Mecaskey 14

Hannah M. Mecaskey

Dr. George Snyder

BIBL 4111: General Epistles

7 November 2007

Righteousness Before God Requires Work:

Salvation by James Actualized Through Moses

Christian misunderstanding of God’s faith covenant with Jewish believers in the nation of
Israel has led to a common assumption that God no longer requires Torah obedience from His people.
Such Christians claim to be eternally saved by grace through faith alone, perceiving Judaism as a
works-based salvation, through which one had to earn one’s righteous state before God. These
Christians, overlooking the distinguishing importance of works within Yahweh’s covenant to Israel, do
not realize that God has always redeemed His people (before and after Christ) by faith. While salvific
faith is based on the grace of God, the Apostle James instructs his readers that the law (the law of
Moses with which the Apostle’s Jewish Christian audience were familiar) was the source of life to even
a new covenant believer. How does one justify James’ assertion that obedience to the law gives life to
the Christian, when life is obtained by faith in Christ? James acknowledges that obedience to the law is
the natural outworking of faith by “the principle of justification by faith results in justification by
works” (MacArthur 39). Thus while God’s covenant of salvation with His people has changed between
Judaism and Christianity, both covenants are based on personal justification by grace, worked out in
obedient faith to Yahweh’s law.

The subject of faith and works has always been a subject in God’s covenantal relationship with His
people. God’s covenant with Israel was both corporate and individual in nature: corporate in the sense
that God’s covenant of blessing with Abraham promised special blessing to all of Abraham’s
descendents through Isaac. However, as illustrated by the origin of covenantal blessing for all through
one man’s relationship with God, faith was necessary for personal justification. God’s covenant with
Abraham did not guarantee every member of the nation of Israel justification but, as Sanders suggests,
Israel’s “covenantal election and salvation precede obedience to the law and in which obedience is a
response to ‘being in’ (rather than a way of ‘getting in’) the covenant” (Steinmetz 173). This suggests
that after the time of Abraham’s justification by faith, the Torah was a means of preserving life, rather
than obtaining it.

If a man were perfectly able to obey apart from some initial act of grace by God, he might obtain
righteousness by Torah obedience alone. However, the law does not justify the sinner because perfect
adherence to the law is impossible by man’s depraved will. Schreiner suggests that “even if one were
able to obey the law perfectly, one would still be cursed, since salvation cannot be obtained through the
law” (42), only the recognition of a need for salvation. Further observation of the nation of Israel’s
history, beginning with God’s covenant to Abraham, points to righteousness obtainable apart from the
Law. And yet still, after the revelation of Mosaic Law, Israelite covenantal members were declared
“righteousness by keeping the commandments of the Torah” (Alexander 300). However, the fact “that
the law is not perfectly fulfillable leads to the conclusion that law cannot bring life” (Steinmetz 170)
for obedience without faith is unacceptable to God (Hebrews 11:6). Even the patriarch Abraham was
declared righteous 430 years before the revelation of the Mosaic Law through faith (Dunn 138),
obtaining justification apart from the law, but not without faith.

To James the Jew, the state of righteousness declared by God was not obtained through Torah
obedience because such perfection was unattainable to the sinner. The Apostle Paul implied that the
Torah’s requirements were impossible to completely obey “since those who try to carry out the
requirements of the law fail to keep the law completely” (Stanton 108) and therefore transgressors
receive a curse from God. The laws Yahweh set forth in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20-23) are
His “requirements for those who would be his special people” though it is Yahweh Himself who is “the
ultimate source and sanction” of the Torah’s position as standard for righteousness (Durham 318). It is
Yahweh’s very grace through the dispensation of the Torah by which Israel as a sinful people might
approach the face of their God (Durham 337). Therefore though works of the law were life preserving,
they were not, as believed by the Judaism of Paul’s day, life-giving (Steinmetz 174). However, Israel’s
realization of her own inability to perfectly obey to the Torah led to the excuse of her own disobedience
by the Torah itself.

The rabbis taught that this righteous living, necessary to stand before God, was achievable by
reversing a fundamental principle of the Torah: that if one broke a single commandment, one was
guilty of transgressing the whole law. Instead, the rabbis suggested that man’s obedience to a single
commandment as giving life (Steinmetz 172). Such teaching derives its roots from rabbinic belief that
God is merciful and would not assign to His people a law that was distant and unfulfillable. Therefore
in Judaism, the vast amount of commandments are viewed as God’s provision for many opportunities
to achieve justification (Steinmetz 173): obeying any commandment, regardless of the quantity one has
broken, returns the penitent individual to “a pre-sin state” (Steinmetz 181). Such theology runs contrary
to the fundamental principle in scripture that “obedience to one precept of the law is no excuse for
disobedience to another” (Roper 46). Though Judaism identifies and seeks to reconcile man’s
imperfection by the mercy of God, God does not excuse man’s sin. Unlike rabbinic teaching, sinful
man was wholly incapable of justifying himself before God through what James terms “the works of
the law.” While James’ teachings require faith accompanied by works, that faith alone does not
manufacture a state of personal righteousness (life lived in a manner pleasing to Yahweh).

Jewish theology evolved from its inception through the faith of Abraham to a point of tension
between obedience to the Torah versus faith in Yahweh as the means of acquiring life. At its state of
being in which James wrote, “the Judaism of Paul’s time, in continuity with biblical tradition, sees
obedience to the law as the means of attaining life” (Steinmetz 173). Rabbinic theology readily agreed
with Paul’s observations of man’s initial depravity (Steinmetz 181) but differed from Christian
theology as espoused by James, Paul, and Jesus by the opinion that man had the ability to alter his own
sinful state. Jewish rabbis were of the opinion that God, divinely aware of man’s sinfulness, made
provision for “less-than-perfect people who obey God’s law less than perfectly” before God (Steinmetz
177) by reversing the break-one-break-all regard of the commandments. Thus in the intertestimental era
of James’ day, Jewish theology had misconstrued salvation from faith to perfect Torah obedience.
 Since righteous is unattainable by perfect Torah adherence, intertestimental Judaism’s belief
that righteousness came through absolute obedience strove towards an inaccurate goal of salvation
acquisition. Traditional Jewish theology of justification was not dependant upon obedience alone to be
righteous before the face of Yahweh, but on God’s mercy. Observing that “the righteous shall live by
faith” (Habakkuk 2:4), rabbinic tradition sought to solve the impossibility of man’s perfect obedience
to the Torah by suggesting that God made provision for failure, enabling the transgressor to be counted
as practically righteous without perfect obedience (Steinmetz 177). Thus Judaic theology at the time of
Christ assumed that obedience justified the Jew in the sight of God, yet acknowledging and excusing
the sinful condition of man. Man’s inconsistent obedience could not procure him righteous justification
because “the keeping of some command and breaking others is a manifestation of ‘doubleness’, a
characteristic which the Testaments hold in as much abhorrence as does James” (Laws 111).

However, when speaking of faith, James the Christian spoke of the need for the believer to
prove the existence of his faith by works. This faith consisted of “moral deeds flowing naturally from
genuine faith—the very kind of deeds that Paul would later command” (Stulac 21). James analyzes the
relationship between faith and works from a traditional Abrahamic understanding of salvation,
beginning with an understanding of God developed in the Torah, which saw Torah obedience as an
inclusive aspect of saving faith. To James the Christian, just as to James the Jew, the Law of God was
of paramount importance as “a rule for life in Yahweh’s Presence” (Durham 337), serving to prove a
believer’s faith in context of his covenant with God (Zodhiates 111). As moral obedience to the Torah
separated those in the nation of Israel into true believers and nominal members of God’s covenant
people, it assured Jewish believers of life guaranteed by God’s promised inheritance to Hebrews of
faith.

Yet the presence of Torah is a defining characteristic of God’s chosen people, the nation of Israel,
segregating them from Gentiles. Over the centuries, the Torah imbued Israel with a sense of national
pride, which let to arrogance that demonstrated itself as hatred to Gentiles. Then how can the Torah
provide covenantal life to any peoples but the Jews? Jewish theology attested that anyone who was
willing to fully obey the Torah would be counted as an obedient, “righteous Gentile” (Wright 240).
Rahab is a classic example of one of these “righteous Gentiles,” obtaining justification before God by
her faith and demonstrating true salvation through her moral obedience to the Torah. For all Rahab’s
faith in Yahweh as God and obedience to His law, Rahab was not in grafted as a partaker of Israel’s
covenantal inheritance (MacArthur 140). By the time of Christ’s arrival, Schreiner traces a “salvation-
historical shift” (51), which necessitated a reevaluation of Torah obedience required to be a member of
God’s covenant people. Christianity redefined ‘covenant people,’ instituting a greater covenantal
inheritance, that of Jesus Himself, which all believers might partake of through faith in Him and
participation in His life, death, burial and resurrection (Schreiner 44).

In the preaching of a greater covenantal inheritance available to all (rather than nationally exclusive),
“a close parallel may be seen between James and the warning of Matt. v.19, following Jesus’ insistence
on the absolute continuity of the Law” (Laws 112). Jesus maintained the old covenant stance that
perfect Torah could righteousness, though sinners were incapable of such obedience. Therefore
obedience to the law (i.e. “works” according to James) still did not achieve the salvation (justification
before God) for the sinner (MacArthur 136). In fact, some of the “works of the law” were eliminated as
conditions for new covenant members (Acts 15:19-29): circumcision, food laws, and holy days,
customs which “did effectively separate Jews from Gentiles” (Schreiner 142) because the new
covenant offered equal status to Jew and Gentile believers. Rather, Paul clarifies the believer’s
obligation to the moral law by direction of the Holy Spirit is to “abstain from what has been sacrificed
to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29).
It is to these laws that James exhorts the believer to obedience as a proof of genuine faith.

James’ theology of new covenant righteousness is dependent on faith rather than “human action, as the
path to life” (Steinmetz 186). Continuing the theme of human interaction with Yahweh to complete
salvation from his Jewish roots, James concurs with Paul and the rabbis that perfect “submission to the
law was what God expected” (Dunn 135). However, the Christians diverge from the rabbinic
understanding of life through spiritual regeneration stemming from the law: “The role of ‘making alive’
in biblical usage is almost exclusively that of God or of his Spirit” (Dunn 154). In the Apostle Paul’s
examination of the law as a means of righteousness, Paul’s message concurs with James that the Torah
was not “life-making” a means of obtaining righteousness before God (Dunn 154), Paul suggests that
Torah obedience is life-preserving and increasing. Thus the Torah’s role in new covenant member’s
salvation does not provide solution to the sinful human condition by producing life. Instead,
Christianity views righteousness as a prerequisite for obedience to the law.

Since a sinner is incapable of the perfect obedience required prior to walking righteously
before our Holy God, for whom is the law is given? God’s law has always been imparted to a people of
faith, be they James’ audience of the seed of Abraham, His chosen nation Israel. By observing the
nature of the people whom to whom God imparted His law, one recognizes a state of living righteously
by God’s law. While God has called sinful people unto Himself, declaring them righteous, James views
is “necessary to ‘continue’ in a law-abiding lifestyle of the benefits and blessings of the law (are) to be
realized” (Phillips 61).” However because God is holy, a legal decree of righteousness not qualify one
to stand in the presence of God (i.e., faith alone, James 2:26); one must work out personal holiness
before God through obedience to the Torah. Obedience to the Law serves as a proof for the one who is
already declared righteous by God to other men of personal faith. Yet, even those God has declared
righteous by faith, cry out as David:

Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness answer me, in your
righteousness! Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one is living righteous before
you. (Psalm 147:1 & 2)

The righteous in position before God are still in need of His mercy as they seek to become holy through
the practice of personal righteousness. Therefore, while God’s imputed righteousness is necessary for
life, it does not guarantee personal righteousness in action.

What is the nature of the righteousness which those who come to God in faith? This righteousness is
God ‘s accreditation of His own righteousness to the believer. James’ spiritual example of faith in
action, Abraham, was not justified in positional righteousness by his obedience to God, God declared
Abraham “‘justified’ (or ‘considered righteous’)” (Stulac 21). James, in his description of Abraham’s
acquisition of personal righteousness” (Stulac 21) could be declared. Such acquittal indicates
precursory state necessary before righteous in the sense of moral “judgment that would have to be
made on the basis of moral acts performed in the person’s life” (Stulac 21). This state of righteousness
enabled Abraham to access God’s presence and secured promises of life for him and his descendents,
though Abraham still had a responsibility in his covenantal righteousness to maintain personal
righteousness for the sake of preserving the covenant.

Because Abraham was not complete in his righteous by God’s imputation alone, James
indicates Abraham, “that the father of the faithful, whose very faith was a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), was
nevertheless justified by works” (MacArthur 137). One discerns from this example that personal
righteousness in an individual believer’s life is dependent on that believer’s obedience to the law. Not
only does this obedience serve as a testimony of the believer’s genuine faith to men, but also serves as
a reminder to God of His promise of life. God’s covenant fulfillment of blessing to man was always
predicated upon man’s obedience: without man’s affirmation (fulfillment of his side of the covenant),
God was not obligated to continue blessing his life. Obedience is the means through which man obtains
personal righteous, by living in a state acceptable to God. Obedience is man’s affirmation of “a
covenant status fist given by God and life therein lived out or preserved by doing the law (God’s
statues and ordinances” (Dunn 152). James would qualify true faith by the presence of works, the proof
of personal righteousness, demonstrating that only through obedience as a response to God’s
imputation of righteousness by faith can the believer mature in holy living.

While obedience to the law may not necessitate the imputation of righteousness to a sinner, it
perpetuates the life that God already has imparted to the believer by faith, manufacturing personal
righteousness. Even in Tannaitic Judaism, no indication exists “that God can simply forgive the sinner
without any action on the sinner’s part” (Alexander 300), which I understand to mean what James
attempts to prove about the nature of righteousness in James 2. James utilizes Abraham as an example
of the saving nature of faith alone and also the works which accompany such a faith. Contrary to the
belief of Martin Luther (and like theologians), James’ description of Abraham being “justified by
works” (James 2:24) “was not dealing with the means of salvation at all, but rather with its outcome,
the evidence that it had genuinely occurred” (MacArthur 136). As James clarifies through the example
of Abraham, a sinner without the law, Abraham was “justified solely by grace through faith”
(MacArthur 137) receiving God’s gift of imputed righteousness on the pure basis of that faith.
Recognizing that “when a man is justified before God, he will always prove that justification before
men,” vindicating his position of righteousness by good works (MacAthur 138).

Since the law does not produce life in an unregenerate person, what is the nature of this life in relation
to a believer, what does James mean by saying Torah obedience gives life? Rather than a means of
justifying the sinner to a position of righteousness (“life-making”), Torah obedience preserves and
cultivates further righteousness in the life of the believer. As indicated by the Apostle Paul in Romans
7, the sinner reads conviction of sin in the law, weighing down his sinful conscience all the more (Dunn
334, Paul and the Mosaic Law). Thus Paul agrees with James in teaching that the sinner’s conscience
can only be clarified by justification through faith. Understanding that righteousness is necessary to
obey the law, the law’s function is more readily recognizes, not as a means of righteousness, but “the
law (commandment) is the way of ordering and regulating the life of those chosen by God” (Dunn 152,
Paul and Mosaic Law).

Recognizing the Torah as maintenance the life imparted by the Lord’s righteousness, there are very real
consequences for disobedience. For Israel, first covenant believers, “failure to observe the
commandment will result in death—both physical death of the disobedient and expulsion from the
land” (Dunn 152, Paul and the Mosaic Law). Therefore for the believer, as for the Jew, covenant
relationship with Yahweh requires affirmation on both the parts of God and man (Wright 551, Letter to
the Romans). The covenant between God and Christians is called “new covenant” because it is an
advancement of God’s covenant with the Jewish nation to all peoples who will place faith in God.
Man’s affirmation of the covenant is faith, worked out in obedience while God’s affirmation of the
covenant today is not only the imputation of righteousness, but also the dispensation of the Spirit. The
Spirit is God’s means “of giving life: the life the Torah promised but could not give” (Wright 555,
Letter to the Romans).
 If the Torah is a defining characteristic of a specific people, God’s nation of Israel, segregating
them from Gentiles and giving Israel a sense of national pride, then how can it be source of maintained
life to any peoples but the Jews? Jewish theology attested that anyone who was willing to fully obey
the Torah would be counted obedient, “Righteous Gentiles.” James also viewed “the law as perfect,
something designed by a benevolent God to bring liberty,” and furthermore, that “it was necessary to
‘continue’ in law-abiding lifestyle if the benefits and blessings of the law were to be realized” (Phillips
61). The believer also observes that Jesus was insistent “on the absolute continuity of the Law” (Laws
112) in Matthew 5:19. Yet, a conflict arises in the application of the Mosaic Law, from which the
Apostle Paul removed elements of practice which had been necessary to Jewish obedience but were no
longer necessary for Gentile conversion (as they had been before Christ). Both James and Jesus are
communicating to their audiences that “the Jewish law per se is not the seat of authority but rather it is
the law, as understood and interpreted in a Christian sense, which is the norm that guides the life of the
follower of Jesus Christ” (Martin 71).
Why was the whole law no longer applicable and how could the believer attain the life
promised by the Mosaic law when direct applications of the law had been nullified? Jesus, in the
sermon on the mount, was not seeking to throw out the Mosaic law, but rather indicating “that the new
law of love sets a higher standard than Torah obedience can demand and produce” (Martin 71). James
indicated the same Law of God, Christ’s perfection encompassing the Old testament Scriptures
(Hughes 75, James) reflected “not only that we are sinners, but new begin to see the awful depth of our
sin” which convicts one of a desperate need for salvation (Hughes 73, James). Because new covenant
believers are enabled to perfect obedience by the presence of the Holy Spirit, the law applying to
Christians no longer just regulates behavior as the Torah did, but also concerns itself with the heart.
The Torah has not been discarded, but rather consumed into the new covenant, which is a more
complete revelation of what Zohiates defines as laws of the spiritual equivalent to gravity,
“disobedience of which will bring upon us unavoidable consequences” (123).

Why a change in the use of the law? Law was not “perfect” according to Jesus (and
Paul and James) because it just a standard by which righteousness is judged. Obedience to the Torah
would be perfect obedience, but the Torah did not enable obedience, merely affirmed that one judged
by the Torah as a standard was righteous or unrighteous. So “Paul’s real problem with Judaism was that
it was not Christianity” (Schreiner 43), because Judaism only provides a standard while Christianity
provides a reconciliation of the disparity between sinful and righteous states.

James’ use of the law is concerned with regulation of behavior as a factor in and response to genuine
faith since “Paul ruled out in principle justification through the works of the law” (Schreiner 42).
Therefore to James, “works are the consequent outgrowth and completion of genuine faith,”
(MacArthur 139) inferring that salvation is not complete without the presence of works. While the
commands of the Torah are guiding principles which “are all to the end that the integrity of Israel’s
relationship to Yahweh be guaranteed” (Durham 337), James defines faith for the Christian believer as
natural obedience to the laws of God as well. While not all the commandments of the Torah are as
hermeneutically applicable to God’s people today because of the greater salvation we have in Christ,
we are still bound to obey that perfect law of the Lord which revives the soul (Psalm 19:7). Just as
Jesus commanded absolute obedience to the law in Matthew 7:21-23 to prove our love to Him, James
instructed us to apply the law as “a theological rule for life in the Presence of Yahweh” (Durham 337)
by loving as Christ loved, including the instruction to leave judgment up to the Writer of the standard
by which man shall be judged, the Torah.

In the story of God’s covenant with man, righteousness is only obtained by accepting God’s gift of
grace by faith. While all of Israel was set apart as God’s holy nation, a Jewish believer’s salvation was
based on individual faith within the context of a chosen community. Their exclusive heritage as God’s
nation allowed for Gentiles to come to faith, but maintained a separation between Jew and Gentile,
prohibiting Gentiles from partaking in the same blessings the Jews enjoyed because of their distinctive
nationality. Upon the arrival of Christ in a historical setting where Torah obedience had been
theologically abused as the means rather than perpetuation of salvation, Jesus initiated a new covenant,
which unified Jews and Gentiles into one body of Christ, co-heirs in a greater inheritance with the Son
of God. To accomplish this unity, divisive social codes were eliminated from necessary practice to
maintain the blessings of covenantal relationship with God in the new covenant. While this covenantal
relationship was no longer exclusively offered to the Jews, being a greater covenant, a greater standard
of obedience to the moral law of the Torah is required of Christians today. Under the influence of the
Holy Spirit, James commands the believers to boldly live out their faith, confidant that the maturity
developed in them by obedience to the Torah would perfect them into the image of the righteousness
imputed to them by Christ. Obedience definable as “holiness” should characterize a people that claim
to be chosen by the Most Holy God.

Works Cited:

Alexander, Philip S. “Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature,” Justification and Variegated
Nominism. Vol. 1. Ed. D.A. Carson. Peter T. O’Brien. Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2001. 265-300.

Carter, J.W. “Faith, Works, and the Apparent Controversy of Paul and James.” Biblical
Theology.com. Copyright 2000. 26 October 2007.
<http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CarterJ01.html>.

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1998. 130-388.

---. “In Search of Common Ground.” Paul and the Mosaic Law. Ed. James D. G. Dunn. Grand
Rapids: W.B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996. 334.

Durham, John. Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3. Waco: Word Book Publisher, 1987.
319-37.
 Hodges, Zane C. “Legalism: the Real Thing,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn
1996 -- Volume 9:1. 26 October 2007. <http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996ii/Hodges.html>.

Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2001.

Hughes, R. Kent. James: Faith that Works. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991. 71-85.

Hyatt, J.P. Exodus, The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1971. 216-53.

Johnstone, Robert. Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of James. Minneapolis: Klock
and Klock, 1978. 184-96.

Laws, Sophie. The Epistle of James. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1980. 107-19.

MacArthur, John. James, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press,
1998. 135-.42

Martin, Ralph P. James, The Word Biblical Commentary 48. Waco: Word Books Publisher,
1988. 67-101.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984. 246.

Phillips, John. Exploring the Epistle of James: An Expository Commentary. The John Phillips
Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004. 61-4.

Roper, David. The Law That Sets You Free! Waco: Word Books, 1977. 45-6.

Schreiner, Thomas R. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1993. 16-143.

Schwartz, Daniel R. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,
1992. 106.

Stanton, Graham. “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.” Paul and the Mosaic Law. Ed.
James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996. 103-16.

Steinmetz, Devora. “Justification by Deed: The Conclusion of Sanhedrin-Makkot and Paul’s

Rejection of Law.” Hebrew Union College Annual. Vol. LXXVI. 2006. Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion, 2005. 162-86.

Stulac, George M. James. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downer’s Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Wright, N. Thomas. “Letter to the Romans,” The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in
Twelve Volumes. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. 549-555.
---. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993. 202-50.

---. “The Law in Romans 2.” Paul and the Mosaic Law. Ed. James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids:
W.B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996. 149.

---. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Behavior of Belief: An Exposition of James based Upon the Original
Greek Text. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959. 123-26.