“Saved by Faith [Alone]” in Paul Versus “Not Saved by Faith Alone”

16 Pages·2004·0.16 MB·English

by  Jared Hallal

“Saved by Faith [Alone]” in Paul
Versus “Not Saved by Faith Alone”
in James
Robert H. Stein
Robert Stein is the Mildred and Ernest Introduction the writings of Paul,” and “rejects Pauline
Hogan Professor of New Testament at In contrast to Romans 3:28 where Paul tradition.”5 Ropes writes that “James
The Southern Baptist Theological Semi- states, “For we maintain that a man is jus- shows no comprehension of what Paul
nary. Dr. Stein has a Ph.D. from Prince- tified by faith apart from works of the actually meant by his formula [saved by
ton Theological Seminary, taught at Law,” James writes in 2:24, “You see that faith and not by works] . . . and he heart-
Bethel College and Bethel Theological a man is justified by works and not by ily dislikes it.” Furthermore he “would
Seminary from 1969-1997, and has faith alone.”1 As a result, the relationship have deplored as utterly superficial and
served as a Professor at Southern since between faith, works, and justification in inadequate James’s mode of stating the
1997. He is a renowned scholar and the teachings of Paul and James have been conditions of justification.”6 Compare also
has written numerous books, articles, much debated. Bultmann who states, “. . . Paul’s concept
and book reviews. His most recent book On the one hand, there are those schol- of faith is . . . utterly misunderstood. For
is Jesus the Messiah and a revision of ars who argue that the teaching and the- Paul would certainly have agreed with the
The Method and Message of Jesus’ ology of Paul and James are contradictory proposition that a faith without works is
Teachings has also been published and incapable of harmonization. No dead (2:17, 26) but never in the world with
recently. doubt the most famous of these is Martin the thesis that faith works along with
Luther, who referred to James as a “right works (2:22).”7
strawy epistle”2 and in his Preface to the On the other hand, there are those who
book states that James seek to argue that James and Paul are in
agreement and that no conflict exists.
. . . is flatly against St. Paul and all
Marxsen argues that what James
the rest of Scripture in ascribing jus-
tification to works [2:24]. It says that
Abraham was justified by his works . . . attacks is the idea that the Pauline
when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; formula should be accepted as valid
though in Romans 4 [:2-22] St. Paul with this interpretation of faith [a
teaches to the contrary that Abra- faith without works].…The author
ham was justified apart from works, . . . brings out what Paul means by
by his faith alone, before he had faith by means of an addition. In
offered his son.…3 other words, what Paul signifies by
‘faith’ can now be expressed only by
‘faith and works.’…His aim is to
More recent scholars give a similar
bring back a Paulinism that has been
assessment. “What we encounter misinterpreted and distorted to the
[between Paul and James] is not simply a truly Pauline position.8
tension but an antithesis.…There are no
Mitton also argues that “James is
grounds for blurring the fact that James
entirely at one with Paul.”9
2:14ff. visibly appears to have been writ-
Still others argue that James and Paul
ten intentionally in opposition to Paul’s
do not contradict each other but are deal-
statement.”4 J. T. Sanders argues that
ing with different issues and fighting dif-
James “misunderstands Paul,” “opposes
4
ferent foes. Thus there is “no disagreement only one specific meaning. Within the
between James and Paul, only a slight norms of language words almost always
variation of emphasis.”10 “The polemic of possess a range of meanings.
James . . . was not directed at the thesis of Within the writings of Paul and James
Paul, but at a slogan derived from it.”11 this is also true. In James, for example, the
word “trial (peirasmos)” is used positively
The false views which Paul and in 1:2 and 12. In 1:13-14 its verbal form
James are opposing, in Rom. 4 and
“tempted (peirazo),” however, is used
here respectively [James 2:14-26], are
different. Paul is combating the idea negatively. It should not therefore surprise
that men can put God under an
us that the same word may be used by
obligation to themselves.…James is
James and Paul in different ways and pos-
opposing the idea that a real faith
can exist without producing works sess different meanings. There are two
of obedience. The difference of aim
terms used in James 2:14-26 that possess
accounts to a large extent for the
differences of language. There is no meanings quite different from the normal
need to infer any significant dis- way that Paul uses these terms. These
agreement between their fundamen-
terms are: “faith” and “believe (pistis–
tal positions.12
Formally, Ro 3:22 (justification by pisteuo)”14 and “works (erga).”
faith without the deeds of the law)
and Ja 2:24 (justification by works
“Faith” and “Believe”
and not by faith only) are sharply
opposed theses. In reality the dif- In James the noun “faith” is found six-
ferences are modified if we take
teen times. Five are found outside 2:14-26
account of the different applications
(1:3, 6; 2:1, 5; 5:15) and the rest are con-
of the terms.13
tained in our passage (2:14 [2], 17, 18 [3],
The present article will explore the 20, 22 [2], 24, and 26). The verbal form
argument of James in 2:14-26 with the “believe” is found only three times and
purpose of seeing if he and Paul are all occur in our passage (2:19 [2] and 23).
indeed in disagreement. We shall do so The five occurrences of “faith” outside our
by examining: (1) The terminology of Paul passage indicate that a different faith is
and James; (2) the context of James 2:14- being described there than the “faith”
26; (3) key issues found in James 2:14-26; James begins to discuss in 2:14-26. In 1:3
and (4) James 2:14-26 and the rest of the the “faith” described is one that success-
New Testament. fully encounters trials and as a result pro-
duces endurance. In 1:6 it is a “faith” that
The Terminology of Paul and James endures in prayer and as a result receives
Individual words in any language usu- wisdom from God. In 2:1 it is “faith” in
ally bear a range of possible meanings. If our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.15
a person looks up any particular word in In 2:5 the poor of this world who are heirs
a dictionary, he or she will find a number of the kingdom are described as rich in
of possible meanings associated with the “faith.” In all these instances “faith” is
word because the semantic range of words portrayed positively. It is never viewed as
vary. Some possess many different, pos- merely an intellectual assent to doctrinal
sible meanings. Others possess only a few. propositions.
It is difficult, however, to think of any In 2:14-26 “faith” is viewed quite dif-
word in the English language that has ferently, and it appears that the faith
5
being discussed is that of a real or hypo- someone has faith but has not works.”17
thetical opponent whom James has James appears to have intentionally
engaged in a diatribe. This opponent’s un- worded his introductory statement in a
derstanding of faith is quite different from way that indicates that his opponent does
that of James himself. This can be seen by not have true Christian faith. This inter-
observing how this faith is described: pretation finds support in 2:14b where
James states, “Can that faith save him?”18
2:14a—It is a faith that possesses no The use of the article he indicates that
works;
James is asking whether the specific kind
2:14b—It is a faith that cannot save;16
2:17—It is a faith without works that of faith he has just described can save the
is dead;
man. Still further support for this view
2:18a—It is a faith that is distinct and
comes from 2:18. Here the imaginary
separate from works;
2:18b—It is a faith without works; opponent19 describes his faith as being
2:18c—It is contrasted with a faith
one totally independent of works. “But
shown by works;
2:20—It is a faith without works that someone may well say, ‘You have faith
is useless; and I have works.’”
2:22a—It is contrasted with a faith
In Paul “faith” almost always refers to
that works along with works;
2:22b—It is contrasted with a faith a whole-hearted trust in God that salva-
perfected as a result of works; tion can be received as a gracious gift apart
2:24—It is a faith that is alone; and
from any meritorious works because of
2:26—It is a faith without works that
is dead. the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus
Christ. Faith for Paul involves “man’s
The verbal cognate “believe” also helps total response to and involvement with
us to understand the kind of faith pos- Jesus Christ.”20 Accompanied with the gift
sessed by James’s opponent: of the Spirit it involves a new creation
(2 Cor 5:17) in which the believer has been
2:19a—It is assent to the biblical
raised to newness of life and has become
proposition that God is one;
a slave to righteousness (Rom 6:18). It
2:19b—It is a kind of faith that even
demons possess; and involves an obedience of faith (Rom 1:5).
2:23—It is contrasted with the kind
Thus Paul would never say that “demons
of faith Abraham possessed.
believe,” as James does in 2:19, because
of the different meaning he gives to the
From the above it is obvious that a dis-
terms “faith” and “believe.” The faith of
tinction must be made between “faith” as
James’s opponent involves merely intel-
it is understood by James and “faith” as it
lectual assent to propositions such as
is understood by his real or imaginary
“God is one.” It is a belief that certain
opponent. It is doubtful that James would
propositions are true. Paul’s use of the
acknowledge that his opponent’s kind
words “faith” and “believe” involve faith
of faith is true or real faith. He hints at
in God and his Son. It is not merely propo-
this in 2:14a when he describes his
sitional, although that element is present.
opponent’s faith as follows, “What use is
It is also relational! Faith for Paul involves
it, my brethren, if someone says he has
a relationship of grace and love toward
faith but he has not works.” As numer-
God that results in a transformed life; for
ous commentators point out, James does
James’s opponent faith involves nothing
not say, “What use is it, my brethren, if
6
more than assent to doctrinal truths. Yet involve acts of loving mercy, kindness,
even the demons possess a correct under- and obedience to God. They are per-
standing of such doctrinal propositions formed from a faith that “works through
and assent to their truth. In fact their theo- love.” They have nothing to do with ritu-
logical understanding of doctrinal propo- alistic or ceremonial actions.
sitions is undoubtedly more correct than In Paul, however, “works” possess a
ours due to their supernatural nature, but very different meaning. In Romans and
such knowledge does not result in their Galatians they are frequently described by
salvation! the expression “works of law” (Rom 3:20,
28; Gal 2:16 [3]; 3:2, 5, 10). Works are anti-
“Works” thetical to grace (Rom 11:6). They are an
The term “works” also possesses a attempt to boast before God, place God
range of possible meanings, and it is used under obligation (Rom 4:2), and as a
quite differently in James and Paul. In result earn justification (Rom 4:4). Conse-
James it is used fifteen times and always quently, “works” are a way of seeking
positively. This is true both for the twelve righteousness that is inimical to faith
times it is used within our passage and (Rom 9:30-33), and it is impossible to
the three instances it is used elsewhere achieve justification through this method
(1:4—associated with endurance, 1:25— (Rom 3:20). The specific “works” that Paul
contrasts with the mere hearing of the law has in mind are: circumcision (Rom
of liberty; 3:13—are the results of good 4:1-12; Gal 5:3, 6; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:19; cf. Acts
behavior). In our passage it is used in: 15:1, 5); ritualistically keeping certain days
(Gal 4:10); abstaining from certain food
2:14—From 2:15-16 it is clear that it and drink (Col 2:16); etc. It should be
refers to such things as clothing the
noted that clothing the naked and feed-
“naked” and feeding the hungry, i.e.,
works of loving kindness; ing the hungry do not appear in Paul’s
2:17—The works mentioned here
polemic against works. Paul is not argu-
refer to the actions described in 2:15-
ing against faith needing to be accompa-
16;
2:18—In these three instances works nied by loving acts of kindness and mercy.
refer to the works mentioned in 2:17;
These are not the works that he is oppos-
2:20—Here works refer to the faith-
ful obedience of Abraham; ing. He is not opposed to good deeds done
2:21—Here works refer to Abra- in obedience to God. These kinds of works
ham’s obedience in offering up Isaac
are spoken of quite positively in Paul.21
as a sacrifice;
2:22—In these two instances works He is opposed, rather, to performing cer-
refers to Abraham’s offering of Isaac tain ritual acts found in the Old Testament
in 2:21;
for the purpose of acquiring a standing
2:24—Here works refer to the kind
of actions mentioned in 2:15-16, 21; before God. Such “works” deny the
2:25—Works here refer to Rahab’s
adequacy of “by grace through faith” and
protecting God’s messengers; and
ultimately trust in the “works” one does
2:26—Here it refers to the works of
loving kindness, obedience, and to achieve justification.
faith mentioned in 2:15-17, 21, 25.
It is clear that, although Paul and James
are using the same terms for “works,” they
It should be noted that in 2:14-26, and
attribute different meanings to them, just
in the rest of James, “works” are always
as in the case of “faith.” These meanings
seen positively and, when described,
7
lie well within the semantic range of these established.”24 That there are allusions in
terms, but they are not identical. In fact 2:14-26 to what has preceded is obvious.
they are antithetical. As a result Paul’s Yet there does not appear to be any inti-
words in Romans 3:28 (“For we maintain mate or necessary tie between our passage
that a man is justified by faith apart from and what has preceded. Thus James 2:14-
works of the Law”) can be interpreted, 26 can be understood, for the most part,
“For we maintain that a person is justi- without the help of its context. As so
fied by a whole-hearted trust in God’s often in works of wisdom, the logical ties
grace and mercy and not by seeking to between sections are loose and play no
merit favor with God through such acts major role in understanding the meaning
as circumcision and the keeping of the of individual sections. Our present pas-
ritual law.” On the other hand, James’s sage can be understood without major
words in 2:24 (“You see that a man is jus- dependence upon the material that has
tified by works and not by faith alone”) preceded or that follows. The general
can be interpreted, “You see that a person argument against merely hearing and not
is justified by a faith that works through doing in 1:22-25 and some of the vocabu-
love and not by a sterile assent to religious lary ties with 2:1-13 help throw some light
propositions unaccompanied by works.” on the issue James deals with in 2:14-26,
but they do not play a determining role
The Context of James 2:14-26 on how to interpret our passage. Thus,
The value of the context of James 2:14- due to the constraints of space, we shall
26 for understanding this passage is proceed to the discussion of the key
debated. Some suggest that the discussion exegetical issues involved in 2:14-26.
of “faith” in 2:14-26 picks up the theme
begun in 2:1-13. “In this section St. James Key Issues Found in James 2:14-26
proceeds to enlarge on the meaning and The structure of this passage involves
nature of that faith in Jesus Christ which three sections. The first consists of 2:14-
was spoken of in ver. 1 as inconsistent 17, which begins with a question about
with prosopolempsia [personal favor- faith not having works (2:14b) and con-
itism].”22 There are several parallels cludes with a summary (2:17) about faith
between these two sections: “faith” (2:1 not having works that forms a kind of
and 14ff.); clothing (2:2 and 15); person in inclusio. The second section consists of
need (2:2 and 15-16); the expression “you 2:18-19 where James interacts with the
do well” (2:8 and 19); “called” (2:7 and 23); comments of a real or imaginary oppo-
“if a man . . .” (2:2 and 14). Ties between nent. The third section (2:20-26) is also
the present passage and chapter one introduced by a question. It likewise
include: “faith” (1:3, 6 and 2:14ff.); involves a rhetorical question based on the
“works” (1:4, 25 and 2:14ff.); the contrast fact that faith apart from works is useless.
between “hearing and doing” and “faith The section concludes again with a kind
and works” (1:22-25 and 2:14-26); concern of inclusio that faith apart from works is
for the needy (1:27 and 2:15-16).23 dead (cf. 2:20 and 26).
On the other hand, Dibelius has argued
that “A connection between this treatise Section One—2:14-17
[2:14-26] and the preceding one cannot be The first section begins with the ques-
8
tion, “What use is it…,” that introduces the most basic form of love and compas-
the following diatribe. This expression is sion, mercy and kindness.
frequently associated with a diatribe (cf. The kind of faith James claims is
1 Cor 15:32; Sirach 20:30; 41:14). The ques- unable to save is one that can see a fellow
tion assumes “before God in the last judg- Christian, i.e., a brother or sister, in such
ment” and is soteriological in nature (1:12, terrible circumstances and instead of pro-
21; 4:12; 5:20). The conditional sentence viding what is needed utters pious plati-
(“If a [person] has . . .”) need not imply tudes—“Go in peace, be warmed and
that this is a hypothetical question. It is filled.” The first of these platitudes is a
more likely that we have here an actual semitic idiom (Judg 18:6; 1 Sam 1:17; 20:42;
situation that James encountered on more 29:7; 2 Sam 15:9; Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; Acts
than one occasion. This is suggested by 16:36) that means something like, “May
the present tense of the verb “say” (lego). the Lord bless you as you go.” The latter
We have already noted the fact that James two banalities are in either the middle or
does not state that the person has faith but passive voice. There is little difference,
only says that he has faith, and that this however, as to how they are to be under-
[literally—the faith just referred to] faith stood in this sentence. They are trite and
cannot save. He is not saying that faith, in loveless wish prayers such as, “May God
the sense that both he and Paul under- provide your needs.”
stand it, cannot save, but that the faith “What use is that?” repeats exactly the
referred to in 2:14a and described in 2:15- “What use is it?” of the opening verse of
16 cannot save. our passage. The expected answer is of
In 2:15 and 16 James provides an course, “None whatsoever!” Here Paul
example of what he means by the works would be in complete agreement. The
that must accompany faith. This “is such faith described in these verses cannot
a crass example of faith without works save, because it is not a faith that “works
that the nature of any such situation through love (Gal 5:6).” The example
becomes clear to all.”25 Whether the illus- James provides in these verses brings to
tration is a real one that reflects the situa- mind Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the
tion of James or merely hypothetical is Goats. In this parable the separation of the
unclear, but this does not affect the argu- sheep to eternal life and the goats to eter-
ment. “Without clothing” need not mean nal punishment is based on their behav-
that the people described are naked and ior toward “the least of these my brethren
totally without clothing. It probably (Matt 25:40).” The sheep fed believers (the
means that they are inadequately dressed brethren) who were hungry, gave them
and may refer to their lacking the outer something to drink when thirsty, wel-
garment worn over a tunic (Matt 5:40; comed them as strangers, clothed them
Luke 6:29; John 13:4; cf. James 2:6). “Daily when naked, and visited them when sick
food” refers to the food needed for that and in prison. It should be noted that two
day. It is not the same word used in the of these actions (“feeding the hungry” and
Lord’s Prayer. The needs that James high- “clothing the naked”) are found in the
lights indicate that by “works” he is not illustration of James. Whether James was
referring here to ritual laws or what Paul aware of and even patterned his example
calls “works of law.” They refer rather to after Jesus’ parable is impossible to say.
9
The thought, however, is the same. The culties associated with these verses. In a
behavior reflected toward the least of the now famous quotation, Dibelius refers to
brethren, i.e., the believing community, is 2:18 as “one of the most difficult New Tes-
a behavior that is ultimately directed tament passages.…”27 Some of the diffi-
toward God and the Savior of these breth- culties involve: “Who is the person raising
ren (cf. Matt 10:40-42; 1 John 3:17-18). Such the question and how should we under-
behavior is a much more accurate reflec- stand the question? Is the questioner an
tion of their attitude (or “faith”) toward ally of James repeating his views or an
God than any mere confession such as opponent?” The second main question
found in 2:19. involves where James’s reply to the ques-
“Even so” introduces James conclud- tion begins. Does it begin in 2:18b, 2:19,
ing summary of this section (2:14-17). This or 2:20? There are three main alternatives
same expression is used in similar fash- regarding the identity of the questioner:
ion in 1:11; 2:26; 3:5 to draw a conclusion
from a preceding analogy or example. (1) He is a supporter of James who
attacks the idea that one can have
“Faith, if it has not works, is dead, being
faith apart from works. Thus the
by itself.” It is difficult in an English trans- “you” refers to his and James’s
opponents, and the “I” to his and
lation to indicate the article that stands
James’s views. This ally argues
before “faith.” It is clear in the Greek text,
against the suggestion that faith and
however, that James is referring specifi- works can be separated. They are
not two, acceptable alternatives.
cally to the faith noted in 2:14 and illus-
This allows the “you” and “I” to
trated in 2:15-16. “If it has no works” correspond more consistently to
parallels the exact same expression in 2:14. the opponent’s view (“you”) and
James’s and his supporter’s view
This so-called “faith” is described as
(“I”) throughout the passage. Thus
“dead.” In 2:20 such a faith is referred to we should understand 2:18 and 19
as “useless.” The reason is that it is “by as essentially James’s and his ally’s
response to their opponents.
itself.” Similar expressions for “by itself”
(2) It is a straw man James uses to
are “without works” (2:18, 20, 26) and argue (either in favor of James or in
opposition to him) that faith can (or
“alone” (2:24). The response shown in the
cannot) be separated from works.
example is so heartless and lacking of
(3) It is an opponent of James who
mercy that even the qualified approval argues that faith and works are sepa-
rate virtues or gifts. Some have faith
given in 2:19 to a demonic-like assent to a
whereas others have works. They
theological proposition is not given here! can exist separately. Just as some are
This faith is “dead.” This indicates that ordained for works (note the dea-
cons of Acts 6), others are ordained
“Works are not an ‘added extra’ any more
for prayer and ministry of the word,
than breath is an ‘added extra’ to a living i.e., faith (note the apostles of Acts
body.”26 The faith that James is describ- 6). The opponent, like Paul in 1
Corinthians 12:4ff., believes that
ing may fit the possible semantic range of
“faith” and “works [healing]” are
the word “faith” in James’s day, but it does separate gifts.
not fit what “faith” means in the context
of the Christian faith! Various arguments are given in support
of each of these positions. We shall, how-
Section Two—2:18-20 ever, due to considerations of space,
There are a number of exegetical diffi- argue only for the last of the alternatives.
10
The opening expression “But someone other. Thus one may have faith and
may well say” opens a diatribe that usu- another works. Consequently, the man
ally involves an opponent whose view is who possesses works should not con-
being stated (1 Cor 15:35; cf. also Rom 9:19; demn the man who has faith (and vice
11:19; Luke 4:23). This suggests that in 2:18 versa). To this James responds in 2:18b that
the question comes from an adversary. such a division is impossible. One cannot
Also the normal way of interpreting the have faith without works. “Show me your
“But (alla)” of 2:18 is as an adversative. It faith without the works” means “Demon-
is far more common to interpret the Greek strate to me how you can have faith
word alla as “But” than “Indeed” as the without works! I (or “a person”) can dem-
first view requires.28 The first view also onstrate to you my faith only by my (“his”
requires us to think that James is now or “her”) works!” In the whole discussion
introducing a third person into the argu- it is not the content of faith that is the
ment, whereas it seems more likely that issue, but its lack of works. This James
he is dealing with the same opponent who makes clear in his next illustration.
is now responding to what James has said “You believe that God is one.”31 This
in 2:14-17. can be understood either as a rhetorical
It is better therefore to interpret 2:18 as question or as a statement. The faith
introducing the argument of an opponent. being challenged by James centers on
Where, however, does the opponent’s the Shema, which plays an important role
argument end? It seems best to see it as in the history of God’s people.32 The faith
ending in 2:18a and to have James’s being described is essentially creedalism,
counter argument begin with “Show i.e., an intellectual assent to some propo-
me…” in 2:18b.29 These verses then should sition about the nature of God. Faith here
be understood as follows. An opponent is simply the approval of a theological
challenges what James has said in 2:14-17 statement. It does not involve belief in or
by saying, “You have faith and I have personal trust in God but belief that or a
works.” The problem with this statement belief about God. The response “You do
is that the opponent attributes to James well” indicates that the confession is both
“faith” and to himself “works,” and this correct and good. Its inadequacy becomes
view is the opposite of what James has immediately apparent, however, by the
been arguing in 2:14-17. One would next statement.
expect from the mouth of James’s antago- “The demons also believe, and shud-
nist, “You have works and I have faith.” der.” Here James describes clearly the
Here, however, the “you” and “I” should kind of faith he claims cannot save. The
be understood more like “one” and fact that such a faith cannot save is
“another” or as allos . . . allos in Greek. It self-evident. The demons, allies of Satan
must be acknowledged that the latter doomed to hell, can also claim the kind of
understanding is a weakness in the inter- faith that James’s opponents possess. They
pretation advocated.30 even possess a better “creedalism,”
The objection being raised in 2:18 is the because of their supernatural knowl-
view that faith and works can be sepa- edge!33 Their knowledge is also more
rated and isolated from each other. A per- existential than that of James’s opponents,
son supposedly can possess one or the for the demons “shudder”34 as a result
11
their knowledge. For James such a faith is father.” James is probably appealing to a
dead. Correct confession apart from common hero that he shares with his read-
works of love rises no higher than the faith ers. The question as to whether Abraham
of demons. True faith must be accompa- was justified by “works when he offered
nied by works of love. his son Isaac” expects a positive answer
from his readers. This is evident from the
Section Three—2:20-26 use of ouk. There is a clear difference
The third section of our passage, like between James’s and Paul’s use of Abra-
the first, begins with a question (cf. 2:14 ham as an example, even though both
and 20). It will also, like the first, end with appeal to the same text, Genesis 15:6.37
a summary statement (cf. 2:17 and 26). James, when he refers to Abraham’s faith,
Furthermore, just as the first section refers to his offering up of Isaac. Paul
begins with a question (“. . . if someone refers to Abraham’s faith as occurring
has faith without works can this save before his circumcision and his offering
him?”) and concludes with a parallel of Isaac (Rom 4:10-14) as he trusted in the
statement (“Even so faith, if it has no promises God made to him (Rom 4:18).
works, is dead”), so the third section also Like Paul, James refers in these verses to
begins with a question (“. . . that faith Abraham’s “justification.” Again, how-
without works is useless?) and concludes ever, as in the case of the terms “faith” and
with a parallel statement (“. . . so also “works,”38 we should not assume that
[literally – even so] faith without works James and Paul mean the same thing in
is dead).35 In the first section we find state- their understanding of the term “to jus-
ments such as “faith without works can- tify” in Genesis 15:6.39
not save” (2:14) or “faith, if it has no The terms “justification” and the
works, is dead” (2:17). In the concluding English synonym “righteousness” refer to
section such statements occur three times: the same Greek term. These terms and the
“faith without works is useless” (2:20); verb “to justify” all stem from the same
“justified by works and not by faith alone” Greek root. For Paul, this refers to the gift
(2:24); and “faith without works is dead” of righteousness based on the work of
(2:26).36 Christ that is appropriated by faith alone.
The third section begins with the ques- It is primarily a forensic or legal term
tion, “But are you willing to recognize, referring to one’s status or standing
you foolish fellow, that faith without before God. It is not primarily a word
works is useless?” Such a direct, harsh describing human virtue. Some “righ-
address is characteristic of the diatribe teous” people were in fact far from virtu-
style (cf. 1 Cor 15:36; Rom 2:1). The term ous (cf. Gen 38:26; Luke 18:14). For Paul,
“useless” is composed of the negative pre- justification comes instantaneously upon
fix “a” attached to the root “ergon” which initial faith. It is not a virtue that devel-
means “work.” The result is the adjective ops after initial faith. It is a judicial pro-
argos, e, on that appears in text as arge. Thus nouncement of innocence, not a moral
we have a pun—Faith without works” is quality of personal piety.
“workless” or “useless.” For James the adjective “righteous” and
In 2:21-24 James appeals to the example the noun “righteousness” refer primarily
of Abraham, who is referred to as “our to a moral quality. In 1:20 it refers to the
12
moral quality of life that God demands. “Was not Abraham our father justified by
In 3:18 it is used in the expression “fruit a faith that manifests itself in works of
of righteousness.” The exact meaning in love, when he offered up Isaac his son on
James of this common expression is the altar?”
unclear. 40 What is certain, however, is that Because of the use of the singular “you”
the meaning is ethical in nature and not in v. 22, James is probably addressing his
forensic.41 When compared to Pauline opponent of 2:19-20. “You see” in v. 22 can
usage (cf. Rom 1:17; 3:10; Gal 3:11), it is be understood in the sense of “You are
clear that the adjective “righteous” in 5:6 able to see with your eyes through the
and 16 bears an ethical and moral mean- example of Abraham.…” This would
ing rather than a forensic one. mean that the verb “justified” should be
In 2:21, 24, and 25 the verb “justify” and interpreted as demonstrative in nature,
in 2:23 the noun “righteousness,” how- i.e., Abraham’s justification was demon-
ever, must be interpreted in light of “Can strated or shown by his visible works, i.e.,
that faith save him?” of 2:14. Thus “being the works “you see.” The offering of Isaac
justified” and “being reckoned righ- serves as an example of 2:18 in that Abra-
teous”42 are the equivalent of “being ham shows his faith, which brought him
saved.” They do not refer to the moral justification, by this work. More likely,
virtue of Abraham and Rahab but the sal- however, “You see” should be interpreted
vation and righteous standing God has as in 2:24, “You can see logically as a
attributed to them in light of their work- result that. . . .” This meaning fits the
ing faith. The forensic nature of these context of James 2:14-26 better in that the
expressions is seen in the passive nature basic issue involves, “What kind of faith
of the verb in 2:21, 24, and 25 (they are secures righteousness?”43 The difference
“divine” passives) and the term “reck- between Paul and James in their use of
oned” in the quotation found in 2:23. the term “to justify” involves the tempo-
We have already shown that James is ral dimension envisioned. Paul refers to
arguing against a view of faith that the initial, proleptic pronouncement of
involves merely mental assent. Such a God’s judicial verdict upon faith. James
faith will not save (2:14). In fact, it is not is referring to the verdict in the final day
faith in the Christian sense at all. True, when a person stands before God. In that
saving faith is accompanied by works, day Abraham’s faith would be demon-
which are the fruit of faith. When James strated by his life of obedience and love.
refers to “works,” he is clearly not refer- James has more in mind what Paul says
ring to “works of law.” He is also not in Romans where he states concerning the
referring to deeds of mercy and love iso- righteous judgment of God that he
lated from faith. The works that he refers
to are always associated with faith in the . . . will render to each person accord-
ing to his deeds: to those who by per-
Lord Jesus Christ (2:1). Thus “by works”
severance in doing good seek for
in 2:21-22 should be understood as “by a glory and honor and immortality,
eternal life; but to those who are self-
faith that works through love and obedi-
ishly ambitious and do not obey the
ence (cf. Gal 5:6)!” There is no thought
truth, but obey unrighteousness,
here of “works of law.” We can therefore wrath and indignation. There will be
tribulation and distress for every
translate 2:21 by the following paraphrase,
soul of man who does evil, of the Jew
13