Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:26 - 2:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:26 is added as a reason ( γάρ ), primarily indeed, to what directly goes before ( ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη ), but thereby likewise to the universal sentiment contained in Jam_2:24. James here repeats the same judgment which he has already expressed (Jam_2:17) on πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ; yet heightens it by the comparison with σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος : for as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος ] By σῶμα is to be understood the human body, and by πνεῦμα the vital principle animating it, by which it lives; whether James has contemplated πνεῦμα definitely as the intellectual spirit of man (as “the principle of the morally-determined and God-derived life peculiar to man”), or generally as the breath of life proceeding from God (see Gen_6:17, LXX.: πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐν ᾖ ἐστὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς ; Rev_11:11; Rev_13:15), remains uncertain. With the body without the spirit, which is νεκρός , James compares ( οὕτως is not “the sign of assurance = even so certainly,” Baumgarten) faith without works (the article τῶν denotes works as those which belong to πίστις , its corresponding works), which is also νεκρός . This comparison appears so far incongruous, as the relation of ἔργα to πίστις does not correspond with that of πνεῦμα to the σῶμα , since ἔργα are the fruit, and not the source of πίστις .[160] Therefore some interpreters have by ἔργα understood not works themselves, but love (Theile), or “the innermost life of faith in its outwardly operative and visible manifestation” (Frank); but such an exchange of ideas is not to be justified. Already some of the older expositors, as Gomar, Piscator, Laurentius, Wolf, and others, and recently Philippi (Theile is undecided), explain ΠΝΕῦΜΑ = breath. This, however, is even linguistically objectionable, as ΠΝΕῦΜΑ in the N. T. occurs in the meaning of breath proceeding out of the mouth only in 2Th_2:8, a passage in accordance with the O. T.; but also in sense this explanation is not justified, for although “the breath is the proof of the existence of life in the body” (Philippi), yet the ideas breath and works have too great disparity between them to be parallelized with each other. It is more natural, with de Wette, Kern, Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Weiss, to assume that James intends not to compare the single members with each other ( ΣῶΜΑ with ΠΊΣΤΙς , and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ with ἜΡΓΟΙς ), but to make prominent that a faith which is ΧΩΡῚς ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ , is thereby proved to be like to the body, in which the πνεῦμα , the source of life, is wanting—which is thus only a dead body. With this sentence, in which the idea expressed in Jam_2:17 is strongly confirmed, James closes this section, as from this it is self-evident that faith without works cannot effect justification for man, and consequently not ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ , and therefore profits nothing (Jam_2:14).
[160] Lange denies the apparent incongruity, because “the spirit also, in virtue of its actuality, effects the higher visibility of the body!”
1. The doctrine of James in this section is according to expression in opposition with that of the Apostle Paul (James: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον ; Paul, Gal_2:16 : οὖ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου , ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ; James asks: Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαίωθη ; Paul, in Rom_4:2, says: εἰ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη , ἐχεῖκαύχημα , ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ). It is asked whether also the sentiment of the one contradicts that of the other. Until the time of Luther, the conviction prevailed that the two agreed in thought. This is maintained in recent times by Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Lange, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others. Luther, on the contrary, was of opinion that the doctrine of James decidedly contradicted that of Paul; and the same view has been expressed in recent times by de Wette, Kern, Baur, Schwegler, and others, also Ranch. There is a middle view, that there is indeed a diversity of doctrine between Paul and James, but that this does not exclude a higher unity; thus Schmid, Weizsäcker (Renter’s Repert. Oct. 1855), Lechler, and others.
Already Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede have, for the sake of harmonizing the difference, asserted that the ἔργα of James are different from those of which Paul speaks; Paul intends opera legis (Oecumenius: τὰ κατὰ νόμον σαββατισμῶν καὶ περιτομῆς καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγνισμῶν ); James, on the contrary, opera fidei (Oecumenius: ἔργα τὰ πίστιν βιβαιοῦιτα ). This is indeed true. Paul has to do with Judaizing opponents who maintained the necessity of circumcision, and consequently of all legal works; but James, with such Christians who trusted to simple πίστις , and thought that this would secure their salvation, although destitute of corresponding works. Paul had thus to prove that ἔργα τοῦ νόμου were not necessary; James, that ἔργα τῆς πίστεως were necessary. Nevertheless, this recognition of the different relations does not suffice to an actual harmonizing of the difference; for it has with truth been maintained that, according to the doctrinal system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works of law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede, but follow justification.
Accordingly a different meaning of the term πίστις has been adopted, and it has been maintained that by πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων James understands only bare speculation (Oecumenius: ἡ ἀπλῆ συγκατάθεσις ), the frigida et nuda notitia, or indeed even the falsa professio fidei. This is certainly not entirely suitable, though Paul does not know by name a πίστις νεκρά . But although it were correct, yet the recognition of this distinction does not suffice to reconcile the difference; for Wieseler is decidedly right when, against Schmid, Olshausen, Neander, and others, he remarks, that it is one thing to say, To be justified by faith which is proved by works, and another thing, To be justified by works in which faith is proved. Already by Calvin, Calovius, Gerhard, and others, and in recent times particularly by Hofmann, Wiesinger, Brückner, Lange, Philippi, and others, the wished-for reconciliation has been attempted to be brought about, by ascribing a different meaning to the word δικαιοῦσθαι in James from what it has in Paul; that James speaks not de actu, but de statu justificationis. But either thereby a meaning is assigned to the word which it never has, or there results from it in James an idea inappropriate to the connection; see exposition of the verses in question. Hengstenberg (Brief des Jakobus in the Evang. Kirchenz. 1866, No. 91–94) correctly maintains that δικαιοῦσθαι has with Paul and James the same meaning; but when he attempts to prove the agreement of the two modes of expression by the supposition that, as there are different stages of faith, so there are different stages of justification, and that James speaks of a more perfect justification than Paul in the passages in question, this cannot be admitted, since it contradicts the nature of divine justification to conceive it as advancing from an imperfect to a more and more perfect stage. Even the justification at the last judgment is in itself not more perfect than that by which God in this life absolves the believer from his sins; the distinction consisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a present blessing, and that in all its fulness, which by the latter was conferred on him as a blessing yet future.[161]
[161] It is incorrect when Hengstenberg says: “If by faith is understood genuine living faith, and by works genuine works proceeding from faith, justification by faith and justification by works can be taught without contradiction;” since the justification of which Paul speaks is the reason and not the consequence of works of faith: on which account even Riggenbach (“On Justification,” etc., in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, Part II.) has not been able to approve of this assertion of Hengstenberg. It is also no less incorrect when Hengstenberg, in spite of ἐξ ἔργων … οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον , ver. 24, thinks that “in James also faith alone is represented as justifying,” since James does not give the name of justification to God’s act of grace which is effectual in man only through faith.
The exposition given in the above pages has shown that the idea of the word δικαιοῦσθαι with James is none other than what it is with Paul, but that by it James has in view the justification that places believers at the last judgment in the full enjoyment of salvation, whereas Paul denotes by it the justification that puts believers already in this world in a gracious relation toward God. Only on this supposition does James say what he designs to say; for if δικαιοῦσθαι (so also σώζειν , Jam_2:14) refers to the judgment of God still in the future for believers, the proof that it has ἔργα for its essential condition effectually hits the opponent who thought to be able to obtain σωτηρία by an inoperative faith.
That the doctrine of James so understood is in agreement with that of Paul follows from the following remarks:—(1) James here evidently says nothing against the Pauline doctrine of justification, since his ἐξ ἔργων does not refer to being placed in a new relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by what this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle at all; yet it is to be observed that to him the foundation of the Christian life is πίστις , and that he designates the new birth (chap. Jam_1:18) as a work of God, which only takes place through the will of God, and indeed so that God implants the word of truth in man. That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, but in agreement with Paul’s doctrine of justification, requires no proof. (2) The doctrine of Paul concerning the future judgment of believers does not conflict with what James says of δικαιοῦσθαι , although he does not use that expression in reference to it (except in Rom_2:13). It is to be observed, that Paul very definitely distinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of sins is adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the judicial act of God by which σωτηρία will either be adjudged or denied to the justified. Justification (so called by Paul) is conditioned on the part of man only by πίστις ; the future σωτηρία will only be adjudged to him in whom πίστις has proved itself to be a working principle. As, on the one hand, it is incorrect to affirm that, according to Paul, he only is justified by πίστις with whom it does not remain inactive; so, on the other hand, it is incorrect to think that according to him no reference is taken of ἔργα in the judgment of God.[162] Wiesinger, in proof that Paul denies the justifying (the word taken in his sense) efficacy of an inoperative faith, adduces the passages, Rom_8:4; Rom_8:13; Rom_13:8-10; 1Co_6:7-11; 1Co_6:13; Gal_5:6; Gal_5:19-21; Eph_2:8-10; Col_1:10; Tit_2:14; but it is, on the contrary, to be observed that in none of these passages (except Eph_2:8, in the words ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως ) is the discourse of being justified ( ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΣΘΑΙ , in the sense of Paul). All these passages, however, prove that Paul makes the attainment of ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ , or the future inheritance of the kingdom of God, conditioned on the ἔργοις of the justified. It is to be observed that in Gal_5:6, ΠΊΣΤΙς ΔΙʼ ἈΓΆΠΗς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗ does not (as is almost universally assumed) refer to ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΣΘΑΙ , but to ἈΠΕΚΔΈΧΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΛΠΊΔΑ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς , thus to the hope of those who are σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως . Further, in 1Co_6:11, the Christians, to whom Paul says ἈΠΕΛΟΎΣΑΣΘΕ , ἩΓΙΆΣΘΗΤΕ , ἘΔΙΚΑΙΏΘΗΤΕ ,[163] are exhorted to consider that the ἄδικοι shall not inherit the βασιλεία Θεοῦ ; also, in Gal_5:25, it is indicated that the ζῆν πνεύματι , which is peculiar to believers, must also be a στοιχεῖν πνεύματι ; and lastly, Paul in 2Co_5:10 says expressly that we all (that is, Christians who as such are δικαιωθέντες ) must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν , εἴτε ἀγαθόν , εἴτε κακόν . From these passages, which might be greatly multiplied, it is not to be denied that Paul, as he definitely excludes every co-operation of human works in justification,[164] so he no less definitely represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice of ἔργα τῆς πίστεως (see Hengstenberg, Evangel. Kirchenztg. 1866, p. 1119 ff.).[165] But if this is the case, then in reference to this point there occurs a difference between Paul and James, not in thought, but only in expression; namely, Paul denotes by the word δικαιοῦν that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which the believer is placed in a new filial relation to God; whilst James means that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which he who is born again as a child of God receives the σωτηρία imparted at the judgment; but with both δικαιοῦν means “to declare righteous,” “to acquit,” but not “to prove one righteous,” or “to convert him into a righteous man.” So also, in what both say concerning Abraham, there is no difference in sentiment; the only difference is that ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην and ἐδικαιώθη are considered by James as two points, whilst Paul considers the second to be equivalent to the first.
[162] By this it is not intended to be denied that Paul often combines the two acts as one act of divine salvation, and also that he frequently refers the final salvation (not less than justification) purely to the grace of God. The problem is rather this, that, on the one hand, the final salvation is represented as a pure act of God’s grace, but, on the other hand, the final judgment is as definitely represented as an act carried into effect κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ; as by Paul, so in the Scriptures generally. The solution of this problem, however, belongs not to our present subject.
[163] By ἡγιάσθητε and ἐδικαιώθητε a change of man’s disposition is not in itself designated, but the change of his relation to God effected by God. Meyer in loco incorrectly gives to the word δικαιοῦσθαι a meaning (namely, “to be made righteous”) which it has elsewhere neither with Paul nor in any other passage of the N. T.
[164] Even with the recognition of this undeniable fact, Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is not always understood in strict precision. This is particularly the case when it is said, that according to Paul faith justifies, so far as it is a principle of new life, whereas it is rather the case that, according to him, faith is a principle of new life, because it justifies. Only when this is misunderstood can it be said, on the supposition that Paul and James understand by δικαιοῦν the same divine act, that between them there is no fundamental, but only an unessential contrast. See remarks of the author in the Erl. Zeitschr. April number, 1862, p. 214 f., where among other things it is said: “The reason of justification is not the ethical nature of faith, but solely and entirely the merit of Christ or Christ Himself with whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us in connection. We are not justified for the sake of faith, but through faith ( διὰ τῆς πίστεως ) for the sake of Christ: thus it holds good for the justification which is by faith alone, that every reference to works is entirely excluded.”
[165] The objection of Philippi, that the declaration of righteousness in the judgment takes place not ἐκ τῶν ἔργων , but only κατὰ τὰ ἔργα , is contradicted by the word of Christ, Mat_12:37.
2. If from what has been said it follows that the doctrine of James is not in contradiction with that of Paul, then every reason for the opinion that James wrote his Epistle with reference to Paul falls to the ground. The employment of the same expressions by both is indeed surprising, but it is to be observed that these expressions have their origin neither in Paul nor in James, but already occur in the O. T. Paul uses the expressions δικαιοῦσθαι , δικαιοσύνη , δικαίωσις , chiefly in a relation foreign to the O. T., to which, however, he was led by the words ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην . James, on the contrary, uses them not in the application peculiar to Paul, but in the manner in which they are used in the O. T. Also the reference to Abraham by James is not to be explained on the ground that Paul confirms his doctrine of justification by what happened to Abraham; for, since James designed to appeal for his assertion to an O. T. type, it was entirely natural that his glance should first fall on Abraham; also the distinction is to be observed that James used Abraham only as an example, whereas Paul, as Schleiermacher correctly observes, “referred to him his entire peculiar system of doctrine, whilst he would trace back to him the special covenant of the people with God.”
From all this it follows that James neither designed an attack upon the Pauline doctrine itself, for in this case he would have been obliged to demonstrate the necessity of ἔργα νόμου , nor also an attack upon a misunderstanding of it, for then he would have been obliged to show that his readers could only regard themselves as δικαιωθέντες , when their faith was to them an impulse to the practice of good works;[166] rather the Pauline doctrine was unknown to him, since otherwise he would necessarily have conformed to Paul’s mode of representation. By this likewise the opinion is confirmed, that the composition of the Epistle belongs not to the later, but to the earlier apostolic times; see on this Sec. 4 of the Introduction, and the treatise of Weiss mentioned above; also his bibl. Theol. p. 124 f.
[166] How the deductions of James are to be directed against a misunderstanding of the Pauline doctrine, if δικαιοῦσθαι has with him the meaning of “to be proved,” is in fact not to be understood, so much the less as the justifying power of faith assuredly does not depend on its being proved by works before men.