Day 1412 of 1461 · 2030-11-12
James 2:1–26
1My brothers, don’t hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with partiality.
2For if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in filthy clothing also comes in,
3and you pay special attention to him who wears the fine clothing and say, “Sit here in a good place;” and you tell the poor man, “Stand there,” or “Sit by my footstool”
4haven’t you shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my beloved brothers. Didn’t God choose those who are poor in this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he promised to those who love him?
6But you have dishonored the poor man. Don’t the rich oppress you, and personally drag you before the courts?
7Don’t they blaspheme the honorable name by which you are called?
8However, if you fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well.
9But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.
10For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12So speak and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom.
13For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him?
15And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food,
16and one of you tells them, “Go in peace. Be warmed and filled;” yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it?
17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself.
18Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
19You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder.
20But do you want to know, vain man, that faith apart from works is dead?
21Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22You see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected.
23So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.
24You see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.
25In the same way, wasn’t Rahab the prostitute also justified by works, in that she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
About a five-minute read
Drawn from the public-domain commentaries and Spurgeon sermons that cover this exact passage · ~949 words.
Matthew Henry. You see then (Jam 2:24) how that by works a man is justified (comes into such a state of favour and friendship with God), and not by faith only; not by a bare opinion, or profession, or believing without obeying, but by having such a faith as is productive of good works. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men: "Show me thy faith by thy works," says James, "let thy faith be justified in the eyes of those that behold thee by thy works;" but Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, who justifies those only that believe in Jesus, and purely on account of the redemption that is in him. Others read them, As the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works is dead also: and then they show that as the body has no action, nor beauty, but becomes a loathsome carcass, when the soul is gone, so a bare profession without works is useless, yea, loathsome and offensive. And, above all other things, we should take care thus to make account of faith, as that which does not profit, if it do not save, but will aggravate our condemnation and destruction at last. (2.) For a man to have faith, and to say he has faith, are two different things; the apostle does not say, If a man have faith without works, for that is not a supposable case; the drift of this place of scripture is plainly to show that an opinion, or speculation, or assent, without works, is not faith; but the case is put thus, If a man say he hath faith, etc.
Jamieson–Fausset–Brown. The Greek may be translated, "If, however, ye fulfil," &c., that is, as ALFORD, after ESTIUS, explains, "Still I do not say, hate the rich (for their oppressions) and drive them from your assemblies; if you choose to observe the royal law . . . well and good; but respect of persons is a breach of that law." I think the translation is, "If in very deed (or 'indeed on the one hand') ye fulfil the royal law . . . ye do well, but if (on the other hand) ye respect persons, ye practice sin." The Jewish Christians boasted of, and rested in, the "law" (Act 15:1; Act 21:18-24; Rom 2:17; Gal 2:12). The "Scripture" would not be "fulfilled," as James says it was, but contradicted by any interpretation which makes man's works justify him before God: for that Scripture makes no mention of works at all, but says that Abraham's belief was counted to him for righteousness. The best authorities read, "But Abraham believed," &c. and he was called the Friend of God--He was not so called in his lifetime, though he was so even then from the time of his justification; but he was called so, being recognized as such by all on the ground of his works of faith.
John Calvin. James 2:18-19 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 18 Quin dicat quispam, Tu fidem habes, et ego opera habeo; ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus (alias, ex operibus) tuis, et ego tibi ex operibus meis ostendam fidem meam. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 19 Tu credis quod Deus unus est, bene facis; et daemones credunt, ac contremiscunt. 18 Yea, a man may say. The sum of what James says is, that a dead faith cannot save, but a living faith, and that a living faith is a working faith -- a doctrine taught by Paul as well as by James. [117] The design of alluding to the faith of devils seems to have been this, to shew that though a good man may believe and tremble, yet if he does not obey God and do good works, he has no true evidence of faith. The doctrine of Paul, that man is justified by faith and not by works, that is, by a living faith, which works by love, is perfectly consistent with what James says, that is, that a man is not justified by a dead faith but by that faith which proves its living power by producing good works, or by rendering obedience to God. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known. 22 By works was faith made perfect [119] By this he again shews, that the question here is not respecting the cause of our salvation, but whether works necessarily accompany faith; for in this sense it is said to have been perfected by works, because it was not idle.
Jonathan Edwards. Thou believest that there is one God; thou dost well: the devils also believe, and tremble. They believe that there is one God, and that he is a holy, sin-hating God; and that he is a God of truth, and will fulfill his threatenings, by which he has denounced future judgments, and a great increase of misery on them; and that he is an almighty God, and able to execute his threatened vengeance upon them. How much is allowed concerning this faith, viz., that it is a good attainment; “Thou dost well.” It was good, as it was necessary.
Full commentary on this passage
Matthew Henry
chapter
In this chapter the apostle condemns a sinful regarding of the rich, and despising the poor, which he imputes to partiality and injustice, and shows it to be an acting contrary to God, who has chosen the poor, and whose interest is often persecuted, and his name blasphemed, by the rich (Jam 2:1-7). He shows that the whole law is to be fulfilled, and that mercy should be followed, as well as justice (Jam 2:8-13). He exposes the error and folly of those who boast of faith without works, telling us that this is but a dead faith, and such a faith as devils have, not the faith of Abraham, or of Rahab (Jam 2:11 to the end).
Source · CC0-1.0 / Public Domain
1–7
The apostle is here reproving a very corrupt practice. He shows how much mischief there is in the sin of prosōpolēpsia - respect of persons, which seemed to be a very growing evil in the churches of Christ even in those early ages, and which, in these after-times, has sadly corrupted and divided Christian nations and societies. Here we have,
I. A caution against this sin laid down in general: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, Jam 2:1. Observe here, 1. The character of Christians fully implied: they are such as have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; they embrace it; they receive it; they govern themselves by it; they entertain the doctrine, and submit to the law and government, of Christ; they have it as a trust; they have it as a treasure. 2. How honorably James speaks of Jesus Christ; he calls him the Lord of glory; for he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person. 3. Christ's being the Lord of glory should teach us not to respect Christians for any thing so much as their relation and conformity to Christ. You who profess to believe the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the poorest Christian shall partake of equally with the rich, and to which all worldly glory is but vanity, you should not make men's outward and worldly advantages the measure of your respect. In professing the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, we should not show respect to men, so as to cloud or lessen the glory of our glorious Lord: how ever any may think of it, this is certainly a very heinous sin.
II. We have this sin described and cautioned against, by an instance or example of it (Jam 2:2, Jam 2:3): For if there come into your assembly a man with a gold ring, etc. Assembly here is meant of those meetings which were appointed for deciding matters of difference among the members of the church, or for determining when censures should be passed upon any, and what those censures should be; therefore the Greek word here used, sunagōgē, signifies such an assembly as that in the Jewish synagogues, when they met to do justice. Maimonides says (as I find the passage quoted by Dr. Manton) "That is was expressly provided by the Jews' constitutions that, when a poor man and a rich plead together, the rich shall not be bidden to sit down and the poor stand, or sit in a worse place, but both sit or both stand alike." To this the phrases used by the apostle have a most plain reference, and therefore the assembly here spoken of must be some such as the synagogue-assemblies of the Jews were, when they met to hear causes and to execute justice: to these the arbitrations and censures of their Christian assemblies are compared. But we must be careful not to apply what is here said to the common assemblies for worship; for in these certainly there may be appointed different places of persons according to their rank and circumstances, without sin. Those do not understand the apostle who fix his severity here upon this practice; they do not consider the word judges (used in Jam 2:4), nor what is said of their being convected as transgressors of the law, if they had such a respect of persons as is here spoken of, according to Jam 2:9. Thus, now put the case: "There comes into your assembly (when of the same nature with some of those at the synagogue) a man that is distinguished by his dress, and who makes a figure, and there comes in also a poor man in vile raiment, and you act partially, and determine wrong, merely because the one makes a better appearance, or is in better circumstances, than the other." Observe hence, 1. God has his remnant among all sorts of people, among those that wear soft and gay clothing, and among those that wear poor and vile raiment. 2. In matters of religion, rich and poor stand upon a level; no man's riches set him in the least nearer to God, nor does any man's poverty set him at a distance from God. With the Most High there is no respect …
Source · CC0-1.0 / Public Domain
8–13
The apostle, having condemned the sin of those who had an undue respect of persons, and having urged what was sufficient to convict them of the greatness of this evil, now proceeds to show how the matter may be mended; it is the work of a gospel ministry, not only to reprove and warn, but to teach and direct. Col 1:28, Warning every man, and teaching every man. And here,
I. We have the law that is to guide us in all our regards to men set down in general. If you fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, you do well, Jam 2:8. Lest any should think James had been pleading for the poor so as to throw contempt on the rich, he now lets them know that he did not design to encourage improper conduct towards any; they must not hate nor be rude to the rich, any more than despise the poor; but as the scripture teaches us to love all our neighbours, be they rich or poor, as ourselves, so, in our having a steady regard to this rule, we shall do well. Observe hence, 1. The rule for Christians to walk by is settled in the scriptures: If according to the scriptures, etc. It is not great men, nor worldly wealth, nor corrupt practices among professors themselves, that must guide us, but the scriptures of truth. 2. The scripture gives us this as a law, to love our neighbour as ourselves; it is what still remains in full force, and is rather carried higher and further by Christ than made less important to us. 3. This law is a royal law, it comes from the King of kings. Its own worth and dignity deserve it should be thus honoured; and the state in which all Christians now are, as it is a state of liberty, and not of bondage or oppression, makes this law, by which they are to regulate all their actions to one another, a royal law. 4. A pretence of observing this royal law, when it is interpreted with partiality, will not excuse men in any unjust proceedings. In is implied here that some were ready to flatter rich men, and be partial to them, because, if they were in the like circumstances, they should expect such regards to themselves; or they might plead that to show a distinguished respect to those whom God in his providence had distinguished by their rank and degree in the world was but doing right; therefore the apostle allows that, so far as they were concerned to observe the duties of the second table, they did well in giving honour to whom honour was due; but this fair pretence would not cover their sin in that undue respect of persons which they stood chargeable with; for,
II. This general law is to be considered together with a particular law: "If you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors, Jam 2:9. Notwithstanding the law of laws, to love your neighbour as yourselves, and to show that respect to them which you would be apt to look for yourselves if in their circumstances, yet this will not excuse your distributing either the favours or the censures of the church according to men's outward condition; but here you must look to a particular law, which God, who gave the other, has given you together with it, and by this you will stand fully convicted of the sin I have charged you with." This law is in Lev 19:15, Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt though judge thy neighbour. Yea, the very royal law itself, rightly explained, would serve to convict them, because it teaches them to put themselves as much in the places of the poor as in those of the rich, and so to act equitably towards one as well as the other. Hence he proceeds,
III. To show the extent of the law, and how far obedience must be paid to it. They must fulfil the royal law, have a regard to one part as well as another, otherwise it would not stand them in stead, when they pretended to urge it as a reason for any particular actions: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, a…
Source · CC0-1.0 / Public Domain
14–26
In this latter part of the chapter, the apostle shows the error of those who rested in a bare profession of the Christian faith, as if that would save them, while the temper of their minds and the tenour of their lives were altogether disagreeable to that holy religion which they professed. To let them see, therefore, what a wretched foundation they built their hopes upon, it is here proved at large that a man is justified, not by faith only, but by works. Now,
I. Upon this arises a very great question, namely, how to reconcile Paul and James. Paul, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, seems to assert the directly contrary thing to what James here lays down, saying if often, and with a great deal of emphasis, that we are justified by faith only and not by the works of the law. Amicae scripturarum lites, utinam et nostrae - There is a very happy agreement between one part of scripture and another, notwithstanding seeming differences: it were well if the differences among Christians were as easily reconciled. "Nothing," says Mr. Baxter, "but men's misunderstanding the plain drift and sense of Paul's epistles, could make so many take it for a matter of great difficulty to reconcile Paul and James." A general view of those things which are insisted on by the Antinomians may be seen in Mr. Baxter's Paraphrase: and many ways might be mentioned which have been invented among learned men to make the apostles agree; but it may be sufficient only to observe these few things following: - 1. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it. 2. Paul not only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged and intended. Paul had to do with those who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might well make them of no manner of account. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used even as evidence; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast importance of good works. As we must not break one table of the law, by dashing it against the other, so neither must we break in pieces the law and the gospel, by making them clash with one another: those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong; for we must take our work before us; there must be both faith in Jesus Christ and good works the fruit of faith. 3. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men: "Show me thy faith by thy works," says James, "let thy faith be justified in the eyes of those that behold thee by thy works;" but Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, who justifies those only that believe in Jesus, and purely on account of the redemption that is in him. Thus we see tha…
Source · CC0-1.0 / Public Domain
John Calvin
1
James 2:1-4
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
1 Fratres mei, ne in acceptionabus personarum fidem habeatis Domini Jesu Christi ex opinione, (vel, gloriae.)
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
2 Si enim ingressus fuerit in coetum vestrum vir aureos anulos gestans, veste indudus spliendida; ingressus autem fuerit et pauper in sordida veste;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
3 Et respexeritis in cum qui vestem fert splendidam, et ei dixeritis, Tu sede hic honeste, et pauperi dixeritis, Tu sta illic, vel, Sede hic sub scabello pedum meorum;
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
4 An non dijudicati eestis in vobisipsis, et facti judices malarum cogitationum?
This reproof seems at first sight to be hard and unreasonable; for it is one of the duties of courtesy, not to be neglected, to honor those who are elevated in the world. Further, if respect of persons be vicious, servants are to be freed from all subjection; for freedom and servitude are deemed by Paul as conditions of life. The same must be thought of magistrates. But the solution of these questions is not difficult, if what James writes is not separated. For he does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love.
Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context and surely ambitions is that honor, and full of vanity, which is shewn to the rich to the contempt of the poor. Nor is there a doubt but that ambition reigns and vanity also, when the masks of this world are alone in high esteem. We must remember this truth, that he is to be counted among the heirs of God's kingdom, who disregards the reprobate and honors those who fear God. (Psalm 15:4.)
Here then is the contrary vice condemned, that is, when from respect alone to riches, anyone honors the wicked, and as it has been said, dishonors the good. If then thou shouldest read thus, "He sins who respects the rich," the sentence would be absurd; but if as follows, "He sins who honors the rich alone and despises the poor, and treats him with contempt," it would be a pious and true doctrine.
1 Have not the faith, etc., with respect of persons. He means that the respect of persons is inconsistent with the faith of Christ, so that they cannot be united together, and rightly so; for we are by faith united into one body, in which Christ holds the primacy. When therefore the pomps of the world become preeminent so as to cover over what Christ is, it is evident that faith hath but little vigor.
In rendering tos doxes, "on account of esteem," (ex opinione,) I have followed Erasmus; though the old interpreter cannot be blamed, who has rendered it "glory," for the word means both; and it may be fitly applied to Christ, and that according to the drift of the passage. For so great is the brightness of Christ, that it easily extinguishes all the glories of the world, if indeed it irradiates our eyes. It hence follows, that Christ is little esteemed by us, when the admiration of worldly glory lays hold on us. But the other exposition is also very suitable, for when the esteem or value of riches or of honors dazzles our eyes, the truth is suppressed, which ought alone to prevail. To sit becomingly means to sit honorably.
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves? or, are ye not condemned in yourselves. This may be read affirmatively as well as interrogatively, but the sense would be …
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
5
James 2:5-7
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
5 Audite, fratres mei dilecti, nonne Deus elegit pauperes mundi hujus divites in fide et heredes regni quod promisit iis qui diligunt eum?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
6 Vos autem contemptui habiustis pauperem: nonne divites tyrnnidem in vos exercent et iidem trahunt vos ad tribunalia?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
7 Et iidem contumelia afficiunt bonum nomen quod invocatum est super vos?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren. He proves now by a two-fold argument, that they acted preposterously, when for the sake of the rich they despised the poor: The first is, that it is unbecoming and disgraceful to cast down those whom God exalts, and to treat reproachfully those whom he honors. As God honors the poor, then every one who repudiates them, reverses the order of God. The other argument is taken from common experience; for since the rich are for the most part vexatious to the good and innocent, it is very unreasonable to render such a reward for the wrongs they do, so that they should be more approved by us than the poor, who aid us more than they wrong us. We shall now see how he proceeds with these two points.
Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? Not indeed alone, but he wished to begin with them, that he might beat down the pride of the rich. This is also what Paul says, that God hath chosen, not many noble, not many mighty in the world, but those who are weak, that he might make ashamed such as are strong (1 Corinthians 1:25.) In short, though God pours forth his grace on the rich in common with the poor, yet his will is to prefer these to those, that the mighty might learn not to flatter themselves, and that the ignoble and the obscure might ascribe in what they are to the mercy of God, and that both might be trained up to meekness and humility.
The rich in faith are not those who abound in the greatness of faith, but such as God has enriched with the various gifts of his Spirit, which we receive by faith. For, doubtless, since the Lord deals bountifully with all, every one becomes partaker of his gifts according to the measure of his own faith. If, then, we are empty or needy, that proves the deficiency of our faith; for if we only enlarge the bosom of faith, God is always ready to fill it.
He says, that a kingdom is promised to those who love God: not that the promise depends on love; but he reminds us that we are called by God unto the hope of eternal life, on this condition and to this end, that we may love him. Then the end, and not the beginning, is here pointed out.
6 Do not the rich. He seems to instigate them to vengeance by bringing forward the unjust rule of the rich, in order that they who were unjustly treated, might render like for like: and yet we are everywhere bid to do good to those who injure us. But the object of James was another; for he only wished to shew that they were without reason or judgment who through ambition honored their executioners, and in the meantime injured their own friends, at least those from whom they never suffered any wrong. For hence appeared more fully their vanity, that they were induced by no acts of kindness: they only admired the rich, because they were rich; nay, they servilely flattered those whom they found, to their own loss, to be unjust and cruel.
There are, indeed, some of the rich who are just, and meek, and hate all unrighteousness; but few of such men are to be found. James, then, mentions what for the most part usually happens, and what daily experience proves true. For as men commonly exercise their power in doing what is wrong, it hence happens, that the more power any one has, the worse he is, and the more unjust towards his neighbors. The more careful then ought the r…
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
8
James 2:8-11
8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
8 Si legem quidem regiam perfectis juxta scripturum, Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum, bene facitis. (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14.)
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
9 Sin personam respicitis, peccatum committis, et redarguimini a lege veluti transgressores. (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17, 19.)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
10 Quisquis enim totam legem servaverit, offenderit autem in uno, factus est omnium reus.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
11 Nam qui dixit, Ne moecheris, dixit etiam, Ne occidas. Quod si non fueris moechatus, occideris tamen, factus es transgressor legis.
Now follows a plainer declaration; for he expressly points out the cause of the last reproof, for they were officiously attentive to the rich, not from love, but on the contrary, from a vain desire of attaining their favor: And it is in anticipation, by which he obviated an excuse on the other side; for they might have objected and said, that he ought not to be blamed, who humbly submiteth himself to the unworthy. James, indeed, concedes that this is true, but he shews that it was falsely pretended by them, because they shewed this submission of homage, not from love to their neighbors, but from respect of persons.
In the first clause, then, he acknowledges as right and praiseworthy, as the duties of love which we perform towards our neighbors. In the second, he denies that the ambitious respect of persons ought to be deemed as of this kind, for it widely differs from what the law prescribes. And the hinge of this answer turns on the words "neighbor" and "respect of persons," as though he had said, "If you pretend that there is a sort of love in what you do, this may be easily disproved; for God bids us to love our neighbors, and not to shew respect of persons." Besides, this word "neighbor" includes all mankind: he, then, who says, that a very few, according to his own fancy, ought to be honored, and others passed by, does not keep the law of God, but yields to the depraved desires of his own heart. God expressly commends to us strangers and enemies, and all, even the most contemptible. To this doctrine the respect of persons is wholly contrary. Hence, rightly does James assert, that respect of persons is inconsistent with love.
8 If ye fulfill the royal law. The law here I take simply as the rule of life; and to fulfill, or perform it, is to keep it with real integrity of heart, and as they say, roundly, (rotunde;) and he sets such a keeping in opposition to a partial observance of it. It is said, indeed, to be a royal law, as it is the royal way, or road; that is, plain, straight, and level, which, by implication, is set in opposition to sinuous by-paths and windings.
Allusion however is made, as I think, to servile obedience which they rendered to the rich, when they might, by serving in sincerity their neighbors, be not only free men, but live as kings.
When, in the second place, he says, that those who had respect of persons were convinced, or reproved by the law, the law is taken according to its proper meaning. For since we are bidden by God's command to embrace all mortals, every one who, with a few exceptions, rejects all the rest, breaks the bond of God, and inverts also his order, and is, therefore, rightly called a transgressor of the law.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law. What alone he means is, that God will not be honored with exceptions, nor will he allow us to cut off from his law what is less pleasing to us. At the first view, this sentence seems hard to some, as though the apostle counte…
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
12
James 2:12-13
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
12 Sic loquimini, et sic facite, ut per legem libertatis judicandi.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
13 Judicium enim sine misericordia ei qui non praestiterit misericordiam; et gloriatur misericordia adversus judicium.
12 So speak ye. Some give this explanation, that as they flattered themselves too much, they are summoned to the right tribunal; for men absolve themselves according to their own notions, because they withdraw themselves from the judgment of the divine law. He then reminds them that all deeds and words are there to be accounted for, because God will judge the world according to his law. As, however, such a declaration might have smitten them with immoderate terror, to correct or mitigate what they might have thought severe, he adds, the law of liberty. For we know what Paul says,
"Whosoever are under the law are under a curse."
(Galatians 3:10.)
Hence the judgment of the law in itself is condemnation to eternal death; but he means by the word liberty, that we are freed from the rigor of the law.
This meaning is not altogether unsuitable, though if one examines more minutely what immediately follows, he will see that James meant another thing; the sense is as though he had said, "Except ye wish to undergo the rigor of the law, ye must be less rigid towards your neighbors; for the law of liberty is the same as the mercy of God, which delivers us from the curse of the law" And so this verse ought to be read with what follows, where he speaks of the duty of bearing with infirmities. And doubtless the whole passage thus reads well: "Since none of us can stand before God, except we be delivered and freed from the strict rigor of the law, we ought so to act, that we may not through too much severity exclude the indulgence or mercy of God, of which we all have need to the last."
13 For he shall have judgment. This is an application of the last verse to the subject in hand, which confirms altogether the second explanation which I have mentioned: for he shews, that since we stand through God's mercy alone, we ought to shew that to those whom the Lord himself commends to us. It is, indeed, a singular commendation of kindness and benevolence, that God promises that he will be merciful to us, if we be so to our brethren: not that our mercy, how ever great it may be, shewn towards men, merits the mercy of God; but that God would have those whom he has adopted, as he is to them a kind and an indulgent Father, to bear and exhibit his image on the earth, according to the saying of Christ,
"Be ye merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful." (Matthew 5:7.)
We must notice, on the other hand, that he could denounce nothing on them more severe or more dreadful than the judgment of God. It hence follows, that all they are miserable and lost who flee not to the asylum of pardon.
And mercy rejoiceth. As though he had said, "God's mercy alone is that which delivers us from the dread and terror of judgment." he takes rejoicing or glorying in the sense of being victorious or triumphant; for the judgment of condemnation is suspended over the whole world, and nothing but mercy can bring relief.
Hard and forced is the explanation of those who regard mercy as put here for the person, for men cannot properly be said to rejoice or glory against the judgment of God; but mercy itself in a manner triumphs, and alone reigns when the severity of judgment gives way; though I do not deny but that hence arises confidence in rejoicing, that is, when the faithful know that the wrath of God in a manner yields to mercy, so that being relieved by the latter, they are not overwhelmed by the former.
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
14
James 2:14-17
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
14 Quid prodest, fratres mei, si fidem dicataliquis se habere, opera autem non habeat? nunquid potest fides salvum facere ipsum?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
15 Quod si frater aut soror nudi fuerint, et egentes quotidiano victu,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
16 Dicat autem aliquis vestrum illis, Abite cum pace, calescite et saturamini; non tamen dederitis quae sunt necessaria corpori, quae utilitas?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
17 Sic et fides, si opera non habuerit, mortua est per se.
14 What doth it profit. He proceeds to commend mercy. And as he had threatened that God would be a severe Judge to us, and at the same time very dreadful, except we be kind and merciful towards our neighbors, and as on the other hand hypocrites objected and said, that faith is sufficient to us, in which the salvation of men consists, he now condemns this vain boasting. The sum, then, of what is said is, that faith without love avails nothing, and that it is therefore wholly dead.
But here a question arises, Can faith be separated from love? It is indeed true that the exposition of this passage has produced that common distinction of the Sophists, between unformed and formed faith; but of such a thing James knew nothing, for it appears from the first words, that he speaks of false profession of faith: for he does not begin thus, "If any one has faith;" but, "If any says that he has faith;" by which he certainly intimates that hypocrites boast of the empty name of faith, which really does not belong to them.
That he calls it then faith, is a concession, as the Rhetoricians say; for when we discuss a point, it does no harm, nay, it is sometimes expedient, to concede to an adversary what he demands, for as soon as the thing itself is known, what is conceded may be easily taken away from him. James then, as he was satisfied that it was a false pretext by which hypocrites covered themselves, was not disposed to raise a dispute about a word or an expression. Let us, however, remember that he does not speak according to the impression of his own mind when he mentions faith, but that on the contrary he disputes against those who made a false pretense as to faith, of which they were wholly destitute.
Can faith save him? This is the same as though he had said, that we do not attain salvation by a frigid and bare knowledge of God, which all confess to be most true; for salvation comes to us by faith for this reason, because it joins us to God. And this comes not in any other way than by being united to the body of Christ, so that, living through his Spirit, we are also governed by him. There is no such thing as this in the dead image of faith. There is then no wonder that James denies that salvation is connected with it. [113]
15 If a brother, or, For if a brother. He takes an example from what was connected with his subject; for he had been exhorting them to exercise the duties of love. If any one, on the contrary, boasted that he was satisfied with faith without works, he compares this shadowy faith to the saying of one who bids a famished man to be filled without supplying him with the food of which he is destitute. As, then, he who sends away a poor man with words, and offers him no help, treats him with mockery, so they who devise for themselves faith without works, and without any of the duties of religion, trifle with God. [114]
17 Is dead, being alone. He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. We hence conclude that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Sophists plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found…
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
18
James 2:18-19
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
18 Quin dicat quispam, Tu fidem habes, et ego opera habeo; ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus (alias, ex operibus) tuis, et ego tibi ex operibus meis ostendam fidem meam.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
19 Tu credis quod Deus unus est, bene facis; et daemones credunt, ac contremiscunt.
18 Yea, a man may say. Erasmus introduces here two persons as speakers; one of whom boasts of faith without works, and the other of works without faith; and he thinks that both are at length confuted by the Apostle. But this view seems to me too forced. He thinks it strange, that this should be said by James, Thou hast faith, who acknowledges no faith without works. But in this he is much mistaken, that he does not acknowledge an irony in these words. Then alla I take for "nay rather;" and tis for "any one;" for the design of James was to expose the foolish boasting of those who imagined that they had faith when by their life they shewed that they were unbelievers; for he intimates that it would be easy for all the godly who led a holy life to strip hypocrites of that boasting with which they were inflated. [115]
Shew me. Though the more received reading is, "by works," yet the old Latin is more suitable, and the reading is also found in some Greek copies. I therefore hesitated not to adopt it. Then he bids to shew faith without works, and thus reasons from what is impossible, to prove what does not exist. So he speaks ironically. But if any one prefers the other reading, it comes to the same thing, "Shew me by works thy faith;" for since it is not an idle thing, it must necessarily be proved by works. The meaning then is, "Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith." [116]
But it may be asked, whether the outward uprightness of life is a sure evidence of faith? For James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." To this I reply, that the unbelieving sometimes excel in specious virtues, and lead an honorable life free from every crime; and hence works apparently excellent may exist apart from faith. Nor indeed does James maintain that every one who seems good possesses faith. This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree.
19 Thou believest that there is one God. From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were any one to say, that the devils have faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites. The devil trembles, he says, at the mention of God's name, because when he acknowledges his own judge he is filled with the fear of him. He then who despises an acknowledged God is much worse.
Thou doest well, is put down for the purpose of extenuating, as though he had said, "It is, forsooth! a great thing to sink down below the devils." [117]
Footnotes:
[115] I would render the verse thus: "But one may say, Thou hast faith, I also have works; shew me thy faith that is without works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." It is the same as though he had said, "Thou hast faith only, I have also works in addition to my faith; now, prove to me that you have true faith without having works connected with it, (which was impossible, hence he is called a vain man,' or empty-headed, in James 2:20,) and I will prove my faith by its fruits, even good works.
[116] Griesbach and others regard choris as the true reading, countenanced by most MSS., and found in the Syr. and Vulg. This verse is a key to the meaning of James: faith is to be prove…
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
20
James 2:20-26
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
20 Vis autem scire, O homo inanis! quod fides absque operibus mortua sit?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
21 Abraham pater noster, nonne ex operibus justificatus est, quum filium suum Isaac super altare?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
22 Vides quod fides cooperata fuerit ejus operibus, et ex operibus fides perfecta fuerit?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
23 Atque implenta fuit scriptura, quae dicit, Credidit Abraham Deo, et imputatum illi fuit in justitiam, et Amicus Deo vacatus est?
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
24 Videtis igitur quod ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex fide solum.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
25 Similiter et Rahab meretrix, nonne ex operibus justificata est, quum excepit nuntios, et alia via ejecit?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
26 Quemadmodum enim corpus sine anima mortuum est, ita et fides sine operibus mortua est.
20 But wilt thou know. We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor judge wisely of words, except he who keeps in view the design of the writer.
21 Was not Abraham. The Sophists lay hold on the word justified, and then they cry out as being victorious, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. We have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.
When, therefore, the Sophists set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon. [118]
That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, "Shew to me thy faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.
22 By works was faith made perfect [119] By this he again shews, that the question here is not respecting the cause of our salvation, but whether works necessarily accompany faith; for in this sense it is sai…
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
Jamieson–Fausset–Brown
2
"If there chance to have come" [ALFORD].
assembly--literally, "synagogue"; this, the latest honorable use, and the only Christian use of the term in the New Testament, occurs in James's Epistle, the apostle who maintained to the latest possible moment the bonds between the Jewish synagogue and the Christian Church. Soon the continued resistance of the truth by the Jews led Christians to leave the term to them exclusively (Rev 3:9). The "synagogue" implies a mere assembly or congregation not necessarily united by any common tie. "Church," a people bound together by mutual ties and laws, though often it may happen that the members are not assembled [TRENCH and VITRINGA]. Partly from James' Hebrew tendencies, partly from the Jewish Christian churches retaining most of the Jewish forms, this term "synagogue" is used here instead of the Christian term "Church" (ecclesia, derived from a root, "called out," implying the union of its members in spiritual bonds, independent of space, and called out into separation from the world); an undesigned coincidence and mark of truth. The people in the Jewish synagogue sat according to their rank, those of the same trade together. The introduction of this custom into Jewish Christian places of worship is here reprobated by James. Christian churches were built like the synagogues, the holy table in the east end of the former, as the ark was in the latter; the desk and pulpit were the chief articles of furniture in both alike. This shows the error of comparing the Church to the temple, and the ministry to the priesthood; the temple is represented by the whole body of worshippers; the church building was formed on the model of the synagogue. See VITRINGA [Synagogue and Temple].
goodly apparel . . . gay clothing--As the Greek, is the same in both, translate both alike, "gay," or "splendid clothing."
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
3
have respect to him, &c.--though ye know not who he is, when perhaps he may be a heathen. It was the office of the deacons to direct to a seat the members of the congregation [CLEMENT OF ROME, Apostolical Constitutions, 2.57, 58].
unto him--not in the best manuscripts. Thus "thou" becomes more demonstratively emphatic.
there--at a distance from where the good seats are.
here--near the speaker.
under my footstool--not literally so; but on the ground, down by my footstool. The poor man must either stand, or if he sits, sit in a degrading position. The speaker has a footstool as well as a good seat.
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
4
Are ye not . . . partial--literally, "Have ye not made distinctions" or "differences" (so as to prefer one to another)? So in Jde 1:22.
in yourselves--in your minds, that is, according to your carnal inclination [GROTIUS].
are become judges of evil thoughts--The Greek words for "judges" and for "partial," are akin in sound and meaning. A similar translation ought therefore to be given to both. Thus, either for "judges," &c. translate, "distinguishers of (that is, according to your) evil thoughts"; or, do ye not partially judge between men, and are become evilly-thinking judges (Mar 7:21)? The "evil thoughts" are in the judges themselves; as in Luk 18:6, the Greek, "judge of injustice," is translated, "unjust judge." ALFORD and WAHL translate, "Did ye not doubt" (respecting your faith, which is inconsistent with the distinctions made by you between rich and poor)? For the Greek constantly means "doubt" in all the New Testament. So in Jam 1:6, "wavering." Mat 21:21; Act 10:20; Rom 4:20, "staggered not." The same play on the same kindred words occurs in the Greek of Rom 14:10, Rom 14:23, "judge . . . doubteth." The same blame of being a judge, when one ought to be an obeyer, of the law is found in Jam 4:11.
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
5
Hearken--James brings to trial the self-constituted "judges" (Jam 2:4).
poor of this world--The best manuscripts read, "those poor in respect to the world." In contrast to "the rich in this world" (Ti1 6:17). Not of course all the poor; but the poor, as a class, furnish more believers than the rich as a class. The rich, if a believer, renounces riches as his portion; the poor, if an unbeliever, neglects that which is the peculiar advantage of poverty (Mat 5:3; Co1 1:26-28).
rich in faith--Their riches consist in faith. Luk 12:21, "rich toward God." Ti1 6:18, "rich in good works" (Rev 2:9; compare Co2 8:9). Christ's poverty is the source of the believer's riches.
kingdom . . . promised-- (Luk 12:32; Co1 2:9; Ti2 4:8).
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
6
The world's judgment of the poor contrasted with God's.
ye--Christians, from whom better things might have been expected; there is no marvel that men of the world do so.
despised--literally, "dishonored." To dishonor the poor is to dishonor those whom God honors, and so to invert the order of God [CALVIN].
rich--as a class.
oppress--literally, "abuse their power against" you.
draw you--Translate, "is it not they (those very persons whom ye partially prefer, Jam 2:1-4) that drag you (namely, with violence)" [ALFORD].
before . . . judgment seats--instituting persecutions for religion, as well as oppressive lawsuits, against you.
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
7
"Is it not they that blaspheme?" &c. as in Jam 2:6 [ALFORD]. Rich heathen must here chiefly be meant; for none others would directly blaspheme the name of Christ. Only indirectly rich Christians can be meant, who, by their inconsistency, caused His name to be blasphemed; so Eze 36:21-22; Rom 2:24. Besides, there were few rich Jewish Christians at Jerusalem (Rom 15:26). They who dishonor God's name by wilful and habitual sin, "take (or bear) the Lord's name in vain" (compare Pro 30:9, with Exo 20:7).
that worthy name--which is "good before the Lord's saints" (Psa 52:9; Psa 54:6); which ye pray may be "hallowed" (Mat 6:9), and "by which ye are called," literally, "which was invoked" or, "called upon by you" (compare Gen 48:16; Isa 4:1, Margin; Act 15:17), so that at your baptism "into the name" (so the Greek, Mat 28:19) of Christ, ye became Christ's people (Co1 3:23).
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
8
The Greek may be translated, "If, however, ye fulfil," &c., that is, as ALFORD, after ESTIUS, explains, "Still I do not say, hate the rich (for their oppressions) and drive them from your assemblies; if you choose to observe the royal law . . . well and good; but respect of persons is a breach of that law." I think the translation is, "If in very deed (or 'indeed on the one hand') ye fulfil the royal law . . . ye do well, but if (on the other hand) ye respect persons, ye practice sin." The Jewish Christians boasted of, and rested in, the "law" (Act 15:1; Act 21:18-24; Rom 2:17; Gal 2:12). To this the "indeed" alludes. "(Ye rest in the law): If indeed (then) ye fulfil it, ye do well; but if," &c.
royal--the law that is king of all laws, being the sum and essence of the ten commandments. The great King, God, is love; His law is the royal law of love, and that law, like Himself, reigns supreme. He "is no respecter of persons"; therefore to respect persons is at variance with Him and His royal law, which is at once a law of love and of liberty (Jam 2:12). The law is the "whole"; "the (particular) Scripture" (Lev 19:18) quoted is a part. To break a part is to break the whole (Jam 2:10).
ye do well--being "blessed in your deed" ("doing," Margin) as a doer, not a forgetful hearer of the law (Jam 1:25).
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
9
Respect of persons violates the command to love all alike "as thyself."
ye commit sin--literally, "ye work sin," Mat 7:23, to which the reference here is probably, as in Jam 1:22. Your works are sin, whatever boast of the law ye make in words (see on Jam 2:8).
convinced--Old English for "convicted."
as transgressors--not merely of this or that particular command, but of the whole absolutely.
Source · Public Domain (CC Public Domain Mark 1.0)
17 more notes on this passage are in the library.
Jonathan Edwards
19 · Sermons
SERMON V Preached before the Synod of New York, convened at Newark, in New Jersey, on September 28, 1752.
James ii. 19.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou dost well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
OBSERVE in these words,—1. Something that some depended on, as an evidence of their good estate and acceptance, as the objects of God’s favor, viz., a speculative faith, or belief of the doctrines of religion. The great doctrine of the existence of one only God is particularly mentioned; probably, because this was a doctrine wherein, especially, there was a visible and noted distinction between professing Christians and the heathens, amongst whom the Christians in those days were dispersed. And therefore, this was what many trusted in, as what recommended them to, or at least was an evidence of their interest in, the great spiritual and eternal privileges, in which real Christians were distinguished from the rest of the world.
2. How much is allowed concerning this faith, viz., that it is a good attainment; “Thou dost well.” It was good, as it was necessary. This doctrine was one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; and, in some respects, above all others fundamental. It was necessary to be believed, in order to salvation. To be without the belief of this doctrine, especially in those that had such advantage to know as they had to whom the apostle wrote, would be a great sin, and what would vastly aggravate their damnation. This belief was also good, as it had a good tendency in many respects.
3. What is implicitly denied concerning it, viz., that it is any evidence of a person’s being in a state of salvation. The whole context shows this to be the design of the apostle in the words. And it is particularly manifest by the conclusion of the verse; which is,
4. The thing observable in the words, viz., the argument by which the apostle proves, that this is no sign of a state of grace, viz., that it is found in the devils. They believe that there is one God, and that he is a holy, sin-hating God; and that he is a God of truth, and will fulfill his threatenings, by which he has denounced future judgments, and a great increase of misery on them; and that he is an almighty God, and able to execute his threatened vengeance upon them.
Source · Public Domain (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. E. Hickman, London 1834; CCEL text of the Banner of Truth facsimile reprint)
19 · Sermons
Therefore, the doctrine I infer from the words to make the subject of my present discourse, is this, viz., nothing in the mind of man, that is of the same nature with what the devils experience, or are the subjects of, is any sure sign of saving grace.
If there be any thing that the devils have, or find in themselves, which is an evidence of the saving grace of the Spirit of God, then the apostle’s argument is not good; which is plainly this: “That which is in the devils, or which they do, is no certain evidence of grace. But the devils believe that there is one God. Therefore, thy believing that there is one God, is no sure evidence that thou art gracious.” So that the whole foundation of the apostle’s argument lies in that proposition: “That which is in the devils, is no certain sign of grace.”—Nevertheless, I shall mention two or three further reasons, or arguments of the truth of this doctrine.
I. The devils have no degree of holiness: and therefore those things which are nothing beyond what they are the subjects of, cannot be holy experiences.
The devil once was holy; but when he fell, he lost all his holiness, and became perfectly wicked. He is the greatest sinner, and in some sense the father of all sin. John viii. 44. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” 1 John iii. 8. “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.” He is often spoken of, by way of eminence, as “the wicked one.” So, Matt xiii. 19. “Then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.” And verse xiii. 38. “The tares are the children of the wicked one.” 1 John ii. 13. “I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.” And verse iii. 12. “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one.” And verse v. 18. “Whosoever is born of God—keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” So the devils are called evil spirits, unclean spirits, powers of darkness, rulers of the darkness of this world, and wickedness itself. Eph. vi. 12. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Source · Public Domain (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. E. Hickman, London 1834; CCEL text of the Banner of Truth facsimile reprint)
19 · Sermons
Therefore, surely, those things which the minds of devils are the subjects of, can have nothing of the nature of true holiness in them. The knowledge and understanding which they have of the things of God and religion, cannot be of the nature of divine and holy light, nor any knowledge that is merely of the same kind. No impressions made on their hearts, can be of a spiritual nature. That kind of sense which they have of divine things, however great, cannot be a holy sense. Such affections as move their hearts, however powerful, cannot be holy affections. If there be no holiness in them as they are in the devil, there can be no holiness in them as they are in man; unless something be added to them beyond what is in the devil. And if any thing be added to them, then they are not the same things; but are something beyond what devils are the subjects of; which is contrary to the supposition; for the proposition which I am upon is, that those things which are of the same nature, and nothing beyond what devils are the subjects of, cannot be holy experiences. It is not the subject that makes the affection, or experience, or quality holy; but it is the quality that makes the subject holy.
And if those qualities and experiences which the devils are the subjects of, have nothing of the nature of holiness in them, then they can be no certain signs, that persons which have them are holy or gracious. There is no certain sign of true grace, but those things which are spiritual and gracious. It is God’s image that is his seal and mark, the stamp by which those that are his are known. But that which has nothing of the nature of holiness, has nothing of this image. That which is a sure sign of grace, must either be something which has the nature and essence of grace, or flows from, or some way belongs to, its essence; for that which distinguishes things one from another is the essence, or something appertaining to their essence. And therefore, that which is sometimes found wholly without the essence of holiness or grace, can be no essential, sure, or distinguishing mark of grace.
II. The devils are not only absolutely without all true holiness, but they are not so much as the subjects of any common grace.
Source · Public Domain (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. E. Hickman, London 1834; CCEL text of the Banner of Truth facsimile reprint)
19 · Notes on the Bible
[52] James ii. 19. “The devils also believe and tremble.” They believe that Jesus is the Christ, &c. And tremble al the thoughts of the overthrow he will give them.
Source · Public Domain (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. E. Hickman, London 1834; CCEL text of the Banner of Truth facsimile reprint)