Exegesis or Bible Butchery in James 2 - Pick one

James 2:17-26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

If a person were to approach this passage honestly it would be an easy thing to figure out.
Notice what James says in the last sentence of the passage. The body without the spirit is dead. Think about it. You are alive and animated. Why? Your spirit is still IN you. Your spirit is what gives life to your body and proves you are alive.
Then notice his conclusion. Even so...faith without works is dead. Just like your pysical body without a spriit can do nothing and is useless, EVEN SO...your faith is useless without SOMETHING that proves it is alive.

Paul bears this out when he says the just shall live BY faith. Faith is the live giving element which produces the action. No faith, no life. If there is no life (works/action) present then there is no faith. It is dead.

James says in effect; you say you have fatih? Prove it.

James uses Abraham as a perfect example because prior to Abraham offering Isaac, the Scripture says Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed to him. This righteousness came about without works, but his justification came about when his faith PRODUCED action which demonstrated that indeed Abraham did indeed believe God. Abraham said: knowing he was going to sacrifice his son, kill and burn him,: "wait here while I and the lad worship and WE will return". Abraham believed God would fulfill his promise of a great nation coming from Isaac. He had FAITH in that promise and even though he had to kill the son of promise he believed God would keep his promise. The action Abraham took is what justified his faith in God.

What we encounter when comparing Paul with James is as JJump indicated. TWO contexts for the word justification. Never define Biblical word usage outside of CONTEXT. You get into a big 'ol mees that way as evidenced by the many false teachers, i.e. SDA, LDS, JW, etc.

 

I'm speaking more of what the context is, and with the correct context we can draw out the correct interpretation.

Exactly. That is the whole point. You can believe that Jesus is the Christ, Annointed King, all you want to. You can believe He is coming back. You can believe He is going to rule and reign over the earth for 1,000 years. But if that faith does not motivate you to produce the works that God intended for you to do that faith alone will not save you, because you must be found blameless in regard to works on judgement day. You can have all the faith in the world, but if you don't produce fruit you are not going to have your soul saved at the JSOC. You will lose your soul. You will lose the double portion of the inheritance. You will not be adopted as a son, despite having the faith.

That's why he says will that faith save you, and the way it is structured the answer to the question is no. That faith will not save you. Only a faith that produces fruit will save you on that day.

But one's eternal destiny is not judged at that time. That judgement is already been had while the person was on this earth. Judgement after death or after the rapture is a judgement based solely on the works of the person, so eternal salvation is not in question according to context.

 

Amen! Very wise words, Jim.

 

Bob that's because you are still trying to get the book of James to fit into a context that it is not speaking to. James is not speaking of eternal salvation.

James is speaking to eternally saved individual, so that is not even in the picture. As long as you try to keep eternal salvation as part of the discussion James is not going to make sense, because that's not what he's talking about.

The audience that he is speaking to is eternally saved, and he is addressing something that is beyond that salvation.

Salvation is not available for the demons, so it is a moot point to try to wrangle them into the conversation.

Bottom line is if we try to make James to be about eternal salvation then mistakes are going to be made and contradictions are going to arise. We have to keep James in the context that was originally given if we are going to fully understand what the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal to us through this book.

 

Thank you for some correct exegesis and logic. You hit the nail on the head. A "dead" faith without works is like a "dead" car without a battery. The car is still a car, and faith is still faith, but neither are "runnning". It does NOT speak of losing your salvation or Millenial Exclusion. Reading those two arguments is like watching a football player and basketball player explaing the rules of hockey. They're in the wrong game.

 

av1611jim I have a question for you. It seems that there are a couple of folks here that have jumped on the bandwagon of support for what you have said. However, these two are not even in agreement as to what you have said as far as I can tell

So would you mind clarifying your post some for us. From your post are you saying that a person with a dead faith was never saved in the first place? Are you saying that a person with a dead faith is still saved?

A followup question . . . if you believe that a person is eternally saved, but has a dead faith what does that look like? What are the results of having a life lived with dead (non-fruit producing) faith?

You say that James is telling a person of faith that if they have faith to prove it. What type of faith are they supposed to be proving? Are they supposed to prove their faith in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, or are they supposed to prove their faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Annointed King?

I agree with the statement you made, but am looking for some clarification on what you mean by it.

Thanks in advance for your time and clarification.

 

OK, read "Christian Doctrine" by Shirley Guthrie, or "Basic Christian Doctrine" by John Leith, who cover the subject exhaustively.

 

Bob you are starting to get off track now. Nowhere did I say that everyone that attends a church is saved. Nor did I ever say that everyone who had picked up a Bible and read it is saved. Nor did I say that James said either of those two things.

If our conversation is going to be productive at all you are going to have to stick with what I say not put words in my mouth.

What I said was the folks that James was addressing in his book were saved individuals.

The problem is that 21st century people are looking at Scripture through 21st century glasses. We have a LOT of people that attend churches in the church building these days. And yes there are unsaved folks that attend those meetings. But just because that is true today doesn't mean that is the way that the Bible speaks to matters.

The Bible speaks to saved folks. The Bible has very little to say to unsaved folks. And the reason being is that the Bible is a Spiritual book and can not be understood by the spiritually dead.

The ONLY message that an unsaved person can understand is that Jesus Christ died and shed His blood on their behalf a sinner. And until they believe that they will remain in a spiritually dead condition and the Bible will remain a closed book to them.

For the vast majority of Scripture it is a book to the saved about matters after the moment of salvation.

As far as I can tell through Scripture that when the "church" is spoken of it is speaking about saved individuals that are a part of the body, it is not speaking of the "building" where unsaved and saved folks gather.

 

I tend to put this passage alongside such classics as

Romans 4:5 “And to the one| who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
--ESV|Campbell et al, Living Oracles, page 290.

Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).

Some like to place James 2 against these latter passages to negate them. I believe in the Baptist slogan "Compare Scripture with Scripture." James 2 describes the faith that saves someone. A person who has the type of faith that would work is saved the moment s/he has it. James 2 addresses people who live after conversion, which is most of us. Our faith is not biblical faith if it does not go to work.

Paul himself clarifies this: Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, |but only | the kind of faith that works through love” (NASB|ESV|ICB).

 

Bob the problem that you continue to have is that you are trying to mix contexts. As long as you try to do that you are going to have problems. You are talking about James in the context of eternal salvation, but that's not the context of James. So most of the points you are trying to make above are moot. They have no relevance to the text in question, because you are asking questions of the text that are not being discussed.

But to answer one of your questions:

To answer this we need to know something about "a man." Is this man saved by grace through faith? Or are you asking about this man in an eternal sense?

If you are asking in an eternal sense then the answer is no, because believing that God is One God is not the faith that saves a person for eternity. It is believing in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died in their place a sinner.

So no that man's faith would not save him.

Now if that man has already been saved by grace through faith and the question is if a man believes the way the demons do will that saved him. Again the answer to that question is no it will not. Because as James tells us just because a person believes the right things in regard to Jesus as the Christ that does not save them. That faith must result in obedience, faithfulness and cause one to be an overcomer just as He overcame.

Faith alone does not save a person. But the unsaved person is not even in view in that second question.

 

Bob I don't have a problem with James talking about the demons. Again I have never stated that. I have stated that you are putting far more emphasis than what is needed on the demons being a part of James' conversation.

Actually Bob the text does say that the people he was addressing were saved. James 1 makes that crystal clear.

Again James is dealing with a faith that is outside of eternal saving faith, so I respond because your points are moot regarding the demons. James is dealing with something outside of eternal saving faith. And until you come to the text seeing something other than eternal saving faith then your points will be moot no matter what you say.

Actually I think James is dealing with lostness. It's just that you and I differ on what lostness is. You equate lost with unsaved, while I believe Scripture equates lost in a different way. So when you see lost you automatically assume the context is eternal salvation, but James 1 clearly shows us that that is not the case, so lost must then mean something other than unsaved. Again we have discussed this more in our PMs, so I'll just leave it at that.

Bob again the same exact thing could be said of you. So you fail to prove anything. I could just as easily say But you never show that the text itself supports your assumption that lost equals unsaved. You simply right me off as making assertions, but you come to the text with a pre-bias and don't like it that I don't buy into your pre-bias.

See Bob that doesn't prove anything.

I think it is time to exit our conversations, because they are becoming pointless. Now I guess you can claim like Steaver that you win by default if you want to, but I don't think going further is going to do anything. We are stuck on the first step and there is no point in going to step two with step one undone.