James 2:21

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works . . .?—St. James now addresses his two examples from familiar history in force of his plea for active faith. The first is the marvellous devotion and trust of Abraham (Genesis 22) when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar; that boy himself the type of God’s dear Son, who bore, like His meek ancestor, the sacrificial wood up the long weary road of death. Happily, the story is as well known to Christian readers as to the Jewish of old time, and may safely be left here without further comment.

Benson Commentary

James 2:21. Was not, &c. — As if he had said, Take an instance of this in the most celebrated of all the patriarchs, our father Abraham. Was not he justified by works — Did not his works manifest the truth and liveliness of his faith; when — In consequence of the full persuasion he had of a divine command to do it; he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? — Intending, in obedience to what he apprehended to be the will of God, actually to have slain him, and to have trusted in God to accomplish the promise of a numerous seed to descend from him, by raising him from the dead: see notes on Hebrews 11:17-19. St. Paul says Abraham was justified by faith, (Romans 4:2, &c.,) yet St. James does not contradict him. For he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Genesis 15:6; St. James of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Paul’s sense; that is, accounted righteous by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. James’s sense, that is, made righteous by works, subsequent to his faith: so that St. James’s justification by works is the fruit of St. Paul’s justification by faith.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls? Can this faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us, as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith. There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, ver. 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle. By faith any thing we do is really good; as done in obedience to God, and aiming at his acceptance: the root is as though it were dead, when there is no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits; and we must see to it that we have both. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it. There is no middle state. Every one must either live God's friend, or God's enemy. Living to God, as it is the consequence of faith, which justifies and will save, obliges us to do nothing against him, but every thing for him and to him.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Was not Abraham our father - Our progenitor, our ancestor; using the word "father," as frequently occurs in the Bible, to denote a remote ancestor. Compare the notes at Matthew 1:1. A reference to his case would have great weight with those who were Jews by birth, and probably most of those to whom this Epistle was addressed were of this character. See the Introduction.

Justified by works - That is, in the sense in which James is maintaining that a man professing religion is to be justified by his works. He does not affirm that the ground of acceptance with God is that we keep the law, or are perfect; or that our good works make an atonement for our sins, and that it is on their account that we are pardoned; nor does he deny that it is necessary that a man should believe in order to be saved. In this sense he does not deny that men are justified by faith; and thus he does not contradict the doctrine of the apostle Paul. But he does teach that where there are no good works, or where there is not a holy life, there is no true religion; that that faith which is not productive of good works is of no value; that if a man has that faith only, it would be impossible that he could be regarded as justified, or could be saved and that consequently, in that large sense, a man is justified by his works that is, they are the evidence that he is a justified man, or is regarded and treated as righteous by his Maker. The point on which the apostle has his eye is the nature of saving faith; and his design is to show that a mere faith which would produce no more effect than that of the demons did, could not save.

In this he states no doctrine which contradicts that of Paul. The evidence to which he appeals in regard to faith, is good works and a holy life; and where that exists it shows that the faith is genuine. The case of Abraham is one directly in point. He showed that he had that kind of faith which was not dead. He gave the most affecting evidence that his faith was of such a kind as to lead him to implicit obedience, and to painful sacrifices. Such an act as that referred to - the act of offering up his son - demonstrated, if anything could, that his faith was genuine, and that his religion was deep and pure. In the sight of heaven and earth it would justify him as a righteous man, or would prove that he was a righteous man. In regard to the strength of his faith, and the nature of his obedience in this sacrifice, see the notes at Hebrews 11:19. That the apostle here cannot refer to the act of justification as the term is commonly understood, referring by that to the moment when he was accepted of God as a righteous man, is clear from the fact that in a passage of the Scriptures which he himself quotes, that is declared to be consequent on his believing: "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

The act here referred to occurred long subsequent to that, and was thus a fulfillment or confirmation of the declaration of Scripture, which says that "he believed God." It showed that his faith was not merely speculative, but was an active principle, leading to holy living. See the notes at James 2:23. This demonstrates that what the apostle refers to here is the evidence by which it is shown that a man's faith is genuine, and that he does not refer to the question whether the act of justification, where a sinner is converted, is solely in consequence of believing. Thus the case proves what James purposes to prove, that the faith which justifies is only that which leads to good works.

When he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar - This was long after he believed, and was an act which, if any could, would show that his faith was genuine and sincere. On the meaning of this passage, see the notes at Hebrews 11:17.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

21. Abraham … justified by works—evidentially, and before men (see on [2605]Jas 2:18). In Jas 2:23, James, like Paul, recognizes the Scripture truth, that it was his faith that was counted to Abraham for righteousness in his justification before God.

when he had offered—rather, "when he offered" [Alford], that is, brought as an offering at the altar; not implying that he actually offered him.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Was not Abraham our father; not only the father of us as Jews, (for to them he wrote), and according to the flesh, but as believers, and according to the promise; so all believers are called Abraham’s children, Romans 4:11 Galatians 3:7.

Justified by works; found or declared to be justified, not only before God, but in the face of the world; and his faith (by which he had been justified above thirty years before in the sight of God) now approved as a true, lively, justifying faith, by this proof he gave of it, upon God’s trying him in the offering up his son, Genesis 22:9,12,

Now I know that thou fearest God, & c. Abraham did fear God, and believe him before, and was justified before in the sight of God; but by the working of his faith in so eminent an act of obedience, the sincerity of all his graces, and so of his faith, was manifested and made known, and so his faith itself justified, as his person was before, and he obtained this ample testimony from the mouth of God himself. So that Abraham’s justification here was not the absolution of a sinner; but the solemn approbation of a believer; not a justifying him as ungodly, but commending him for his godliness. He was by his works justified as a righteous person, but not made righteous, or constituted in a justified state, by his works. The design of the apostle is not to show how sinners are justified in God’s court, but only what kind of faith it is whereby they are justified, viz. such a one as purifies the heart, Acts 15:9, and looks to Christ, not only as made righteousness, but sanctification to them, 1 Corinthians 1:30; and consequently not only rests on him for justification, but stirs them up to yield obedience to him.

When he had offered Isaac his son; viz. in his firm purpose and resolution, and was about to do it actually, had not God hindered him. It was no fault in Abraham that it was not actually done, and therefore it was counted to him as if it had been really done, Genesis 22:12 Hebrews 11:17.

Upon the altar; this shows the settled purpose of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, when he proceeded so far as to bind him, and lay him upon the altar; for that argues, that he expected and intended nothing but his death, which generally was wont to follow in sacrifices when once laid upon the altar.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Was not Abraham our father justified by works,.... Not as the causes of his justification, that is denied, Romans 4:2 but as effects of it, showing the truth of his faith, and the reality of his justification: he had both faith and works, and the former were known by the latter; and even the faith which he had expressed years ago was manifested, demonstrated, and confirmed to be true and genuine, by the instance of his obedience to God, here produced; by which it appeared he was a true believer, a justified person, approved of God, and loved by him. Now if this was the case of Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, yea, the father of the faithful, of all that believe, he is, and must be a vain man, that talks of faith without works; and his faith must be a dead one, and he be very unlike the father of them that believe: the good work instanced in is the offering up of Isaac;

when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar: for when he was bid to take his son, his only and beloved son, Isaac, and offer him up on one of the mountains, that should be shown him, he made haste to do it; he provided everything for it; he split the wood, and carried it with him, and fire in his hand; he built an altar, laid the wood on it, bound his son, laid the wood on the altar, and his son on the wood, and stretched out his hand, with his knife in it, to slay him; so that it was all one, with respect to his intention and will, as if he had actually offered him, and was a full trial and proof of his obedience to God. This was not the only act of obedience, or good work, which he performed; but this being a very eminent one, the apostle instances in it, as a very considerable evidence of his faith in God, and love to him; and which showed him to be a justified person, as he was long before he performed this action, even before Isaac was born; see Genesis 15:6 and therefore it can never be the apostle's meaning, that he was justified before God by this, or any other good work or works, as cause or causes of it; but only that he was declared to be so; or, in other words, that his faith was attended with good works, and evidenced by them.

Geneva Study Bible

Was not Abraham our father {k} justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

(k) Was he not by his works known and found to be justified? For he speaks not here of the causes of justification, but by what effects we may know that a man is justified.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Jam 2:21. The testimony to which James first appeals is what happened to Abraham. The reference to Abraham is completely explained from his historical importance, and which is also indicated by ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν.

ἡμῶν] because both James and his readers belonged to the nation of Israel sprung from Abraham. By the question with οὐ the thought is characterized as such to which all—thus all the opponents—must assent: Was not Abraham our father justified by works? The participial sentence which follows declares what works procured for him justification: when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

The reference to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and especially to his declaration in Romans 4:1 ff., has misled expositors into many arbitrary explanations of this verse, and particularly of the word ἐδικαιώθη. In order to have a sure foundation for interpretation, two things are to be examined,—(1) the context, and (2) the linguistic usage. (1) As regards the context, the question treated in this whole section is, How the Christian is saved;[142] comp. the question in Jam 2:14 : μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; and the connection of that section with the preceding, where the discourse is about the divine judgment (Jam 2:12 : κρίνεσθαι; Jam 2:13 : ἡ κρίσις). As James appeals to Abraham for his assertion that faith without works cannot save, it is evident that by ἐδικαιώθη he cannot mean something which happened to Abraham from himself, but only something which happened to him from God; so that the meaning cannot be, “Abraham justified himself by his works,” but only that “God justified him on the ground of his works.”[143] (2) As regards the linguistic usage, δικαιοῦν corresponds to the Hebrew הַצְדִּיק, which, as a judicial term, has the meaning: to declare one צַדִּיק by an acquittal from guilt, and is opposed to הַרְשִׁיעַ (LXX.: καταγινώσκειν, καταδικάζειν) = to declare one רָשָׁע by a sentence of condemnation; comp. Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chronicles 6:23; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:23; Isaiah 50:8; Isaiah 53:11; in the Apocrypha, comp. Sir 10:29; Sir 13:22; Sir 23:11; Sir 34:5; Sir 42:2. δικαιοῦν has also the same meaning in the N. T., where, especially (besides the passages treating of the Pauline doctrine of justification), Matthew 12:37, Romans 2:13, Luke 18:14 are to be compared. This judicial meaning of the word is here to be retained. It is true, as δικαιοῦν (similarly the English word “to justify”) occurs not only in the judicial sense, but, also more generally, as also הַצְדִּיק, in the sense “set forth as righteous”[144] (comp. Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; Romans 3:4; 1 Timothy 3:16), the passage has been explained: “Abraham has been proved righteous,” or, “has proved himself righteous” (so already Calvin, and, in recent times, Philippi). But this explanation is unsuitable, since, according to this view, justification did not happen to Abraham from God (as must be conceived according to the context), but from his works; thus it was Abraham who justified himself by his works, i.e. proved himself to be righteous.[145] If we hold fast to the judicial meaning, then it is to be observed that, in the conception of the word, neither anything about the disposition of him who is the object of the declaration of righteousness, nor about the ground of justification (whether it rests in the judge or in the conduct of him who is justified), is indicated. For this reason the explanation of Wiesinger: a Deo justus agnitus, is incorrect, as the idea of a ratifying recognition of the already existing condition is not contained in the word. As little is it to be vindicated when Hofmann thinks that δικαιοῦσθαι here imports: “to become a δίκαιος, inasmuch as he then answered to the will of God relating to him;” for, on the one hand, by this a meaning (namely, being made a righteous person) is ascribed to the word which it has not; and, on the other hand, no one can make himself a righteous person by his works, but only can prove himself to be such.[146] James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared righteous (by God) ἐξ ἔργων. By ἐξ ἔργων the reason is specified, on Abraham’s part, on account of which a declaration of righteousness was granted to him. By these works are to be understood not all the works which Abraham has done, nor his whole pious life, but, as the clause ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ κ.τ.λ. shows, the actual offering of his son Isaac on the altar. The plural ἐξ ἔργων is used because the category, at first entirely general, is specified which here comes into consideration. It may appear surprising that James here should emphasize precisely that offering as the reason of the declaration of righteousness, since in the O. T. narrative (Genesis 22.) a δικαιοῦσθαι of Abraham is not mentioned. What James has in view is not “the judgment of God there; Genesis 22:12 comp. with Jam 2:16 ff.” (Wiesinger); for in these words, which, moreover, only serve as an introduction to the declaration which follows, nothing is addressed to Abraham, but only it is testified of him that God in his action has recognised his fear of God. Not in this, but only in what God addresses to him on account of it, because He has recognised him as a God-fearing man, can James have found the declaration of Abraham’s righteousness. This is the bestowal of the promise (Jam 2:16-18) by which it is expressly said, “because thou hast done this thing” (Jam 2:16), and “because thou hast obeyed my voice” (Jam 2:18); by which is definitely brought forward that the promise was granted on account of his obedience—that is, on account of his works. What importance, with regard to the promise, the obedience of Abraham had in the eyes of God is clearly brought out from Genesis 26:5, where God ratifies this same promise with Isaac in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws;” and not less is it to be observed when it is said in Sir 44:20 : ὃς συνετήρησεν νόμον ὑψίστου … καὶ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός· διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὅρκῳ ἔστησεν αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ. It is true that the same promise was made to Abraham at an earlier period, and that before he had done anything (Genesis 12:2-3); but the difference is, that after the offering of his son it was imparted to him as an inalienable blessing on account of this action, and that at the close of his theocratic historical life. In this James could rightly recognise a formal declaration of Abraham’s righteousness on the part of God.

On the construction ἐδικαιώθη ἐκ, comp. Matthew 12:37 : ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, where the λόγοι are reckoned as that on the ground of which acquittal (or condemnation) takes place.

The words: ἀνενέγκας … ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον] are not, with Luther, to be translated: “when he had sacrificed his son upon the altar;” for ἀναφέρειν joined with ἐπί, with the accusative, is not to sacrifice, but to bring as a sacrifice to the altar (comp. 1 Peter 2:24); it is therefore incorrect to supply the idea will (Estius: cum obtulisset = offere voluisset). Hottinger falsely explains ἐπὶ τ. θυσ. = before the altar. To the name Ἰσαάκ is emphatically added τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ; comp. Genesis 22:16.

[142] Philippi erroneously maintains that the question here treated, is to prove that faith has to manifest itself by works if it is to be regarded as true faith. But James designates the faith of his opponents as νεκρά, not merely because it has no works, but because it cannot effect the σωτηρία which they expected from it.

[143] Correctly, Wiesinger: “In ἐδικαιώθη the passive sense is decidedly to be retained, and, indeed, a Deo …; not of the human judgment is the discourse here and in ver. 23, but of the divine; as it treats of the proposition in ver. 14, that only an active faith can save.” This is the more to be maintained, as the thought, that faith has to justify itself before men as living, is so void of importance that James could not lay such stress upon it.

[144] This is the prevailing meaning of הַצְדִּיק, which is differently modified according to the different circumstances to which it is referred. It is chiefly used of a judicial sentence, whether of God or of a human judge, by which one is declared צַדִּיק; yet it also occurs in another reference, namely, of every agency which causes one to appear as righteous, whether that agency is exercised by the person in question or by others. The N. T. δικαιοῦν corresponds to this usage. Strictly taken, it is accordingly not correct to translate δικαιοῦν by “proved to be righteous,” or “approved to be righteous,” as the ideas proving and approving, according to their proper and strict meaning, are not contained in it. Comp., however, the excellent treatment of the word in Cremer’s dictionary.

[145] Philippi explains the words: Abraham was justified before men by works, as a justified man before God by faith. But here there are evidently introduced into the idea δικαιοῦσθαι a series of more precise statements which are not contained in it. The explanation of Brückner is simpler, who considers ἑδικαιώθη to indicate: “that moral righteousness which displays itself on the ground of the activity of faith;” but also this interpretation is not to be considered correct for the reasons above stated. The unsuitableness of this and similar interpretations is particularly evident from ver. 24. It is also to be observed, that in these explanations the passive is converted into the middle voice. In the O. T., it is true, the hithpael of צָדַק is translated in the LXX. by the preterite passive of δικαιοῦν (see Genesis 44:16); but in the N. T. the passive of this verb never occurs in this meaning; the middle import is here rather expressed by the active with the reflex pronoun; comp. Luke 10:29; Luke 16:15.

[146] The following explanations are also incorrect: “he was loved as a righteous man” (Grotius); “he was made a partaker of the favour of God and of all the blessings springing from it” (Theile); “his justification was ratified by man” (Baumgarten). The translation: “he was pardoned” (Pott), is inaccurate, because the idea of pardon always supposes a crime, which δικαιοῦν does not. Also the explanation of Lange is arbitrary: δικαιοῦν, in the N. T. deeper sense, denotes that “God declares righteousness in the theocratical forum before the theocratical congregation conceived as permanent;” for how can the precise statement be contained in the simple verbal idea, before whom the declaration of righteousness was made?

Expositor's Greek Testament

Jam 2:21. Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν: A stereotyped phrase in Jewish literature.—οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη: the writer is referring to the well-known Jewish doctrine of זכות (Zecûth), on this subject see Introduction IV., § 2.—ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ …: on this subject an example of Jewish haggadic treatment may be of interest: “When Abraham finally held the knife over his beloved son, Isaac seemed doomed, and the angels of heaven shed tears which fell upon Isaac’s eyes, causing him blindness in later life. But their prayer was heard. The Lord sent Michael the archangel to tell Abraham not to sacrifice his son, and the dew of life was poured on Isaac to revive him. The ram to be offered in his place had stood there ready, prepared from the beginning of Creation (Aboth, Jam 2:6). Abraham had given proof that he served God not only from fear, but also out of love, and the promise was given that, whenever the ‘Aḳedah [= the “binding,” i.e., of Isaac] chapter was read on New Year’s day, on which occasion the ram’s horn is always blown, the descendants of Abraham should be redeemed from the power of Satan, of sin, and of oppression, owing to the merit of him whose ashes lay before God as though he had been sacrificed and consumed,” Pesiḳ. R., § 40 (quoted in Jewish Encycl., i. 87a). It is interesting to notice that even in the Talmud (e.g., Ta‘anir, 4a) the attempted sacrifice of Isaac is regarded also from a very different point of view, such words as those of Jeremiah 19:5; Micah 6:7, being explained as referring to this event (see further Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., xxiv. pp. 235 ff.).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works] The close correspondence of phraseology with Romans 4:2 at first seems to favour the view that St James is correcting or modifying St Paul’s statement It is obvious, however, that the agreement equally admits of the explanation that St Paul is correcting or modifying the language of St James. He presses the fact that “Abraham believed God,” and that this “was counted to him for righteousness,” i. e. that he was justified prior to any act but that of simple trust. And the impression left by a careful study of the passage referred to is that St Paul is there referring to something that had been urged, as having a high authority, against his teaching that a man is justified by faith. It is clear, at all events, that no inference can be drawn from the two passages in favour of the assumption that the Epistle of St James was later than that of St Paul to the Romans.

The use of the word “justify” shews that its meaning is to “acquit” or “count as righteous” (Matthew 12:37; Acts 13:39; Sir 26:29; Sir 23:11).

The preposition used in the Greek points to “works” as being the source rather than the instrument of justification.

when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?] Better, when he offered Isaac, the two acts being thought of, not as successive, but simultaneous. It is remarkable that the only scriptural references, after Genesis 22, to the sacrifice of Isaac, are found in Wis 10:5 and Hebrews 11:17. It is hardly likely that the latter could have been known to St James, the internal evidence pointing to a later date; but the former, whether, as some have supposed, by the same author as the Epistle to the Hebrews, or written fifty or sixty years earlier, might well have come under his notice. In relation to St Paul’s teaching, as noticed above, it must be remembered that the one writer speaks of the beginning of Abraham’s course, the other of its consummation. St James might well urge that if Abraham had not shewn his faith by his works, up to the crowning work of the sacrifice of his son, it would have proved that his faith too was dead.

Bengel's Gnomen

Jam 2:21. Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, Abraham our father) So St Paul, Romans 4:1.—ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, was justified by works) St James recognises the inward and peculiar power of faith, which is previous to works, and distinct from works and from their influence, which reacts upon faith (Jam 2:22): but hypocrites are ignorant of this; speaking more readily in flattering terms of works, of which they themselves are destitute. Therefore James employs an argument ad hominem; and that he may convince them, he especially mentions works, while in mentioning them, he understands (as lying underneath the works) the active principle of faith. Nor does James use the word δικαιοῦσθαι, to be justified, in a different sense from that in which St Paul uses it; in which sense righteousness is most intimately connected with salvation, Jam 2:14. But that sense is a very pregnant one; so that the term righteousness is co-extensive in its meaning on the opposite side with sin (see especially the note, Romans 3:20); and as sin includes both guilt (reatus) and the taint (vitium) of our nature, so does righteousness denote the whole process, by which a man is righteous, and is judged and pronounced to he so; that is, one with whom God is no longer angry on account of his guilt, but reconciled to him: and one who on his part is no longer an enemy to God, but a friend, Jam 2:23. Comp. Romans 8:7 with what precedes and follows. Now both St James and St Paul use this word, δικαιοῦν, to justify, in one and the same sense, though St Paul in a more restricted, and St James in a wider application; and for this reason, that St Paul is accustomed to speak of the act of justification, which chiefly consists in the remission of sins; whereas St James, which is especially to be observed, speaks of the state resulting from the same justification (which is incorrectly but frequently termed a second justification), when a man continues in the righteousness which is of faith, and makes progress in that which is of works. Hence it is that St Paul, from Genesis 15:6, brings forward Abraham as believing; St James, from Genesis 22:10, as even offering his son upon the altar, long afterwards. The former simply adduces the saying, It was counted to him; the latter also this, He was called friend, which was afterwards added. The former says, God justifies, and justifies the ungodly, and we are justified; the latter simply says, A man is justified. The former makes mention of faith only, and not of works, although they proceed from faith; the latter makes mention of faith and works.—ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιατήριον, upon the altar) He designs to show, that the work of Abraham was undertaken altogether in earnest.

James 2:21

Vincent's Word Studies

When he had offered (ἀνενέγκας)

Incorrect. For the participle states the ground of his justification. By works gives the general ground; offered, etc., the specific work. Compare Genesis 22:16, Genesis 22:17. Rev., correctly, in that he offered. The word ἀνενέγκας is, lit., brought up to; and means, not actually to offer up in sacrifice (though Isaac was morally sacrificed in Abraham's will), but to bring to the altar as an offering See on 1 Peter 2:5.