James 2

Favoritism Forbidden
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here's a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Explanation:
Favoritism Contradicts Faith

As James states the basic instruction of this paragraph in 2:1, the imperative is, literally, "Do not have [or hold] the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ." The idea of favoritism comes in a prepositional phrase preceding and qualifying the imperative verb: "in [or with] favoritism." The structure implies a contradiction between faith and favoritism: "Do not hold faith in Christ with partiality toward persons." It is a common problem for us, a prevalent form of "being polluted by the world." To help us with this, James mentions in 2:1 three factors that call us away from favoritism and into a life of faith. He will elaborate on the implications in the subsequent verses. Who We Are: "Brothers"

James begins with his previously used term of address, my brothers. The earnestness of the whole letter should lead us to expect that this address is more than an unintentional habit. The "high position" that his readers hold specifically as "brothers" is already on James's mind in 1:9-11; it is a high position even if they are in humble circumstances. So they do well to persevere even under the trial of poverty, because when they have "stood the test" they will receive "the crown of life" (1:12). What is being tested? Their faith, according to 1:3. Their sense of identity, then, should be in their position as people of faith rather than in their status as people of wealth or poverty.

In 1:9-11 James has thus applied faith to self-image. Now he applies faith to Christians' treatment of others. The term brothers is a reminder of the high position they already have on the basis of faith. If they were to show partiality toward certain people because they are rich, these Christians would be acting as if high position came by wealth instead of faith. In that sense, favoritism is a clear contradiction of faith.

James elaborates on this fact of our faith-brotherhood with an illustration of favoritism in 2:2-4. His term for favoritism is plural in 2:1, implying "acts of partiality" to include the variety of ways in which favoritism could be shown (Hiebert 1979:147). The specific example now cited does not appear to be written in the manner of Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians, addressing actual events in the church. Judging from James's conditional phrasing ("for if") and from the drawing of exact contrasts in the style of the narrative, he is presenting a theoretical occurrence.

However, even in choosing a hypothetical situation, James does reveal facts of the early Christians' cultural setting. We have found it to be the frequent lot of James's readers to be in economic hardship, even poverty, because of persecution. (See commentary on 1:9 and the appendix on the identity of the rich in James.) Now we find, though, that it was not out of the question for rich people to be found in the gatherings of Christians. The possibility of preferential treatment toward the rich was a realistic issue for James to address.

Two questions have intrigued students of this passage. What is the hypothetical meeting in view, and what is the reason for the rich and poor persons' presence? The traditional understanding has been that the meeting is a gathering for worship. Since the rich and poor individuals seem to be unfamiliar with procedures, they would be visitors who are either interested non-Christian observers or new converts to be instructed in the Christian faith. A second and more recently advocated possibility is that the meeting is a judicial assembly of the church, and that the rich and poor individuals are both members of the believing community who are involved in a dispute to be adjudicated.

The attractiveness of the first alternative is that it seems a natural understanding of the scene and of the term James uses for "meeting"--synagoge. The term synagogue would be a recognizable term for a place of worship, and even later Christian writers in the first and second centuries used the term to refer to Christian gatherings. Far more common in the New Testament, though, is the term ekklesia, which James himself uses in 5:14. In fact, 2:2 is the only New Testament use of the term synagogue for a Christian assembly, which has led some to question why James would have used the term here. Perhaps he had in mind a Jewish synagogue with Jews and Jewish Christians still worshiping together as in the early chapters of Acts, but James's description indicates a Christian ownership of and authority over this assembly.

In 1969, R. B. Ward argued that James is describing a judicial assembly rather than a worship service. This is certainly a possible use of synagogue. There are two major arguments in favor of this alternative. First, it makes the subsequent references to judges and courts (2:4; 2:6) more consistent with the context. Second, it rather neatly resolves the questions some have had about this illustration in a worship setting. Why would Christians coming to worship need to be told where to stand or sit? Or if they are non-Christians, why would James cite the unlikely event of a wealthy non-Christian visiting a church? Why would some stand and others be seated? In Ward's judicial setting, procedures of standing or sitting might well be unfamiliar to the participants, and clothing might be a factor that would unfairly impress the judges.

The case for the judicial setting of James's illustration is intriguing but not conclusive. Why wouldn't a worship setting be a proper context for concern over seating and posture? In Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector who were praying in the temple (Lk 18:9-14), where and how one stood were choices made with strong moral implications. Especially if the rich and poor persons were new converts, they could have experienced uncertainty about the matters raised in James's illustration. In addition, making the reference to judges in 2:4 consistent with the context is attractive, but it is not necessary to the logical flow of thought. James could simply be using the term for "judge" (krites) as a figure, drawing upon the primary message in the verb discriminated (diekrithete), which is directed more broadly to the community of Christians: you have discriminated among yourselves.

An additional source of insight into James's thinking may be found in comparison with the Lord's Sermon on the Mount. Because of James's emphasis on judging, the obvious place to begin looking is Matthew 7:1, where followers of Christ are commanded not to judge (krino). Except for James's omission of Jesus' emphasis on asking and believing (which James included in 1:5-8 and which does not really fit his primary purpose in this section), the parallels between the two passages are extensive.

Christ's teaching recorded in Luke 6:37-49 follows a similar order, with some sections omitted but with one notable addition in verses39-40. The emphasis there is on getting rid of one's own blindness in order to be able to teach others. It fits into the same place as Matthew 7:3-5 and James 2:2-4 in the scheme outlined above, and it is immediately followed by Luke's parallel to Matthew 7:3-5. If Christ's teaching recorded in Matthew 7 and Luke 6 is the background for James2, it is a clue that in the illustration of 2:2-4 James is thinking of the rich and poor individuals as ones who come needing to be instructed in some way. James's illustration fits the pattern in Matthew 7 and Luke 6 if the favoritism is seen as disqualifying the Christian community from being able to instruct the ones who come into the assembly.

Overall, these considerations seem to indicate more strongly the setting of a Christian assembly for worship and instruction, with the rich and poor persons coming as recent converts needing to be taught. It would then provide a picture of the early church as a consciously teaching community. However, the judicial setting, in which the rich and poor men would be coming with complaints to be settled, is not impossible. The passage would then be an early portrait of church discipline, with its proper focus on instructing rather than punishing. What should be foremost for us, however, is that in either case what James has in mind is much weightier than merely how our modern church ushers escort visitors to their seats. The passage calls us to consistent love, not just polite ushering. People of low income are to be fully welcomed into the life of the church. The passage calls us to be blind to economic differences in how we offer our ministries. The poor person is as worthy of our discipling and pastoral care and love as the person who has the means to rescue our church from its budget crisis.

Either understanding of the setting for 2:2-4 provides some cultural information about the dispersed church. Persecution and scattering did not cause the Christians to meet hesitantly and fearfully. They were holding organized assemblies with deliberate instruction or discipline. Although Christians were commonly persecuted by the rich, evidently the gospel was spreading among rich as well as poor people, or else it would be unrealistic for James to suppose a rich person would be present at either the worship or the judicial assembly. Christians were encountering the moral issue of discrimination, and they were struggling with the relationship between rich and poor.

It is on this point that James draws his conclusion in 2:4 to show that favoritism contradicts faith. The verb translated "discriminated" has already been used in 1:6, there translated "doubt" but also used in contrast to faith. Note the parallel between the two passages:

1:6Ask for wisdom in faith, not doubting.tx2:1, 4Hold faith in Christ, not discriminating.tx

The common idea between the two instances of the verb is that of division, which is the essence of judgment. Doubters asking for wisdom are divided internally, because they hold doubts at odds with faith. Christians who practice favoritism are divided relationally, because they hold materialistic values at odds with faith. Doubters are discriminating, or making a judgment, whether God will or will not give what is needed; Christians who practice favoritism are discriminating, or making a judgment, between the value of the rich person and the value of the poor person. The corrective for both is to be single-minded, not divided, in faith. Who Christ Is: "Glorious Lord"
For the second element in 2:1, James reminds them of the one in whom their faith resides: our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. The phrase has been a point of controversy in the study of this epistle; some have argued that it is a later addition to the original text. Expunging such references to Christ from the text is part of some scholars' portrayal of the remainder of the letter as a Jewish work written in pre-Christian time and later adapted for the Christian community. The theory is advanced on the basis of the unusual structure of the phrase our glorious Lord Jesus Christ as a genitive phrase modifying faith. However, the awkwardness of the structure can be used just as well as an argument against a deliberate interpolation, and the extremely speculative nature of the theory must be faced. In the absence of any textual evidence, there is no real reason to reject this affirmation of Christ as Lord.

Coming from Jesus' own brother James, this is a strong confession of faith. It reflects a high Christology, even if James's concern here is only to declare the doctrine, not to develop it in detail.

There remains an interpretive question regarding the term glory in the genitive case coming at the very end of James's sentence in 2:1. Does it modify faith (as "the glorious faith" or "faith in the glory of")? Does it modify Lord (as "the Lord of glory") as chosen in the KJV, LB and RSV? Does it stand in apposition to Jesus Christ (as "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory" or "the Lord Jesus Christ our Glory")? Or does it describe our Lord Jesus Christ (in the sense of "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ")? This last option seems the most natural and least forced of the readings, and it is the one chosen in the NIV and NASB.

In any of these options, the contradiction between faith and favoritism is strong. Even if glory modifies faith, the faith is made glorious because of the object of faith--our Lord Jesus Christ. James sees clearly how a partiality toward people because of their wealth treats their wealth as more valuable than Christ. It is unthinkable that this should be tolerated in the lives of people who are believers (ones who "have faith") in the glory of Christ. What We Have: "Faith"

The third element in 2:1 is "faith," unfortunately obscured in the NIV as believers. Again, the heart of James's plea in this passage is the complete contradiction between faith and favoritism. When he elaborates in 2:5-7, his argument is the utter disparity of value between faith and wealth. That is why he is moved to adopt the phrase rich in faith--meaning that faith is the wealth of true value. It becomes unthinkable then that believers, of all people, should insult the poor and favor the rich. If they do, they are acting as if they do not know the value of faith.

The details in 2:5-7 explain his argument. First, James writes with a sharp contrast between the rich (plousioi) and the poor (ptochoi). James would surely remember Jesus' warning of how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom; it astonished the disciples when he said it (Mt 19:23-25). Why would wealth have this effect? The implication in James 1:10-11 is that wealth leads one to become poor in faith because it gives one a false sense of security. James's assertion in 2:5 makes sense in this context, with no need to read it as a theological statement that God eternally elects all poor people because they are poor. Rather, James is observing that God does choose many poor people to be rich in faith and so to inherit the kingdom. He probably has in mind the teaching of Jesus (as in Lk 6:20), the Old Testament tradition of God's care for the poor (as in Deut 10:18) and the prevalent economic situation of his readers. The fact that James could speak so broadly of God's choosing of the poor of the world to be rich in faith is evidence that poverty was the common economic status of believers. Probably many Christians had lost wealth because of the persecution, and probably the gospel was spreading especially among the poor.

Second, the value of faith is placed in uncompromised opposition to the value of riches by the transferring of the very term plousioi to the believing poor. They are the ones who are truly rich, by being rich in faith. This phrase refers not to an abundant quantity of faith (as if that were their wealth instead of the kingdom) but to the value of faith, as confirmed by the parallel in 1 Peter 1:7. With faith set grammatically in contrast to the world, this is a denial that the world's material wealth constitutes true riches at all. There is even a disclosure of what constitutes the enormous wealth and investments of the poor: they inherit the kingdom!

Third, James provides some detail of how rich unbelievers are treating Christians. He reminds his readers of three common offenses against them, and each one has particular significance for people of faith.

1. The rich are exploiting (oppressing or dominating) them. This verb katadynasteuo occurs only one other time in the New Testament, in Peter's message to Cornelius's household recorded in Acts 10. That message begins with Peter's affirmation that God does not show "favoritism" (Acts 10:34), for Christ came to deliver all who were oppressed or dominated by the devil. God's impartiality is binding on Peter, who therefore realizes that he must accept Gentile believers as brothers. Here James is showing the complementary side of the same principle. To show favoritism toward the rich is to join sides with those who perpetuate oppression. Davids puts it this strongly: "They have, in effect, sided with the devil against God" (1982:112).

2. The rich are dragging them into court. The exploitation of the poor is being carried out even through formal legal action against them. The verb here is properly translated "dragging" to convey the forcible tone. It is not a polite settling of disputes that is occurring, but a harsh treatment. In response, James does not urge revenge by the Christians when a rich person appears in their assembly. But he does expose the senselessness of favoring the rich, as if their wealth made them more valuable in the kingdom. It should be obvious from their treatment of Christians that it is not so.

3. The rich are blaspheming the name of Christ. Their treatment of Christians is religious persecution; that is, harsh treatment is directed at the Christians explicitly because they bear the name of Christ. This is implied in the concluding words of 2:7, where the rich are said to be blaspheming the name that, literally translated, "has been called upon you." The modifier for name is stronger than agathos "good"; it is kalos "noble, beautiful, excellent." Bearing this name implied a relationship; hence the NIV's rendering of him to whom you belong. Therefore "abuse of Christians is abuse also of the name they bear" (Laws 1980:106). The rich are treating that noble name of Christ as worthy of contempt upon those who bear it. If Christians now practice favoritism, they are agreeing!
James has written about the integrity of faith; there are things Christians must do because of what they believe.

This was capsulized in 1:22, "Do what [the word] says." Now, by applying that principle specifically to economic impartiality, James calls the church to a lifestyle and a mission that confront economic prejudice. Martin calls this passage James's announcement of his commitment to a "theology of justice" (1988:73).

For the church today confronted with this message, the role of material wealth becomes a major spiritual issue. It demands address within the church (with pointed sermons and thorough courses of instruction) as well as action by the church (in a lifestyle and outreach that abhor economic favoritism). The need for confrontation is urgent; "you cannot serve both God and Money" (Mt 6:24). James makes clear that integrity of faith places Christians in opposition to the roles that money, across the centuries, has played in human society. An application of James 2:17 in the church's preaching and practice will confront these roles of money.

1. James confronts the role of money as status. He employs the phrase our glorious Lord Jesus Christ deliberately at the beginning of this passage. It places before our eyes the standard that should control our response to people. We are not to respond to the glory of people's wealth or dress, for this relative glory is exposed as insignificant compared to Christ's glory. Churches and parachurch organizations that are informed by the message of James will preach the glory of Christ, will be enamored of the glory of Christ and will therefore not be impressed by wealth. We will not pander to those with money. In selecting people for positions of leadership, we will look for godliness and spiritual gifts instead of bank accounts.

2. James confronts the role of money as value. He exposes the destructiveness of wealth. According to his description, money has the power to make us exploitative, abusive and blasphemous. We must accept this as a warning that the more wealth we accumulate, the more likely we are to fall into these sins. Far from being valuable, material wealth is actually dangerous! No wonder that it is so hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Christians taking heed to James's warning will be all the more watchful for signs of these dangers in themselves. We will be watchful to repent of exploitative actions, abusive thoughts and attitudes toward people poorer than we, and blasphemous religious talk and jokes.

In this there are also important implications for the church's mission. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom? We have already assessed this statement in 2:5 to be an observation of common fact, based on Scripture and actual circumstances, rather than a theology of preferential eternal election. It would be a distortion of the text to conclude that God loves the rich less than he loves the poor, or that the poor are less in need of Christ's atoning work than the rich. The very foundation of the passage is that God does not show partiality. However, as a matter of mission strategy, if wealth does hinder people's receptivity to the gospel, and if God does commonly choose poor people to inherit the kingdom, then the church should invest heavily in evangelism toward the poorer levels of society.

Donald A. McGavran's thesis pushes today's church on this matter. "Missions from the wealthy West usually overlook the Bible at this point. Missionaries customarily place a high value on the educated, the wealthy, the cultured--in a word, the middle and upper classes" (1980:281). Instead, if we truly want to save as many lives as possible, McGavran urges a focus on the masses by the strategy of "winning the winnable" (1980:291).

3. James confronts the role of money as power. It is not that he denies the power of wealth. On the contrary, he sees quite clearly that it powerfully endangers people's spiritual end (1:10-11) and that it empowers people to abuse others and to blaspheme the Lord (2:6-7). The church must not take lightly the power of wealth. Jacques Ellul warns that money in the biblical view is not a neutral object but rather a power "that acts by itself, is capable of moving other things, is autonomous (or claims to be), is a law unto itself, and presents itself as an active agent.

. . . It is oriented; it also orients people" (1984:75-76). So he concludes, "We absolutely must not minimize the parallel Jesus draws between God and Mammon" (1984:76). The church, then, must confront and oppose this dangerous power of wealth explicitly and urgently.

James has fixed a spotlight on the dangerous role of wealth. Christians who seriously desire to be doers of this word will be all the more earnest in practicing the law that is higher than the law of economic power. The law of economic power enables people to practice exploitation and abuse and blasphemy. We who are people of faith will adhere passionately to another law: the royal law, which commands impartial, unconditional love.

Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Explanation:
James's Central Concern: Faith That Works

The works James requires are not done apart from faith but done in faith, not done instead of faith but done because of faith. Faith is the underlying stance of Christian life; deeds are the way of life; becoming mature and complete is the goal of Christian life. James cannot be charged with opposing deeds to faith, since he does not say, "I will show you deeds instead of faith." Rather, he contends for a showing of both faith and deeds: I will show you my faith by what I do. He does not object to faith; he objects only to faith not accompanied by action. Simply stated, he wants Christians to have faith that works.

James's logical argument in 2:14-18 can be outlined in four parts, so that conclusions can be drawn about his meaning. Rhetorical Questions About Faith Without Deeds (2:14)

The two rhetorical questions about faith without deeds are (1) "What good is it?" (answer: none) and (2) "Can it save?" (answer: no). The first question implies a general lack of any usefulness for a faith without actions. The second question specifies a particular use that is lacking--salvation itself. The combined impact is to declare a thorough uselessness of faith without deeds and, to make it absolutely clear, also to declare its particular uselessness in regard to salvation, which would be the primary point of having faith in the first place. "In a Christian context such as this, . . . the `use' takes on serious consequences, for it is salvation which is at stake" (Davids 1982:120). In the subsequent example in 2:15-16, there is no "good" for the needy person who receives no help. Here in 2:14, however, it is explicit that the good lacking is for the person who claims to have faith. James asks not if such faith can save "anyone else" but if such faith can save him. An Example of Faith Without Deeds (2:15-16)

The situation in James's illustration is technically hypothetical ("If . . . ") but probably one he considered quite realistic. James's specification of a brother or sister (not just "someone") reflects an envisioning of real action toward real people. We already know many of his readers were living in economic hardship. His illustration does not imply that all Christians were living in poverty, but that in their midst they would be encountering cases of hardship as severe as a lack of sufficient clothing and even "the day's supply of food" (Adamson 1976:122).
The hypothetical response to the need is good wishes without any actions, for the needy ones are merely "dismissed with friendly words" (Davids 1982:121). The response to the needy ones begins literally, "Go in peace." The verbs "be warmed" and "be filled" could be either passive or middle. Though Davids disagrees (1982:122), Adamson (1976: 123) and Laws (1980:121) take them in the passive voice, which allows a religious overtone to the wishes. The person would be saying not just the secular-sounding translation of the NIV but the more pious "Go in peace. May you be warmed and filled" as an expectation that God would provide for the needy one. This would certainly suit James's context, objecting to "faith" that has pious words but no actions. The uselessness of this response is so obvious and offensive that James needs only to repeat his first rhetorical question: What good is it? James expects that faith will surely lead to actions to meet others' material needs.

Conclusion About Faith Without Deeds (2:17)
In fact, his expectation is so strong that he concludes with the most severe condemnation of faith without deeds: it is dead. The last words of his sentence are by itself, referring back to faith. Placed here, these words emphasize the focus of James's concern, which is faith by itself--that is, faith without the authenticating actions. It is not that he is promoting deeds as an alternative to faith. He obviously knows the value of faith, for he called those who have faith "rich" in 2:5. What James is rejecting is the notion that one can have faith by itself, without the accompanying actions. An Anticipated Objection and Its Answer (2:18)

The objection that James anticipates presents a problem. We would expect him to propose the statements "You have deeds; I have faith" as a potential retort spoken to him; but what he writes is a reversal of these statements.

Some have supposed a loss from the original text; but with no manuscript evidence to support it, this theory must remain a last resort. Others (e.g., Ropes 1916:208-14; Dibelius 1976:155-56; Laws 1980:123-24) have simply accepted James's reversal of these statements as a carelessness about how he formulates them; his primary point is to confront the false theology of separating faith and actions, regardless of which party holds which alternative. Such an explanation is possible but dangerous with any text; the first course must be to seek a reasonable explanation for a deliberately worded text. Laws, for example, admits the solution is not entirely satisfactory (1980:124). Mayor (1897:95-96) and Adamson (1976:124-25) try to solve the problem by extending the quotation through the end of 2:18 and rendering the whole verse not as an anticipated objection to 2:17 but as a further confirmation of it. This requires an understanding of will say in 2:18 as "someone may well say" and the rest of the verse as the person's argument, which James is commending to his readers.

A paraphrase of James's thought would then be: "Faith by itself is dead. In fact, someone could properly say, `You have faith, and I have deeds. Show me your faith apart from deeds, and I will show you my faith by deeds.' " This solution is possible grammatically and attractive because of the consistency it provides for James's use of the pronouns. However, it is too forced, not only because of the sense it requires of the verb will say but also because it attempts to reverse the whole first phrase (but someone will say), which in all other cases in Greek literature introduces a contrast or objection to what has preceded. Davids (1982:124) and Moo (1985:105-6) finally choose the solution accepted by Ropes, Dibelius and Laws as the most likely, acknowledging that all of the solutions to this passage have their difficulties. This does seem the best option.

In other words, James is not particular about whether any hypothetical questioner believes in faith alone or in deeds alone. Instead, James is repudiating any separation of faith and actions as if they were contradictory or even equal alternatives. He is insisting on the theological unity of the two. In 2:18 he challenges anyone to be able to claim genuine faith without the authenticating works, and he declares the only way to have genuine faith is to carry it out with deeds. He affirms the necessity of both faith and actions and says he will show the former by the latter.

With these observations of James's logical argument, we are in a position to draw interpretive conclusions.
1. What does James mean by deeds? First, we can state the theological content of deeds. James consistently speaks of deeds as actions that are taken because of one's faith and that therefore demonstrate and authenticate one's faith. The primary, earnest and repeated point he makes is "not that works must be added to faith but that genuine faith includes works" (Moo 1985:99). It is the very nature of genuine faith to express itself in works. Though he uses the same term for deeds (erga) as Paul does in Galatians and Romans, James is not writing in the same context. It is not just that Paul and James discuss different times in the Christian life (as Barclay presents it, 1976:74); they are addressing different issues at any stage in a Christian's life. Paul uses the term to refer to works of the law (not only rituals but any act of obedience to God's commands, as Moo rightly contends, 1985:101-2) intended as a basis for standing as righteous before God. In that context, such works are a false alternative to faith in which one would rely on one's own works instead of relying (by faith) on God's redemptive works. James is referring to moral actions flowing naturally from genuine faith, so that the faith and deeds are not a dichotomy but a unity. Paul agrees in Ephesians 2:9-10: we are not saved "by works" (ex ergon), but we are saved "for works" (epi ergois). (See the section on "Faith and Deeds" in the introduction to this volume.)
Second, we can state some of the practical content of deeds. James's illustration calls for the active giving of material help for people lacking clothing and food. The deeds James especially has in mind for a life of faith, then, are not the keeping of religious ritual but the acts of love commanded in Christ's "royal law." We also find in James a conviction that Christians are responsible to care for each other. He pictures fellow believers (a needy brother or sister) in his example, and it is one of you who speaks the good wishes without taking the practical actions.

2. What does James mean by faith without deeds? James has used three important terms by which to assess faith without deeds. First, such faith is of no good. We found this term to mean of no use or benefit. Second, such faith does not save, and we found this to refer to the lack of salvation for the one who has this kind of faith. Third, such faith is dead. James chose this third term for summation and climax in 2:17, even as he will employ it again at the very end of this passage in 2:26. There he will explain his analogy: faith without deeds is dead as a body without a spirit is dead. The force of his meaning thus builds and intensifies. Faith that does not result in deeds is a faith that is utterly useless, ineffectual for salvation and in fact dead. With such terms in the text, we are finally forced to conclude that he is talking about a "faith" that is no genuine faith at all. Even when James depicts a Christian in the example of 2:15-16 (one of you), this does not mean that he expects a person of genuine, saving faith actually to ignore the poor. The point of the illustration is that such an outcome is unthinkable.

This biblical truth needs to be forcefully preached and taught for the social conscience of the modern church. It must become unthinkable for us, too, that our faith would leave us content to ignore needy people. Our churches are failing to supply the channels of ministry for a life of faith if they are not providing ways for Christians to minister to needy people. As churches plan their priorities, it does not matter whether church growth can occur through outreach to the poor; it is a question of whether we have genuine, saving faith. This point is a message to convict and to motivate those who would be people of "faith."

3. What does James mean by faith? A life of faith (pistis) is the unifying theme of James's letter. He strongly emphasizes that faith is a stance of belief and trust toward God--for example, trusting God even in the face of trials. But with equal strength James emphasizes that genuine faith is "working faith" (Moo 1985:107). It is the stance of belief toward God by which one endures trials, asks for wisdom, resists temptation, controls one's tongue, looks after orphans and widows in their distress, keeps oneself unpolluted by the world, avoids favoritism, loves one's neighbor as oneself, gives physical necessities to the poor and, in short, lives as a doer of the word.

We can affirm all of this with James's passionate earnestness but without distorting his view into an unrealistic expectation of sinless perfection. Of course Christians fail to live up to this perfectly; that is why James bothers to write about it. But the meaning of real faith is still to be embraced and practiced. If the works of faith are not present, the authenticity of one's faith is in serious question. Genuine faith, faith that does result in salvation, must acknowledge the Lordship of Christ and so respond to Christ's word with actions of obedience. Thus 2:14 recalls the emphasis on that "which can save you" in 1:21. Christ is both Savior and Lord; he cannot be separated into two persons. Genuine, saving faith necessarily includes both a trusting of Christ as Savior and a following of Christ as Lord.

19-26

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Explanation:
Three Examples

James now supplies a series of three examples to confirm the necessity of submission to the Lordship of Christ in any saving faith. Demons (2:19)

The first example is devastating. What could there possibly be from which people of "faith" would want to distance themselves farther than demons? You believe (pisteueis) leaves the continuity of the theme of faith (pistis) unmistakable. But it is a doctrinal belief (believing that something is true) rather than genuine Christian faith (believing in Christ with trust and obedience); therefore it is hardly a rebuttal to what the apostle Paul wrote about faith. For the particular point of doctrinal belief James chooses the fundamental affirmation of Judeo-Christian monotheism from the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. This is devastating again, for no one claiming to have Christian faith could dismiss this as a trivial example. Even the demons believe in the sense of recognizing the truth, and they at least realize that it leaves them cause to shudder in fear rather than rest in confidence that they are saved. James may well be remembering the monotheistic fear that demons exhibited when confronted by Christ, for it made a powerful impression on observers (Mk 1:23-28; 5:1-20). The point is that believing the truth without obeying the truth does not save us at all, any more than it saves demons. In fact, the comparison to demonic "faith" implies that belief without obedience is even worse than useless. Abraham (2:20-24)

If the first example provided devastating irony, the second example gives biblical authority. The importance James sees in the issue is reflected in his hypothetical addressing of a foolish man--using a term meaning "empty," probably referring to the man's lack of understanding about this issue of faith. In other words, it is senseless to think that faith without actions is a genuine, saving faith.

Interwoven throughout this paragraph are three components to James's argument. One component is the credentials of the chosen model. The patriarchal standing of Abraham our ancestor, the explicit affirmation of his faith (quoted in 2:23 from Gen 15:6) and his title as God's friend (reference to 2 Chron 20:7 and Is 41:8) all make Abraham an indisputable precedent.

The second component in James's argument is the illustration of his point with an incident from Abraham's life. The incident James chooses is a revealing narrative to confirm what we have already argued, that James is not attempting to refute Paul or even to correct a distortion of Pauline teaching. James's illustration is Abraham's offering of Isaac--an act of supreme obedience carried out in faith, exactly suiting the context of what James is encouraging his readers to practice. Paul's illustration will be Abraham's confidence in the promise of God in Genesis 15--an act of trust in God's grace to provide what was beyond human ability, exactly suiting the context of what Paul would be encouraging his readers to practice. James's illustration here is not a refutation of Paul but an independent (and prior) addressing of a different issue.

Third, James describes faith and actions as inseparable by identifying three ways in which they operate together. In 2:22, faith and actions work together as part of one reality--"faith was working with his works" (a literal wordplay by James, synergei tois ergois). Then faith is said to be made complete by what Abraham did. The verb eteleiothe means "perfected" (or "brought to maturity," Davids 1982:128). This describes faith as a reality that grows and matures in a Christian's life, and it gives strong motivation for doing the works, because becoming "mature" (teleios) in faith is the goal to which James directed us in 1:4. Finally, in 2:23, even the scriptural promise of justification through faith is said to be fulfilled by actions. James would not have meant that Abraham was left unjustified until he offered Isaac; James knew that Abraham was credited with righteousness before he had offered Isaac (just as Paul would argue in Rom 4 that Abraham was credited with righteousness before he was circumcised). But James means that Abraham's belief in God's promise and the consequent crediting to him of righteousness in Genesis 15:6 were proved to be real and were carried out in deed when Abraham offered Isaac in Genesis 22.

These three ways in which faith and actions operate together make faith a dynamic factor in a believer's life, not a static condition. James has insisted on the union of belief and actions, so that he clearly wants neither faith nor deeds neglected; he is insisting on the inseparable union of the two. The imperfect tense of were working emphasizes that what James expects is a continuing life of deeds done by faith; the aorist verb was made complete describes his expectation of the final result. Faith "leaves evidence of its occurring" in the form of works, and "so `perfect' faith is produced through successive acts of obedience" (Moo 1985:112).

Finally, in 2:24, James's summarizing conclusion of the paragraph is that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. The verb justified is a repetition from 2:21, now in present tense instead of aorist. Together, these two verses are instances of James's use of identical terms with Paul (works and justified) but with a different emphasis appropriate to his different context. James is speaking of moral deeds flowing naturally from genuine faith and showing the doer to be righteous. James's emphasis on faith alone shows that he affirms the necessity of faith; what he is opposing is a faith that denies the obligation to obey Christ as Lord. (Again, see the section "Faith and Deeds" in the introduction.)

James's meaning is not particularly clarified if we decide whether justified carries a demonstrative sense (with works demonstrating a person's righteousness) or a declarative sense (with works securing a person's righteousness). The probable background for James at this point is in Jesus' teaching on recognizing trees by their fruit in Matthew 7:15-20 and 12:33-37. There it is emphasized that a tree will demonstrate its quality by the kind of fruit it bears, but the judgment in a declarative sense is also strong in the verb "acquitted" (dikaioo) in 12:37. James's point is this: faith is the initial and continuing context for one's relationship with God; the genuineness of one's faith will be demonstrated in actions; and this genuineness will provide the basis for whether one is declared righteous before God. Rahab (2:25-26)

The third example is intended as further biblical precedent, but of a complementary sort. Abraham was the respected patriarch. Rahab represents the opposite extreme, both because she was a prostitute and because she was a comparatively minor figure in Old Testament history. Yet even Rahab had to carry out her faith in the true God by actions of obedience. It would not have been enough for Rahab to have said to the spies, "I hope you don't get caught"; that would have been comparable to the pious but useless wishes in 2:16. On the basis of her actions to help the spies, the identical verb is applied to her in 2:25 as to Abraham in 2:21, translated "justified" (NASB) or "considered righteous" (NIV). Thus Rahab's example demonstrates the universality of the principle.
This leads James to a summarizing conclusion about Rahab and about the entire discussion in 2:14-26. He states his conclusion by the analogy of a body without a spirit, enlarging on his labeling faith without actions as dead in 2:17. It is an apt analogy at this point. As final as death, it brings an end to the hypothetical debate in which James has engaged. It also conveys meaning along with emphasis. If faith without actions is dead like a body without a spirit, again faith without actions is no genuine, Christian, saving faith at all. It is a meaningless, useless, powerless, lifeless impostor. Applications for the Church Today

If we take seriously this section of James's letter, there will be important ramifications for various aspects of our life together in the church.

The church's gospel. Some churches will have to reevaluate their fundamental understanding of the gospel, for James does not endorse a two-stage relationship with Christ in which a person trusts Christ as Savior at one point in life and then submits to Christ as Lord at a later stage. In James's assessment, faith without submission to Christ's Lordship is no genuine, saving faith at all. The biblical truth can be taught this way: If sin is our act of managing our own lives instead of giving God his place of rule, then we cannot legitimately ask Christ to save us from sin and then go on managing our own lives; it is self-contradictory.

The church's discipline. Many of us will have to upgrade our practice of church discipline. First, discipline needs to permeate relationships throughout a local church, for church discipline is the discipling of church members. Though church officers properly carry special authority for discipling, nevertheless discipline is a ministry to be owned by all church members. We need to do for each other exactly what James does in his letter--hold each other accountable for a life of faith. Second, our discipline should not dilute the standard of Jesus' call for anyone to "deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mk 8:34). This was not just a call for actions that come easily according to one's personality or temperament or circumstances. It was a call for actions that may be painful and sacrificial (like Abraham's), or risky and frightening (like Rahab's), or uncomfortable and inconvenient (like getting to know poor and homeless people face to face by spending nights helping at a homeless shelter, or by building friendship with a poor family for long-term help out of a lifestyle of poverty).

Third, in our exercise of discipline, church members need to be hearing faith and deeds as a unity instead of a dichotomy. The unifying of belief and actions will help our discipline of each other to accomplish both of its intended purposes: restoring and purifying people's lives. When the church neglects faith in favor of deeds, we burden people's lives with expectations to do more, and we fail to give the assurance of God's grace; then discipline no longer accomplishes restoration of the sinner. When the church neglects deeds in favor of faith, we tell people to believe God's forgiveness, but we omit the appropriate acts of faith; then discipline no longer accomplishes purification of the sinner's life.

The church's balance. James obviously condemns the pattern of dead orthodoxy. His illustration of demons inescapably shows that reliance on one's correct grasp of theology will not save. At the same time, James equally rejects a pattern of faithless humanitarianism. From the earliest verses of the letter, he has affirmed the necessity of faith and the importance of believing the word of truth. In 2:14-26 we have found him to be pressing not deeds instead of faith but deeds in completion of faith. The example of Abraham's deed suits James's intent precisely because Abraham was a man of faith; he believed God. So the church will maintain a complementary balance of orthodox doctrine and orthodox practice. We will teach correct doctrine and pursue social justice, and we will do both energetically and aggressively.

The church's activities. James's teaching helps us avoid being driven by guilt and fears and demands, as is so common even among Christians in our society. It is important to acknowledge now the definition that James has implied for deeds. They are not actions such as making the dean's list, scoring goals in a soccer game, publishing a research paper, reaching a high income level or getting a promotion. Those are achievements, but they are not what James means by deeds. He does not even mean having large numbers of people come to one's Bible class or other Christian ministry. That may be success, but even when success is experienced in a Christian ministry one is not necessarily performing what James means by deeds. The unity of faith and deeds means that deeds are simply actions taken because of one's faith.

Therefore the message of this passage does not demand that we drive ourselves to do more; it calls us to do differently. James calls us to live by faith. What deeds will we do when we understand that the necessary deeds are those done specifically because of our faith?

First, we will do deeds of devotion--prayer, Bible study, worship and sacrifice. Abraham's action in sacrificing Isaac is an example; he placed that which was dearest to him in this world on the altar, because he loved God more than he loved his own son. Deeds of devotion are to be done because God is worthy of them. They are also done because we have a need for them; they keep us in touch with God and nourished by God, so that we have the resources for carrying out the other two kinds of deeds. We must not allow the achievements of life, or even the deeds of ministry, to leave us with only a pittance of time for the deeds of prayer, Bible study and worship.

Second, we will do deeds of morality--doing what is right to purify our speech, thoughts, attitudes and behavior. Rahab's action in this passage is an example of morality. It was not that she had been praying about the needs of homeless spies and decided to start a shelter ministry. She was simply confronted with a situation and responded by doing what was morally right, because she had heard about the God of Israel and had faith in him (Josh 2:8-11). Helping the needy is a deed of morality incumbent on all Christians simply because it is right to do.

Third, we will do deeds of ministry, but this is where we get into trouble with being driven. Every Christian needs to do the deeds of devotion, and the biblical moral standards are prescribed for all believers. All Christians are also called to ministry, but Scripture says we have diverse spiritual gifts and therefore diverse ministries. The application of faith as the source of deeds will help us pursue appropriate deeds of ministry. We do those deeds of ministry to which we believe by faith that we are called; we do the deeds of ministry relying by faith on God's power rather than our ability; we do deeds of ministry seeking God's glory and surrendering our desires for success and achievement; and we persevere in deeds of ministry by faith, obeying the calling God gives.

The church's mission. That James's illustration in 2:15 involves fellow Christians does not limit its application to the church's internal discipline, for his burden is the essential unity of faith and deeds. Even if the needy people were non-Christians, all of James's arguments would still apply: the faith of the one withholding help would still be offensively useless, ineffective for salvation and as dead as a body without a spirit. Therefore James's message can be properly applied to the church's mission to people outside the Christian community.

James's synthesis of belief and actions must be the model that holds the church on course with evangelism and social action. John Stott has outlined the church's three historical attempts at holding evangelism and social action together by treating social action as: a means to evangelism, a manifestation of evangelism or a partner of evangelism. Stott finds the first two insufficiently biblical and argues for the partnership model between evangelism and social action: "For each is an end in itself. Both are expressions of unfeigned love" (1975:26-27).

The essential unity of belief and practice, especially as applied by James to acts of charity, means that it is not yet genuine faith to have good wishes or sympathetic attitudes toward the needy. We can make statements in all sincerity of mind and emotion: "I feel sorry for the poor; I don't condone racism." But James will say, "What good is that if you aren't doing something to help the poor or to heal the distrust and injustice between races?" Some Christians attempt a stance of personal belief without personal action, saying, for example, "I personally disagree with abortion, but I won't try to change others' minds." James persists in asking us: What are you doing to protect the victims--both the victimized baby and the victimized mother?

Answers to the social problems are not easy, but the biblical message requires individual Christians and local churches to get busy setting definite goals for specific actions with mercy ministries as well as evangelistic messages.