Life constantly lays choices before us. Many are mundane: If we say yes to salmon at a restaurant, we also say no to chicken, beef, and every other meat. To order one dessert is, in a way, to reject all others. More seriously, to marry one woman is, as the vows declare, to forsake all others – every other woman in the world. To say yes to parenthood is to say no to a simpler life. Taken together, our choices of food and drink, of vocation and avocation, of marriage and parenthood, set our direction for life.

The same principle applies to our moral and spiritual life. We do not choose a spiritual direction the way we choose chicken over beef, but Scripture does say we face two paths for life. Jesus says there is a broad road that leads to destruction and a narrow road that leads to life. We can call Jesus, “Lord” truly or falsely. We can build our life on sand or on the rock, that is, on Christ (Matt 7:13-27). James presents the same idea in different terms. He says there are two ways of life, two kinds of wisdom. One wisdom is from the earth, even the devil; the other is from heaven (James 3:13-18).

In verses 13-18 James sets us the climatic indictment of human sin in James 4. There James says that his people desire, kill, and covet. In James’s list of sins, envy has a central place. Envy is the enemy of Christian living. It is the opposite of grace, for it wants to grasp rather than to give. Envy is the opposite of caring for the needy. Envy sees only its needs and desires. Envy thinks other people should care for themselves. Left to ourselves, we all live for ourselves and envy what others have. Yet God doesn’t leave us to ourselves. Before he develops his indictment of human sin in full, he presents two ways of life. We should choose the way of wisdom, yet we do not have the power in ourselves to do so. So, by grace, God’s wisdom comes down to us (3:15, 17).

James says that anyone who is wise and understanding shows it by his good life, by deeds that reflect wisdom. The way of wisdom is the way of humility. True wisdom is gentle, meek, humble. If we walk in the path of wisdom, we know that our wisdom is “from above” – a gift of God (v. 17). Humble faith, a faith that comes from heaven, is the source of the wise life. We tend to think of humility, gentleness, and meekness as personality traits, but they are more. A gentle person need not be feminine and a humble person need not be shy or retiring. A gentle man can be bold and tough.

James says envy and selfish ambition drive are of the devil (vv. 14-15). Fools despise humility. Envy and selfish ambition drive vices that are opposite of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:19-23). Paul’s “works of the flesh” feature social sins such as hatred, discord, jealousy, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. The fruit of the Spirit is equally social. It includes peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and gentleness.

The Bible never praises selfish ambition, but to be accurate, we must say the Bible praises what we might call aspirations. For example, we should aspire to a quiet and productive life (1 Thess. 4:11), We should aspire to please the Lord (2 Cor. 5:9). Paul aspired to preach the gospel where the name of Christ was unknown (Rom. 15:20). So, it is fine to have goals or aspirations. We may have goals for the development of our gifts, for our family, for the lost, or for growth in wisdom or righteousness. God blesses those who have a passion for social justice. Everyone who is energetic, everyone with a taste for life, has ambitions. The Lord simply wants them to be godly, not worldly.

James has just described earthly wisdom and its miserable fruit. Now he describes wisdom from heaven and its blessed fruit. Like true faith, true wisdom is identified by the quality of life that it produces. It is “first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” (v. 17). This verse shows that James expects wisdom to produce results. The phrase “good fruit” makes us think of external deeds, but most of the verse describes character traits. Purity is an innocence and moral blamelessness that embraces all other traits. The pure are separate from the world.

The next three terms – “peace-loving,” “considerate,” and “submissive” – are linked, in Greek, each word begins with the same vowel and each has a similar ending. But the three also stand together by their contrast with the strife, selfish ambition, and boasting that mark worldly wisdom. Taken together, these three Christian virtues characterize a church marked by peace and cooperation rather than strife and competition. Following this trio, James lists another set of virtues that are a little more loosely related.

“Full of mercy and good fruit” signifies that spiritual virtues produce results. Mercy is the general term for acts of undeserved kindness. Jesus both showed mercy and commanded mercy. Like Jesus, James stressed the need to show mercy. “Good fruit,” in turn, is the consequence of these deeds of mercy.

There is uncertainty about the best translation of the next term. Leading scholars and some translators believe the word translated “impartial” in the NIV and ESV is better translated as “unwavering”. It seems that James means unwavering for a couple of reasons: First, James commends unwavering loyalty to God later in this section of his epistle (4:7-8). Second, unwavering makes a better pair with the next term, “insincere” (literally, “not hypocritical”) James’s virtues form clusters. The opening trio “peace-loving, considerate, and submissive” all point to a unified church, and the final pair both indicate a wholehearted faith, a faith without wavering or hypocrisy.

The effect of these traits of wisdom is peace and righteousness for the family of God. If earthly wisdom brings strife, the wise man brings unity and peace. Righteousness flourishes when God’s people seek peace. God fashioned us to flourish in an atmosphere of peace. Clamor and noise, conflict and competition, bring out the worst in us. Proverbs says, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1).

James is clear. We must show wisdom, be gentle, and avoid selfish ambition. We should shun envy because it devours our souls. Still, a question remains. Since we all have a competitive side, since we all tend to fix our eyes on those who have something we want, how can we free ourselves from envy? If believers struggle with envy and godless ambition, it is because we fail to see our status as beloved children of God.

Faith begets a wisdom and a gentleness that let us say: “God has given me the talents I have, whether great or small. He has given me my place in life, whether prominent or obscure. Whatever my lot, I know God will bless me and I can serve Him faithfully.” These thoughts, born of faith, create peace. They liberate the godly aspiration that is free of envy. They give us peace and they sow peace in our community. They show that we are living in the light of the wisdom from above.

James 3:13-18 Study Questions:

How does the passage you are studying today follow logically from the passage you studied in the past lesson (James 3:1-12)? What case does James seem to be building in chapter 3?

According to 3:13, what kind of a life results from a commitment to wisdom? How does “meekness” contrast with the descriptions, actions, and attitudes that follow in 3:14-16?

What are the fruits, or results, of wisdom that in not from above, according to verses 14-16? Why might this be? Why do you think he chooses to mention these specific sins and vices in these verses?

Why might James still refer to earthly wisdom as a kind of “wisdom” (v. 15)? How might worldly approaches to wisdom have a kind of order and logic to them?

In verse 18, James’s concluding comments about God’s wisdom have to do with its final benefits and results; this peace-loving wisdom of God produces “a harvest of righteousness.” How might living according to God’s wisdom have disproportionate effects beyond one’s individual life? What other Scriptures might James have in mind as he writes these words?

The problem James now addresses is, who can control the tongue? Control of the tongue is one of the tests of true religion that James lists at the conclusion of his first chapter. James has already appealed to believers to live their faith by praying for wisdom, listening to the Word, and acting on it. Almost immediately James hints that it may be difficult to prove one’s faith is genuine. It is far too easy to offer kind wishes – “keep warm and well fed” (2:16) – and do nothing to help. The hints of poor performance in James 2 become a plain declaration of human inability in James 3. James 1 says a religious man must “keep a tight rein on his tongue” (1:26). Yet now James says, “No man can tame the tongue” (3:8).

James opens chapter 3 with a warning that alarms teachers everywhere (3:1). Paradoxically, every time a teacher rises to explain this verse, he invites judgment on himself. It is true that only qualified people should teach. It is also true that some people get a thrill from standing before an attentive audience. But these points are not the topic of James 3. James’s theme is that we must tame the tongue but cannot do so. Teachers make an excellent test case of the issue. They are especially vulnerable to failures of speech because their role demands that they speak so much.

James does not accuse teachers of being especially wicked: “We all stumble in many ways.” No one can control his tongue. If anyone could, he would be faultless and perfect, “able to keep his whole body in check.” The tongue daily demonstrates both our sinfulness and our inability to reform ourselves. Failures of the tongue are frequent and public, hence undeniable. Scripture has long used sins of the tongue to describe human fallenness. For most of us, our mouth is our undoing (Prov. 18:6-7).

James uses three analogies to illustrate the influence of the tongue. The tongue, he says, is like a horse’s bit, a ship’s rudder, and a fire among trees (3:3-5). The tongue rests in the human mouth mush as the bit is in the horse’s mouth. In both cases, a small thing moves and controls a large body. The tongue is like a rudder of a ship. Just as a small part of a ship turns the whole, so the tongue has great influence on the whole person. The tongue is like a spark of fire in the woods. Even as a small spark can start a great fire, so the tongue can set fire to relationships or communities.

The idea that we should work hard to master the tongue because it is the key to all self-mastery, is appealing, in one way, since it directs human effort to one central task. Unfortunately, this view runs against the rest of Scripture. Jesus does not say “control the tongue and you control all.” He says your heart controls your tongue and speech (Matt. 12:33-35). James agrees with Jesus; the heart moves the tongue. Therefore, we cannot simply decide, by a resolution of the will, to control the tongue. For the heart controls our resolutions.

James rightly says, “The tongue…is a fire” (3:6a). Its propensity to gossip and its capacity to suggest sin establish it as a source of great wickedness. It stains the whole body. It sets all of life on fire “and is itself set on fire by hell” (3:6b). James describes the tongue in three ways: Its character. The tongue is a microcosm, a concentration point of this world’s evils. James says the tongue is “a world of evil among the parts of the body” (3:6a). Its influence. It corrupts “the whole body,” that is, the whole person. James says, “It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire” (3:6b). Its allegiance. In one sense, the evils of the tongue flow from the heart. In another sense, James says Satan himself gives the tongue its destructive power. Hell sets the tongue on fire (3:6b). If we wonder why the tongue generates so much trouble, James answers that it is set on fire by hell.

James begins the next text with the word “for.” That shows he is explaining what he just said. By this we know the tongue is enflamed by hell: mankind can tame anything but the tongue. Every kind of animal “can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (3:7-8). The tongue is restless, unstable, and liable to break out at any time. It is half-tamed at best.

James says two things: The tongue has vast influence, so we ought to control it. Yet no human can tame the tongue. This is a paradox: James says we must do something that we cannot do. There are two ways to approach this problem. First, we can soften James’s message. He means it is almost impossible to tame the tongue, therefore we must redouble our efforts. This view says: Since the tongue is the key to holy living, we must bend every effort to control it, for if we do, we control all. James’s illustrations seem to support this view. Just as a bit turns a large horse, just as a rudder turns a large ship, so the tongue the lives of men. The second view interprets James rather literally. It says: It would be good to tame the tongue, but James says we cannot. Therefore, we must turn elsewhere for help. No one has sufficient self-control to govern his tongue: “We all stumble in many ways” (3:2). “No one” – no mere human – “can tame the tongue” (3:8).

The tongue is hopelessly inconsistent. It blesses God one minute and curses mankind the next even though God fashioned mankind in his likeness (3:9-12). Such behavior is absurd as a spring that pours out both fresh and salty water, as absurd as a single tree bears both olives and figs (3:11-12). Yet the tongue is like a spring that vacillates between salty and clear water, or like a tree that bears peaches one day and papayas the next. James says simply, “My brothers, this should not be” (3:10).

Notice that James chides our inconsistency, even though he knows no one can consistently control the tongue. He rebukes us because the duty of watching our words remains. Since a small statement can cause great harm, we must guard our speech. We must strive to bless God and mankind with our tongues. James doesn’t solve this riddle in this passage. For the moment, he leaves us in tension until sometime later, in 4:6-10. In 4:10, James resolves his riddle when he promises that God will exalt all who humble themselves before Him. That is, if we humbly admit our inability, He will graciously forgive us.

Even before we reach that moment, other Scriptures teach us this about our inability: We cannot control the tongue, but God can. Even with the Spirit’s help, the taming is only partial. Yet it is real and more potent than our efforts at self-mastery. Once we realize that God can control what we cannot, we can properly face the failures of speech that reflect the failures of the heart.

Good works and holiness please God. But God, as a faithful husband, loves His bride, flaws and all. In this supremely important way, our moral achievements count for nothing. They neither earn God’s love nor guarantee it. There is no deed, no accomplishment, that makes God suddenly notice us or favor us. He loves us for His own reasons, not for our own merits. Yet, if we love the Lord, we do aspire to holiness.

We all stumble and utter words we quickly regret (3:1). Yet we strive to please God, whom we love. We do this even if our failures do not jeopardize that love. When we fail, we petition God for grace to renew and purify us, as we appropriate His grace. We live without fear, knowing God will not disown His children for their lapses. Even in failure we remain confident that if we believe in God, He has given us life by the gospel. The gospel word, implanted in us, saves us. Our tongue may be inconsistent, but our status is not. Our “performance” does not affect God’s love for us. By God’s grace, let us use our tongues to bless the Lord and to bless mankind, whom He made in His image.

James 3:1-12 Study Questions:

James begins this passage (vv. 1-2), by issuing a warning to those who teach, before discussing the dangers of the tongue for the remaining ten verses. What is the connection between the “teacher” and the “tongue”?

Given the three specific pictures that James uses to describe the tongue in verses 3-5, what are we supposed to grasp about the tongue?

Verse 6 is packed with particularly insightful teaching about the tongue. What does this verse remind us about the tongue’s role in evil? What do we learn about the tongue’s influence? In what sense can the tongue be linked with “hell” itself?

To what in nature does James compare the tongue in verses 7-8? How is this verse convicting? What does it teach about sinful human nature and our ability to control ourselves by our own strength?

How does James call out hypocritical uses of the tongue in verses 9-12? According to James, does it seem like any human being is completely free from this kind of doublespeak? Does he offer any hints of hope, with regard to the tongue, to his readers?

In what ways does this passage call us to repentance? What truths about God has James already taught, earlier in the letter, that give guidance for how to move forward with this recognition of universal failure in our words and speech?

“Justified by works” is not a phrase evangelical Christians use much. The apostle Paul says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). Yet here James says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). What does James have in mind?

Remember that James is on a quest for true religion, not religion that simply says, “God is one” (v. 19) and affirms the elements of the orthodox theology. True religion works. It hears the law and obeys. It helps widows and orphans in their distress. False religion is ineffective manward; it offers the needy wishes, nothing more (vv. 15-17). It is also ineffective Godward (vv. 18-19). It knows God as King, but not a Savior, so it offers no peace or comfort.

False religion takes religion classes in a university. True religion seeks the living God. False religion analyzes the historical and social contexts of the Bible. True religion studies Scripture itself to hear the very voice of God. False religions know what Christian creeds assert about God. True religion knows God Himself. False religion is dead, because it knows Christianity, but not Christ. True religion believes and prays and works. James 2 contrasts true and false faith in four case studies: Case 1 shows that false religion is useless with mankind (vv. 15-17). Case 2 shows that false religion is useless with God (vv. 18-19). Case 3 shows that true faith is useful with God (vv. 20-24). And case 4 shows that true faith is useful with mankind (vv. 25-26). We examined the first two cases in the last study. We will examine the last two cases in this study.

James invites his readers to consider the “evidence that faith without deeds is useless” (2:20). The evidence is this: Abraham was considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar (2:21). In our last study, James said false faith helps neither one’s neighbors (2:15-17) nor one’s relationship with God (2:18-19). The lively faith of Abraham contrasts with the fecklessness of false faith. When Abraham believed God, it led to wondrous works.

James is aware that Genesis 15 teaches justification by faith; he cites the passage in James 2:23. Even if James wrote his epistle before Paul wrote Galatians and Romans (as many scholars believe), he knows that Paul taught justification by faith. He knows Abraham looked to the stars, believed, and thus was justified before God. But James also knows that Abraham’s faith demonstrated its vitality by its works.

So, Paul and James agree. In God’s court, believers are justified the moment they believe. When they trust in Christ as Lord and Savior, their sin is laid on Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them. Yet works also justify in this secondary sense: they vindicate God’s declaration that we are right with Him. They prove that we are alive in Christ. When we say a believer is justified by faith alone, we mean that the believer adds nothing – no works – in order to earn or gain God’s favor. Good works are necessary – not a condition prior to salvation but a consequence following salvation. Just as a healthy fruit tree by its very nature necessarily bears fruit, so a genuine believer necessarily performs good works as the fruit of a new nature. Real faith is effective Godward.

James likes illustrations. He surely had his audience with him when he chose Abraham to illustrate that real faith works and is effective Godward. Abraham was a hero of the Jewish people. He was the father of Israel, their George Washington. Many regarded him as the most righteous man in history. But James’s readers might not have been so receptive to his next illustration. James introduces Rahab the harlot as evidence that genuine faith is effective manward.

Rahab is a surprising example, since she is a minor and unsavory figure, who contrasts sharply with Abraham. Abraham is the father of Israel, a male, and a great patriarch. Rahab is a Canaanite, a foreigner, and a disreputable prostitute. Yet Rahab illustrates real faith, for an intellectual conversion to orthodox ideas would not have saved her. She had to act. See Rahab’s story in Joshua 2.

Unlike Abraham socially, yet like Abraham spiritually, Rahab showed real faith works. Intellectual belief in God would save neither Rahab nor the spies she sheltered. Action spared both Rahab and the spies. If Abraham demonstrated that real faith is effective Godward, Rahab showed that real faith is effective manward. Small deeds make a big difference. Timely works adorn and verify a profession of faith. James says, “And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (James 2:25). She did not earn her salvation, but her works did vindicate her potentially dubious claim to believe. Her works publicly announced that she was indeed a God-fearing woman.

James does startle the educated Christians when he says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works?” and “Was not also Rahab justified by works?” (vv. 2:21, 25). Even if we know James doesn’t contradict the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, we wonder why he chose language that appears to contradict Paul.

Consider James’s audience. He wrote for Jews who took pride in their theological knowledge. They tended to think their heritage and knowledge guaranteed them God’s favor. James wrote for the kind of person who, today, might tell a pastor: “Don’t bother me, I’m already a Christian. I’ve been baptized, catechized, and sanitized from most major sins. Leave me alone; my faith is my private affair.” James hoped to undermine false confidence in an orthodox confession. If Paul wrote to give comfort to those who were afflicted by guilt, then James wrote to afflict those who found false comfort in their assent to orthodox theological ideas. In that setting James says: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone…For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead” (vv. 2:24, 26).

Paul, by contrast, ministered primarily to pagans with no clear ideas about God, and only secondarily to Jewish Christians who were perhaps confused about the relation between faith and works. Paul addresses the questions: How shall Gentiles enter the church, with or without the laws about circumcision, food, and association that separated Jews from other peoples? Must Gentiles keep the laws that established a Jew’s identity in order to be saved? Does one gain entry into the kingdom by faith alone, or by faith plus certain works?

In that setting Paul says, “One is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). Again, “A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). Paul corrects spiritual athletes who try to climb into heaven by their achievements. He roots out all false requirements for salvation.

But James has a different target audience. He speaks to people who grew up with biblical religion but never claimed it personally. They assume that their heritage, their knowledge, and their respectability guarantee God’s favor. In today’s terms, James addresses people who say: “Leave me alone, I am already a Christian. I’m a decent person, I have a family, I attend church and assent to the orthodox creeds.” For that situation, James says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (v. 2:24). He urges self-inspection: Do you prove your faith is real by deeds of sacrificial love?

James 2 says true faith manifests itself in works of service to man and of obedience to God. In other words: False faith offers no service to fellow man. It offers warm wishes, nothing more. False faith offers no obedience to God. As with demons, orthodox theology does not save. True faith offers obedience to God, as Abraham proved. True faith offers costly service to fellow man, as Rahab proved.

The good deeds, flowing from faith, vindicate us, declare that we do belong to Christ. It is no legal fiction, no technicality, that releases us from the condemnation we deserve. The righteousness given to us by God is also coursing through us. So, God is right to permit us to enter His heaven, His presence. Neither faith not our works are the basis of our salvation. But living faith does work, says James. Living faith saves.

James 2:20-26 Study Questions:

Why does James describe faith apart from works as “useless” (v. 20)? To whom is it useless (see vv. 21-23)? What is this teaching us about true faith and about God?

James 2:22 says that Abraham’s “faith was complete by his works.” What is James’s teaching about Abraham’s obedience? Using verses 20-24, how would you explain the connection between Abraham’s faith in God and his obedience to God?

Abraham’s obedient works were directed toward God, as vindication of his true faith. But toward whom were Rahab’s good works directed (vv. 25-26)? What important truths can we learn from this?

How was Rahab’s help of the Hebrew spies inextricably linked to her genuine faith in God? If she had not helped them, what would that have said about her faith? Would Rahab’s faith in God been evident, or even genuine, apart from her actions?

A pastor spoke to a young lawyer who had visited his church several times. He was very interested in obtaining eternal life. He admitted that he was a sinner and needed a savior. He believed Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus endured crucifixion, then rose from death to win life for all who believe. Then, although they were not talking about money at all, he added: “But there is one idea I can’t stand – tithing. I don’t make that much money now, so it’s not a big issue yet, but in a few years, I’m going to be making a lot of money, and there’s no way I’m going to give away 10 percent of it. I could never give away that much money.” Is this man a Christian? Will his brand of faith unite him to Christ, so that he gains eternal life?

That is the question James addresses through much of his epistle. He states the question starkly in 2:14. This question addressed a real issue in James’s church, and it remains a real issue today. Many of us know people like the lawyer. They accept the biblical diagnosis of the human condition. They understand how Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection remedy their estrangement from God. They go to church from time to time. They like to read and talk about spiritual things. They know the central teachings of Christian faith. They are pleasant folks. They seem to live decent lives, though they may indulge a vice or two. When conversation turns to Jesus or what happens after death, they sound like believers. They adhere to orthodox, evangelical theology.

Yet there is nothing distinctively Christian about their behavior. They may be decent neighbors and may perform a little community service. But there is no real self-sacrifice, no costly obedience, no good deed that goes against their grain, nothing that challenges their well-designed life.

When James 2 asks what is the benefit of that kind of faith, he is preparing his concluding remarks on a topic that already gained his attention in chapter 1. The next passage, 2:1-13, maintains the theme. James’s concern for the treatment of the poor, begun in 1:27, continues in 2:1-6. Compassion for the poor includes care for their spirit. We treat then with the dignity they deserve as humans and Christian brothers. James tells his readers their treatment of the poor is no trivial matter. It is part of the “royal law,” to “love your neighbor as yourself” (2:8). James closes the section by telling his readers they will be judged by the law (2:12).

Perhaps some in the church were surprised to hear that they were still liable to judgment. They thought they were saved by faith and therefore free from judgment. But James, as a true pastor, shredded their false sense of security so they could see themselves as they really were.

James begins the process with a question: “What good is it [or “What is the benefit”], my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (v. 14). That is, does the kind of faith that affirms orthodox theology, but produces no distinctively Christian deeds, save? Does that faith lead to justification before God the Judge? It is an old question: Does every brand of faith save? Is there a faith that does not? Does an evangelical confession of faith, with nothing more, make one right with God?

These are contemporary questions. When James faced it, he answered directly. There is a “faith” that does not save. It is the faith that adheres to orthodox theology but has no actions. The literal translation of verse 14b is quite stark: “Faith can’t save him, can it?” In Greek, there is a way to ask questions that shows the author anticipates the answer no; James uses that form, making his position clear: No, “faith” cannot save the person who has no works.

Once James states his theme – that faith without works cannot save – he illustrates it with four case studies. We will consider two in this study and the last two in the next study. Case #1: Faith without deeds of compassion for the needy brother does that brother no good. Thus “faith without works is dead (vv. 15-17).

Here James sketches a realistic scene with great economy of words. He pictures a brother or sister who is poor, even by ancient standards. When James says someone is “without clothes” (v. 15), he doesn’t mean naked. More likely “without clothes” indicates someone is wearing only an inner tunic (underwear) or is dressed inadequately. His clothes are either few or ragged, not enough to keep warm. He lacks “daily food,” as well. He has not yet received the answer to the prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread.” Either he is hungry that day, or, more likely, he chronically lacks food.

Jesus says genuine faith meets the needs of the poor. It is not content to say, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but do nothing. Real faith knows that on the last day, when Jesus judges all people, He will mark whether we did or did not help the needy whom we met (Matt. 25:36-40). The kind of faith that offers warm wishes and trite advice is no good on the last day (Matt. 25:41-43).

James anticipates a plausible objection to the message of verses 15-17. Someone will view faith and good works roughly the way we view spiritual gifts. James lets an imaginary critic speak: “But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds’” (v. 18). James replies, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder” (vv. 18-19).

The objection says faith and works are like spiritual gifts; some have one, some have the other. Faith is even called a gift in Romans 12:3 and 1 Corinthians 12:9. Works are never called a gift, but Peter does divide spiritual gifts into two categories, gifts of speech and gifts of service (1 Peter 4:11). As the objection sees it, those who offer food and clothing to the hungry and the ragged have a gift for good works. So someone will say, “Good works are for those with the gift, but my gift is knowledge or faith, not action.

If someone says, “I believe in God,” James replies, “I will believe you have true faith when it manifests itself in deeds.” That is, if someone claims to have faith, but only has orthodox theological ideas, it proves nothing. James uses the “faith” of demons to illustrate his point. Demons have at least some orthodox theological ideas. They are monotheistic. They believe that there is one God and that Jesus is His unique Son. Yet demons are tormented and terrified by their beliefs. They shudder when they think of God. They are not saved by their theological orthodoxy. The truth torments and terrifies them, for they do not add love of God to their “Knowledge” of Him.

Millions have a dead, orthodox faith. They attend church frequently and know the gospel intellectually. They even live morally. But the thought of meeting the eternal God creates terror. John says perfect love (for God) “drives out fear” (1 John 4:18). True faith, faith that knows and trusts God as He presents Himself in the gospel, casts out servile fear. It grants peace with God, a desire for His Word, and the capacity to put away sin – a capacity that shows itself in stronger relationships and better behavior at work and at play.

James’s critique of false faith feels like bad news. But as the next section of James will show, there is good news too. Real faith does express itself in acts of love. It does care for the needy. Christians so not simply grit their teeth and resolve to keep more laws. New behavior flows from a new heart. We fail so often. But real faith does lead to good deeds. They are the fruit of new life in Christ.

James 2:14-19 Study Questions:

In verse 14, James points to the insufficiency for salvation of a certain kind of faith, when he asks, “Can that faith save him?” Is James questioning the doctrine of salvation by faith? Why or why not? If not, what is he affirming quite strongly in this verse?

What comments does James’s imaginary character make to the brother or sister who is lacking food or clothing (vv. 15-16)? What attitude seems to lurk behind these comments? What does this person “who says he has faith” fail to do?

What point is James making in verse 17 about “faith by itself”? Does such faith actually exist? Describe in your own words what such a kind of “faith” might look like in today’s context.

What motivation seems to be behind the objection that James anticipates in verse 18? In what way does this objection seek to make a separation that James immediately rejects as invalid?

How would you characterize the belief of the demons in God, which James mentions in verse 19? In what sense do they “believe” in God? What do they lack, as part of this belief?

What in this passage seems objectionable – or dangerous – to you? Why do you think that is the case? What reactions does James intend to draw out from his audience?

Most of would say we can obey the Bible partially. “All of nothing” seems like the wrong category. After all, we are tempted daily and sometimes succumb, so we would say we try to obey God, but find only partial success. For example, we try to control our tongues, but we all fail at times; our success is partial (James 3:2-8). Both theology and our experience tell us our progress in holiness is slow and incomplete (Rom. 7:14-25). Yet James 2 says there is a sense in which obedience is all or nothing.

For James, obedience is the proof that a profession of faith is genuine. Genuine believers, we recall, pass three tests of true religion. They (1) keep a tight rein on their tongues, (2) look after orphans and widows in their distress, and (3) keep themselves from the pollutions of the world. That is, true Christians control their speech. They care for the poor and the needy out of pure mercy, without expecting anything in return. They remain in the world, where they eat, dress, and travel like other members of their society. Yet they shun the sinful customs and the godless values of their day. They “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thess 5:21).

True religion is visible in daily life, both in big, public events, and in small acts of faithfulness or unfaithfulness. For example, James asks us to examine the way we treat church visitors. If we favor the rich, giving them the last good seat or the warmest greeting, and if we coolly let the poor man sit on the floor, we fail the tests of true religion. The small disposition we call favoritism mistreats the poor, misuses the tongue, and succumbs to worldliness. Favoritism is also foolish because it contradicts the character of God. James says, the rich are often hostile to the faith. They pursue wealth and exploit the poor. But God gives His kingdom to the poor.

As we have seen, favoritism is foolish and worldly, though it seems such a small sin and doesn’t seem to hurt anyone much. Favoritism is the antithesis of love for the needy and for neighbors (2:8-9). Anyone who loves his neighbor does well and fulfills “the royal law.” But favoritism violates the King’s law, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (v.8). Anyone who shows favoritism sins and is “convicted by the law” (v. 9).

“Love your neighbor” is the royal law in two senses. It is the law of the kingdom, and it is the law of the King Jesus. Love your neighbor is essential to Old Testament law. God told Moses, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). The law of Moses often looks to the needs of the poor as it forbids unfair treatment of anyone (Lev. 19:15). But Jesus takes love to its apex. He says, “Love you neighbor,” and He shows us how to love our neighbor. “Love your neighbor” is both what the King says and the way the King lives. By His incarnation, Jesus became our neighbor. By His sacrifice on the cross and by His resurrection, He demonstrated the extent of His compassion for us.

The point James makes in verses 10-11 is, if we break one law, we do indeed violate the whole law. That is, if someone violates just one law, he is accountable for the whole, because God gives the whole. If the very God of the universe says, “Do not murder,” then deliberately murderous thoughts, words, or deeds violate not only His will; they violate His person – His tole as Lord of Lords – as well. In this sense, obedience is all or nothing. Further, any mistreatment of a neighbor breaks all laws for neighbor, since all laws aim at their good.

Using, as examples, murder and adultery – the central moral commands – James 2:11 exposes the danger in the mindset that is content with partial obedience. This is the problem: If people pick and choose what they obey, then they are still very much their own god. All commands are united by this principle: God gave them. If we say, “I will follow the law about murder, but will not follow the law about adultery,” then we are saying we will obey laws that we judge to be sound. If we obey the laws that seem right to us, then we obey only when a law passes our judgment or suits our purpose. This approach forgets that God gave every law. It enthrones the self. Thus, if we disobey any law, we disobey God. We are not simply disobeying His law; we are rejecting Himas Lord and Lawgiver.

If we pick and choose among the commands, we never really obey God Himself. If we follow only the laws we like, if we obey only laws that we find agreeable, we make ourselves the final arbiter of truth. In effect, we consult with God and possibly gain valuable pointers from Him. But we are still masters of our lives. In this way, obedience is all or nothing. We submit to God totally or not at all.

People do pick and choose among God’s commands. Some would never kill but cheerfully commit fornication and adultery. The murder mentioned in verse 11 might refer to persecution of Christians. But whether physical murder is in view or not, James observes other forms of murder. Favoritism is a kind of murder of the poor. It despises the poor, and that is a form of hate and murder (Matt. 5:21-26). James also mentions judgment of others and condemnation as a kind of verbal murder, sometimes called character assassination.

James heightens the issue by reminding his readers that they will “be judged by the law that give freedom.” Further, “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.” We should “speak and act” accordingly (James 2:12-13). The phrase “speak and act” reminds us of the call to be doers of the Word. Judgment is certain and will occur on that basis. Judgment is near in the sense that it will surely happen.

The Law will be our judge. Why? Above all, because God gave the Law. To break the law is to contradict God’s will. Moreover, when we break the Law, we fail to act like His children. We neither walk in His ways nor imitate Him. This is tragic, because the Law gives freedom. Many regard the Law as a restriction, since it forbids their doing whatever they please. But there is a freedom that enslaves. We may be free to divorce a spouse. But divorce very often binds people to loneliness and poverty. We may be free to experiment sexually, but such freedom enslaves us to a life of lust and shallow, broken relationships. Beyond these temporal troubles, sin leads to judgment.

Though James has not been thinking of mercy, it seems that he simply cannot end by declaring judgment “without mercy” (2:13). He doesn’t explain, at this moment, how mercy triumphs over judgment. But he is speaking to believers. We know that mercy triumphs by a simple yet profound process. First, we recognize our sins and repent, grieving over them and intending, by God’s grace, to abandon them. Second, we turn to Jesus as He is offered in the gospel, knowing that “he was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Believers fail, yet by their faith in the Redeemer, God’s mercy to His children triumphs over the judgment we deserve. In Christ, mercy triumphs.

When a true believer strives to obey and fails, the final word is still grace. For that reason, a sinning, failing Christian never despairs, never descends into self-recrimination. Through Christ, we are united to the triune God. The One who demands mercy shows mercy. For disciples, God’s mercy is always the last word. Of course, Scripture teaches us to ask for mercy. It commands us to pray for forgiveness every day, since, unless we are comatose, we sin every day. But it can be difficult to repent. God’s mercy does not depend on our ability to request it properly.

James 2 stings the complacent believer with several sharp warnings about sin. First, even a “small,” common, all-but-invisible sin such as favoritism has large consequences; by it we fail the tests of true religion. Second, we have no right to pick and choose among God’s commands. If we reject a command because it is unpalatable, we have rejected the Lord who gave that law. These are serious matters. Still, God’s grace is greater than our sin. The gospel goes to sinners, to the unworthy, to the poor in spirit. The Lord is pleased when we obey, yet for all who repent and believe, He loves and forgives even when we fail Him.

James 2:8-13 Study Questions:

How does verses 8-9 continue James’s teaching on favoritism and partiality – and the dangers of both? What do these verses add to the discussion, and how does James ground his teaching in the law of God?

Why is verse 10 surprising and unexpected? In what ways is this statement contrary to what most people think, concerning religious devotion, in your culture today? What does this verse teach us about the character of God?

How does verse 11 further explain and demonstrate the point that James is making in verse 10? What potential danger is he exposing in a potential attitude and approach to the law of God? In what ways might verses 10-11 drive us to our knees and confront us with our desperate need for Jesus?

What does James assert about “judgment” in verse 12? On what basis will we all be judged, according to James, and why is this important? Why must every Christian understand this truth?

While James speaks frankly about judgment, he doesn’t speak of judgment unaccompanied by mercy. What is encouraging about his mention of “mercy” in verse 13? What does he say about the “mercy” of God? Why is this a deeply encouraging conclusion to this passage, and how does it relate to the work of Jesus Christ?

Paul knew religious talk can be cheap. He said, “Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19), and “What counts is a new creation” (Gal. 6:15). James agrees. What impresses him is devotion to God that manifests itself in concrete acts of love and righteousness. He mentions three tokens of true spirituality in James 1:26-27, one in negative terms, two in positive. True religion is “to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

This threefold test of true religion fits James perfectly. It suits his emphasis on doing God’s will. It can also appeal to his activist readers. It is grimly stirring to read, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” (4:17). There is something in many of us that longs to say, “Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.” This is one reason why some people love James: his commands are so clear, so graphic, so actionable.

James knows that religious claims may be vain – empty professions that fail to meet the standards of true faith. But “religion” can be a positive term for James too, if religious claims prove genuine (1:26-27). If we join the negative and the positive statements of James 1:26-27, we see that James sets out three tests of true religion. True religion (1) controls the tongue, (2) looks after widows and orphans in distress, and (3) remains unpolluted by the world.

To this day, religious people may profess orthodox doctrines and faithfully attend their churches. But the proof of their religion lies in behavior, James says. He unfolds the meaning of these marks of true religion – controlling the tongue, caring for the needy, and shunning the world’s pollution – throughout chapters 2-4.

First, true religion bridles the tongue. Angry talk, gossip, and deception are leading failures of speech, but James develops quite a litany of verbal sins. The tongue, James says, boasts and curses and speaks conflicts that prove that it is set on fire by hell itself. Yet heirs of true religion will rein in these sins.

Second, true religion visits orphans and widows in their distress. Orphans and widows represent the poor, defenseless members of society. They suffer poverty and exploitation. Care for orphans and widows is essential to true religion for several reasons. Above all, kindness to them is pure kindness. It is mercy for the sake of mercy, because those who help widows and orphans cannot expect to receive anything tangible in return. Widows and orphans are likely to be poor for a long time. Furthermore, kindness to the needy is God-like. We sustain aliens, widows, and orphans because He sustains aliens, widows, and orphans (Ps. 146:9).

Third, true religion is unstained by the world. James advocates separation in the world, not from the world. From one perspective, the world is simply God’s creation. But the world is also a system of thought, a system of values. Those values so often contradict God’s values (James 4:4). James expects his people to remain pure while staying in this world. We do not stay pure by abandoning society. We do not gain purity by giving away our radio, television and smart devises, though we should avoid entertainments that promote and glorify sin. Physically, we dwell in the world, but morally, we keep our distance. We test things and hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21).

James 1:26-27 both concludes James 1 and introduces James 2. These two verses offer a final word on genuine faith. Earlier paragraphs said genuine faith perseveres through trials and receives the Word, as a means of persevering. Now James specifies the behavior that genuine faith will manifest. These marks of real faith become themes that James explores throughout his letter. Good deeds to the poor and needy dominate 2:14-26, control of the tongue is the theme of 3:1-12, and staying unstained by the world governs 3:13-5:6.

Yet instead of launching into these topics at once, James begins with the apparently trivial problem of favoritism. James states: those who believe in Christ should show no partiality. James suggests that faith and favoritism are incompatible. To translate literally, “Do not hold faith in the glorious Lord Jesus Christ with favoritism” (James 2:1). Believers should not prefer one person over another because of their appearance – their face, their clothes, or any other aspect of their outward appearance. Humans play favorites. We judge by appearances, but God does not. Scripture says, “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). In James 2:2-4, James sketches a vivid scene to illustrate his point.

Someone may reply: “Yes, favoritism is wrong, but why begin a discussion of true religion with such a trivial issue? Recall, first, that true religion helps the poor. Favoritism insults and dishonors them though God loved them and chose them for himself (James 2:5-6). The poor are forever told to sit on the floor and stand in a corner. But if there is one community in this world where all should get equal treatment, it is the church.

Second, true religion is unstained by the world, but favoritism is utterly worldly. It continues the world’s inclination to prefer the rich over the poor. Favoritism rejects God’s decision to grant equal honor to the poor and the rich. Favoritism forgets God’s will and seeks the favor of the rich by giving them special attention. And favoritism is foolish, since the rich often use their power to exploit the poor, taking them to court and slandering God’s name (2:6-7).

Third, true religion controls the tongue. But favoritism uses the tongue to hurt the poor. It may be unintentional, but verbal snubs can wound. So, then favoritism fails every test of true religion: it abuses the tongue, is stained by the world, and insults the poor. Favoritism is common, but James calls it false judgment (2:4). It contradicts God’s values. It also contradicts the gospel, for God chose the poor to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom (1:9).

Morally speaking, favoritism is a social sin. Theologically, favoritism implicitly denies that God has chosen the poor. In the ancient world, the poor were despised or ignored. They were exploited through slavery and controlled through handouts. We still have ways of despising the poor today, although some things have changed. For one thing, we differentiate between the poor. Our society is a meritocracy, so people of each generation earn their place afresh.

In short, we should honor poor students who bristle with potential, and we should honor unskilled laborers who will probably stay poor. In the gospel, God honors every son and daughter who believes in Him. The church is a family, not a club, and favoritism has no place in a family. When we love and receive all kinds of people, it shows that God’s ways are becoming our ways, for God loves the poor. We emulate God’s character and obey His will when we refuse to play favorites.

James 1:26-2:7 Study Questions:

According to James’s words in 1:26-27, there are at least three tests of true religion. What are they? Are you surprised by any of these tests that James chooses to identify here? If so, why?

Why might James count care for widows and orphans as a key test of true religion? In what ways would those who fit that description have been vulnerable – especially in James’s historical context?

In your own words, what does James mean by his call to remain “unstained from the world”? From what you know of other parts of Scripture, what do biblical writers mean by “the world”?

Why might showing favoritism, or “partiality,” in the context of the local church be a strongly negative indication of one’s true faith in God (2:1)? How does favoritism, especially on the basis of wealth or influence, do damage to the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

How is James’s illustration of a rich man and poor man wearing very different clothing (2:2-4) particularly effective in making his point?

How does James, in 2:5, explain why favoritism on the basis of wealth and appearance violate the heart of true religion? What does he remind his audience of about God and about God’s way of working His salvation in the world? What does he remind them of about the ways that the rich and powerful in our world often act?