Sacra Pagina New Testament Commentary Series

Daniel Liu

Does anyone know about this series?  Can anyone give me some suggestions?

Dan Francis

I find it a very good series... like all series there are weaker and stronger volumes but it is very much worth owning.

 Here is a rather lengthy example but I wanted to give you a good example of the the depth and quality you will find, I choose this section because it was my devotional study passage for today:

5. Doers of the Word/Faith and Works (2:14–26)

14. My brothers (and sisters), what good does it do if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Is faith able to save that person? 15. If a brother or sister is going naked and lacking daily food, 16. and if someone should say to them, “Go in peace! Be warmed and filled (with food),” but you do not give them what is necessary for the body, what good does it do? 17. So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18. But, someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and by my works I will show you my faith. 19. You believe that God is one. You do well! Even the demons believe—and shudder!
20. Do you wish to know, you empty person, that faith apart from works is ineffectual? 21. Was not our father Abraham proved to be righteous (as shown) through his works when he offered (in sacrifice) his son Isaac on the altar? 22. You see that faith was active together with his works, and by the works faith was brought to perfection. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24. You see that a person is proved righteous by works and not by faith alone. 25. And likewise, was not Rahab, the prostitute, also proved righteous by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26. For just as the body apart from spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is also dead.

NOTES

14. what good does it do if someone claims to have faith: This verse contains two rhetorical questions each expecting a negative answer (hence the use of the negative particle mē). The style clearly resembles that of a diatribe. The phrase ti to ophelos (“what good is it”) captures the traditional argumentative style of the diatribe (Ropes 203). See, e.g.: “For of what use is it (ti gar ophelos) to say what is excellent, but to think and to do what is most shameful?” (Philo Post. 86; Migr. 55); see also “What good does he get (to oun ophelos), then, from acting right?—What good does the person get (ti d’ophelos) for writing the name ‘Dio’ as it ought to be written?” (Epictetus Diatr. 3:24, 51); see also Sir 20:30; 41:14; 1 Cor 15:32). All the citations (except 1 Cor 15:32) omit the article (to), as does Codex Vaticanus (see Aland [1997] 35). The lack of the article in this manuscript is probably due to a scribe conforming James’s text to that of the popular idiom. A similar expression occurs in Matt 16:26 (and parallels in Mark 8:36 and Luke 9:25): ti gar ōphelēthēsetai anthrōpos (“For what will it profit a person”). The claim to have faith connects back to the opening theme of 2:1. The phrase “If someone claims” (ean legę̄ tis) does not mean that this hypothetical example (as in 2:2–4) is not drawn from a real situation within the context of James’s community. In the second part of the clause the use of the subjunctive echę̄ instead of the infinitive echein affirms that this part of the clause is not a continuation of what the person says, but is rather an observation by the author. Hence the person claims to have faith, but the author comments that he or she does not. The erga (“works”) to which James refers are understood as “good deeds” (see, e.g., Matt 5:16; John 3:21) and not erga nomou (“works of the law”).

Is faith able to save that person? It appears that the answer to this question is self-evident: “No!” The contrast between being a doer of the word and not just a hearer (1:22–25) is echoed here in the contrast between faith and works. One has to put faith into action: one must be a doer of faith. A similar stress on the importance of good works is found in 2 Bar. 14:12; 51:7.

15. If a brother or sister is going naked and lacking daily food: The same stylistic construction is followed here as in 2:2–4: ean + subjunctive introduces a hypothetical illustration that is wrong and should be avoided. Interestingly, James refers to both a “brother and a sister” (adelphos ē adelphē). This is one of the rare occasions in the New Testament where the term “sister” (adelphē) is used in reference to a community member (see Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 7:15; 1 Tim 5:2; Phlm 2). The word gymnoi does not indicate complete nakedness: a person who was clad only in an undergarment was considered naked: e.g., Saul in 1 Sam 19:24, who has taken off his outer garments (himatia), is called gymnos; so is Peter in John 21:7 who is “without an outer garment” (gymnos) (see BDAG 208). People who are poorly clothed (see also Job 22:6; Isa 20:2–3; 58:7) are clearly those who are in desperate need of immediate help. It is reminiscent of Matt 25:36: “I was naked and you gave me clothing.” To be naked illustrates one’s situation of poverty (“You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked” [Rev 3:17]) or of shame (“and white robes to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen” [Rev 3:18]). Noticeable here grammatically is the use of plural verbs, hyparchōsin kai leipomenoi (“is going naked and lacking daily food”) with singular subjects connected by ē, (“and”). This is not uncommon in Hellenistic writers (see BDF 74:135). The phrase leipomenoi tēs ephēmerou trophēs (“lacking daily food”) continues to describe the urgency of the situation. An immediate response is demanded (“Give some of your food to the hungry, and some of your clothing to the naked” [Tob 4:16]). The word ephēmeros (“daily”) is a hapax legomonon in the New Testament. While it also does not occur in the LXX, the phrase does appear in classical Greek (see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, “he went out of the house alone … without taking … even food for the day” [ephēmeros] [Ant. Rom. 8:41, 5]; see also BDAG 418).

16. “Go in peace! Be warmed and filled (with food)”: The farewell greeting “Go in peace” (hypagete en eirēnę̄) is based on the biblical expression: “Walk (or go) in peace” (l lĕki lĕs̆ālôm [MT] or poreuou eis eirēnēn [LXX]: 1 Sam 1:17; see also Judg 18:6; 1 Sam 20:42; and in the New Testament Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; Acts 16:36). This prayer is offered at parting, that God will grant the gift of šālôm, a blessing on every dimension of one’s being. The actual prayer “Be warmed and filled” is hypocritical: the statement reflects the needs that were identified in the previous verse, but the speaker refuses to do anything about them.

what is necessary for the body: The words ta epitēdeia (“the things that are necessary”) does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though it does appear occasionally in the LXX (see 1 Macc 14:34; 2 Macc 2:29) and more frequently in other writers (see, e.g., “For Josephus, seeing the abundance of the city’s other supplies [tōn allōn epitēdeiōn] …” [Josephus, B.J. 3:183 {Thackeray, LCL}]). The expression ti to ophelos (“What good does it do?”) acts as an inclusion with 2:14, where the same expression occurs. It is a way of drawing the example together more forcefully and reiterating the hollowness of such behavior.

17. So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead: The phrase houtōs kai (“so also”) draws a conclusion from the example (see also 1:11; 2:26; 3:5): faith without works is dead. The use of pistis (faith) connects back again to 2:1 and “the faith of Jesus Christ.” The phrase kath’ heautēn means “by itself” or “on its own” (Martin 85; see also Mayor 99). It is not faith and works that James contrasts here, but rather a living faith and a dead faith.

18. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works”: Dibelius claims that this is “one of the most difficult New Testament passages in general” (154). The difficulties do not concern the text itself, but the interpretation of the text. Two main problems emerge. (1) Is the speaker of v. 18a a supporter of James (see Mayor 99–100; Mussner [1982] 136–38) or an opponent (Ropes 213–14; Dibelius 154–56)? The style of the verse supports an adversarial stance: as in a diatribe, the speaker is an imaginary opponent who presents an objection the author will then counter in order to advance his argument. We see Paul using rhetoric in this way in Rom 9:19; 11:19; 1 Cor 15:35 (see also 4 Macc 2:24; Barn. 9:6). (2) What is the actual meaning of the objection raised? As it reads, the statement appears to agree with what James himself would say: “You have faith and I have works.” If it were the words of the objector, they would surely be “I have faith and you have works.” So the question arises: Why are these words placed on the lips of the objector? Ropes (208–10) and Dibelius (155–58) provide the best solution to the problem by interpreting “you” (sy) and “I” (kagō) not as referring to James (“you”) and his opponent (“I”), but rather in a generalized sense to “one person … another.” Both Ropes (209) and Dibelius (156) quote the example of the Cynic Teles (Stobaeus, Anthologium Graecum 3:1, 98) in support of this interpretation; there “the author is not concerned about exact identification of the ‘you’ and the ‘I’ ” (Dibelius 156, n. 35). In effect James is saying: “One person has faith and another has works.” (The more natural Greek expression would have been allos … allos.) James rejects this position and in effect goes on to add: “You are quite mistaken: works cannot be deduced from faith, yet faith can be deduced from works.” (see Dibelius 156).

Show me …”: James begins his reply to the objector, providing both a challenge and an offer. He first of all challenges his opponent to show his faith without works. For an example of this combination of challenge and offer see Epictetus: “And yet, though I can show you that you have resources and endowment for magnanimity and courage, do you, pray, show me what resources you have to justify faultfinding and complaining!” (Diatr. 1:6, 43 [Old-father, LCL]). James makes the offer to his opponent to demonstrate his faith from his works. The chiastic structure of the sentence shows James’s linguistic ability: pistin—erga; ergōn—pistin.

19. You believe that God is one. You do well! James continues with his argument that a living faith is essential. “You believe” (sy pisteueis) is taken as an affirmative statement rather than a question. There are many textual variants relating to the phrase “God is one,” mainly involving the presence or absence of the article before “God” (theos) (Metzger [1975] 681). Codex Vaticanus lacks the article and reads “there is one God” (heis theos estin), which is similar to Paul’s confession in 1 Cor 8:6: “yet for us there is one God (heis theos), the Father.…” This is a general monotheistic statement. On the other hand, 𝔓74 and Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus contain the article and read “God is one” (heis estin ho theos). This form of expression conforms to the Jewish monotheistic profession of faith in God as one and would be a deliberate attempt to remind the reader of this confession of faith (Deut 6:4; Philo, Opif. 171; Decal. 65). From a theological perspective the second alternative is in conformity with James’s consistent attempt to preserve his Jewish background. The phrase kalōs poieis (“You do well”) in itself is not ironic (as Mark 12:32 demonstrates), but from its context here it certainly is (as also in Mark 7:9).

Even the demons believe—and shudder: Ta daimonia has many nuances, depending on the context. In the Greco-Roman world it was a term used for pagan divinities, as in Acts 17:18 “foreign divinities” (xenōn daimoniōn). See Herodotus, Hist. 5:87 (Godley [LCL]): “but the Argives say that it was they, and the Athenians that it was divine power (daimoniōu), that destroyed the Attic army,” and Plato, Apol. 26B. In the LXX daimonia was used for pagan gods: “For all the gods of the peoples are idols (daimonia)” (Ps 96:5 [95:5 LXX]; see also Deut 32:17). In the context of the synoptic gospels it is a phrase often used to refer to “demons,” also identified as “unclean spirits” (pneumata akatharta) (see also Matt 7:22; Mark 3:22; Luke 4:33). The synoptic gospels also testify to such spirits’ belief as well as their fear: e.g., the man Legion who is possessed by many “unclean spirits” cries out to Jesus: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me” (Mark 5:7; see also Mark 1:24; Acts 16:17; 19:15). Legion shows his belief through acknowledging who Jesus is and his willingness to take an oath in the name of God. He also shows his profound fear. The verb phrissein (“to shudder”) is used to describe the physical reaction of fear such as the hair standing on end, as in Job 4:14–15: “Dread came upon me and trembling, which made all my bones shake. A spirit glided past my face; the hair of my flesh bristled (ephrixan).” Jewish literature showed how all of creation shuddered (phrissousin) before God (“For myself, I shudder (phrittō) at recounting the works of God to unworthy ears” [Josephus, B.J. 5:378 {Thackeray, LCL}]). Materials from the Hellenistic world such as the Greek magical papyri show that the power of God’s name causes demons to shudder (see Dibelius 160). The Christian world continued this tradition: e.g., Justin (Dial. 49:8), who speaks about shuddering at the power of God demonstrated in the crucified Christ, and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5:125, 1. The important thing James expresses in this verse is that while the demons know who God is, this knowledge does not bring salvation; instead, it awakens fear and terror and causes them to shudder—at the same name of God that can be used to exorcise them!

20. Do you wish to know, you empty person: James introduces a new argument based on Scripture. “Do you desire a proof?” (Ropes 216). This question is a frequent element of the diatribe (see Jas 4:4; Rom 11:2). The direct address to an imaginary opponent (“O empty person”) also conforms to the style of the diatribe (Bultmann [1910] 58–61). A harsh tone is another characteristic feature (Ropes 216): e.g., Seneca, Ira 3:28,1: “Age infelix ecquando amabis?” (“Act, O unhappy one! Will you ever love?”). James’s choice of this expression shows his strong feelings (see also Paul: ō anoētoi Galatai (“You foolish Galatians!”) (Gal 3:1; see also L&N 1:812, 91.14). James continues the address consistently in the singular (see 2:14, 19, 22). The word kenos indicates “foolishness” and in this context “a foolish advisor” (Mussner [1981] 140; see Epictetus, Diatr. 2:19, 8) as well as moral failure (Judg 9:4). It has the same connotation as the word raka (“empty simpleton”) in Matt 5:22; see TDNT 3:660.

that faith apart from works is ineffectual: The Greek word argē (“ineffectual”) is strongly supported by Codex Vaticanus. A number of manuscripts read nekra (“dead,” as in Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) while 𝔓74 has kenē (see Aland [1997] 42). As Metzger ([1975] 681) notes, it seems that nekra was introduced through the influence of 2:17, 26. Further, the use of argē would be in line with James’s affinity for creating a play on words: ergōn—argē (a + ergē). Literally James would be saying that “faith apart from works is ‘work-less’ (a + ergē).”

21. our father Abraham: In Gen 17:4 God had made the promise to Abraham that he would be “the father (patēr) of many peoples.” This tradition is continued throughout the biblical heritage: see Isa 51:2; Sir 44:19; 4 Macc 16:20; 17:6; Matt 3:9; Luke 1:73. This again points to the writer’s Jewish background: James sees himself and his community as part of those promises in that they can claim Abraham as their father.

proved to be righteous (as shown) through his works: This is the central aspect of the verse. The difficulty with understanding the verb dikaioun (“proved to be righteous”) comes from its rich range of meanings and the fact that it is used in different ways in different contexts. In the writings of Paul the term dikaioun is used to oppose a faith that is achieved by one’s own efforts through carrying out the works of the law. In Rom 4:1–3 Paul claims that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works (of the law). He goes on to use a biblical quotation that James also uses: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; 2:16; see Gen 15:6). In Paul’s usage the term dikaioun captures God’s action that produces a transformation within the life of the believer so that he or she is brought into a right relationship with Christ. All this occurs through the transforming gift of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness (Rom 3:23–26) (see TDNT 2:208–10; Excursus 7: Faith and Works in James and Paul). In James the concern is very different. Works (that is, good deeds) show that one’s faith is living and that one is in a right relationship with God. Hence dikaioun in the context of James bears the meaning “demonstrates righteousness.” I translate it “proved to be righteous (as shown) through his works.” See other translations, e.g., “wasn’t Abraham proved righteous (as demonstrated) by his deeds” (Martin 91); or “shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds” (Johnson [1995] 242). James and Paul are not opposing each other; they have different visions of concern: James’s is with a living faith that is demonstrated through deeds, while Paul is concerned with the gift of faith that does not come through works of the Law.

when he offered (in sacrifice) his son Isaac on the altar: James has in mind the LXX account in Gen 22:1–19. Some words from this LXX account are observable in James: thysiasterion (“altar”) (Jas 2:21; Gen 22:9) and anenengkas (from anapherein, meaning “to offer [in sacrifice]” [Jas 2:21 and Gen 22:2, 13]). The offering of Isaac in sacrifice was limited to the ʿAqedah‚ the “binding of Isaac” (sympodisas Isaak ton hyion, Gen 22:9) upon the altar. The testing of Abraham’s faith was a key concept of the Hebrew tradition: e.g., “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested …” (1 Macc 2:52); “… and when he was tested he proved faithful” (Sir 44:20); “And the Lord was aware that Abraham was faithful in all of his afflictions” (Jub. 17:17 [OTP 2:90]). The Epistle to the Hebrews continues the same tradition as James: “By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac” (Heb 11:17).

22. You see that faith was active together with his works: “You see” (blepeis) is a statement, not a question, drawing out the conclusion from the illustration. It would be similar to the particle oun: “then, therefore.” It is singular, continuing the dialogue with the opponent (2:18, 19, 20). While the Greek word synērgei is common in classical Greek, it appears in the LXX only in 1 Esdr 7:2 and 1 Macc 12:1, and in the New Testament in Mark 16:20; Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 16:16; 2 Cor 6:1. It has the meaning of “to cooperate with; to work together with; to be active together with.” The use of the imperfect tense of the verb instead of the present (as some manuscripts indicate, including Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus; see Aland [1997] 43) is appropriate here: it captures the ongoing actions that demonstrated the faith of Abraham. The “offering” of Isaac was only one of such works.

by the works faith was brought to perfection: The verb teleioun means “to bring to perfection,” where perfection is understood as “completeness, totality, or wholeness” (Hartin [1999] 63). It clearly connects back to 1:3–4, where faith is brought to perfection through works of testing and suffering, while in 2:22 Abraham’s faith is perfected through the testing he endured in being asked to offer his son. James illustrates the unfinished state of faith: works bring faith to maturity and keep it alive.

23. the Scripture was fulfilled: As in 2:8, graphē refers to a passage of Scripture. The verb plēroun (“fulfill”) is used in the sense of how a later event (usual in the context of the New Testament) brings to completion a passage of Scripture: the scheme of promise/fulfillment is evident in this way of reading the Scriptures. The Gospel of Matthew above all gives expression to this understanding of the relationship between the Hebrew Scriptures and the events that have occurred in the birth and ministry of Jesus (e.g., Matt 1:22; 2:15, 18; 3:3; 4:15–16; 8:17; 12:18–21; 13:14–15; 21:5; 26:56; 27:9). However, James shows an interesting understanding of this promise-fulfillment connection: here he sees the fulfillment of Gen 15:6 occurring in Gen 22:1–19.

Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness: This is a direct quotation from Gen 15:6 (LXX). James replaces kai (“and”) in the Greek text with the particle de. He also uses the name Abraham in place of the LXX Abram (the change of name only occurs in Gen 17:5). James is simply using the customary form of the name. The passive use of the verb logizomai (“to reckon, calculate, consider”) indicates that the judgment of Abraham’s righteousness was given by God on behalf of Abraham. “God declares and qualifies Abraham in this passage of Scripture to be righteous because of his faith” (Mussner [1981] 144). Again the faith of Abraham must be seen to incorporate his works, which illustrate this faith as alive.

he was called God’s friend: This is not part of the biblical quotation and is not a biblical phrase in itself, though it is similar to the biblical description of Abraham as “the one loved by God” in the LXX texts of 2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8. Many extratestamental writings also designate Abraham in a similar way: e.g., Jub. 19:9: “and he (Abraham) was recorded as a friend of the Lord in the heavenly tablets” (OTP 2:92); Philo, Abr. 273: “… no longer conversing with him as God might with man, but as one friend with another”; 4 Ezra 3:14: “… you chose for yourself one of them, whose name was Abraham; and you loved him …” (OTP 1:528). For James it is a significant designation because later, in 4:4, he demands that his hearers/readers make a choice: friendship with the world or with God. In later Christian writings the identification of Abraham as “a friend of God” was often made (1 Clem. 10:1; 17:2).

24. You see that a person is proved righteous by works and not by faith alone: James changes to the plural address to direct his attention now to the community at large, away from addressing the opponent. In this way he introduces his conclusion and provides a summary of his position. For the phrase “proved righteous” see 2:21. James’s whole concern is that faith must be demonstrated by means of works. The phrase ek pisteōs monon (“not by faith alone”) is equivalent to “without the aid and cooperation of works” (Ropes 223). James formally answers the question he raised in 2:14. The faith of a believer must automatically blossom forth into a demonstration of good works. Faith illustrates its true nature through the works it performs. The addition of the adverb “alone” (monon) indicates that in James’s mind faith is essential to salvation, but he cannot accept a view that sees a faith divorced from a life that illustrates its faith through actions. Such a concept of faith is not opposed to Paul’s view, but very much in harmony with Paul’s perspective (see Gal 5:6: “the only thing that counts is faith working through love”; 1 Cor 13:2: “and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love …”).

25. And likewise … Rahab, the prostitute: A second example is offered in addition to Abraham, this time a woman. Johnson raises the interesting question: “Is it accidental that the figures of Abraham and Rahab correspond to the needy ‘brother and sister’ in 2:15?” ([1995] 245). The identification of Rahab as a “prostitute” (pornē) corresponds to the picture presented of her in Josh 2:1–21; 6:15–25. James accepts much in this biblical description: the account in Joshua shows that her hospitality to the Israelites stems from her faith. In Josh 2:11 she confesses: “The LORD your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below.” James presumes this faith and goes on to stress her deeds of kindness in helping the Israelites. In Jewish and Rabbinic tradition, extending over many centuries, the figure of Rahab appeared prominently: She became a proselyte who married Joshua and was the ancestor of eight prophets (including Jeremiah and Ezekiel). Her faith and deeds of hospitality are also mentioned: “By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had received the spies in peace” (Heb 11:31); and “for her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved” (1 Clem. 12:1 [Lake, LCL]).

26. just as the body apart from spirit is dead: This is a summary of James’s argument. The sōma/pneumatos (“body/spirit”) reference clearly illustrates a Jewish anthropology that is exemplified in the Genesis creation narration (Gen 2:7), where the human being is constituted from body and breath. The word pneuma is without an article, indicating the life-giving force within the human being. As Ropes defines it, it is “the vital principle by which the body is animated” (225).

so faith apart from works is also dead: This forms an inclusio with 2:17. James’s main point in the whole argument emerges here. A living faith by its very nature expresses itself in works, and the actions become a demonstration of the living nature of the faith.

INTERPRETATION

Contrary to the view of Dibelius (149), a careful examination of this pericope shows a connection to and a continuation of the line of thought presented in the previous passage (2:1–13). There James had stressed that Jesus’ faith precluded any discrimination against others. The focus rested on the faith of Jesus and the challenge was to put that faith into action through the practice of the command of love. The faith of Jesus Christ (2:1) demanded that one show no partiality and demonstrate love. Now, in this paragraph (2:14–26), this faith is examined in more detail. Its character again demands that faith express itself in action. This is a further illustration of the practical wisdom of this writing.
The structure of this pericope is almost identical to the previous one. A fivefold structure like the one we described in the Interpretation to 2:1–13 is also discernible here.

(a) Theme (propositio): Faith without Works Cannot Save You (2:14)
(b) Reason (ratio): Example of Faith without Works in the Community (2:15–17)
(c) Proof (rationis confirmatio): Argument against an Imaginary Opponent (2:18–19)
(d) Embellishment (exornatio): Argument from Scripture: Abraham and Rahab (2:20–25)
(e) Conclusion (conplexio): Faith without Works is Dead (2:26).

(a) Theme (propositio): Faith without Works Cannot Save You (2:14)

This opening verse presents the theme of the whole pericope and introduces an imaginary dialogue between the author and his projected opponent. As participants in this dialogue, the hearers/readers are addressed as “my brothers and sisters” (adelphoi). The center of consideration is the theme that faith must demonstrate itself through works. From the outset James’s use of the noun “faith” (pistis) connects back to the theme of 2:1: “the faith of Jesus Christ.” In the previous pericope James showed that true faith demonstrated itself in brotherly love. Now he argues that a faith that is alive is one that demonstrates itself in works of love. That is the type of faith that saves. In some ways this pericope is an illustration of Jesus’ statement in the Sermon on the Mount: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt 7:21; Luke 6:46).
Rhetorically, James’s thesis lies at the heart of Jewish faith and piety. His aim is to persuade his hearers/readers to put their faith into action. Neither a person’s profession of faith nor his or her ritual actions is sufficient. What is required is a life of deeds that embrace love and concern for others. The prophets above all criticized the faith and ritual actions of their fellow Israelites because they neglected their social responsibilities (Isa 1:11–17). James lies within this tradition as well. His message is also in line with Jesus’ teaching (e.g., in the parable of the judgment of the nations in Matt 25:31–46, the separation between the “sheep and goats” is dependent on the way they demonstrated concern for others).

(b) Reason (ratio): Example of Faith without Works in the Community (2:15–17)

James provides a reason for his thesis by means of an example that illustrates what faith without works would be like. While this is a hypothetical example, that is not to say that such examples did not exist within the context of the communities to whom he writes. His description is such that the members of his community could see themselves and their responses reflected clearly. The analysis in the Notes of the terms James uses (gymnos and tes ephēmerou trophēs) has shown that James is not painting a scene of utter destitution. Nevertheless, the example does reflect the real poverty that was the common experience of most people in the Mediterranean world. To such everyday experiences of poverty the members of James’s communities are called to respond, not with wishful remarks but with real actions. “Go in peace!” (2:16) is not meant to portray callousness (Laws [1980] 121), but rather to capture the attitude of a person of faith whose reaction is limited to uttering a prayer with good wishes. Without doubt such a response runs counter to the very definition of religion James provided earlier: “to care for orphans and widows in their affliction …” (1:27).
This illustration would have shocked his hearers/readers just as it would have shocked any Jewish audience of his day. A person who could act in this way had never absorbed the central teaching of the message of Jesus, let alone the basic message of the prophets. He or she has a false understanding of what faith is all about. James concludes with a terse summary he repeats again later: faith apart from works is dead (2:17; 2:26). For James the major contrast is between a living faith and a dead faith. Works help to demonstrate the nature of faith as alive, but they do not replace it.

(c) Proof (rationis confirmatio): Argument against an Imaginary Opponent (2:18–19)

An imaginary opponent is conjured up to present an objection, enabling the author to state his argument. The Notes have discussed the difficulties inherent in this verse. The best way to understand the passage is to see James providing both a challenge and an offer to his opponent. His challenge: “Show me your faith apart from your works” (2:18). The implication with which James leaves the reader is that of course his approach cannot do that. His offer: to demonstrate his own faith through works of love.
The absurdity of making a separation between faith and works is painted brilliantly with the example of profession of faith in God. “You believe that God is one” is a confession of belief expressed in terms of the Shema Israel (Deut 6:4). The profession that God is one embraces the understanding that God is all-powerful and demands total allegiance. The punch in James’s argument comes at the end, when he says that even demons make such an acknowledgment that God is one. Laws has rightly argued that such a profession demands more than giving an “intellectual assent to a proposition” ([1980] 126). The belief the demons have includes more than just the understanding that God, the all-powerful one, demands total allegiance. This understanding provokes a response: they shudder in fear! So even with demons faith includes a response!
The very profession of belief in God as one, as expressed in the Shema Israel, requires a response of love: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:5). In Jesus’ teaching this profession of faith also requires a responsive love of neighbor (Matt 22:36–40). The traditions on which James relies (Israel and Jesus) are clear in presenting a vision that true faith requires a response. James builds on these traditions to argue that faith needs to demonstrate itself in action if it is to remain alive, and he refuses to concede the possibility that faith and works can be neatly separated into two independent compartments. Faith, if it is true faith, has to flower forth in actions. Any other kind of faith is dead.

(d) Embellishment (exornatio): Argument from Scripture: Abraham and Rahab (2:20–25)

The argument is now embellished with support gleaned from the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, a double application is developed, first through Abraham (2:20–23) and then through Rahab (2:25). Noteworthy, as well, is the intended reference to male and female examples. In 2:15 James deliberately referred to a “brother or sister” within the community. Now it is as though he is providing a biblical illustration for each (Johnson [1995] 249).
The selection of Abraham is no mere chance. The essence of James’s concern in his choice of Abraham as an example is to reflect upon faith. Abraham is the “father” of the Jewish nation, and James’s community continues to see itself as heir to the traditions of Israel, a heritage that incorporates the role of Abraham as their father. Abraham demonstrates his faith through his willingness to sacrifice his son on the altar. This is part of the testing of Abraham’s faith and is surely a graphic illustration of the point with which James opened his letter (1:3–4): the testing of faith leads to endurance, which ultimately culminates in perfection: maturity, integrity, and completeness in a relationship with God. The similarity in thought between 1:3–4 and 2:22 is obvious. In 1:3–4 faith comes to perfection through works of testing, while in 2:22 Abraham’s faith is perfected through his works, which embraced testing his willingness to offer his son in sacrifice on the altar. Since the actual sacrifice of his son never occurred it was not the sacrifice that demonstrated Abraham’s faith, but rather the ʿAqedah‚ the binding of Isaac. A circular movement occurs in the interaction between faith and works: faith inspires the works and is active together with the works, and in this interaction faith is brought to completion and maturity (2:22).
Is there an inconsistency between the reference to the “works” of Abraham and the single “work” (the ʿAqedah, the binding of Isaac) that is quoted by way of illustration? Ward thinks there is: “It is somewhat strange that the offering of Isaac should be referred to by the plural, erga (2:22)” ([1968] 286). He argues further that in the tradition the examples of Abraham and Rahab demonstrate their works of faith through hospitality ([1968] 283–90). This is clearly evident in 1 Clem. 10–12. Ward’s argument is that, since James reflects the same tradition, the works to which he refers should embrace Abraham’s hospitality as well: “May not this also be the case for Abraham’s erga—that is, James used Abraham as a well-known example of hospitality, but without referring explicitly to the famous story of his reception of the three travelers [Gen. 18] or to the other lore based on this incident?” ([1968] 286). However, I think the plural “works” (as is also the case with Rahab) is more stylistic than factual. Throughout the pericope James has been intent on contrasting faith and works (plural), so it is natural for him when illustrating his argument with the examples of Abraham and Rahab to use the plural “works,” even though he provides only one example in each case.
James makes an interesting use of the promise/fulfillment scheme. Normally we see this schema operating between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. In this instance the promise/fulfillment occurs within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, specifically within the Torah. James views the ʿAqedah, the binding of Isaac, in Gen 22:1–19 as the fulfillment of Gen 15:6. James is above all concerned to show that the faith of Abraham comes to fulfillment, to completion and perfection in the ʿAqedah. Abraham’s faith is demonstrated through his actions. This is the heart of James’s argument as outlined in 2:18: “by my works I will show you my faith.” In applying the quotation (Gen 15:6) to this action James states that God considers Abraham to be righteous. Abraham’s faith is shown to be alive through works. His righteousness is not based on works, but upon the quality of his faith, which is demonstrated to be alive.
To this quotation James adds the characterization that Abraham “was called God’s friend” (2:23). As the Notes indicate, not only is that an important description in the tradition, but it is highly significant in the context of James’s letter. One of the central motifs running throughout the letter is the contrast between those who belong to James’s community and those who are outside. This contrast is laid out clearly before his hearers/readers in the choice they have to make between “friendship with the world” and “friendship with God.” The opposition between the world and its values on the one hand, and God and God’s values on the other is central. James 1:27 defines the very core of religion as comprising such values: “caring for orphans and widows in their affliction” and “keeping oneself unstained from the world.” As a friend of God, Abraham acted in a way that showed that his fidelity to God’s will was central to his life. His faith in action was a demonstration of his friendship with God. This surely was the example par excellence for James’s hearers/readers. They too had to choose between friendship with God and friendship with the world. Like Abraham, they had to put their faith into action: they had to demonstrate by their works that their faith was alive.
James provides a further illustration in the person of Rahab (2:25). While the biblical narrative (Josh 2:1–21) makes a strong connection between Rahab’s faith and her actions of hospitality (see especially Josh 2:9–13; Heb 11:31), James’s text makes no direct mention of her faith. Undoubtedly James does presume Rahab’s faith, because this is the foundation for his argument, but he wishes to focus attention on her work of hospitality.
Why did James choose Rahab as an example? There are two answers to this question. First of all, as has been indicated, Rahab became an important figure within the tradition, both biblical and Rabbinic. In 1 Clem. 12:1 Rahab is praised because of “her faith and hospitality” (see also Heb 11:31). Both Clement (10–12) and Hebrews (11:1–40) show that they are clearly dependent on traditions that contain lists of people of faith. The tradition shows many examples of such lists (Sirach 44–50; 1 Macc 2:51–60; 3 Macc 6:2–8). Without doubt James is drawing on such lists in his mention of both Abraham and Rahab. The second reason for James’s reference to Rahab has to do with her work of hospitality. Having provided the basis of his argument with the Abraham example, James refers briefly to Rahab, and in doing so gives specific attention to her hospitality to the Israelite messengers. It is possible that James holds up this action for admiration because it reflects something of his own world. Just as Rahab made the Israelite messengers welcome and sent them off safely, in a similar manner the communities to whom James writes should also extend hospitality to wandering missionaries and see them safely on their way. In this way Rahab could be a symbol for the Christian community. Once again we have an insight into the nature of James’s communities: they would be situated at an early stage of the Christian movement when wandering missionaries moved from community to community. Stephen J. Patterson (The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus [Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1993] 178–88) supports this perspective:

I would suggest that it is not accidental that when the author of James addresses the question of faith and works, he or she chooses to illustrate the point using three examples relating to hospitality. He or she is focused so explicitly here on the hospitality theme that one must surely conclude that the reason the author brings up the subject of faith and works at all is that he or she feels it will be useful in treating what he or she perceives as a problem in the churches: the refusal of hospitality to travelers. (184)

At the heart of the concern for hospitality lies the obligation to care for the poor. Throughout ch. 2 James has been at pains to demonstrate the believer’s responsibility to reach out to the less fortunate members of the community. It is again a concrete illustration of his definition of religion in 1:27.

(e) Conclusion (conplexio): Faith without Works is Dead (2:26)

James sums up his argument with a final phrase that acts as an inclusio with 2:17. In this way he ties together his argument with his main thesis (2:14) that faith apart from works is dead. James makes it clear that he is not contrasting faith and works, but rather a faith that is dead (without works) with a faith that is alive and brought to perfection (through works). James refuses to acknowledge that faith and works can be separated from each other. This was the position of his opponent in 2:18. For James the only true faith is one that expresses itself in works. The works are a natural outcome of faith and point to the quality of faith as alive. In reality, for James there is only one kind of faith, and that is faith demonstrated through works.
The rhetorical function of this whole section is clear: to persuade the hearers/readers that faith that comes to perfection is a faith demonstrated to be alive. James shows clearly that there is an unbreakable bond between ethics and faith: you cannot have one without the other. The words of James are equally applicable to our world, where some Christians see their faith as a purely private matter embracing solely a confession of faith. The message of James is undoubtedly a corrective to such individualistic and private notions of religion by reminding the community that faith, to be saving, must be alive.

FOR REFERENCE AND FURTHER STUDY

Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. “Doctrine of Faith in Hebrews, James and Clement of Rome,” JBL 19 (1900) 12–21.
Baird, William. “Abraham in the New Testament,” Int 42 (1988) 367–79.
Donker, Christaan E. “Der Verfasser des Jak und sein Gegner: Zum Problem des Einwandes in Jak. 2:18–19,” ZNW 72 (1981) 227–40.
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. “Rahab the Harlot in Early Christian Tradition,” JSNT 1 (1978) 53–60.
Longenecker, Richard N. “The ‘Faith of Abraham’ Theme in Paul, James, and Hebrews: A Study in the Circumstantial Nature of New Testament Teaching,” JETS 20 (1977) 203–12.
McKnight, Scot. “James 2:18a: The Unidentifiable Interlocutor,” WTJ 52 (1990) 355–64.
Siker, Jeffrey S. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991.
Soards, Marion L. “The Early Christian Interpretation of Abraham and the Place of James within that Context,” IBS 9 (1987) 18–26.
Ward, Roy Bowen. “The Works of Abraham: James 2:14–26,” HTR 61 (1968) 283–90.
Windisch, Hans. “Zur Rahabsgeschichte,” ZAW 35 (1917/8) 188–98.

EXCURSUS 7: FAITH AND WORKS IN JAMES AND PAUL

In the course of the history of interpretation this pericope (2:14–26) has prompted intense discussion regarding its relationship to Paul’s theology. Is there a contradiction between James’s teaching on the necessity of good works for justification and Paul’s teaching on justification by faith apart from works? The difficulty arises from the fact that James and Paul share a vocabulary that is similar, but at the same time acquires a unique meaning in each of their theological visions: e.g., justification (dikaiosynē), to save (sōzein), faith (pistis), law (nomos), and works (erga). Different answers have been proffered to this question (see, e.g., Luther’s negative evaluation in the Introduction: 2. Text and Canonicity). The position adopted by this commentary is that there is in reality no opposition between James and Paul since they are merely stressing different aspects.

Justification

In the Scriptures the term “justification” is used to refer to a situation in which people are declared to be in a right relationship with God. The concept of justification emerges from a legal context where “to be justified” (from the verb dikaioun, “justify”) means that one is legally demonstrated to be in the right. The English words “justification, justify” translate the same root terms represented by the English word “righteousness.”

The Hebrew Scriptures

In the world of Israel and the Hebrew Scriptures the concept of justification was used above all in the context of God’s covenant with Israel. One is said to be in a right relationship with God insofar as one is a member of the covenant people and abides by the stipulations of the covenant. Genesis 15:6 (which both Paul and James quote) illustrates this well: “And he (Abram) believed the LORD and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” The author is aware that the Mosaic covenant had not yet occurred, and that righteousness only came through God’s covenant with Moses. Consequently he writes that Abraham’s relationship with God was considered as though he were a member of the Mosaic covenant.
God is always faithful to this covenant relationship, a fidelity referred to as God’s righteousness. Consequently, in reference to God the term righteousness refers to God’s actions in upholding the covenant relationship and coming to the support of Israel.

Early Christianity

In the context of early Christianity the concept of justification and God’s righteousness endured. The early Christians developed this concept and theology found in the Hebrew Scriptures by giving it their own specific understanding in relation to the person, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is especially through reflection on the hopes of the Psalms that some New Testament writers developed an understanding of the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes in God’s actions in the death and resurrection of Jesus: e.g., “In you, O LORD, I seek refuge; do not let me ever be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me” (Ps 31:1); “In you, O LORD, I take refuge; let me never be put to shame. In your righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline your ear to me and save me” (Ps 71:1–2). The hope of God’s righteous actions in the deliverance of Israel is now focused on the vindication of Jesus’ death. God’s ultimate deliverance of Jesus from death through the resurrection is the greatest demonstration of God’s righteousness. In this vein the famous hymn quoted in 1 Tim 3:16 (obviously reflecting a liturgical tradition far more ancient than the letter itself [see JBC 2:355]) refers to Jesus, dead and risen, as “justified (edikaiōthē) (by God) in the spirit.”

Paul

In Paul’s letters the concept of justification/righteousness acquires special importance. Paul sums up his thought and position succinctly when he says: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law” (Gal 2:15–16). What is significant here is that Paul begins by appealing to a common faith, namely that salvation and justification occur through the community’s “faith in Jesus Christ.” It is this common understanding of justification that unites Jews and Gentiles in the new people of God.
An interesting new proposal has been advanced for the interpretation of the phrase “through faith in Jesus Christ” (dia/ek pisteōs Iēsou Christou; see Gal 2:15–16; 3:22; Rom 3:22). Most scholars and translators see it as an objective genitive: faith in Jesus Christ, where Jesus is the object of the faith of the believers. However, in more recent studies (such as those of Williams [1980] 241–90; [1987] 431–47; Johnson [1982] 77–90; Hays [1983]; [1987] 268–90; [ABD] 3:1129–33) the phrase dia/ek pisteōs Iēsou Christou is understood as a subjective genitive and translated as “through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness” (Hays [1992] 1131). In this understanding of justification the stress is placed on the action of Jesus, his faithfulness and obedience to his relationship with his Father’s will. In Gal 2:16 the contrast is drawn not between the believer placing faith and trust in Jesus as opposed to placing trust in his or her own efforts at obeying the Jewish Law. Rather, the contrast is between the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice on the cross attained salvation for humankind, and humankind’s efforts to acquire salvation through themselves and their obedience to the stipulations of the Jewish Law. As Hays notes:

(T)his interpretation would be consistent with the view of justification articulated in Rom 5:18–19: “Then just as the trespass of one [Adam] led to condemnation for all, so also the righteous act [dikaiōma] of one [Christ] leads to the justification [dikaiōsis] of life for all. For just as by the disobedience of one [Adam] many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one [Christ] will many be made righteous [dikaioi]” ([ABD] 1131).

Two things still remain essential for Paul’s perspective: justification rests on God’s action within Jesus’ death and resurrection, making people righteous; second, Paul sets up an opposition with regard to those who strive to earn their own justification through works of the Mosaic Law. Paul remains true to the basic understanding of righteousness/justification expressed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, namely that it is God’s action of remaining faithful to the covenant. God brings people into this covenant relationship now through the death and resurrection of Jesus rather than through the biblical Torah.

James

In the letter of James the language of justification is used relatively frequently for such a short writing: the verb dikaioun occurs on three occasions (2:21, 24, 25); the noun dikaiosynē also appears three times (1:20; 2:23; 3:18) while the adjective dikaios occurs twice (5:6; 16) and the noun adikia once (3:6). Differently from Paul, James sees salvation predominantly in terms of the future rather than as a present reality. As Jeremias says: “James, when speaking of justification, has in mind the last judgment” ([1954/55] 371). However, this vision is not exclusively future, as James does envisage a present dimension for the concept of salvation. In 1:18 he states that “(God) gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we might be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” James speaks in terms of community. He sees individuals undergoing a transformation into a new birth as God’s creatures. Just as the language of justification envisages the action of God bringing the believer into the context of God’s covenant people, in like manner James sees the individual being brought through God’s action into a community of those who are God’s new creation.
In the context of salvation the focus for James rests on what God has done and is doing. The new creation (1:18) is God’s work according to God’s own purpose. God is the one who grants the “crown of life … to those who love him” (1:12). God too is the one who grants forgiveness of sins and the gift of healing (5:15). In everything God is the cause and origin of all salvation. Humanity does not earn this: human beings are the recipients of God’s generous gifts.
As indicated in the interpretation of 2:1, the concept of “the faith of Jesus Christ” (pistis Iēsou Christou), found in Paul as a subjective genitive, also appears in James 2:1. While Paul stresses the faithfulness of Jesus, culminating in his salvific death, James draws attention to the importance of the faithfulness of Jesus’ whole life and ministry. For James the believer has to follow Jesus’ example. The stress lies on the imitation of a faithfulness that is demonstrated in the works of Jesus.
Consequently, James’s main concern is to argue that faith must be demonstrated by works of love: faith on its own has no justifying power. Faith is true faith when it demonstrates itself in action with works of love (2:22). These works of love show that faith is alive. Faith is brought to perfection through the works of obedience to God and kindness to one’s neighbor (2:21–22). “You see that a person is proved righteous by works and not by faith alone” (2:24) expresses James’s thesis. James is just as opposed to “works alone” as he is to “faith alone” in attaining justification. Works have to be demonstrated through actions of love before they are accepted by God as demonstrating that a person’s faith is alive.
Essentially James and Paul have two very different visions of the relationship between faith and works. One can describe the relationship as something akin to the “before and after” scenario. Paul is concerned about the situation of a person before she or he comes to faith and justification. According to Paul, works of the Law do not lead to faith and justification. For James, on the other hand, the perspective is rather that of a believer who already has faith and is in a justifying relationship with God. James stresses that it is vital for that person to express his or her faith in actions, or good deeds. The different concerns of the two authors can be represented in this way:

Paul’s concern
James’s concern
Works of the Law
Faith
(do not lead to)
(expresses itself in)
Faith
Works of Faith

This is, in effect, the way Augustine saw the relationship between James and Paul. He expressed their concerns in this way: “Therefore the opinions of the two apostles, Paul and James, are not opposed to each other when the one says that man is justified by faith without works, and the other says that faith without works is useless: because the former (Paul) speaks about works that precede faith, while the latter (James) speaks about those that follow faith; as even Paul shows in many places” (De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII Liber Unus 76 [MPL 50:89]). Augustine further distinguished between a dead faith that demons have and the justifying faith that works through love:

It is this same kind of faith which separates the faithful ones of God from the unclean devils, since even these, as the Apostle James says, “believe and tremble,” (2:19) though they do not perform good works. Theirs, then, is not that faith by which the just man lives, namely, a faith which so works through charity that God requites it with eternal life in accordance with its works. But as these same good works also come from God, who bestows faith and charity upon us, this same Teacher of the Gentiles has accordingly spoken of “eternal life” itself as a grace (Grat. 7:18 [Russell]).

Works

Paul

For an excellent and detailed treatment of the concept of “works” in both Paul and James see Mussner ([1981] 152–57). I acknowledge my debt to and dependence upon him for many of the insights here. In the letters of Paul the term ergon/erga is very common (some sixty-seven times in all the writings attributed to Paul). His varied use of the term betrays a clear theological vision. A survey of Paul’s usage reveals the following as the most significant aspects:
“Works of the Law” (erga tou nomou): This is the most significant use of the term for Paul’s understanding of the justification process. According to Paul, in the new dispensation that began with the death and resurrection of Jesus the works of the Mosaic Law have no value for justification. The main concern, as indicated above, was to place the emphasis on God’s actions in Jesus rather than on human actions. People cannot earn their own justification through fulfilling the requirements of the Law: a new path was opened up through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul constantly speaks in this context of “works of the Law” in the plural (see Rom 3:20, 27; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32; 11:6; Gal 2:16[3x]; 3:2, 5, 10; Eph 2:9).
“Good work” (ergon agathon): Paul deliberately uses the singular in place of the plural to avoid confusion with the negative “works of the Law.” This is understood in a positive sense as referring to human actions that are pleasing to God: “to those who by patiently doing good (ergou agathou) seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom 2:7). Paul also uses this phrase to refer to “God’s good work”: “I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work (ergon agathon) among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). God’s work is God’s gift of salvation, which will ultimately be brought to completion at the end-time. The emphasis is decidedly on what God has done. God’s work can also be identified with the person of Jesus Christ: in the letter to the Philippians, Epaphroditus is described as coming “close to death for the work of Christ” (Phil 2:30).
Paul’s work of ministry (ergon diakonias): Again Paul uses the singular, ergon: e.g, “For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor (karpos ergou) for me; and I do not know which I prefer” (Phil 1:21–22); and “to equip the saints for the work of ministry (eis ergon diakonias), for building up the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12).
What is significant in Paul’s use of these terms ergon/erga is the dividing line he draws between “works of the Law” and other positive uses of the term work/works. While there are times when Paul consistently goes out of his way to use the singular form (ergon) in order to avoid confusion with “the works of the Law,” he is not always successful in maintaining this distinction. In Rom 2:6 he writes: “For he will repay according to each one’s deeds (kata ta erga autou).” Here Paul is not referring to the “works of the Mosaic Law,” but rather to the actions of the individual believer in the course of his or her life. He is in fact quoting Ps 62:12 (61:13 LXX).

James

The terminology ergon/erga appears some fifteen times in the letter of James (1:4, 25; 2:14, 17, 18[3x], 20, 21, 22[2x], 24, 25, 26; 3:13). One of the clearest illustrations of James’s intent in the use of this vocabulary is 3:13: “Show by your good way of life your works in wisdom’s meekness.” Clearly James demonstrates the understanding that “works” are an outgrowth of the life of the believer: they illustrate the quality and nature of the life of faith. James 2:14–26 uses the term erga frequently to embrace acts of love toward community members.
James’s vision embraced an understanding of works that occurred in the context of one’s whole life of faith. Works of love were beacons of light demonstrating the quality of faith, a faith that owes its origin to God’s new creating action (1:18). Once again this understanding of works in relation to the demonstration of one’s faith and love is a direct continuation of the teaching of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works (kala erga) and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:16). For Jesus one’s actions, one’s good works, must be a demonstration of one’s faith that ultimately brings glory to God. The conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount highlights the importance of faith expressed in action. Jesus stresses that it is not the confession of faith but rather the carrying out of his Father’s will that is important: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt 7:21). Jesus’ saying is later echoed in James’s statement: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (2:17). The contrast Matthew’s Jesus draws between good and bad fruit is another attempt to assert the importance of good works as a demonstration of the nature of one’s faith: “In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.… Thus you will know them by their fruits” (7:16–20). Finally, the parable of the house built on rock is a further reminder of the necessity that works put into practice one’s faith in Jesus: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock …” (Matt 7:24–27). This also finds an echo in James’s teaching on the need to be a doer of the word and not a hearer only (1:22–23).
Consequently, James’s vision that faith must be alive and demonstrate itself through works or actions is not on the periphery of the New Testament writings. His vision conforms to the message of the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, which undoubtedly is one of the central visions of early Christianity and has remained so until today. Even Paul embraces this vision in his own way. He often expresses the desire that those to whom he writes should bear fruit through lives whose actions demonstrate their faith: “… so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God” (Col 1:10). This spirituality of works-demonstrating-faith so beautifully describes James’s position and shows ultimately that Jesus, James, and Paul are on the same page. While they each speak to different contexts and audiences, and have different perspectives in mind, they nevertheless uphold a common message of the importance of faith being put into action.

Conclusion

The above examination has demonstrated that much posited opposition or contradiction between James and Paul has little foundation in the reality of their writings. One of the difficulties encountered is that there are thirteen letters attributed to Paul and from these one can build a comprehensive picture of Paul’s theology related to justification, faith, works, and the law. However, as far as James’s thought is concerned there is really only one writing on which to construct his ideas related to these same concepts.
Both authors give the role of faith a primary position in the context of salvation. Paul’s major concern was the battle he waged against those who wanted Christians to continue to observe the Jewish Torah with its traditions and rituals, such as male circumcision and the Jewish dietary laws. For Paul this approach was in essence a denial of the role Christ played in salvation. It was indeed a rejection of God’s gift of Christ. At heart Paul saw the conflict with these Judaizers in terms of either/or: salvation is attained either through works of the Law or through faith in Christ.
An examination of the reference made to the example of Abraham in Paul and James demonstrates the differences in their context and vision. Paul refers to the example of Abraham in Gal 3:6–9. In doing so, he quotes Gen 15:6 and gives it a particular understanding. He shows that God justified Abraham on the basis of his faith in God and God’s message. Thus Abraham becomes an example for all who are on the path to justification, especially the Gentiles: God effects the justification of a sinner on the basis of faith and not on works of the Law.
James (2:21–23) refers to Abraham and uses the same scriptural quotation as Paul does (Gen 15:6), although in a different way. As the Interpretation showed, James sees Gen 22:1–19 (the account of the binding of Isaac) as the scriptural fulfillment of Gen 15:6. Abraham manifested his faith in this action of offering his son on the altar. By referring to the quotation (Gen 15:6) in the context of this action James states that God considers Abraham’s faith to be true faith, a faith shown to be alive through works. On this basis God considers Abraham righteous. His righteousness is not based on works of the Law but on the quality of his faith, which is demonstrated to be alive. Abraham emerges for all as an example of what true faith is. While Paul’s concern was to argue that justification does not rest on works of the Law but on faith, James’s concern is very different. He opposes an empty faith with one that is alive in God and in Christ Jesus. He demonstrates that a person is shown to be righteous through a living faith, a faith that flowers forth into action. Paul and James each have their own concerns. They are not addressing each other, but give attention to issues that are dominant within their own communities.
A failure to read James and Paul within the context of their visions and concerns has been the leading cause for scholars to see an opposition between them. Far more agreement exists between Paul and James than is generally acknowledged (as Johnson [1995] 58–64 also argues). One point of important agreement is the value they both attach to the Torah. For Paul and James the Torah is the moral universe in which they live and operate, giving expression to God’s moral will for the way humans are to act. Paul refers to the Law as holy, just, and good (Rom 7:12) and spiritual (7:14), while James characterizes it as the perfect law of liberty (1:25). A further remarkable similarity appears in their teaching on being not just a hearer but also a doer. Paul relates this teaching to the Law, while James brings it into the context of the word: “For it is not the hearers (akroatai) of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers (poiētai) of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13); and “But become doers (poiētai) of the word, and not merely hearers (akroatai) who deceive themselves” (Jas 1:22).
This is not to deny that James and Paul do emerge from different traditions and communities within early Christianity. That there was diversity among and within those communities is something present-day scholarship acknowledges and celebrates more, especially since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi tractates, and the Gospel of Thomas in particular. James and Paul represent different and diverse streams within the early Christian movement, but this does not mean that their diversity necessarily implies opposition. This is a mistaken conclusion scholars often tend to draw. As Martin says: “Those who see James and Paul as being in irreconcilable antagonism look to this passage as part of the diversity of New Testament Christianity” (82). But why should diversity necessarily imply antagonism? While James had a theology different from that of Paul, this does not mean that James was against Paul (see Johnson [1995] 114). It is the position of this commentary that James’s diversity must be respected and celebrated, and that James’s voice must be read in its own right as a witness to its own vision and theology without placing it within a straitjacket that views it through the eyes of Paul’s universe.

FOR REFERENCE AND FURTHER STUDY

Bultmann, Rudolf. “Dikaiosyne Theou,” JBL 83 (1964) 12–16.
Cosgrove, Charles H. “Justification in Paul,” JBL 106 (1987) 653–70.
Hays, Richard B. “Have We Found Abraham to be Our Forefather According to the Flesh?” NovT 27 (1985) 76–98.
———. “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49 (1987) 268–90.
———. “Justification,” ABD 3:1129–33.
Jeremias, Joachim. “Paul and James,” ExpTim 66 (1954/5) 368–71.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Romans 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus,” CBQ 44 (1982) 77–90.
Reumann, John H. P., et al. Righteousness in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Soards, Marion L. “The Righteousness of God in the Writings of the Apostle Paul,” BTB 15 (1985) 104–109.
Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963) 199–215.
Williams, Sam K. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980) 241–90.
———. “Again Pistis Christou,” CBQ 49 (1987) 431–47.
Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Patrick J. Hartin, James, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 14, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 149–172.