James 2:14-26

On this section see Introduction IV., § 2. There are a few points worth drawing attention to, in connection with the subject treated of in these verses, before we come to deal with the passage in detail: (1) πίστις here means nothing more than belief in the unity of God, cf. James 2:20 τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν …; this is a very restricted use of the word, both according to Hebrew and Greek usage. The Hebrew אמונה means primarily “faithfulness,” “steadfastness,” “reliability,” and is used in reference to God quite as much as in reference to men. This is also the force of the verb אמן; it is only in the Hiph‘al that the meaning “to believe in,” in the sense of “to trust,” arises. The use of πίστις in the Septuagint varies; mostly it corresponds to אמונה, but not infrequently this latter is rendered ἀληθεία, e.g., Psalms 88:34 ((Psalms 89:34; Psalms 89:50) Psalms 98:3, though in each of these cases Aquila and Quinta render πίστις. In Sir 41:16, πίστις is the rendering of the Hebrew אמת (“truth”), while in Sir 45:4, Sir 46:15 it corresponds to אמונה in the sense of “reliability”. In Sir 37:26 the Greek is obviously corrupt, πίστις stands there for the Hebrew כבוד (“glory”), which is clearly more correct. But the most interesting passage on the subject in Sir. from our present point of view is Sir 15:15 : ἐὰν θέλῃς, συντηρήσεις ἐντολάς, καὶ πίστιν ποίησαι εὐδοκίας; of which the Hebrew is: אם תחפץ תשׁמר מצוה ואמונה לעשׂות רצונו (“If it be thy will thou dost observe the commandment, and it is faithfulness to do His good pleasure”; the context shows that it is a question here of man's free-will). Here πίστις is used in a distinctly higher sense than in the passage of our Epistle under consideration. In so far, therefore, as πίστις is used in the restricted sense, as something which demons as well as men possess, it is clear that the subject is different from that treated by St. Paul in Romans; and therefore the comparison so often made between the two Epistles on this point is not à propos. (2) That which gave the occasion for this section seems to have been the fact that, in the mind of the writer, some of the Jewish converts had gone from one extreme to another on the subject of works. Too much stress had been laid upon the efficacy of works in their Jewish belief; when they became Christians they were in danger of losing some of the excellences of their earlier faith by a mistaken supposition that works, not being efficacious per se (which so far was right) were therefore altogether unnecessary, and that the mere fact of believing in the unity of God was sufficient. Regarded from this point of view, there can, again, be no question of a conflict with Pauline teaching as such. The point of controversy was one which must have agitated every centre in which Jews and Jewish-Christians were found. In this connection it is important to remember that the “faith of Abraham” was a subject which was one of the commonplaces of theological discussion both in Rabbinical circles as well as in the Hellenistic School of Alexandria; regarding the former, see the interesting passage from the Midrashic work, Mechilta, quoted by Box in Hastings' D.C.G., ii. 568 b. The error of running from one extreme into another, in matters of doctrine, is one of those things too common to human nature for the similarity of language between this Epistle and St. Paul's writings in dealing with the subject of faith and works to denote antagonism between the two writers. (3) The passage as a whole betrays a very strong Jewish standpoint; while it would be too much to say that it could not have been written by a Christian, it is certainly difficult to understand how, e.g., James 2:25 could have come from the pen of a Christian. (4) It is necessary to emphasise the fact that this passage cannot be properly understood without some idea of the subject of the Jewish doctrine of works which has always played a supremely important part in Judaism; for this, reference must be made to IV., § 2 of the Introduction, where various authorities are quoted.