Faith that Works: A Response to Peter Rollins from James 2:14-26

“The point that is being made here is that Christianity, as a religion without religion, always resists being implicated in the dominant ideological systems within society by seeking to stand with those who dwell outside of them. As religion without religion Christianity’s ir/religious expression cannot be reduced to a tightly held worldview without being effaced, for it is expressed fundamentally in the texture of one’s life particularly in relation to the poor and oppressed. Is this not the deep insight expressed in James 2:26 when we read that faith without deeds is dead?” (Peter Rollins, The Fidelity of Betrayal, 172).

Let’s look at James 2:14-26:

Verse 14 The theme of James 2:14–26 is that worldly faith is a heartless, intellectual faith, whereas true faith leads to godly behavior and decisive action.  Wayne Grudem states James’ theme another way: “mere intellectual agreement with the gospel is a ‘faith’ that is really no faith at all.”[1] Verse 14 begins this passage by stating the topic: the authenticity of faith without works. James then asks two rhetorical questions and uses mh. which indicates that the answer to the second question is negative (cf. Matt 26:25; John 6:67).[2] If the answer to the second question were positive, James would have used οὐ instead of μὴ. If the answer to the second question is negative, then a deedless faith has no saving power.

James uses questions and the previous argument to outline his concern for those who express their faith in their words but not in their actions. The second question in this verse provides James’ thesis, namely that faith that is not active is useless and devoid of saving power. While some argue that James’ second question seems to deny the saving power of faith, Nigel Turner notes that the ἡ` before πίστις is an individualizing article which points back to the same word in the first question of v. 14.[3] James is referring to a deedless faith as seen in the first question as opposed to a saving faith. Additionally, the imaginary person that James puts forth in the first question only says that he has faith. James’ argument discusses a person who claims to have faith, not necessarily a person who has faith. James’ claim is now clear: A person with a deedless faith is a person with no faith at all. Peter H. Davids states James’ argument very emphatically: “There is no salvation for the person who stops short of discipleship.”[4]

Verses 15–16 To answer the second question of v. 14, James sets forth in v. 15 a scenario where a fellow Christian (ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφή) is in need of basic necessities (James 2:15). The presence of ἐὰν indicates that this is a future supposition.[5] The scenario continues to unfold in v. 16 when another member of the local Christian community sees the fellow Christian in need and simply wishes him well while doing nothing to alleviate his suffering.[6] Martin notes that this wishful remark which uses an imperative verb is similar to a “wish-prayer.”[7] James then asks another rhetorical question with an implied negative.

Verse 17 While the prayerful words spoken by the Samaritan in v. 16 had the appearance of saintliness, the words were not backed up with obedient action in keeping with God’s commands as James’ second question implies. As James states in 2:17, οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ  ἔχῃ ἔργα, νεκρά ἐστιν καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν. James argues that faith and works are not independent of one another. True faith, though independent of right action in relation to salvation, is expressed outwardly through right action in the life of the believer. Faith that is not accompanied by deeds is not Christian faith, according to James.  

Verse 18 In v. 18, James begins a hypothetical dialogue with an imaginary person who opposes his argument and maintains that authentic faith does not require action. The objection of the imaginary person is noted by the presence of Ἀλλ.[8] Some writers suggest that Ἀλλ ἐρεῖ τις identifies the imaginary person as an ally rather than an objector. Donald Verseput rejects this conclusion due to the “trenchant statement of the author’s thesis in vv. 14–17.”[9] This imaginary person separates faith and deeds, whereas James combines the two. James’ response to this opposing view is a request for proof that deedless faith is authentic. Obviously, a person with a deedless faith cannot prove the reality of his faith since there is no outward manifestation of it. James then states that he will demonstrate his faith through action. It must be noted here that any demonstration of faith would require the existence of faith before the demonstration.

Verse 19 James continues his argument with the person by first affirming his questioner’s belief in one God. He immediately follows by saying that the demons believe this as well. This has the effect of equating deedless faith with the pseudo-faith of demons. The pseudo-faith of demons is an intellectual acknowledgement that is by no means heartfelt. James also states that the pseudo-faith of demons leads them to tremble with fear, whereas James’ faith leads to obedient action.

Verse 20 James rebukes the imaginative objector by calling him foolish (κενέ) in v 20. Davids notes that a fool is one who has moral deficiencies more so than intellectual problems.[10] His usage of ὧ in the rebuke, ὧ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, “suggests deep emotion”[11] and betrays James’ passion for the objector’s need for authentic faith. By calling the imaginary objector foolish, James denounces his or her argument that faith can be present even if works are absent. The term ἀργή, used by James to modify a deedless faith, means “unproductive, useless, worthless.”[12] James asks the question in 2:20: θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι . . . ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν? This question introduces the following evidence in 2:21–25 which supports an affirmative answer.

Verse 21 In v. 21, James answers the question in v. 20 with illustrations from the Old Testament. The first illustration is the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. James asks rhetorically whether or not Abraham was ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη when he obeyed God’s command to sacrifice Isaac. The implied answer to James’ question is positive as evidenced by the presence of οὐκ.[13] At first glance, James’ assertion that Abraham is justified by works seems to go directly against the sola fide doctrine of Paul. The context however will reveal that James’ assertion is in agreement with Paul’s sola fide doctrine.

Verses 22–23 In v. 22, James continues to argue that Abraham’s faith was real because it was backed by measurable action. Most scholars define τελειόω, used to identify the effect of works on faith, as meaning to complete or fulfill.[14] James uses τελειόω declare that faith is completed by works.Genesis 15:6 is cited in v. 23 as further proof that Abraham’s faith was both active and obedient. James adds that Abraham, because of his obedience, was called φίλος θεοῦ. Curiously, James notes that Abraham was called φίλος a friend of God. James 4:4 equates friendship with the world with the hatred of God. By switching this verse around, one learns that friendship with God, like that which Abraham enjoyed, means hatred of the world and leads to right action as opposed to wrong action. From James 1:22–27, one learns that anything less than complete obedience is unacceptable. Tim Laato and Mark Seifrid add that real love (apart from which friendship would not exist) leads to “a complete work (1:4) as a fulfillment of the perfect law (1:25).”[15]

Verse 24 James summarizes in v. 24 that ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον. This statement seems to place James directly in contradiction to Paul who said in Romans 3:28: δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. Paul, however, was concerned about legalistic righteousness (ἔργων νόμου). James is focused on the obedient faith of Abraham. Previously, James’ use of πίστις refers to the intellectual faith of the demons and the imaginary objector in the hypothetical argument. While James separates faith and works in his discussion with the objector and his statement about the demons, his end goal is to recombine them into a single unit.

Verse 25 James’ second illustration from the Old Testament begins in v. 25 and portrays Rahab the prostitute as possessing the same kind of obedient faith that Abraham had when she chose to assist the Jewish spies. James however does not explicitly refer to Rahab’s faith; instead, he chooses emphasize her works. Context reveals, however, that the biblical author was referring to works that originated from faith. A. T. Robertson notes the irony of James choosing Rahab, a prostitute, as his second example to support his thesis that faith without works is dead.[16] But James’ use of a woman marred by a sinful past reveals James’ emphasis on works as acts of charity rather than ritualistic activities.

Verse 26 James draws his argument to a conclusion in v. 26 as evidenced by his use of ou[twj. With finality, he says that ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν. Deedless faith is empty and hollow like a body without a spirit. It is devoid of life and meaning. He compares the closeness of the union between faith and works with union of the body and the spirit. To possess life, one must have both a body and a spirit. In the same way, faith and works must be united in the life of a person; otherwise, his faith is really no faith at all.

Back to Rollins:
James definitely believes the real faith leads to good works that glorify God. Rollins desire for Christians to engage in good works is to be appreciated; however, his willingness to allow the faith of Christian, who perfoms the good works, to remain undefined (not “tightly held”) is a concern. Good works which glorify God do so by testifying about the truths about Him as revealed in His word. If a Christian performs good works but does not believe with certainty the basic truths of the Gospel, then the inherent testimony within their good works fails to testify about the God they claim to represent. In the end, their actions may end up testifying about the goodness of the human agent thereby failing to glorify God.

Verse 20

---

[1]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1994), 731.

[2]Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed. James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 282–83.

[3]Ibid., 173.

[4]Peter H. Davids, James, New International Biblical Commentary, vol. 15 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 64.

[5]Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Mood and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906), 104.

[6]In sentences where either the masculine or the feminine pronoun is acceptable, the masculine pronoun will be used.

[7]Martin, James, 84.

[8]Mark Proctor, “Faith, Works, and the Christian Religion in James 2:14–26,” Evangelical Quarterly 69 (1997): 316.  Proctor notes that VAllV was commonly used to express objections in the time of James.

[9]Donald Verseput, “Reworking the Puzzle of Faith and Deeds in James 2:14–26,” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 107. Verseput argues against Mayor and Mussner.

[10]Davids,  James, 67.

[11]Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Example (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963), 36.

[12]Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker [BAGD], 3^rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. “avrgo,j.”

[13]A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914), 917.

[14]BAGD, s.v. “teleio,w”; Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9^th ed. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940), s.v. “teleio,w”; Gerhard Delling, “teleio,w,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 8:82.

[15]Timo Laato and Mark Seifrid, “Justification According to James: A Comparison with Paul,” Trinity Journal 18 (1997): 64.

[16]A. T. Robertson, Studies in the Epistle of James, rev. and ed. Heber F. Peacock (Nashville: Broadman, 1959), 101.