The Epistle of James to the Twelve Tribes of the Diaspora

Transcription

1 James 2:18-19 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. Just as confusion exists with the initial premise in verse 14, so too, the understanding of this objection and the objector has caused many debates. In fact, many have called these two verses the most difficult verses to understand. I will break down these verses presenting various views and at the end I will tell you where I lean. Textual Verification: The first textual problem comes from the placement of the quotations. I do not think this is as hard as some make it out to be. The passage begins with a strong contrast, ἀλλά alla, and the next conjunction that is contrastive in nature is in verse 20 where James seems to be reentering the conversation. Attempts to limit the objector s words to 18a or the end of verse 18 are an attempt to have James be the one who states that one who does not have works has a demonic faith. The quotation, speaking from a textual observation only, is all of verses 18 and 19. In verse 18 the Greek text has a variant: δεῖξόν µοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου τὴν πίστιν - UBS δεῖξόν µοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου τὴν πίστιν NA28 δεῖξόν µοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου τὴν πίστιν - SBL δειξον µοι την πιστιν σου εκ των εργων σου καγω δειξω σοι εκ των εργων µου την πιστιν µου - TR δεῖξόν µοι τὴν πίστιν σου ἐκ τῶν ἔργων σου, κἀγώ δείξω σοι ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου τὴν πίστιν µου - BYZ This variant may not seem like much, but the change would cause a distinct translational dilemma. The LCV translations would be as follows: Show me the faith of yours without the works... Show me the faith of yours from the works of yours... Zane Hodges, among a minority of others, believes that the preposition εκ is correct because of the majority of the texts has εκ. What he does not explain is the reason that it appears in most. It is because the area that has this most manuscripts (the Byzantine) has εκ. The older and very reliable texts indicate that χωρὶς is more likely the case. Even the (N)KJV, translates this as if it is χωρὶς. For now, without all the over-the-top scholarly points, I will say that χωρὶς is most likely the correct text, but I am not 100% sure.

2 If εκ is correct the argument seems nonsensical. Show me the faith of yours from the works of yours and I will show to you from the works of mine the faith of mine. Zane Hodges does an adequate job of explaining this verse with the εκ by stating that this argument is a reductio ad absurdum (a reduction to absurdity). { It is absurd, says the objector, to see a close connection between faith and works. For the sake of argument, let s say you have faith and I have works. Let s start there. You can no more start with what you believe and show it to me in your works, than I can start with my works and demonstrate what it is that I believe. The objector is confident that both tasks are impossible.} Hodges explains that the objector is advocating for an understanding that there is no connection between faith and works. He goes on to say, {The impossibility of showing one s faith from one s works is now demonstrated (so the objector thinks) by this illustration: Men and demons both believe the same truth (that there is one God), but their faith does not produce the same response.} Right away we can see a fatal flaw. Nowhere in the text and nowhere in scripture has it been demonstrated that faith is a producer of any external action. I read an article by John Piper that was entitled Saving Faith Produces Love. The article provides no verses that state this claim and I have never been shown a verse that states that faith produces anything. Whenever there is a positive production (fruit, works out) or a command to do so, it is always the action of the person that is in question. Now, having the right doctrinal understanding and focusing on the person and love of Jesus Christ enables a person to properly love but it is still the individual s responsibility to act upon what one believes. Once again, read the text carefully. James never concludes that if you are not doing good, then you should go back and reexamine your faith. He anticipates a person having faith and he demands that a person chooses to do what is right. Now, the literal translation if εκ is the correct text is, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith from your works, and I will show you, from my works, my faith. You believe that there is one God; you do well. The demons also believe, and tremble. The problem is that irony is not easy to observe without the text indicating that fact. When reviewing the text, the verse does not appear to be speaking from irony and the overall main point of James is not that there is a necessary connection between faith and works, but that if one does not have works the faith is non-beneficial to the believer.

3 What would be the understanding of this verse (if εκ is correct)? This is a challenge from the objector in a contest of what a person can demonstrate. If one only has faith, then the contest is lost before it can even begin. If χωρὶς is correct, and I think it is, the translation is very straightforward. But someone will say you have faith and I have works, demonstrate to me your faith without works and I will show you from my works my faith. The definite article is present in both faith and works. The faith of yours/mine; the works of yours/mine. In context, the faith is the doctrine of loving your neighbor (taking care of the needy), verses This can also be used in a general sense. The works is the fulfilling of the action of taking care of the needy. The objector is setting up the contest with full disadvantage. If someone has faith without works, how can he demonstrate to the objector what he believes? He cannot, as you can see whether the contested word is εκ or χωρὶς. The main argument of the objector remains the same. Exegetical Analysis: Because of the analysis of the textual criticism, we do not have to do a lot of work analyzing these verses. But we do need some and we also need to ask and answer some vital questions. The first phrase is translated But someone may well say. The verb say is in the future active indicative. From the perspective of James, on the authority of God, this objection is an absolute certainty. This objection will take place and someone will have this objection. As stated, the objection statement is from you have faith and I have works to the end of verse 19, even the demons believe and shudder. The content of the objection in verse 18 has already been well covered. Verse 19 continues with the objection, You believe that God is one. This can also be translated you believe there is one God. The distinction is not as great as some commentators would have you believe. The emphasis changes a bit but what is believed remains the same. This is very similar to The Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear O Israel the LORD our God is One. In the LXX, it reads ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν which, if we remove our Lord, looks like the text in James, εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός. Many think this is in reference to the Shema and I agree.

4 In the objection the objector concedes the fact that believing that the Lord is one is a good thing, you do well. But the demons believe the same thing. The conclusion of the objector is that belief in the one God is of no real advantage because the demons believe the same thing and respond in fear. Now we must ask and answer some questions. 1. To whom is he objecting to? 2. Who is this potential objector? 3. What is the main argument of James in bringing this up? 4. How does this objection fit into the entire context? At first glance the objection seems to be to James. The ἀλλά alla at the beginning of verse 18 is not a negation of verse 17. In Romans 5:14, Paul is making an argument about sin and death. Verse 14 beings with ἀλλά, but verse 14 does not contrast verse 13, rather it supports it. In Matthew 11:7-9, Jesus is teaching about John; both 8 and 9 begin with ἀλλά. Indeed, this is a contrast, but to what? The question is determined by the content of the objection. The objector first states to the one he is objecting to you have faith and I have works then expands by stating demonstrate to me your faith without works. Does James have faith with no works? Rather the person in verse 14 who says they have faith but does not have works is the person who is receiving this objection. James is placing a person who is on the outside of their conversation who is going to make an observation in support of James main premise; having a doctrinal understanding without deeds is useless. Who is the objector? Based upon the argument made by the objector, I think it is easy to see who James has in mind in this scenario. First, the objector has works that demonstrate faith. Second, they refer to the Shema. This person is a Jew who is not a believer in Jesus and is openly criticizing the believer. The audience of this letter is a wide variety of believing Jews in various regions outside of Judea. They are supposed to be lights in the darkness, being a witness to both Jews and Gentiles in a foreign land. If a fellow Jew, one to whom they are witnessing does not see good deeds coming from the believing Jews, this will cause the believing Jew to be ridiculed and the witness is damaged. The third question now should be obvious. James main argument is that these believing Jews are not only violating a logical response, they are also in jeopardy of being called hypocrites by the very persons they are

5 trying to reach. In the New Testament letters, one of the main reasons to live godly lives is because living in sin does a huge disservice to the Name by which you are called; this dishonors Christ; this mars the Gospel. Finally, this objector fits the context in that this is one of four reasons that James is concluding that faith without works hold no advantage. 1. It violates logic; what advantage is it to believe that we should take care of the needy if when we have the opportunity to do so, we simply say I ll pray for you. 2. It invites unbelievers to shame the believer and the witness of the Gospel. You discredit the Gospel when your works do not outshine the unbelievers around you. 3. We have the example of Abraham being justified by works. 4. We have the example that Rahab the Canaanite harlot was justified by works.