_THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;
AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT._
"Thou believest that God is One; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and shudder."
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered
up Isaac his son upon the altar?"
"And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by
works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out
another way?"--ST. JAMES ii. 19, 21, 25.
In the preceding chapter several points of great interest were passed
over, in order not to obscure the main issue as to the relation of
this passage to the teaching of St. Paul. Some of these may now be
usefully considered.
Throughout this volume, as in the companion volume on the Pastoral
Epistles and other volumes for which the present writer is in no way
responsible, the Revised Version has been taken as the basis of the
expositions. There may be reasonable difference of opinion as to its
superiority to the Authorized Version for public reading in the
services of the Church, but few unprejudiced persons would deny its
superiority for purposes of private study and both private and public
exposition. Its superiority lies not so much in happy treatment of
difficult texts, as in the correction of a great many small errors of
translation, and above all in the substitution of a great many true or
probable readings for others that are false or improbable. And while
there are not a few cases in which there is plenty of room for doubt
whether the change, even if clearly a gain in accuracy, was worth
making, there are also some in which the uninitiated student wonders
why no change was made. The passage before us contains a remarkable
instance. Why has the word "devils" been retained as the rendering of
δαιμόνια, while "demons" is relegated to the margin?
There are two Greek words, very different from one another in origin
and history, which are used both in the Septuagint and in the New
Testament to express the unseen and spiritual powers of evil. These
are διάβολος and δαιμόνιον, or in one place δαίμων (Matt. xlii. 31;
_not_ Mark v. 12, or Luke vii. 29, or Rev. xvi. 14 and xviii. 2). The
Scriptural usage of these two words is quite distinct and very marked.
Excepting where it is used as an adjective (John vi. 70; 1 Tim.
iii. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 3; Titus ii. 3), διάβολος is one of the names of
Satan, the great enemy of God and of men, and the prince of the
spirits of evil. It is so used in the Books of Job and of Zechariah,
as well as in Wisdom ii. 24, and also throughout the New Testament,
viz. in the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and
the Apocalypse. It is, in fact, a proper name, and is applied to one
person only. It commonly, but not invariably (1 Chron. xxi. 1; Ps.
cviii. [cix.] 5) has the definite article. The word δαιμόνιον, on the
other hand, is used of those evil spirits who are the messengers and
ministers of Satan. It is thus used in Isaiah, the Psalms, Tobit,
Baruch, and throughout the New Testament. It is used also of the false
gods of the heathen, which were believed to be evil spirits, or at
least the productions of evil spirits, who are the inspirers of
idolatry; whereas Satan is never identified with any heathen divinity.
Those who worship false gods are said to worship "demons," but never
to worship "the devil." Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New
are the two words ever interchanged. Satan is never spoken of as a
δαίμων or δαιμόνιον, and his ministers are never called διάβολοι. Is
it not a calamity that this very marked distinction should be
obliterated in the English Version by translating both Greek words by
the word "devil," especially when there is another word which, as the
margin admits, might have been used for one of them? The Revisers have
done immense service by distinguishing between _Hades_, the abode of
departed spirits of men, and _Hell_ or _Gehenna_, the place of
punishment (iii. 6). Why did they reject a similar opportunity by
refusing to distinguish _the devil_ from _the demons_ over whom he
reigns? This is one of the suggestions of the American Committee which
might have been followed with great advantage and (so far as one sees)
no loss.
St. James has just been pointing out the advantage which the Christian
who has works to show has over one who has only faith. The one can
prove that he possesses both; the other cannot prove that he possesses
either. The works of the one are evidence that the faith is there
also, just as leaves and fruit are evidence that a tree is alive. But
the other, who possesses only faith, cannot prove that he possesses
even that. He says that he believes, and we may believe his statement;
but if any one doubts or denies the truth of his profession of faith
he is helpless. Just as a leafless and fruitless tree may be alive;
but who is to be sure of this? We must note, however, that in this
case the statement is _not_ doubted. "Thou _hast_ faith, and I have
works;" the possibility of possessing faith without works is not
disputed. And again, "Thou _believest_ that God is One;" the orthodox
character of the man's creed is not called in question. This shows
that there is no emphasis on "say" in the opening verse, "If a man
_say_ he hath faith, but have not works;" as if such a profession were
incredible (see p. 137). And this remains equally true if, with some
of the best editors, we turn the statement of the man's faith into a
question, "Dost thou believe that God is One?" For "Thou doest well"
shows that the man's orthodoxy is not questioned. The object of
St. James is not to prove that the man is a hypocrite, and that his
professions are false; but that, _on his own showing_, he is in a
miserable condition. He may plume himself upon the correctness of his
Theism; but as far as that goes, he is no better than the demons, to
whom this article of faith is a source, not of joy and strength, but
of horror.
It is most improbable that, if he had been alluding to the teaching of
St. Paul, St. James would have selected the Unity of the Godhead as
the article of faith held by the barren Christian. He would have taken
faith in Christ as his example. But in writing to Jewish Christians,
without any such allusion, the selection is very natural. The
Monotheism of his creed, in contrast with the foolish "gods many, and
lords many," of the heathen, was to the Jew a matter of religious and
national pride. He gloried in his intellectual and spiritual
superiority to those who could believe in a plurality of deities. And
there was nothing in Christianity to make him think less highly of
this supreme article of faith. Hence, when St. James desires to give
an example of the faith on which a Jewish Christian, who had sunk into
a dead formalism, would be most likely to rely, he selects this
article, common to both the Jewish and the Christian creed, "I believe
that God is One." "Thou doest well" is the calm reply; and then
follows the sarcastic addition, "The demons also believe--and shudder."
Is St. James here alluding to the belief mentioned above, that the
gods of the heathen are demons? They, of all evil spirits, might be
supposed to know most about the Unity of God, and to have most to fear
in reference to it. "They sacrificed unto demons, which were no God,"
we read in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 17). And again, in the Psalms, "They
sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons" (cvi. 37. Comp.
xcvi. 5). In these passages the Greek word δαιμόνια represents the
Elilim or Shedim, the nonenities who were allowed to usurp the place
of Jehovah.[65] And St. Paul affirms, "That the things which the
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God" (1 Cor.
x. 20). It is quite possible, therefore, that St. James is thinking of
demons as objects of idolatrous worship, or at any rate as seducing
people into such worship, when he speaks of the demons' belief in the
Unity of God.
But a suggestion which Bede makes, and which several modern
commentators have followed, is well worth considering. St. James may
be thinking of the demons which possessed human beings, rather than
those which received or promoted idolatrous worship. Bede reminds us
of the many demons who went out at Christ's command, crying out that
He was the Son of God, and especially of the man with the legion among
the Gadarenes, who expressed not only belief, but horror: "What have I
to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I adjure Thee by
God, that Thou torment me not." Without falling into the error of
supposing that demons can mean demoniacs, we may imagine how readily
one who had witnessed such scenes as those recorded in the Gospels
might attribute to the demons the expressions of horror which he had
heard in the words and seen on the faces of those whom demons
possessed. Such expressions were the usual effect of being confronted
by the Divine presence and power of Christ, and were evidence both of
a belief in God and of a dread of Him. St. James, who was then living
with the Mother of the Lord, and sometimes followed His Divine Brother
in His wanderings, would be almost certain to have been a witness of
some of these healings of demoniacs. And it is worth noting that the
word which in the Authorized Version is rendered "tremble," and in the
Revised "shudder" (φρίσσειν), expresses _physical horror_,
especially as it affects the hair; and in itself it implies a body,
and would be an inappropriate word to use of the fear felt by a purely
spiritual being. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but in
the Septuagint we find it used in the Book of Job: "Then a spirit
passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up" (iv. 15). It is
a stronger word than either "fear" or "tremble," and strictly speaking
can be used only of men and other animals.
This horror, then, expressed by the demons through the bodies of those
whom they possess, is evidence enough of faith. Can faith such as that
save any one? Is it not obvious that a faith which produces, not works
of love, but the strongest expressions of fear, is not a faith on
which any one can rely for his salvation? And yet the faith of those
who refuse to do good works, because they hold that their faith is
sufficient to save them, is no better than the faith of the demons.
Indeed, in some respects it is worse. For the sincerity of the demons'
faith cannot be doubted; their terror is proof of it: whereas the
formal Christian has nothing but cold professions to offer. Moreover,
the demons are under no self-delusion; they know their own terrible
condition. For the formalist who accepts Christian truth and neglects
Christian practice there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will
come a time when "believe and shudder" will be true also of him. "But,
before it is too late, willest thou to get to know, O vain man, that
faith apart from works is barren?"
"Wilt thou know" does not do justice to the full meaning of the Greek
(θέλεισ γνῶναι). The meaning is not, "I would have you know," but,
"Do you wish to have acquired the knowledge?" You profess to know God
and to believe in Him; do you desire to know what faith in Him really
means? "O vain man" is literally, "O empty man," _i.e._ empty-headed,
empty-handed, and empty-hearted. Empty-headed, in being so deluded as
to suppose that a dead faith can save; empty-handed, in being devoid
of true spiritual riches; empty-hearted, in having no real love either
for God or man. The epithet seems to be the equivalent of _Raca_, the
term of contempt quoted by our Lord as the expression of that angry
spirit which is akin to murder (Matt. v. 22). The use of it by
St. James may be taken as an indication that the primitive Church saw
that the commands in the Sermon on the Mount are not rules to be
obeyed literally, but illustrations of principles. The sin lies not so
much in the precise term of reproach which is employed as in the
spirit and temper which are felt and displayed in the employment of
it. The change from "dead" (A.V.) to "barren" (R.V.) is not a change
of translation, but of reading (νεκρά to ἀργή), the latter term
meaning "_workless_, idle, unproductive" (Matt. xx. 3, 6; 1 Tim.
v. 13; Titus i. 12; 2 Peter i. 8). Aristotle (_Nic. Eth._, I. vii. 11)
asks whether it is likely that every member of a man's body should
have a function or work (ἔργον) to perform, and that man as a whole
should be functionless (ἀργός). Would nature have produced such a
vain contradiction? We should reproduce the spirit of St. James's
pointed interrogation if we rendered "that faith without fruits is
fruitless."
In contrast with this barren faith, which makes a man's spiritual
condition no better than that of the demons, St. James places two
conspicuous instances of living and fruitful faith--Abraham and Rahab.
The case of "Abraham our father" would be the first that would occur
to every Jew. As the passages in the Apocrypha (Wisdom x. 5; Ecclus.
xliv. 20; 1 Macc. ii. 52) prove, Abraham's faith was a subject of
frequent discussion among the Jews, and this fact is quite enough to
account for its mention by St. James, St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3; Gal.
iii. 6), and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 17),
without supposing that any one of them had seen the writings of the
others. Certainly there is no proof that the writer of this Epistle is
the borrower, if there is borrowing on either side. It is urged that
between the authors of this Epistle and that to the Hebrews there must
be dependence on one side or the other, because each selects not only
Abraham, but Rahab, as an example of faith; and Rahab is so strange an
example that it is unlikely that two writers would have selected it
independently. There is force in the argument, but less than at first
sight appears. The presence of Rahab's name in the genealogy of the
Christ (Matt. i. 5), in which so few women are mentioned, must have
given thoughtful persons food for reflexion. Why was such a woman
singled out for such distinction? The answer to this question cannot
be given with certainty. But whatever caused her to be mentioned in
the genealogy may also have caused her to be mentioned by St. James
and the writer of Hebrews; or the fact of her being in the genealogy
may have suggested her to the authors of these two Epistles. This
latter alternative does not necessarily imply that these two writers
were acquainted with the written Gospel of St. Matthew, which was
perhaps not in existence when they wrote. The genealogy, at any rate,
was in existence, for St. Matthew no doubt copied it from official or
family registers. Assuming, however, that it is not a mere coincidence
that both writers use Abraham and Rahab as examples of fruitful faith,
it is altogether arbitrary to decide that the writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews wrote first. The probabilities are the other way. Had
St. James known that Epistle, he would have made more use of it.
The two examples are in many respects very different. Their
resemblance consists in this, that in both cases faith found
expression in action, and this action was the source of the believer's
deliverance. The case of Abraham, which St. Paul uses to prove the
worthlessness of "works of the law" in comparison with a living faith,
is used by St. James to prove the worthlessness of a dead faith in
comparison with works of love which are evidence that there is a
living faith behind them. But it should be noticed that a different
episode in Abraham's life is taken in each Epistle, and this is a
further reason for believing that neither writer refers to the other.
St. Paul appeals to Abraham's faith in believing that he should have a
son when he was a hundred, and Sarah ninety years of age (Rom.
iv. 19). St. James appeals to Abraham's faith in offering up Isaac,
when there seemed to be no possibility of the Divine promise being
fulfilled if Isaac was slain. The latter required more faith than the
former, and was much more distinctly an _act_ of faith; a work, or
series of works, that would never have been accomplished if there had
not been a very vigorous faith to inspire and support the doer. The
_result_ (ἐξ ἔργων) was that Abraham was "justified," _i.e._ he was
accounted righteous, and the reward of his faith was with still
greater solemnity and fulness than on the first occasion (Gen.
xv. 4-6) promised to him: "By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,
_because thou hast done this thing_, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying
I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which
is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed; _because thou hast obeyed My voice_" (Gen. xxii. 16-18).
With the expression "was justified _as a result of_ works" (ἐξ ἔργων
ἐδικαιώθη), which is used both of Abraham and of Rahab, should be
compared our Lord's saying, "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and
by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt. xii. 37), which are of
exactly the same form; literally, "_As a result_ of thy words thou
shalt be accounted righteous, and _as a result_ of thy words thou
shalt be condemned" (ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων
σου καταδικασθήσῃ); that is, it is from the consideration of the
words in the one case, and of the works in the other, that the
sentence of approval proceeds; they are the _source_ of the
justification. Of course from the point of view taken by St. James
words are "works;" good words spoken for the love of God are quite as
much fruits of faith and evidence of faith as good deeds. It is not
impossible that his phrase is an echo of expressions which he had
heard used by Christ.
That the words rendered "offered up Isaac his son upon the altar"
really mean this, and not merely "brought Isaac his son as a victim up
to the altar," is clear from other passages where the same phrase
(ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον) occurs. Noah "offering burnt
offerings on the altar" (Gen. viii. 20) and Christ "offering our sins
on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 24) might be interpreted either way, although
the _bringing up_ to the altar and to the tree does not seem so
natural as the _offering on them_. But a passage in Leviticus about
the offerings of the leper is quite decisive: "Afterward he shall kill
the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and
the meal offering upon the altar" (xiv. 19, 20). It would be very
unnatural to speak of bringing the victim up to the altar after it had
been slain. (Comp. Baruch i. 10; 1 Macc. iv. 53.) The Vulgate, Luther,
Beza, and all English versions agreed in this translation; and it is
not a matter of small importance, not a mere nicety of rendering. In
all completeness, both of will and deed, Abraham had actually
surrendered and offered up to God his only son, when he laid him bound
upon the altar, and took the knife to slay him--to slay that son of
whom God had promised, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Then "was
the Scripture fulfilled;" _i.e._ what had been spoken and partly
fulfilled before (Gen. xv. 6) received a more complete and a higher
fulfilment. Greater faith hath no man than this, that a man gives back
His own promises unto God. The real but incomplete faith of believing
that aged parents could become the progenitors of countless thousands
had been accepted and rewarded. Much more, therefore, was the perfect
faith of offering to God the one hope of posterity accepted and
rewarded. This last was a _work_ in which his faith co-operated, and
which proved the complete development of his faith; by it "was faith
made perfect."
"He was called the Friend of God." Abraham was so called in Jewish
tradition; and to this day this is his name among his descendants the
Arabs, who much more commonly speak of him as "the Friend" (_El
Khalil_), or "the Friend of God" (_El Khalil Allah_), than by the name
Abraham. Nowhere in the Old Testament does he receive this name,
although our Versions, both Authorized and Revised, would lead us to
suppose that he is so called. The word is found neither in the Hebrew
nor in existing copies of the Septuagint. In 2 Chron. xx. 7, "Abraham
Thy friend" should be "Abraham Thy beloved;" and in Isaiah xli. 8,
"Abraham My friend" should be "Abraham whom I loved." In both
passages, however, the Vulgate has the rendering _amicus_, and some
copies of the Septuagint had the reading "friend" in 2 Chron. xx. 7,
while Symmachus had it in Isa. xli. 8 (See Field's _Hexapla_, I., p.
744; II., p. 513). Clement of Rome (x., xvii.) probably derived this
name for Abraham from St. James. But even if Abraham is nowhere styled
"the Friend of God," he is abundantly described as being such. God
talks with him as a man talks with his friend, and asks, "Shall I hide
from Abraham that which I do?" (Gen. xviii. 17); which is the very
token of friendship pointed out by Christ. "No longer do I call you
servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have
called you friends; for all things that I heard from My Father I have
made known unto you" (John xv. 15). It is worthy of note that
St. James seems to intimate that the word is not in the sacred
writings. The words, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
unto him for righteousness," are introduced with the formula, "The
Scripture was fulfilled which saith." Of the title "Friend of God" it
is simply said "he was called," without stating by whom.[66]
"_In like manner_ was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?"
It is because of the similarity of her case to Abraham's, both of them
being a contrast to the formal Christian and the demons, that Rahab is
introduced. In her case also faith led to action, and the action had
its result in the salvation of the agent. If there had been faith
without action, if she had merely believed the spies without doing
anything in consequence of her belief, she would have perished. She
was glorified in Jewish tradition, perhaps as being a typical
forerunner of proselytes from the Gentile world; and it may be that
this accounts for her being mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah,
and consequently by St. James and the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. The Talmud mentions a quite untrustworthy tradition that she
married Joshua, and became the ancestress of eight persons who were
both priests and prophets, and also of Huldah the prophetess.
St. Matthew gives Salmon the son of Naasson as her husband; he may
have been one of the spies.
But the contrast between Abraham and Rahab is almost as marked as the
similarity. He is the friend of God, and she is of a vile heathen
nation and a harlot. His great act of faith is manifested towards God,
hers towards men. His is the crowning act of his spiritual
development; hers is the first sign of a faith just beginning to
exist. He is the aged saint, while she is barely a catechumen. But
according to her light, which was that of a very faulty moral
standard, "she did what she could," and it was accepted.
These contrasts have their place in the argument, as well as the
similarities. The readers of the Epistle might think, "Heroic acts are
all very suitable for Abraham; but we are not Abrahams, and must be
content with sharing his faith in the true God; we cannot and need not
imitate his acts." "But," St. James replies (and he writes ὁμοίως δέ,
not καὶ ὁμοίως), "there is Rahab, Rahab the heathen, Rahab the
harlot; at least you can imitate her." And for the Jewish Christians
of that day her example was very much in point. She welcomed and
believed the messengers, whom her countrymen persecuted, and would
have slain. She separated herself from her unbelieving and hostile
people, and went over to an unpopular and despised cause. She saved
the preachers of an unwelcome message for the fulfilment of the Divine
mission with which they had been entrusted. Substitute the Apostles
for the spies, and all this is true of the believing Jews of that age.
And as if to suggest this lesson, St. James speaks not of "young men,"
as Joshua vi. 23, nor of "spies," as Hebrews xi. 31, but of
"messengers," a term which is as applicable to those who were sent by
Jesus Christ as to those who were sent by Joshua.
Plutarch, who was a young man at the time when this Epistle was
written, has the following story of Alexander the Great, in his
"Apothegms of Kings and Generals": The young Alexander was not at all
pleased with the successes of his father, Philip of Macedon. "My
father will leave me nothing," he said. The young nobles who were
brought up with him replied, "He is gaining all this for you." Almost
in the words of St. James, though with a very different meaning, he
answered, "_What does it profit_ (τί ὄφελος;), if I possess much
and _do_ nothing?" The future conqueror scorned to have everything
done for him. In quite another spirit the Christian must remember that
if he is to conquer he must not suppose that his heavenly Father, who
has done so much for him, has left him nothing to do. There is the
fate of the barren fig-tree as a perpetual warning to those who are
royal in their professions of faith, and paupers in good works.
[65] Döllinger, _The Gentile and the Jew_, II., pp. 384, 386, Eng. Tr.,
_Heidenthum und Judenthum_, pp. 825, 827.
[66] The following story is given by Mahometan commentators on the
passage, "God took Abraham for His friend," which occurs in the fourth
chapter of the Koran, entitled _Nessa_, or "Women:" Abraham was the
father of the poor, and in a famine he emptied his granaries to feed
them. Then he sent to one of his friends, who was a great lord in
Egypt, for corn. But the friend said, "We also are in danger of
famine. The corn is not wanted for Abraham, but for his poor. I must
keep it for our own poor." And the messengers returned with empty
sacks. As they neared home they feared being mocked for their failure;
so they filled their sacks with sand, and came in well laden. In
private they told Abraham of his friend's refusal, and Abraham at once
retired to pray. Meanwhile Sarah opened one of the sacks, and found
excellent flour in it, and with this began to bake bread for the poor.
When Abraham returned from prayer he asked Sarah whence she obtained
the flour. "From that which your friend in Egypt has sent," she
replied. "Say rather from that which the true Friend has sent, that is
God; for it is He who never fails us in our need." At the moment when
Abraham called God his Friend God took Abraham also to be His friend.
(See the notes in Sale's _Koran_; D'Herbelot's _Bibliothèque
Orientale_, Maestricht, 1776, p. 13; Bishop Thirlwall's _Letters to a
Friend_, Bentley, 1882, pp. 63, 64).
Eusebius (_Præp. Evan._ IX. xix., p. 420) quotes Alexander Polyhistor
(_c._ B.C. 80) as stating that Molon (Josephus, _Contra Apionem_, II.
xiv.) interpreted the name Abraham as meaning the "Father's Friend"
(πατρὸς φίλος), probably through a misspelling of the name. (See
Lightfoot's note on Clem. Rom. x.)