellus, Beza, Baumgarten, Gebser, Pott, Kern, and others; also by Hofmann and Wiesinger. But the context is against it, as this thought does not follow as a consequence from Jam_2:21. Those expositors have accordingly understood the passage more correctly who find in the words in question the meaning that the πίστις of Abraham was not dead but operative; Estius: operosa fuit, non otiosa, non mortua (so Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, and others), although their interpretation is inaccurate in particulars.
συνήργει ] If συνεργεῖν is taken in its strictly literal sense: “to be a συνεργός , to labour or to work along with” (1Co_16:16; 2Co_6:1), and is translated: “faith wrought with his works,” the idea of James (according to the usage of the word συνεργεῖν in this meaning) would be, that whilst works wrought, faith participated in their work.[147] But this thought does not correspond with the context, and is, moreover, not in itself to be vindicated, since faith and works are not two principles working along with one another.
Kern, with whom de Wette coincides, takes τοῖς ἔργοις as the dative of reference, and explains it: “faith wrought to his works, i.e. was the operative principle for the production of works.” This gives, indeed, a suitable enough thought, but linguistic usage is against the explanation; besides, it is not the case that “ συν has only a vague reference, or, to speak more correctly, no reference at all” (Hofmann). On this account other interpreters, as Hofmann, Wiesinger, Brückner, also Philippi, correctly take συνεργεῖν here in the meaning of: to help (Rom_8:28; 1Ma_12:1). The support which faith gave to works is to be found in this, that as it operates to their production, so also to their accomplishment in correspondence with the will of God.[148] By this explanation a special emphasis is placed on the expression συνήργει , it being thereby brought prominently forward that the faith of Abraham was not ἀργός ( ἀ - εργός ), but exercised an activity, namely, the activity mentioned as helpful to works. Against Lange’s explanation: “faith manifested itself operatively at one with the works,” besides not being linguistically justified, Brückner rightly remarks that here the discourse is not concerning a co-operation of these two points.
The second hemistich is not in antithesis with the first, but constitutes its complement; whilst the faith of Abraham aided his works, faith itself received by works its completion.
ἐτελειώθη ] is by many interpreters understood as declarative; Gomarus: fides est causa, opera effectus; causa autem non perficitur a suo effectu, sed perfecta declaratur, ut fructus boni arborem bonam non efficiunt, sed indicant. The same explanation is adopted by Calvin, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Gebser, Bengel, Philippi,[149] and others. Also Wiesinger indicates the same meaning with the remark: “faith could not be proved complete if it were not already so in itself, for the complete work presupposes the complete faith;” but τελειοῦσθαι does not signify to be proved, but to be completed.[150] Certainly the meaning of James cannot be, that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by works, as something which was externally added to faith, since faith is the impulse to the works; but as little is it his meaning, that faith is already complete ( τέλειος ) before works, and is by works only proved or demonstrated to be so; but faith and works are in his view so closely connected, that faith only when it produces works or by works ( ἐξ ἔργων ) becomes ever more completely that which it should be according to its nature and destination, and in so far only by works attains to its completion; for as the power of love grows and is completed by the practice of works of love, so does faith grow and is completed by the practice of works in which it manifests itself.[151] Thus was Abraham’s faith only completed when he stood the severest test, and brought his son as an offering upon the altar.[152]
[147] In the first edition of this commentary it is said: “Faith was the συνεργός of his works—that is, it operated not by itself, but with his works. James will here make prominent that with Abraham both were combined, the emphasis, however, according to the context, being placed on τοῖς ἔργοις .” This explanation, which has found favour with von Oettingen and Rauch, is, however, not tenable, as, on the one hand, linguistic usage is against it, and, on the other hand, it was not insisted on by James that the faith of Abraham wrought not alone, but that it was no inactive (inoperative) faith.
[148] The explanation of Hofmann (with whom Wiesinger and Brückner coincide): “that his action would not have been what is represented in an act of willing obedience, unless faith had assisted to its performance,” has this against it, that the principal thought would not thereby be expressed, but must be added. Philippi correctly: Abraham’s faith was no inert faith, but was helpful to his works, namely, to their production and accomplishment, i.e. it assisted him to the performance of good works.
[149] Philippi incorrectly appeals for this meaning to 1Jn_2:5, and to ἔσεσθε in Luk_6:35.
[150] Also Hofmann’s explanation: “The τελείωσις of his faith consisted not in this, that it attained from incompleteness to completeness, but in this, that by the action, in which it proved itself, it attained to its complete formation—to its historical accomplishment,” cannot be reckoned as appropriate, because τελειοῦσθαι never means “to be completely formed,” if by this expression a becoming complete is not intended. Lange agrees with the above remark, only he introduces something strange when he says: “Abraham by his faith-offering attained typically and ideally the τελείωσις , which the Jewish Christians were to attain by the full proof of Christian brotherly love out of faith, and which with them all Israel was to attain.”
[151] Luther (in his introduction to First Peter, published by Irmischer, vol. lxx. p. 223 f.) says of the fruits of faith: “Although they belong to our neighbour, that he may be profited thereby, yet the fruit is not external—faith becomes stronger thereby. It is an entirely different strength than that of the body, for this decays and is consumed; but this spiritual strength, the more one uses and exercises it, the stronger it becomes; it decays when one does not exercise it.” See also the appropriate remarks of Hengstenberg (Evang. Kirchenz. 1866, p. 1124 ff.).
[152] When it is objected against this explanation, that faith must already have been perfect in order to produce the perfect work, it is to be observed, that it is in the nature of living faith always to be becoming stronger, in and with the production of works, and thus to perfect itself in its nature more and more. Brückner, indeed, grants that the practice of works has a strengthening reflex efficacy on faith, but observes that by this cannot be meant that faith was not before already sufficient to justify Abraham. But to this it is to be observed, that James does not derive the justification (meant by him) of Abraham from his faith preceding works, but from his faith made perfect by works.