14
2/02/10

CONTINUE:
v “the test of righteous works”
vv 2: 20-26

2: 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And 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. 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Continuing, the diatribe, James now calls his dialogue partner “vain“, “empty”, and, in many versions, “foolish”, with this leading question setting the stage to introduce two positive examples of “live” faith proven by the works performed.
G2756
êåíüò


Apparently a primary word; empty (literally or figuratively):—empty, (in)
vain
With his claim the person shows himself to be “foolish”; his claim of faith is empty, “dead” without works.
1.Abraham
How does Abraham fit in? why is we used as a model of “faith”? How much can you “be off” and still be a “friend of God”?
We don’t want to wander too far away from James here, but, some background has to be reviewed to gain a little understanding of how and why Abraham and Rahab are (Hebrews 11: 6-31, etc) used, as here in James, to exemplify “true”, “live” faith.

So, a little review:
The Protestant Bible is not just “a book” but is in fact sixty individual books: 39 in the “old Testament” and 27 in the “New Testament” (the Catholic bible has about seven more books some in the old and some in the New). These books were written by about 40 men and women over a couple of thousand year period; people from all stations in life: kings; farm laborers; herdsmen, highly educated men and nearly illiterate men, yet, from this widely diverse group of writers , written over such a long period of time, and yet the message is completely congruous!
The first five books were written by Moses during the time they were wandering in the wilderness; these books are known as the “Torah” (the teachings or the law) by the Jews and the “Pentateuch (5) by the Greek speaking people. These are followed in the protestant Bibles by historical writings; hymns/poetry/wisdom writings and then; the writings of the prophets, for a total of thirty nine books. The order in which we have them is different than the original Hebraic writings. The Hebrew writings were translated into Greek several hundred years before Christ. There is some difference of opinion how and why this translation was done: some take the position that it was done by the Jews because they were losing fluency in the Hebrew language; others believe it was ordered by a conqueror. In either case, it is known as the “Septuagint” everybody pretty much agrees this is because seventy Scholars joined together and prepared it (actually probably seventy two: six from each of the twelve tribes)
Between four and five hundred years went by after Malachi, the last of the “Old Testament” books and James, the first of the new Testament books, was written; the “silent period”. There were some books written during that period and some of them are included in the Catholic Bible but are not recognized as canonical by the Jews nor Protestant Christians
The Protestant New Testament is made up of twenty seven books: the first three are the “synoptic” gospels. Synoptic means they are to be read together as they compliment and in many places match one another; the remaining gospel was written by the Apostle John several years after the Synoptic gospels and is more “spiritual” in content. The next part of the New Testament is the “Epistles” letters the majority written by the Apostle Paul. The last book is the Apocalypse or revelation from its first word “apokalypsis”, written by the Apostle john
Starting in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden, mankind rebelled against God; consequently we humans were put out into the fallen world we now occupy (it also “fell” as a result of man’s rebellion). Early on, the Bible records frequent interaction between God and man, then after the “fall”, for a relatively long time we were left to our own devices; during which time, mankind spirals ever farther down, finally reaching such a depraved condition that (The Holy Bible, King James Version):
Genesis 6: 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved
him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the
fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
H5162



A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to
be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or
(unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):—comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -
ing, self).
As a consequence of this depravity that mankind had descended into, beyond redemption, God “sorrowfully” then killed all mankind, with the exception of Noah and his immediate family.
This and similar passages require some deeper study in order to not be mistaken in our knowledge of God. To catch a glimpse of God and his nature we must always keep in mind God is so much “more” than we are, as high above us as the heavens are above the earth,(Job 11: 8, etc) that we can now only barely see “through a glass darkly” , can only catch a glimpse as He reveals Himself to us. Some of the enlightenment scholars kind of went off into the ditch here, summarizing that God is so far above us that He is “unknowable”. This is a dangerous line of thought, in that it could lead you astray, winding up with an implacable, aloof, remote , uncaring God, much like the Allah of the Muslims; completely losing sight of the God Who Loves us so much, that he gave his only begotten Son… to save us!
Even so, God is the “same, yesterday, today and tomorrow”, unchanging; He is the same God right now as he was when He brought the flood; the same as when He parted the Red Sea; the same as when He gave His only begotten Son; He does not change, He is immutable, yet He is a “person” and does have emotions.

Here are some thoughts along these lines from some pretty good scholars:
Title: Hard Sayings of the Bible
Author: Brauch, Manfred T., Bruce, F.F., Davids, Peter H., and Kaiser, Peter
H. Jr.

DOES GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?
(GENESIS 6:6)
In Malachi 3:6 God affirms, “I the LORD do not change.” This is why
Christian doctrine teaches that God is immutable—that is, unchangeable. The
promise of this constancy and permanence in the nature and character of God has
been deeply reassuring to many believers down through the ages. When
everything else changes, we can remember the living God never fails or
vacillates from anything that he is or that he has promised.
For this reason many are legitimately startled when they read that the Lord
“was grieved” or “repented” that he had ever made man and woman upon the
earth (Gen 6:6). How can both the immutability and the changeableness of God
be taught in the same canon of Scripture?
Scriptures frequently use the phrase “God repented.” For example, Exodus
32:14 says, “Then [after Moses’ intercession for the Israelites] the LORD relented
and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” Or again in 1
Samuel 15:11, “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned
away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Again in Jeremiah 26:3,
“Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent
and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have
done.” (See also Jer 26:13, 19; Jon 3:10.)
The Hebrew root behind all the words variously translated as “relent,”
“repent,” “be sorry” and “grieve” is . In its origins the root may well have
reflected the idea of breathing or sighing deeply. It suggests a physical display of
one’s feelings—sorrow, compassion or comfort. The root is reflected in such
proper names as Nehemiah, Nahum and Menehem.
When God’s repentance is mentioned, the point is not that he has changed in
his character or in what he stands for. Instead, what we have is a human term
being used to refer—rather inadequately—to a perfectly good and necessary
divine action. Such a term is called an anthropomorphism.
When the Bible says that God repented, the idea is that his feelings toward
some person or group of persons changed in response to some change on the part
of the objects of his action or some mediator who intervened (often by God’s
own direction and plan). Often in the very same passages that announce God’s
repentance there is a firm denial of any alteration in God’s plan, purpose or
character. Thus 1 Samuel 15:29 reminds us that “he who is the Glory of Israel
does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his
mind.” Yet Samuel made that statement the day after the Lord told him that he
was grieved he had made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11).
From our human perspective, then, it appears that the use of this word
indicates that God changed his purpose. But the expression “to repent,” when
used of God, is anthropopathic (that is, a description of our Lord in terms of
human emotions and passions).
In Genesis 6:6 the repentance of God is his proper reaction to continued and
unrequited sin and evil in the world. The parallel clause says that sin filled his
heart with pain. This denotes no change in his purpose or character. It only
demonstrates that God has emotions and passions and that he can and does
respond to us for good or ill when we deserve it.
The point is that unchangeableness must not be thought of as if it were some
type of frozen immobility. God is not some impervious being who cannot
respond when circumstances or individuals change. Rather, he is a living person,
and as such he can and does change when the occasion demands it. He does not
change in his character, person or plan. But he can and does respond to our
changes.
See also comment on 1 Samuel 15:29; comment on Jonah 4:1-2. (Hard Sayings of The Bible)

Always keep in mind; God’s ways are not man’s ways.
After Noah men again drifted away from God! Even after all this we humans as a whole, (there have always been at least a “remnant” of believers, even in the darkest of times) still would not accept god’s sovereignty! Leading to God’s next “chastisement” of us: Nimrod and his peoples building the tower of Babel and his wife creating, what is considered as the underlying religion of worship of the female aspect of paganism expressed in such as the worship of Astarte, Virgo, Diana, etc.: God again stepped in and chastised we humans, “confusing” our languages and scattering us.
We humans then go our own way again for awhile, again drifting farther and farther away from God; God steps in again and sets a chain of events in motion that will ultimately provide us with the solution that we have proven we cannot/willnot find: how do we reconcile ourselves with our Creator? We have proven it is impossible for us to accomplish this seemingly simple task!
Now, at this point in time God steps in to history again and reveals himself to a moon worshiper and idol maker named Abram (Joshua 24: 2) living in the south central part of what is now Iraq, just a little south of the city of Babylon, and tells him he will “make a great nation” from him ((“God said” Gen. 12: 1), Gen. 12:1-2). There doesn’t appear to be anything special about Abram and the Bible does not tell us why He selected Abram, only that He did!
The New American commentary so excellently summarizes Abraham’s activities that I have copied a fairly lengthy section of their work:
James identifies Abraham as “our father”, does he mean only the genetic descendants of Abraham? In one of the most caustic passages of the New Testament (John 8:31–59), Jesus is recounted as teaching two groups of Jewish leaders, those who believed in him and those who did not. The former are said to believe in accordance with Abraham’s faith and are his true children; the latter are not. There ensues a dispute over patrimony that fluctuates among the names of Abraham, God, and the devil. The case that Jesus made requires acceptance of his testimony in order to maintain congruity with the true fatherhood of Abraham. The opportunity of an “adoption” into the family of Abraham by faith becomes a reality. Because of this Paul stated in Gal 3:7: “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.” This is not to say that the physical descendants of Abraham have been displaced by these Gentile “adoptees,” in spite of the early Christian polemics against Judaism. Exegesis of Romans 9–11 makes the case forcefully for the perpetual role of the Jews, “the natural branches” (Rom 11:24) of Abraham, in the redemptive plan of God.57 Paul was aware already of the potential for hostility toward the Jews within the church but would not allow for any mistake about the place of ethnic Israel in the divine economy:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarch, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Rom 11:28–32
Abraham is then both exemplar and father to all believers whether of Jewish or Gentile background. Ethnic background is not at all the issue in James but rather the religious malady of useless faith.
God regarded Abraham as righteous58 for offering up his son Isaac (cf. Gen 22:1–18; although Abraham was counted as righteous first in Gen 15:6). Of course, although Abraham offered Isaac up as a sacrifice on an altar, the boy did not become a sacrifice. We might ask, then, in what sense this deed was “useful”? Abraham obeyed the command of God that tested him by an extraordinary trial. Nowhere does Scripture actually expound upon the nature of the divine request for the sacrifice of Isaac. One reason, perhaps, is that as a founding event in the life of Israel it is meant to explain many other events and principles in Scripture. It is a story about what God does not want as much as about what he wants. Unlike the other gods of the nations, the God of Abraham wants true faith, not the death of sons. James’s understanding has a close parallel in the epistle to the Hebrews (11:17–19):
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
Much in the passage accords with themes central to James’s message, such as enduring trials as God’s testing of faith (1:2–4), which is the way in which God induces deeds. These deeds of trusting and humble obedience demonstrate the evidence of genuine faith. Indeed, Heb 12:1–13 exhorts believers to accept this testing from God as evidence that they are true sons of God and—from James’s perspective—of Abraham as well. Abraham’s act was useful then to God by which Abraham became the first proven son of his mercy.
2:22 As if drawing close to his conversation partner, James’s address in the second person called him to “see” (cf. v. 20 with “you know”) the truth about Abraham’s deed: his faith was made complete by his actions, or literally, “his faith works.”59 James wanted it known that without action, faith cannot be complete. Without action there will be no perseverance (cf. 1:3), and without sustained perseverance faith will not become complete.60 There is an important connection between deeds that complete faith and perseverance itself. Abraham’s actions were his perseverance in faith. Perseverance completes faith by demonstrating the genuineness of faith (cf. 4:10–11). Thus, although usefulness is a standard by which faith is measured, so is perseverance through testing. Perseverance, of course, is connected to the former standard because it is “useful” to God and the believer in that it demonstrates true relationship.
2:23 Unique in James, we have in this verse a reference to the fulfillment61 of Scripture. This connection arises from the relation between the statement from Gen 15:6 that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as his righteousness by God and the actual birth of his son Isaac twenty-five years later. This is part of a shorthand review of Abraham’s faith in God: a glancing back to the beginning of Abraham’s walk of faith with God and God’s acceptance of him, the waiting for the promised child, the evidence of his friendship with God and—from the previous verse—the completion of his faith in offering up Isaac. The fulfillment text is quoted by Paul as well in Rom 4:3, which frames an entire context in order to convey much more teaching on the significance of Abraham. It includes the statement, “Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations” (Rom 4:18).
Of course the difference of perspective between Paul and James rests in this: James looked to the Abraham story to show how genuine faith operates; Paul looked to the Abraham story to show how God is predisposed to forgive sinners. At the heart of the difference between the “works” James was advocating and those that Paul was combatting by relativizing the act of circumcision (Rom 4:10–12) were the conditions under which righteousness was “credited” to Abraham. Abraham was justified by trusting the promise of God, not his act of circumcision. The lack of any reference to circumcision in James is highly significant. Circumcision signified for Paul the kind of relation to activities whereby his fellow countrymen justified themselves, indeed, found resources for religious boasting (4:2). Paul was vehement in his rejection of this kind of observance of the law (4:13), which damaged the divine/human relation in faith. Abraham was God’s example of how boasting in the command of God and act of man had missed what was intended for faith, that “the promise comes by faith” (4:16). Thus close inspection of the ways in which Abraham’s story illustrates the messages of James and Paul differently helps us allow their distinctive messages to be heard.
James summed up what he had to say about the example of Abraham by citing a choice title for him within the Old Testament: “God’s friend” (cf. 2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8). Abraham had been drawn into God’s deliberations about how he would judge the sinful cities of the plain. Abraham had asked his divine Visitor about punishing the righteous along with the unrighteous: “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25). In the covenant conversation between Abraham and the Lord, the Lord included him in every way. Abraham could not have been but amazed and wholly satisfied that God had heard his plea and engaged his questions. God had made Abraham his friend. Abraham as friend of God became the true exemplar of faith, for to be a believer one must commune with God in friendship. As James later argued, believers must renounce the pride that typifies “friendship with the world” (4:4–5) and humbly accept the will of God in order to enjoy friendship with God. (New American Commentary vol. 36 James)


Abram was obedient; he was a wealthy person in a stable society, probably a respected member of the community, yet, when God instructed him to pack up and leave, he did; he was obedient. Abram wavered a number of times, he lied to a king about Sarah’s relationship, he gave up on God’s promise of a son from Sarah and impregnated the slave girl; resulting in the birth of, Ishmael, whom is claimed by the Muslims as their ancestor and by virtue of him being the eldest, as their right to God’s promise! But, in every instance of Abraham’s wavering he faced his failure, restored his faith, and returned to obedience to God, never completely failing to trust God; proving, as James shows us, his acceptance, willingness, and proceeding forward with, the sacrifice of Isaac, and with this “works” proving his faith in that, when the chips were down, he trusted God would be faithful and would fulfill His promises even if he (Abraham) didn’t understand all the details. Without this outward demonstration of willingness in the preparation (work) of sacrificing Isaac, Abraham’s trusting God, faith, would have been proven useless, dead.

DISCUSSION
• How many books in the protestant Bible?
• How many in the Catholic?
• How is the Bible split up?
• Where did Abraham come from?
• What is so special about him?