EXEGESIS OF JAMES 2:18-20

James 2:18    But someone will say, "You have faith, and I

have works."  Show me your faith from your

works, and I will show you from my works my

faith.

Verse 18 is difficult for several reasons.

First, in Greek, verse 18 has major textual variants.  So the

translation of this verse depends on which Greek manuscripts

one elects to translate.  The reading found in the majority of

Greek manuscripts makes virtually no sense at first glance,

and the reading found in the remaining tiny handful of

manuscripts is, at best, a small improvement at first glance.

From this, the manuscript evidence appears to show that a

scribe from the early church in Alexandria edited this verse

to correct what appeared to be a mistake, and that his edits

found their way into a few subsequent manuscripts.

There are two clauses offered in verse 18.  In them, the "Fool" (the imaginary disputer of James) invokes his own imaginary disputer ("Disputer 2").

In the minority of manuscripts, principally of Alexandrian

origin, the logical arguments of the two clauses are reversed, as if the imaginary fool is going to show the superiority of one theology over the other.  So, the Fool challenges Disputer 2 to show his faith "without" his works, while the Fool is willing to demonstrate his faith "from" his works.

In the majority of manuscripts, both clauses repeat the same idea, not alternative ideas.  Only the word order is switched.  The "fool" challenges Disputer 2, "show me your faith from your works, and I will show you my faith from my works."  It is understandable why many scribes throughout history thought this was a manuscript error and sought to correct it.  Only an idiot would make an argument of alternative propositions by repeating the proposition twice.  But we must remember, by James' own words, this argument is advanced by an imaginary "fool."  So perhaps James is not simply creating an imaginary "fool," but something closer to an imaginary imbecile.

We will accept that the majority of manuscripts are correct in

the following analysis, rather than a tiny minority of

manuscripts.  Verse 18 above has been translated in this light.

The second problem with verses 18-19 is that it is not clear

from the Greek manuscripts exactly where the disputer%u2019s

words end and James%u2019 analysis resumes.  The quotation

marks are added to the English text, but do not appear in the

Greek language, and their placement is a matter opinion by

any team of translators.  It was a common form of rhetoric in

classical Greek to invent a disputer, allow him to advance an

argument, and then show the error of his reasoning.  And in

many classical examples, the words of the imaginary disputer

continue until the writer again addresses him.  If James were

following this classical Greek style, the quotation marks

would extend all the way to the end of verses 18-19, after

which James again addresses the imaginary disputer.  But the

placement of the quotation marks remains uncertain.  The

disputer%u2019s words could end after verse 18, where the

quotation marks are usually found in most translations, or

even after the first sentence of verse 18.

Perhaps the difficulty in interpreting these verses is that

theologians assume that some sort of logical argument is

being advanced by the fool, and then refuted by James.  But

before we beat our brains out interpreting verses 18 and 19, it

is important to remember that, whatever they may mean, in

verse 20, James tells us that they are the hypothetical

ramblings of an imaginary "fool".

Let us therefore look also at verse 19 and 20 and, based on

that analysis, offer a paraphrase of these three verses as a

unit.

James 2:19    You believe that there is one God.  You do

 well.  Even the demons believe%u2014and tremble!

Whatever this verse means, it does not form a

foundation for the doctrine of soteriology.

Firstly, it appears that these are the words of the fool,

since it is not until the next verse that James resumes his

reply, which begins by addressing the fool.  The words of a

fool are hardly the foundation on which to build a doctrine of

eternal salvation.

Secondly, demons can%u2019t be saved since Jesus never died

for their sins.  Those who seek to apply this verse to eternal

salvation seem to be unaware of the role that the death of

Christ played in our redemption.  Faith's inability to save

demons is not due to the sinfulness of demons, but that Jesus

did not pay for their sins through his death.  He paid for the

sins of Adam's race.  Jesus never died for the sins of any

demon.

Thirdly, Scripture teaches that to redeem someone, the

redeemer must be a kinsman of the redeemed.  Mankind is a

race.  That is, we are all fallen descendents of Adam.

Therefore, Jesus, by being born into Adam%u2019s race, became

the kinsman redeemer for all of Adam's race.  In this way, he

was able to redeem all of mankind.  In contrast to Adam's

race, angels and demons are not a race.  They do not

reproduce and have offspring.  Each angel was a separate

creation of God.  They are unrelated by blood.  Therefore,

even if Christ were to decide to redeem fallen angels, he

would have to take on the flesh of each demon separately,

dying countless times for countless demons.

Fourthly, since demons can%u2019t reproduce, there is no

way for Jesus to be born as a descendent of any demon.  And

without a kinsman redeemer, demons cannot be saved.  In

short, demons are beyond redemption.

Fifthly, unregenerate minds who seek to formulate

some bizarre argument for salvation by works from verse 19

clearly don%u2019t understand the gospel.  The great "shma"-- that

"God is one" -- is not a soteriological formula of the New

Testament.  The New Testament formula for salvation is that

Christ died for our sins and arose again on the third day.

For at least these five reasons, only a fool would look to

James 2:19 to formulate their doctrine of eternal salvation.

But I guess that's the point James makes in the very next

verse, isn't it?

James 2:20    "But do you not know, O foolish man, that

faith without works is dead?"

From these facts, we offer the following interpretation or

paraphrase of verses 18, 19, and 20.

Verse 18:   The fool, according to the majority of Greek

manuscripts, argues that works are the automatic

and certain result of faith.  (A popular belief

today as well.)

Verse 19:   The fool advances this argument by saying that

demons believe, but do not have good works, and

that this is how we know that demons are not

really saved.

Verse 20:   James calls the man a fool for at least seven

reasons.  Firstly, the fool has tried to set up a

logical alternative, but repeated the same

proposition twice in verse 18.  Secondly, works

are not the "automatic" result of trusting Christ.

If they were automatic, they wouldn't be called

"work."  Finally, the disputer's "proof" of his

argument (that demons are not saved), is not a

proof, but a theologically idiotic statement for the

reasons stated above in conjunction with verse 19.

James calls him a fool.

ANALYSIS

Why does James, in the middle of a plea to help the

poor, present an idiotic soteriological argument and then

reject it as foolish?  It is clear that James wants to stress the

importance of charitable works, particularly in light of the

distress in Jerusalem and the outlying areas.  It is also clear

that James want's to use irony to convey this passion.  He

may even be a little annoyed with the number of Christians

that were so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good.

But if James were to express any criticism toward the

authentic gospel, he would be a self condemned heretic.

And although he was enflamed with passion for the poor, he

was also in love with Jesus Christ, and would never attack

the gospel simply to help the poor.

Perhaps the same heretical belief that permeates the

church today, that faith automatically results in works, was

present in the time of James.  So, in one short passage:

James presents, and then condemns, the warped "works

are automatic" of the imaginary fool;

James ensures that his ironic style was not taken to be

an attack on the true gospel; and

James avoids getting knee deep into a discussion of

soteriology.  Because James does not wish to divert his focus

(the poor), he sets up a "straw man" of manifestly stupid

theology.  That way, he is able to simply dismiss the

statements as the ramblings of a "fool," and return to his

foundational premise, that when the poor are starving in the

streets, it is not faith that will save them.  Faith without

works is dead.

ALTERNATIVE  HUERISTICS

Heuristic 1:        James briefly raises the objection, dismisses

it,  and then returns to his theme . . . that faith without works

is dead.  Faith cannot deliver a cold and starving man from

physical death if it does not have works, and all the

philosophizing in the world won%u2019t change that.

Heuristic 2:        James calls the disputer a fool for believing

that works automatically follow faith.  And then, James

adopts this position himself, teaching works "automatically"

follow faith, and that if one does not have works, they were

"never really saved," but simply had "dead faith."

Although Heuristic 2 should, by now, appear patently absurd

to persons of average intellect, long after James' death, it

would go on to become a popular theological position.

Eventually, that resourceful twentieth century expositor, John

MacArthur, would go on to divine roughly 48 different

varieties of faith in the passages of Holy Scripture, all from

the single Greek root "pisteuo," such as dead faith, living

faith, professing faith, possessing faith, saving faith, faith that

works, faith that claims to be authentic but does not have

works, etc. etc.

With such remarkable taxonomical skills, it does not take a

great imagination to see what a great service could be done to

the church if John MacArthur entered field of secular

anthropology, where he could use his creative taxonomy to

categorize the various "hominids" as well as other fanciful

lines in Darwin's "tree of life."

Chapter 13 - Analysis of James 2:18-20