FAITH THAT WORKS

Introduction

     The book of James is one of the most criticized and controversial books in the entire canon.  Martin Luther, because of his inability to accept the faith and works passage, called it an “epistle of straw.”  Some early Christians even contested its placement in the canon, and even today some modern scholars criticize it saying it is a holdover from Judaism that does not characterize nor capture the essence of the Christian faith.[1]  The most criticized passage in all of James is the faith and works passage in James 2:14-26.  This passage has caused conflict and misunderstanding throughout the ages.  Many have pointed to the message of this text and claimed that it is in direct opposition to Paul.  For this reason, many shy away from the passage, try to explain it away, or simply ignore the message.  However, this action is contrary to a good understanding of Scripture and it is not fair to the message that James conveys.  James has his own unique message, independent of Paul, and the insights gleamed from James’ passage are too valuable to be overlooked or ignored.  This controversial passage can and should be uncovered and understood.  However, before specific exegesis or application can occur, one must first understand some background material about the book.

Historical Analysis

AUDIENCE

     The letter of James is not addressed to a single church or an individual.  James addresses his letter to the “twelve tribes scattered among the nations.”  Although the word “scattered” only appears in John 7:35, James 1:1, and in I Peter 1:1, it has parallels in the written account of the persecution of the church in Jerusalem.[2]  After Stephen’s death, the Jerusalem church was scattered throughout Judea, Samaria, and as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch.  If the traditional view of authorship is held, then the audience is most likely Jewish Christians that were persecuted and driven from the church in Jerusalem.[3]  Dibelius disagrees and states that the designation “twelve tribes” is symbolic and is an “appropriation by Gentile churches of the titles of Israel.”  Dibelius not only sees the statement of “twelve tribes” as symbolic, but also the statement of “diaspora.”[4]  He sees the diaspora as symbolic of every

believer’s distance from their heavenly home.  While Dibelius does a good job explaining his reasoning, we have no evidence to take James’ words as symbolic.  The literal reading makes more sense, is the more simple reading, and places it in a historical setting where James would have ministered.  These dispersed Jewish believers would have needed the encouragement on dealing with trials that James offers.  James would have known many of them personally because of his leadership in the Jerusalem church before they were dispersed by persecution.[5]  He would have known their hardships, their struggles, and their shortcomings. James knew that many of them lived in poverty employed by rich landowners that exploited them.  He knew of the great disparity between the rich and poor.  He knew many were struggling in belief.  This pastoral letter was meant to remind them of their hope both in earth and eschatologically.  It was meant to encourage them, give them instruction, and remind them of their coming king and kingdom. [6]

AUTHOR

     The author of James simply identifies himself as James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This leaves some

question to the exact identity of the author.  The topic of authorship is probably one of the most debated topics concerning the book of James in recent times.  In the early church there seems to be little argument regarding authorship.  It was widely accepted that the Lord’s brother, the Jerusalem James, was the author.[7]  However, in the last two centuries a growing number of scholars have challenged this view in support of an unknown author, or a pseudonymous author. 

Scholars who challenge the traditional view list four reasons for questioning its authorship.  First, James never mentions his special relationship with Jesus.  They make the point that if James was indeed the Lord’s brother, it surely would have been mentioned.  He would have stated his role in the church and mentioned his special relationship with his audience.[8]  While this argument is based on logic, readers should not insist on James mentioning facts about himself.  If in fact the James of Jerusalem is the author, it is consistent with the Christian nature that he does not mention himself, but instead, the greatness of his Lord.  It is also consistent with James’ writing in 2:1 where he instructs them not to hold themselves up above others.  If James would have mentioned all of his attributes and his position it would have taken away from his focus, the Lord, and taken away from his message.  His readers probably did not need an introduction of the author because of his close relationship with his audience and his broad recognition in the region.    

The Second argument in favor of an unknown author is the Greek style and cultural background.  Scholars point out that his style does not coincide to someone with the background of James of Jerusalem.[9]  While this argument may hold weight, all one has to do is look at the varying styles of Paul to understand that one cannot assume an author’s style.  An author’s style can vary depending on whom the author is writing, the circumstances surrounding the letter, and the message the author is trying to convey.  Not only can an author’s style vary, the common use of an amanuensis during this time makes style issues hard to debate. 

Another common explanation denying the traditional view is the approach the author has to the Torah.  Many claim that the view of the Torah the book of James portrays is too liberal for that of James of Jerusalem.  They claim that James was known as pietistic and his characterization of the “law of liberty” or the “royal law” does not sound like a man of piety that tried to impose ritual law on Paul.[10]  However, in response, the view of James as ritualistic is not complete.  Acts 15 gives the picture of James as a man who was opposed to imposing ritualistic tradition to Gentiles.  This act gives evidence to suggest that James might not be the ritualistic man as some have thought.  It is difficult to assume James as an extreme ritualistic man when his actions prove otherwise. 

The final reason for denying that James of Jerusalem could have written this letter involves the perceived problems over justification between Paul and James.[11]  This argument assumes a disagreement of Paul and James.  The majority of scholarship sees no contradiction between James and Paul but rather separate authors with separate messages for separate audiences.

As far as authorship is concerned most scholars believe the acceptance of an unknown author or a pseudonymous author, is an over interpretation of James and not based on facts.[12]  There can be no way to be certain who the actual author is, however, there are more strengths than weaknesses that point to the traditional identification with James as the brother of the Lord than any other suggestion.  Some of the strengths include the fact that the time period of the letter would correspond with that of James of Jerusalem.  The author would have to be someone well known to his readers, and this James fits the profile.  This James also matches with the early Jewish-Christian ideology present in the book.  And finally, as a leader of the Jerusalem church, James would have been in a perfect position to address a letter to Jewish Christians who had been forced to flee from Jerusalem because of persecution.[13]  While there is no proof to authorship, the arguments lend to an authorship of a person from a Palestinian Jewish Christian source.[14]  This doesn’t point exclusively to James of Jerusalem but it also doesn’t point away from him. 

DATE

     Assuming the author to be the brother of Jesus the date of the letter is between when he became leader of the church and before his death.  The first date is obtained after the Jewish Christians were driven from Jerusalem and when Peter was released from prison in A.D. 44 (this year king Agrippa died [Acts 12:23] ).[15]  It was in that year that James took Peter’s place as head of the church.  The latest possible church date occurs when James is martyred.  This date occurs after Festus has died and his successor Albinus is on his way to Judea to assume his role as governor in A.D. 62.[16]  Therefore, assuming James of Jerusalem is author, the letter can be dated with reasonable certainty to sometime between A.D. 44 and A.D. 62.  Within these years there are two alternatives for dating, an early date (middle 40s) and a late date (50 – 60s). 

Ellis favors the later date believing that the similar language used between Paul and James gives indication that these two were aware of each others teaching.  It is believed that James’ parallel with Paul was probably a rhetorical device used to debunk a false understanding of Paul’s “justification by faith alone” doctrine.  Perhaps many in James’ audience were ignoring a commitment to Christian living and discipleship using Paul’s “justification by faith alone” as an excuse.  Ellis believes that James writes in response to this attitude, forcing the book to a later date in the life of the Jerusalem James.[17]

Johnson supports an earlier date because he senses that James had no awareness of the conflict concerning the Torah in reference to the Gentile mission occurring in the late forties.  He attributes the similarities of Paul and James to the fact that they were both first generation Jewish Christians deeply affected by Greco-Roman moral traditions with strong allegiance to the Torah.[18]  While both men make a convincing argument with reference to date, either view makes this book one of the earliest books in the New Testament.

EARLY CHURCH RESPONSE

     Because of the broad scope of the letter, this led early Christians to categorize the letter as a general letter.  The book of James was not recognized by both the eastern and western parts of the church until the fourth century, but known and used by Christians long before then.  The letter is not mentioned by name until early in the third century, but L.T. Johnson makes a case that books from the late first and early second century depend on James.[19]  Nevertheless, after Jerome and Augustine showed support for the document and identified the author as the brother of the Lord, James landed a secure place in the canon.  James’ theological significance and value was again challenged during the Reformation.  Luther led the opposition against the book claiming the book, “mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all the Scripture.”[20]  The other reformers disagreed with Luther and the book remained canonical.  While the church views the book today as fully canonical and authoritative, some still today question the origin, authority, and fail to see the theological significance of James.[21]  With the brief historical analysis complete, we will now move to the specific passage that has caused so much controversy, the issue regarding justification in James 2:14-26.

James 2:14-26

     This passage, as previously mentioned, is by far the most controversial; however, it is also the most theologically significant.  Before an in-depth understanding of the passage can be grasped, a thorough understanding of the structure must first be obtained.

STRUCTURE

     When analyzing the structure of the faith and works passage it is important not only to look at the structure of the verses themselves, but also at the structure of the larger context of the book.  The faith and works passage is actually a part of a larger discussion James makes regarding spiritual wholeness.[22]  This section has four general parts.  The first discusses matters of the tongue in 1:19-20, next the mark of genuine faith in 1:20-27, third the violations of discriminating against the poor in 2:1-13.  In 2:12-13 a summary statement is given and in verse 14 James begins with “My Brothers” indicating a new departure in his argument regarding spiritual wholeness.[23]  This final section regarding the true signs of a saving faith, in the

larger argument on spiritual wholeness, is the text that encompasses this study. 

     In verse 14 James states his topic through the use of a rhetorical question making the statement that faith without works cannot “save.”  From there, he follows up the introduction with an illustration to drive home his point of the uselessness of faith without works.  He concludes in verse 17 by saying that faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

     In verse 18 James utilizes a device very popular in an ancient literary form of argument, the diatribe.[24]  By using this, “he introduces an imaginary interlocutor with whom James carries on a conversation as a means of introducing his readers.”[25]  The interlocutor speaks in a support of the community James was confronting saying that faith and deeds need not go together.  However, the answer is given by stating that faith can only be shown by deeds.

     In verse 20 James once again states the gist of his argument that faith without deeds is useless and writes it again in a parallel statement in 26.  Sandwiched between these two affirmations are two examples of faith expressed by works, Abraham and Rahab. When viewing the structure of James’ arguments in 2:14-26 there can be no doubt that the theme of this section is faith without works is dead.  He states on three separate occasions this purpose and does not intend to be misunderstood.[26]  With the structure pointing to the purpose that faith without works is dead, it leads one to question, “Is James stating that faith plus works equals salvation?”  The answer to this question lies in the content.

CONTENT

     Understanding the first verse in the text is the key to understanding this whole section.[27]  In verse 14, when the rhetorical question is asked, notice that James does not say, “What does it profit a man if he has faith?” but rather says, “What does it profit a man if he claims to have faith?”  The person whom James is referring is a person who has no faith, but thinks he has faith.  “The man is not a conscious hypocrite, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an infidel who for purposes of his own calls himself a believer.  He has received some religious impressions; he assents in a loose and general way to the doctrines, and he considers himself a Christian.”[28]  James’ rhetorical question of, “what does it profit?”, or “what use is it?” demand the answer, it has no profit, or it is no use.  A faith that is merely claimed has no use.  It does not bring joy in trials, it does not bring wisdom, it does not bring rewards in heaven, and it does not save.[29]  This is exactly the point James makes next by once again rhetorically asking, “Can that faith save him?”  The word pivsti" used here is in the anaphoric use.  Some translations translate it, “Can faith save him?” but the better translation is, “Can that faith save him?”  Taking the word in its anaphoric use allows the text to refer back to the false faith mentioned in the first question like James intended.  That false faith will not be able to save him from the final judgment that is to come. 

A crucial part of understanding this verse is understanding the word sw'sai.  sw'sai, in James has recently become a topic of much discussion.  Some within the Free Grace movement have understood this word in James to be referring to earthly danger or trial and not to an eschatological judgment.[30] A Free Grace understanding might render,”can that faith save them from the earthly danger that they might incur?”  However, this interpretation seems to take much theological significance from the verse.  A better understanding is to interpret the word the same way it is interpreted in the other New Testament Epistles and in James 1:21, 4:12, and 5:20.[31]  James, when using the word “save”, is referring to a future rather than the past.  One commentator points out that a possible translation might read, “Is that faith able to save him, once that time comes?”[32]  The rhetorical question must be answered with a no.  Faith that is not demonstrated is not a genuine faith and is not able to save.  James considers it only natural that a man who professes genuine faith also has works.

     James then moves from the general to the particular.  He uses an example that by now has become quite common throughout his letter, mistreatment of the poor.  James paints a picture of a person naked and in need of food, probably a hypothetical situation because of the ejaVn combined with the subjunctive mood.[33]  Nevertheless, the person is dismissed and told to go in peace.  This example of poor in need, is probably an example that resonated well with his listeners.  They probably on many occasions experienced well wishes without the needed action expected to follow.[34]  James illustrates the uselessness of the well wished words by asking, “What good is it?”  If words are not followed by action then the poor are not helped, and the words are useless.  Immediately, James follows his illustration by the main point of his text, “So also faith, if it does not have deeds, is by itself dead.”[35]    

     James, foreseeing an argument to his previous statements, argues his case by the use of an imaginary debate.  James’ construction of this imaginary conversation is somewhat difficult to understand and requires defining exactly who the “You” and who the “I” are in the sentence, “You have faith, and I have works.”  In fact, Dibelius calls this verse one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament.[36]  The difficulty lies in the question, “Is this imaginary person arguing that James does not have works or arguing with another imaginary person?”

     Hodges makes the case that this person is questioning James’ faith.  He believes that this discussion is setting up a sarcastic challenge giving the interpretation that no one could show their faith through works, not even James.[37]  This translation seems to be a reach because it requires the acceptance of a not often used textual variant and undermines James’ thesis.

Vaughan, on the other hand, makes the point that the pronouns used here are not personal references to James and the man making the comment, but they rather refer to two separate imaginary people.[38]  “The objector [interlocutor], then, is arguing that there is a place for both the man who emphasizes faith and for the man who stresses works.”  The use of the sy/ego here is proof that the discussion between these two imaginary people is designed to indicate divisibility between the two concepts being discussed.[39]  Therefore, the argument would indicate that one man has faith, and another deeds, as if these two could stand alone.  James’ answer expressed in the last half of the verse: “Show me your faith without the works and I will show you my faith by my works”, proves the impossibility of separating faith and works.  Faith produces works, “Faith is seen in lifestyle, or as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, ‘If I had all…faith but had not love, I am nothing.”[40]  Faith and works are like two oars of a rowboat; one without the other is useless and profits nothing.  James can’t think of one without also the other, they are inseparable.

In verse 19 Metzger demonstrates that there is a textual variant in this verse, one reading, “God is one”, and the other, “There is one God.”  Depending on the absence or presence of the article one reading would be a verbal profession of God’s unity and the other a profession of monotheism.[41]  There is some debate among scholars which truth James is trying to covey.  Whatever the case, James is stating a reality to all present and with a bit of sarcasm he replies “good.”  Then he states that the demons also believe and shudder.  Some say that is just an add-on with little to do with the rest of his argument.  However, Moo suggests that James may be setting up an ironic contrast between people who claim faith and have no works, inferring that at least the demons display some kind of reaction to their beliefs.[42]  The demons react shuddering in their coming judgment, so to should people whose verbal profession is not followed up with proper actions. 

     After James has completed his theological argument, he now will add scriptural illustrations.  Before the illustrations, he once again states his topic that faith without works is useless by pleading that they are not demons, but human beings, who have to be foolish and stubborn not to recognize the parallels between faith and works.  It is important to recognize that in 2:18 the word cwriV" means apart from or without.  James’ point is that these two, faith and works, cannot be separated.[43]    

Abraham is James’ first example.  It is in this example that the so-called tension arises between Paul and James.  However, this tension can be resolved when the passage is analyzed in context.  Most of the tension resolves around the understanding of what exactly Paul means by the word dikaiovw and what James means by the same word.  Paul uses the word “justify” to mean God’s verdict of innocence placed over a sinner who has trusted Jesus Christ in faith.  The justification that occurs when one enters into a saving relationship with God.[44]

James does not have a similar meaning of justification as Paul.  James’ meaning of the word is more similar to the meaning found in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Jesus.  Kittel says that this meaning does not refer to justification at the point of salvation, but the justification James is referring to is the “being made right” that occurs post-conversion and what the relationship must ultimately look like to receive God’s final approval.[45]  This makes sense because he follows this in verse 22 with the explanation that Abraham’s faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.  He wants people to understand that faith and works go together and cooperate together.  “He therefore emphasizes that Abraham’s faith was not confined to mental reorientation at the time of his ‘conversion’ or at an occasional verbal profession but that it was an active force, constantly at work along with his deeds.”[46]  Verse 23 finishes his illustrations of Abraham by saying that scripture was fulfilled and then he quotes Genesis 15:6.  This Scripture is also quoted by Paul but in a much different sense.  “James looked to the Abraham story to show how God is predisposed to forgive sinners.”[47]  James was speaking to Jewish Christians, some with false faith, and he wanted to emphasize works that come out of a genuine faith.  Paul was speaking to Gentiles out of the faith and legalistic Jews, he wanted to emphasize God’s forgiveness and love towards them apart from the Law.  “As someone has said, Paul and James do not stand face to face fighting each other, but back to back fighting opposite foes.”[48]  “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.”[49]  The same story is used, but two different messages to two different audiences are conveyed.

     In 24, James now speaks without the use of the interlocutor, and once again James addresses his hearers (he shifts to the plural form of the second person “you”).[50]  Notice the comparison of this verse with Paul.

  Jas. 2:24  A person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

  Rom. 3:28  A person is justified by faith and not by works of the law.

First, it should be pointed out again that James has a different use of the word justified than Paul, as discussed earlier.  And secondly, the key approach to understanding is to compare the differences between the two texts.  First, compare the word “faith” in Paul with the phrase “faith alone” in James.  As Moo points out the addition of “alone” after “faith” shows that James is referring to the false faith he has challenged from verse 14.[51]  Because true faith yields works and therefore they are inseparable, if anyone has faith alone it is bound to be bogus faith.  Next, Paul adds not by works of the law, while James simply says works.  Paul’s emphasis in his text conveys that one is not justified by following the Jewish Law, as many believed, but rather through faith in Christ.  James’ is conveying the message that after one comes into a saving relationship through faith, works of faith are inevitable.[52]

One may still ask, “Why are these two passages so similar in language?”  Ellis has said that the reason James uses such close language to Paul is not because they were debating, but rather to combat a false understanding of Paul, prevalent among James’ audience.  In other words, among James’ congregation was circulating the phrase “justification by faith alone” and with it came the idea that the law was abolished, and as sinned prevailed, grace abounded.  The reason these two look so similar may very well be that James purposefully does this to confront these so called believers who were clinging to the phrase “justified by faith and not the law” as an excuse for an immoral life.[53]  While this argument makes logical sense, it may require the acceptance of a later date of the book.

Johnson disagrees with this argument and says that it is mere coincidence that the language is so close.  He argues that the discussion of faith was a predominant topic of discussion, and the faith of Abraham was a common illustration.  Johnson argues that the fact remains that both Paul and James were from Jewish heritage, both sought answers in the Torah, and it should not be seen as unusual that both point to Abraham’s faith.  They develop separate arguments because their thesis’ and audiences’ are different.  Johnson sees these two authors in complete agreement, each making his own point independently of the other.[54]

Nevertheless Paul and James should not be seen in contradiction.  Paul’s message makes it clear that he did not intend to give the impression that one could live an unchanged, sin bearing life, and have faith.  He said in Romans 6:4 “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”

  Paul would surely agree that this type of “faith” James is referencing does not save.  It was Paul who said in 2^nd Corinthians, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.”  He also said in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Too often James is read in light of Paul, compared to Paul, and analyzed with Paul.  James should be read in light of his own circumstances and his own context.[55]

     The second illustration James uses is the example of Rahab the prostitute.  She is used to contrast the example of Abraham.  While Abraham was known as father Abraham, Rahab was known for her sin.  She was kind enough to hide the Israelite spies from her own countrymen and cared for their needs before the destruction of Jericho.  In Jewish midrash Rahab was the subject of much interest.  She was believed to come from the life of a prostitute to become a sincere proselyte, to have married Joshua, and to have been the ancestress of many priests and prophets, including Jeremiah and Ezekiel.[56]  Her faith was seen as whole and complete.  She demonstrated that her faith was no mere verbal profession but was genuine and rock solid.[57]  Through the use of Rahab, “James shows not only that the acid test of faith is works, but also that this principle has universal application, embracing both patriarch and prostitute.”

     In completion of James’ thought and topic in verse 26 he ends this discussion by once again stating the uselessness of “faith” without deeds.  He presents the imagery of a corpse.  Without the spirit the body has no life.  Then to drive the point in, he confesses that faith without works similarly does not exist.

Application

     The application of this passage is just as relevant today as it was in James’ day.  James calls us to examine our lives and the fruit in our lives to be sure we are living out the Christian convictions that define our faith.[58]  Some of today’s church members and church leaders deny this very idea.  There is a belief permeating today’s churches that denies the role of fruit and repentance in assurance of faith.  One church leader says, the call to repentance is the call to “change one’s mind and Jesus Christ,” not the call “to be sorry for sin or even resolve to turn from sin.”[59]  He goes on to say that many saved people live their entire lives like unsaved people.[60]  This is contrary to everything James says in James 2:14-26.

Christianity is a way life.  It should permeate lives and produce works.  True faith is evident by the fruit it produces, a change of heart, and a yearning to do the will of the father.  Bogus faith is characterized by a life that is willing to make a verbal profession but lacks the full submission and willingness