Untitled Sermon (3)
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
The use of the verb claim (lit. “says”) suggests at the outset that James questions the reality of the faith.
James’s second rhetorical question is put in a form showing that it expects the answer “no” (the Greek particle mē signifies this); in sense, then, it is tantamount to an assertion: “That kind of faith can’t save anyone” (NLT).
What James is contesting, then, is that the particular faith he has just mentioned can save. This faith is what a “man” who does not have works claims to have. James’s main point is that this “faith” is, in biblical terms, no faith at all.
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
James leaves us in no doubt about the theme of this paragraph, announced three separate times in the course of the argument:
• faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (v. 17)
• faith without deeds is useless (v. 20)
• faith without deeds is dead (v. 26)
In what way is such faith “dead”? In the sense t
James leaves us in no doubt about the theme of this paragraph, announced three separate times in the course of the argument:
• faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (v. 17)
• faith without deeds is useless (v. 20)
• faith without deeds is dead (v. 26)
God. James, in a sense, proposes for us in these verses a “test” by which we determine the genuineness of faith: deeds of obedience to the will of God.
As the example of vv. 15–16 reveals, believers’ treatment of poor people is still very much in James’s mind.
And so 2:14–26 adds a necessary corrective: “true religion” begins with faith—but a faith that works.
If, as we argued in the Introduction, James was written in the mid-40s, then he of course could not know about Paul’s teaching from his letters; and it is even unlikely that he would be acquainted with his teaching directly from other sources.
When we add to this the fact that James’s polemic does not really touch the basic Pauline perspective, the scenario that makes best sense is to think that he is writing to oppose a misunderstood form of Paul’s teaching.
James’s unique questions about the usefulness of inactive faith and the vitality of such faith were particularly his own.
A1 (verses 15–17)
(a) Spurious faith is ineffectual manward: the hungry are sent away unfed (15–16).
(b) Summary statement (17): faith, lacking evidential work, is dead.
B1 (18–20)
(a) Spurious faith is ineffectual godward: it gives no peace with God, for demons have faith of a sort but it leaves them in terror (18–19).
(b) Summary statement (20): faith, separated from the works which validate it, is barren.
B2 (21–24)
(a) Genuine faith is effectual godward: like Abraham’s faith, it shows itself in works of obedience to the will of God (21–23).
(b) Summary statement: works of obedience provide evidence that faith is true, justifying faith (24).
A2 (25–26)
(a) Genuine faith reaches out in costly compassion to people at risk (25).
(b) Summary statement (26): it is the activity of ‘works’ that reveals faith as a living entity.
It is very important to ask what James is assuming about his readers. Unless they are accustomed to say ‘Salvation is by faith’ there is no point in James approaching them in this way.
After all, in verse 17 it is faith which possesses (has) works; in verse 22 (see further, below) it is faith which is the dominant partner in its colleague-relationship with works. We must say, therefore, not ‘faith and works’, but faith productive of works.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
The “good” or “benefit” of faith without works in the first question becomes salvation in the second.
James makes clear that the illustration of vv. 15–16 applies to the first question he raises by repeating at the end of v. 16 the same question with which v. 14 began: “What good is it?”
Nevertheless, the fact that James again chooses an example of mistreatment of the poor in the Christian community makes clear that the illustration represents a pattern of behavior that is all too typical for James’s readers.
This is living faith, for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead (26).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
James put the insensitive, inactive believer on the side of the unjust, unrighteous rich who have neither mercy nor compassion.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
James called this “faith by itself,”46 meaning mere profession of religious belief apart from merciful acts
Ambiguous faith is part of the problem James was confronting. Double-mindedness and self-deception among believers is a state of religious lukewarmness at best.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
The claim of faith is empty where there is no action, and thus no proof of faith is possible.
An altar, knife and fire, the precious Isaac, a victim—and, by a clear implication of what we heard him say to his servants, there is an expectation that God would reconstitute the burnt body and restore the boy to life. This is indeed faith!
What was the work of Rahab? She reached out and took into her own care those who were needy and helpless, regardless of the cost to herself.
It is the life of active consecration seen in the obedience which holds nothing back from God, and the concern which holds nothing back from human need.
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Faith is always active, either producing good deeds in agreement with God or in producing evil deeds in deceptive contradiction of him.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Of course the difference of perspective between Paul and James rests in this: 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.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
does
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
Likewise, says James, faith is useful when joined to works, but alone it is just dead, totally useless. Dead orthodoxy has absolutely no power to save and may in fact even hinder the person from coming to living faith, a faith enlivened by works of charity (i.e. acts of love and goodness).*
The examples in 2:15–16 and 2:21ff. will show that the works being considered are not those of the ritual law, which were the works Paul opposed, but the merciful deeds of charity that 2:13 has already suggested (cf. van Unnik, 984ff.).
A “faith” which is purely doctrinal and does not result in pious action (i.e. charity) is a dead sham, totally useless for salvation.
At this point the author introduces an example of what faith without works is, an example so self-evident that it is virtually a parable (Ropes, 206; Mussner, 131; Dibelius, 152–153).
The response to this need is also hypothetical (εἴπῃ), yet it is calculated to shock the reader.
The example was crass and would have shocked many pagans, let alone people accustomed to the OT prophets and the application of the laws of charity in late Judaism.
Works are not an “added extra” any more than breath is an “added extra” to a living body. The so-called faith which fails to produce works (the works to be produced are charity, not the “works of the law” such as circumcision against which Paul inveighs) is simply not “saving faith.”
He is further correct in pointing out that James does not argue for faith instead of works or works instead of faith or even works above faith, but for faith and works. Both are important and must equally be present or else the other alone is “worthless,” just as body and spirit are each “worthless” when separated from one another.
The passage, then, introduces an objection. The gist of the objection is that faith and works need not be connected, that charity and faith are separate spiritual gifts (the works here are the same as those in 2:14–17—not the Pauline works of the ceremonial law, but the works of charity assumed in the teaching of Jesus and the early church).
Again the author uses the conversational device of addressing an imaginary opponent. Significantly he indicates an intellectual commitment on his interlocutor’s part to a creed (πιστεύεις ὅτι) rather than the distinctively Christian personal trust and commitment which would include obedience (πιστεύεις plus dative, ἐν, or εἰς; cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT VI, 210–212).
The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless.*
The idea, then, is that work-less faith is sterile or useless (cf. BAG, 104); it will not produce the hoped-for salvation, but is totally without result.
These data mean that neither the works which James cites nor the justification which results are related to Paul. Rather, the works are deeds of mercy (which therefore fit with the opening verses of this section) and the ἐδικαιώθη refers not to a forensic act in which a sinner is declared acquitted (as in Paul), but to a declaration by God that a person is righteous, ṣaddı̂q (which is the implication of the “Now I know” formula of 22:12; cf. Is. 5:23; Gerhardsson, 27; Dibelius, 162).
His faith was not just “saying,” but “saying and doing.”
Here, then, is a balanced statement. James wishes to reject neither faith nor works. Both are individually important. Yet for the person to receive God’s declaration that he is righteous (2:21 presents the goal in ἐδικαιώθη) they must mix together. Faith assists works, works perfect faith (notice that perfecting, as in 1:4, 15, not completing, is in view).
Thus this verse not only leads the discussion forward, but also unifies the two themes of the Abraham tradition: Abraham’s faith and his works are complementary.
The example, then, ended with the preceding verse: this present verse is a general conclusion, the point of the whole argument.
All one need posit is that some were saying, “We believe; don’t bother us further, especially about charity,” or that the church was trying to court the wealthy by excusing them from works. The following exegesis works out this point of view (cf. Burchard, “Jakobus”).
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action. Here
does
God is pleased only when confessed faith leads to action.
Thus H. Chadwick is probably right in claiming that both these works draw on a common Jewish tradition which cited these heroes as examples of charity (namely, hospitality; cf. Chadwick, 281). This is another clue as to the unity of this section, its theme of charity, and its dependence on Jewish tradition.*
Believers must of necessity demonstrate their faith by doing what God requires, not to secure salvation but to avoid the grave dangers of distorting the Word of God or damaging the lives of other believers and needy persons to whom they have been called to minister.