Much ink has been spilled over James 2 in the Protestant debates with Rome and the East, and I guess I'm gonna add to it now. When my girlfriend and I were reading our bible-in-a-year plan towards the end of last year, I was confronted by the last verse of James 2:
"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." In addition, my friend recently sent me this video, in which the Eastern apologist captures my discomfort with the verse well, so I decided I had to talk about it. However, before I get into his actual objection, I'll take on the common objections to Sola Fide from James 2, which many of you will likely have heard before.
Much of the discussion centers around verse 24, in which James says that we are "justified by works and not by faith alone," which sounds anathema to Protestant ears. The common Protestant response, which I would echo, is that the discussion of works in the chapter is not about one's standing before God but before men. This classic Lutheran Satire video puts it well, that it's the church's job to decide whether one is in fellowship with her or not, and we cannot see the heart like God can and thus must rely on one's works to discern their faith. And this isn't simply a declaration of the text's intention, but the evidence is clear from the text itself. In verses 14-17, James seems talks about the uselessness of works and the deadness of a workless faith. This all real Lutherans (not the radicals) would easily affirm, we are not antinomians. However, this does not necessitate that it is the works that save us, but it is the quality of the faith, namely that it is alive, which saves. What does this dead faith look like? Well as verse 19 says, it is the knowledge of the facts but a hatred for God, which is evidenced by persistent and adamant evil works. This is why James says in verse 18 that he will show his faith by his works, because works' primary job is to show one's faith. Verse 22 is also one of the best, though its poor translation implies otherwise. The word for "completed" comes from telos, a word that refers to one's end, purpose, or aim to be fulfilled (think teleology). In that sense, we see that faith points to works, that is, that works are the purpose to which faith is directed. We see this in Ephesians 2:8-10, in which we are saved by grace through faith and yet the whole point of our salvation is that we would do good works. In that sense, it is not that our works save us, but it is us, by the grace of God, fulfilling the purpose which He has for the human race.
Now, I think this sounds excellent and very consistent. However, James 2:26 seems to throw a wrench in this idea. I have always been a big fan of symbolism in the scriptures, so my mental patterns latched on to this apparent comparison and wouldn't let go. To compare the relationship between faith and works to that of the body and soul respectively seems odd, as it would imply that works give life to faith, and that seems against the spirit (pun intended) of James' words. However, I realize that I went too far in forming patterns; James didn't say that works and faith have the exact same relationship but that the two are alike specifically in the fact that without it, the body is dead. One could counter that you can't see a body's soullessness but there are two issues with this: it contradicts what James previously said in verse 18 about works showing faith, but it also is dependent on a specific definition of a soul. If you were to see a dead body, it's difficult to mistake it for a living one, because it isn't animated in either a literal or idiomatic sense. The soul is not substantial and thus, to see the lifelessness of a body is to see the soullessness of a body. Of course, you can't really observe a lack, but you can see the space where the lack should be, and the same is true of a dead faith, where you can see clearly where works should be, like those of chastity, and the church judges based on that. We cannot speculate about the relationship between the two because James does not speak on it, he only says that they are alike in the necessity of quickness or deadness in their partners, not in the conferring of liveliness to the other. And we are called not to speculate, for as St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, "it is enough for us to know these things...for had it been written, we would have spoken of it; what is not written, let us not venture on" (Catechesis 16.24).
I will admit, my argument against this is not the most solid, and though I find it rather convincing, I worry about a whiff of sophistry. In the case that I am being pedantic, I appeal in humility to the 17th saying of St. Anthony:
"One day some old men came to see Antony. Father Joseph was in their midst. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion, as he was able. But to each one the old man said, 'You have not understood it.' Finally he said to Joseph, 'How would you explain this saying?' Joseph said, 'I do not know.' Then Antony said, 'Indeed, Joseph has found the way, for he has said, 'I do not know.'"
May the Lord bless us as we wonder at the mysteries which God has placed in the Holy Scriptures for those willing to seek them, and may He continue raising us up into a greater knowledge of the truth. Amen.
Edit: I just want to add, for anyone concerned about this passage like I was, St. Paul takes up this specific issue in Galatians 3, where the apostle writes, "Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (21b-22)
Comments