Download discussion questions: James 2:14-26
This week’s passage “comes closer than anywhere else in the epistles to directly contradicting Paul.”[1] “This paragraph is the most theologically significant, as well as the most controversial, in the letter of James.”[2]
James 2 can be misunderstood by sincere Christians. The verses can be intentionally misapplied by cults. With those factors as a starting point, the discussion in our group was certain to be interesting!
Observation – Faith & Works
Reading this passage makes James’ concern immediately clear as our group’s initial observations show.
- The word “faith” occurs eleven times (vv. 14 [2x], 17, 18 [3x], 20, 22 [2x], 24, 26), plus three instances of “believe,” the verb form of the noun faith.
- The word “works” occurs twelve times (vv. 14, 17,18 [3x], 20, 21, 22 [2x], 24, 25, 26), along with several illustrations (hypothetical and historical) of what “works” look like.
James also uses several descriptions for faith with or without works:
- Faith without works is “dead” (vv. 17, 26) and “useless” (v. 20).
- Faith with works can be “shown” (v. 18), it is “active” (v. 22), “completed” (v. 22), “fulfills” Scripture (v. 23), it demonstrates justifying faith (vv. 23, 25), and confirms “friendship” with God (v. 23).
Contradiction, Conflict, or Complement?
Evangelical Christians believe that God’s saving work is based on sincere faith. Some cult leaders insist that certain works are required, often in an attempt to control followers. Clearly a correct understanding of the relationship between faith and works is critical to identify and follow the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles in the New Testament.
Some critics would point to a contradiction between the teaching of James on works in this passage and the words of Paul, especially in Romans and Galatians. Even some Christians would see a need to choose which side of a perceived conflict to emphasize, faith or works. But it is also possible that the teachings of these two pillars of the church actually complement each other. Then the questions become, “How do such different sounding approaches complement other? How do they harmonize for a richer appreciation of our relationship with God?”
Our group went directly to the heart of the controversy, a comparison of James 2:24 with Romans 3:28, what one writer calls “… the lightning rod in the theological controversy….”[3]
James 2:24 A person is justified by works and not by faith alone
Romans 3:28 A person is justified by faith and not by works of the law
Someone in our group pointed out that the apparent conflict or even contradiction hinges on definitions, particularly on the definition of “justified.” The precise meanings of “works” and “faith” would also be essential to a clear idea of what each writer was saying (and what he was not saying).
Being blessed with millennia of church history and theological insight, the mention of “justified” in a Biblical context takes us to our justification, our right-standing before God, based on the work of Jesus. His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension “justify” hopeless sinners, making us righteous in the eyes of Holy God.
The questions become, “Was that what James had in mind? Was James reacting to what Paul had said and intentionally correcting the teaching, even contradicting it?”
We discussed the fact that the word “justify” has a general, non-theological meaning: to be proven right, to be shown to be doing the right thing. One person suggested “squared up,” like printing that is justified on the page. Was James’ intention more along those meanings of the word? At least three considerations are important for understanding the theology of Paul and James: the dates of their writings, the audience they wrote to, and the intention they had in mind in writing.
Dates
The following dates are generally accepted for the origin of the letters in question:
- AD50 – James
- AD55 – Galatians
- AD57 – Romans[4]
Some scholars would attribute an even earlier date to the letter of James, but the implication is the same:
“If … James was written in the mid-40s, then he of course could not know about Paul’s teaching from his letters.”[5]
The caricature of James reading Paul’s words in Romans and then reacting with his letter is clearly a fantasy of those who are desperate to discredit the New Testament.
Once again, this raises the question of the meaning of the language James uses:
“We must not assume that James, writing before Paul, uses the word [‘justify’] in the same way.”[6]
Audience
Paul and James were writing to different groups. Paul was writing to churches with at least mixed members, some from Jewish backgrounds, but many, even a majority, from pagan belief systems. He was especially concerned about the influence of Jewish Christians on their new brothers from paganism. A lifetime lived under the law could and did affect the understanding that new Christians would try to live by.
James, on the other hand, was writing to churches in the dispersion (James 1:1), probably mostly believers from a Jewish background. Their understanding of works, probably shaped by the legalism of the Pharisees, would have been slanted toward rule-keeping.
“The two writers are discussing totally different subjects. Paul is justifying the reception of gentiles into the church without circumcision … whereas James is discussing the problem of the failure of works of charity within the church (which may be totally Jewish).”[7]
Intention
With two such different target audiences, it is easy to see that Paul and James would have different reasons for writing.
“They give the appearance of a conflict because they are writing from very different vantage points in order to combat very different problems.”[8]
Paul wanted to be sure all Christians (regardless of background) understood that keeping the law had no part in salvation by grace. Ceremonial works of circumcision and restrictions on food and fellowship were not part of the new covenant. James wanted to ensure that Christians, especially from a Jewish heritage, understood the new faith in Jesus was more than affirming facts about God.
“Paul speaks of Christian faith (trust in Jesus) and Jewish works (obeying the law so as to justify oneself), whereas James refers to Jewish faith (pure monotheism) and Christian works (good deeds that flow from salvation).”[9]
Harmony
This better understanding of the writings of James and Paul brings us back to the “lightening rod”:
James 2:24 A person is justified by works and not by faith alone
Romans 3:28 A person is justified by faith and not by works of the law
Paul is passionately affirming that our right standing before God is by faith and that the works prescribed in the Law of Moses are not required. James is equally passionate about the importance of a genuine faith, not dead, useless faith alone, faith with no substance to it. The daring actions of Abraham and Rahab demonstrated the depth of their faith. Likewise, our works “show” (v. 18) the quality of our faith.
The comment by James about the belief of demons (v. 19) clearly defines the hollow faith he distrusts. That comment also differentiates that empty, useless faith from the true belief Paul describes.
“He is indicating something far different from the Pauline concept of faith and thus not addressing the Pauline doctrine at all.”[10]
No one would accept the idea that Paul’s idea of faith included the beliefs held by demons.
“Thus one cannot have ‘workless’ doctrine, because that leaves one salvifically in the same position as the demons!”[11]
Wordplay
Several writers point out a wordplay in verse 20 that is more evident in Greek than in most English translations. That phrasing provides a pithy summary of James’ view of faith and works:
“The Greek word for ‘deeds’ is erga, whereas the word for ‘useless’ is argos, literally ‘not working’…. Faith that does not ‘work,’ James is saying, ‘does not work.’”[12]
In other words, “Faith that does not work does not work.”
Judgment?
One member of our group brought up a practical question. Is this passage a basis for judging others or ourselves? Does James impose a new level of legalism under the guise of grace? How much is enough? When do I know I have met the standard of works that James has set?
Those kinds of questions are the misunderstandings that can sidetrack believers from the true message of James and of Paul. Wrong answers to those kinds of questions can enable leaders to exercise unhealthy (and unbiblical) control of followers. Careful, methodical, inductive study is always important. Difficult or confusing passages require even more careful digging.
Someone else pointed out the context of this passage, and another noted how often this passage is preached without including that context. In the previous passages (James 1:19-27, James:2:1-13) James has described the law he has in mind as the “royal law” (2:8), the “law of liberty” (1:25; 2:12), the “perfect law” (1:25). He concludes the previous paragraph emphasizing mercy (2:13). One group member pointed to the next passage and the clear statement that James understood that “we all stumble in many ways” (3:2).
Another person pointed out that reading James can actually be encouraging and hope-giving. Seeing what God is doing in our lives, prompting us to love others better and more practically, can reinforce our faith. As the passage says, works “complete” or “perfect” our faith, or make it whole.
“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.”[13]
Just as trials in James 1:2, expressions of our faith provide opportunities for authenticating our beliefs.
Abraham and Rahab
The historical examples that James chooses reinforce the encouraging aspect of his emphasis on works growing out of faith. It is difficult to imagine two more different characters to use as examples.
Our discussion pointed out that Abraham was the father of the Jewish nation, the one God called out of all mankind to become a blessing to the world. He is the one who had directly encountered God and received the mark of circumcision, the sign of God’s special covenant people. Rahab was a prostitute, a gentile. She only knew of the God of Israel by rumors, decades after the facts.
“Rahab differs in almost every way from Abraham…. Both of these OT characters became exemplars of faith because of their deeds.”[14]
Both are commended for their faith. Both demonstrated that faith by incredibly hazardous works. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his long-awaited heir. Rahab committed treason against her country. Each demonstrated that no matter one’s background or station in life, faith is expressed by action, by works.
“Anyone is capable of acting on his or her faith – whether a patriarch or a prostitute.”[15]
[1] Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 130.
[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 118,
[3] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 140
[4] https://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html retrieved December 12, 2019
[5] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 121.
[6] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 134.
[7] Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 131.
[8] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 121.
[9] Craig L. Blomberg, Mariam J. Kamell, James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008),, 139, quoting Joachim Jeramias, footnote 74.
[10] Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982),, 125.
[11] Craig L. Blomberg, Mariam J. Kamell, James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008), 135.
[12] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 132.
[13] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 120.
[14] Craig L. Blomberg, Mariam J. Kamell, James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008), 140, original emphasis.
[15] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 143.