_FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING
OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL. THE RELATION OF
LUTHER TO BOTH._
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be
naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in
peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things
needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have
not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith,
and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my
works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is One; thou
doest well: the devils also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know,
O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham
our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son
upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by
works was faith made perfect; and the Scripture was fulfilled which
saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by
works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner
was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she
received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the
body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is
dead."--ST. JAMES ii. 14-26.
This famous passage has been quoted in full, because one needs to have
the whole of it before one in order to appreciate the value of the
arguments used on this side and on that as to its relation to the
teaching of St. Paul on the connexion between faith and works; for
which purpose mere extracts will not do; and also because considerable
changes, some of them important, have been made throughout the passage
by the Revisers, and these will influence the impression derived from
reading the passage as a whole.
It might be thought that here, at any rate, we have got, in this
singularly practical and undogmatic Epistle, a paragraph which is,
both in intention and in effect, distinctly doctrinal. It seems at
first sight to be a careful exposition of St. James's views as to the
nature and value of faith and its relation to conduct. But a little
attention will prove to us that throughout the passage St. James is as
practical in his aim as in any part of the letter, and that whatever
doctrinal teaching there may be in the passage is there because the
practical purpose of the writer could not be fulfilled without
involving doctrine, and not at all because the writer's object is to
expound or defend an article of the Christian faith. He has _agenda_
rather than _credenda_ in his mind. An orthodox creed is assumed
throughout. What needs to be produced is not right belief, but right
action.
In this affectionate pastoral St. James passes in review the defects
which he knows to exist in his readers. They have their good points,
but these are sadly marred by corresponding deficiencies. They are
swift to hear, but also swift to speak and slow to act. They believe
in Jesus Christ; but they dishonour Him by dishonouring His poor,
while they profess to keep the law of charity by honouring the rich.
They are orthodox in a Monotheistic creed; but they rest content with
that, and their orthodoxy is as barren as a dead tree. It is with this
last defect that St. James is dealing in the passage before us. And as
so often (i. 12, 19; ii. 1; iii. 1, 13; iv. 1, 13; v. 1, 7, 13), he
clearly states his main point first, and then proceeds to enforce and
elucidate it.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
have not works? Can that faith save him?" "_That_ faith" is literally
"_the_ faith," or "_his_ faith;" viz. such faith as he professes, a
faith that produces nothing. There is no emphasis on "say." St. James
is not insinuating that the man says he has faith, when he really has
none. If that were the case, it would be needless to ask, "Can his
faith save him?" The question then would be, "Can his _profession_ of
faith save him?" But St. James nowhere throws doubt on the truth of
the unprofitable believer's professions, or on the possibility of
believing much and doing nothing. Why, then, does he put in the "say"?
Why not write, "If a man have faith"? Perhaps in order to indicate
that in such cases the man's own statement is all the evidence there
is that he has faith. In the case of other Christians their works
prove them to be believers; but where there are no works you can only
have the man's word for it that he believes. The case is parallel to
that sketched by our blessed Lord, which St. James may have in his
mind. "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that _doeth_ the will of My Father which
is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy by Thy Name, and by Thy Name cast out devils, and by Thy Name
do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. vii. 21-23). In
this case it is manifest that the profession of faith is not mere
empty hypocrisy; it is not a saying of "Lord, Lord," to one who is not
believed to be the Lord. It is a faith that can remove mountains, but
divorced from the love which makes it acceptable. The two, which God
hath joined together, have by man's self-will been put asunder.
The relation, therefore, of the teaching of St. James to that of His
Divine Brother is clear: the two are in perfect harmony. What is its
relation to the teaching of St. Paul? Omitting minor differences,
there are in the main three answers to this question: (1) The writer
of this Epistle is deliberately contradicting and correcting the
teaching of St. Paul. (2) St. James is correcting prevalent
misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable misunderstandings, of
the teaching of St. Paul. (3) St. James writes without reference to,
and possibly without knowledge of, the precise teaching of the Apostle
of the Gentiles respecting the relation between faith and works.
(1) Those who hold the first of these three views naturally maintain
that the Epistle is not genuine, but the production of some one of a
later age than St. James, who wished to have the great authority of
his name to cover an attack upon the teaching of St. Paul. Thus F. C.
Baur maintains that "the doctrine of this Epistle must be considered
as intended to correct that of Paul." This, which is taken from the
second edition of his work on the _Life and Work of St. Paul_,
published after his death in 1860, by his pupil Zeller, may be taken
as his matured opinion. In his history of the _Christian Church of the
First Three Centuries_, published in 1853, he expresses himself a
little less positively: "It is impossible to deny that the Epistle of
James presupposes the Pauline doctrine of justification. And if this
be so, its tendency is distinctly anti-Pauline, though it may not be
aimed directly against the Apostle himself. The Epistle contends
against a one-sided conception of the Pauline doctrine, which was
dangerous to practical Christianity." In both works alike Baur
contends that the Epistle of James cannot be genuine, but is the
product of some unknown writer in the second century. The opinions
that our Epistle is directed against the teaching of St. Paul, and
that it is not genuine, naturally go together. It is against all
probability that St. James, who had supported St. Paul in the crisis
at Jerusalem in A.D. 50 (Acts xv.), and who had given to him and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9), should attack
St. Paul's own teaching. But to deny the authenticity of the Epistle,
and place it in a later age, does not really avoid the difficulty of
the supposed attack on St. Paul, and it brings with it other
difficulties of a no less serious character. In any case the letter is
addressed to _Jewish_ Christians (i. 1); and what need was there to
put _them_ on their guard against the teaching of a man whom they
regarded with profound distrust, and whose claim to be an Apostle they
denied? It would be as reasonable to warn Presbyterians against the
doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Besides all which, as Renan
has shown, the letter sketches a state of things which would be
inconceivable after the outbreak of the war which ended in the
destruction of Jerusalem; _i.e._ it cannot be placed later than
A.D. 66.
Dr. Salmon justly observes, "To a disciple of Baur there is no more
disappointing document than this Epistle of James. Here, if anywhere
in the New Testament, he might expect to find evidence of anti-Pauline
rancour. There is what looks like flat contradiction between this
Epistle and the teaching of St. Paul.... But that opposition to Paul
which, on a superficial glance, we are disposed to ascribe to the
Epistle of James, disappears on a closer examination. I postpone for
the moment the question whether we can suppose that James intended to
contradict Paul; but whether he intended it or not, he has not really
done so; he has denied nothing that Paul has asserted, and asserted
nothing that a disciple of Paul would care to deny. On comparing the
language of James with that of Paul, all the distinctive expressions
of the latter are found to be absent from the former. St. Paul's
thesis is that a man is justified not by works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ. James speaks only of works without any mention
of the law, and of faith without any mention of Jesus Christ, the
example of faith which he considers being merely the belief that there
is one God. In other words, James is writing not in the interests of
Judaism, but of morality. Paul taught that faith in Jesus Christ was
able to justify a man uncircumcised and unobservant of the Mosaic
ordinances.... For this Pauline teaching James not only has no word of
contradiction, but he gives no sign of ever having heard of the
controversy which, according to Baur, formed the most striking feature
in the early history of the Church.... Whatever embarrassment the
apparent disagreement between the Apostles has caused to orthodox
theologians is as nothing in comparison with the embarrassment caused
to a disciple of Baur by their fundamental agreement."[60]
We may, therefore, safely abandon a theory which involves three such
difficulties. It assigns a date to the Epistle utterly incompatible
with its contents. It makes the writer warn Jewish Christians against
teaching which they, of all Christians, were least likely to find
attractive. And after all, the warning is futile; for the writer's own
teaching is fundamentally the same as that which it is supposed to
oppose and correct. Besides all which, we may say with Reuss that this
Tübingen criticism is mere baseless ingenuity. It "overlooks the
unique originality of the Epistle;" and to ascribe to the writer of it
"any ulterior motives at all is simply a useless display of
acuteness."[61]
(2) This last remark will not predispose us to regard with favour the
second hypothesis mentioned above--that in this passage St. James is
correcting prevalent misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable
misunderstandings, of the teaching of St. Paul. There is no trace of
any such intention, or of any anxiety on the subject. The purpose of
the passage is not doctrinal at all, but, like the rest of the
Epistle, eminently practical. The writer's object throughout is to
inculcate the necessity of right conduct. Readiness in hearing the
Word of God is all very well, and correctness of belief in God is all
very well; but without readiness to do what pleases Him it is as
useless as a dead vine. Whether St. James remembered the words, "We
reckon that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the
law" (Rom. iii. 28), must remain doubtful; for, as has been pointed
out in a previous exposition (p. 57), there is some reason for
believing that he had seen the Epistle to the Romans. But there is no
reason for believing that he was acquainted with the parallel
statement in the Epistle to the Galatians, "We being Jews by nature,
and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ,
even we believe on Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith
in Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified" (ii. 15, 16). Of one thing,
however, we may feel confident, that, had St. James been intending to
give the true meaning of either or both of these statements by
St. Paul, in order to correct or obviate misunderstanding, he would
not have worded his exposition in such a way that it would be possible
for a hasty reader to suppose that he was contradicting the Apostle of
the Gentiles instead of merely explaining him. He takes no pains to
show that while St. Paul speaks of works _of the law_, _i.e._
ceremonial observances, he himself is speaking of good works
generally, which St. Paul no less than himself regarded as a necessary
accompaniment and outcome of living faith.
Moreover, was there any likelihood that the Jewish Christians would
thus misinterpret St. Paul? Among Gentile Christians there was danger
of this, because they misunderstood the meaning of the Christian
liberty which he so enthusiastically preached. But with Jewish
converts the danger was that they would refuse to listen to St. Paul
in anything, not that they would be in such a hurry to accept his
teaching that they would go away with a wrong impression as to what he
really meant. And precisely that doctrine of St. Paul which was so
liable to be misunderstood St. James proclaims as clearly as St. Paul
does in this very Epistle. He also declares, more than once, that the
Gospel is the "law of _liberty_" (i. 25; ii. 12). Had St. James been
writing to Gentiles, there might have been some reason for his putting
his readers on their guard against misinterpreting St. Paul's manner
of preaching the Gospel: in writing "to the twelve tribes which are of
the Dispersion" there was little or no reason for so doing.
(3) We fall back, therefore, upon the far more probable view that in
this passage St. James is merely following the course of his own
argument, without thinking of St. Paul's teaching respecting the
relation between faith and works. How much of St. Paul's teaching he
knew depends upon the date assigned to this Epistle, whether before
A.D. 50 or after A.D. 60. At the later date St. James must have known
a good deal, both from St. Paul himself, and also from the many Jews
of the Dispersion, who had heard the preaching of the Apostle in his
missionary journeys, had seen some of his letters, and brought both
good and evil reports of his work to the Church at Jerusalem. Each
year, at the Passover and other festivals, James would receive
multitudes of such visitors. But it does not follow that because he
knew a good deal about St. Paul's favourite topics, and his manner of
presenting the faith to his hearers, therefore he has his teaching in
his mind in writing to Jewish converts. The passage before us is
thoroughly intelligible, if it is treated on its own merits without
any reference to Pauline doctrine; and not only so, but we may say
that it becomes more intelligible when so treated.
At the opening of the Epistle St. James insists on the necessity of
_faith_: "knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience" (ver.
3); and "Let him ask in faith, nothing doubting" (ver. 6). Then he
passes on to insist upon the necessity of _practice_: "Be ye doers of
the Word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves" (ver. 22);
and "Being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh"
(ver. 25). At the beginning of the second chapter he does exactly the
same. He first assumes that as a matter of course his hearers have
_faith_ (ver. 1), and then goes on to show how this must be
accompanied by the _practice_ of charity and mercy towards all, and
especially towards the poor (vv. 2-13). The passage before us is
precisely on the same lines.
It is assumed that his readers profess to have _faith_ (vv. 14, 19);
and St. James does not dispute the truth of this profession. But he
maintains that unless this faith is productive of a corresponding
_practice_, its existence is not proved, and its utility is disproved.
It is as barren as a withered tree, and as lifeless as a corpse. Three
times over he asserts, with simple emphasis, that faith apart from
practice is dead (vv. 17, 20, 26). All which tends to show that the
present paragraph comes quite naturally in the course of the
exhortation, without any ulterior motive being assumed to explain it.
It is in close harmony with what precedes, and thoroughly in keeping
with the practical aim of the whole letter. We see how easily it might
have been written by any one who was in earnest about religion and
morality, without having heard a word about St. Paul's teaching
respecting faith in Christ and works of the law.
It has been already pointed out that a letter addressed by a Jewish
Christian to Jewish Christians would not be very likely to take
account of St. Paul's doctrine, whether rightly or wrongly understood.
It has also been shown that St. James, as is natural in such a letter,
makes frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and also has numerous
coincidences with portions of that now much-neglected Jewish
literature which forms a connecting-link between the Old and the New,
especially with the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. It was in the
period in which that literature was produced that discussions as to
the value of faith in God, as distinct from the fear of God, and in
particular as to the faith of Abraham, the friend of God, began to be
common among the Jews, especially in the Rabbinical schools. We find
evidence of this in the Apocrypha itself. "Abraham was a great father
of many people, ... and when he was proved he was found faithful"
(Ecclus. xliv. 19, 20). "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation,
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness?" (1 Macc. ii. 52),
where the interrogative form of sentence may have suggested the
interrogation of St. James. It will be observed that in these passages
we have the adjective "faithful" (πιστός); not yet the substantive
"faith" (πίστις). But in the composite and later work which in our
Bibles bears the name of the Second Book of Esdras we have faith
frequently spoken of. "The way of truth shall be hidden, and the land
shall be barren of faith" (v. 1). "As for faith, it shall flourish,
corruption shall be overcome, and the truth, which hath been so long
without fruit, shall be declared" (vi. 28). "Truth shall stand, and
faith shall wax strong" (vii. 34). And in two remarkable passages
faith is spoken of in connexion with works. "And every one that shall
be saved, and shall be able to escape by his works, and by faith,
whereby ye have believed, shall be preserved from the said perils, and
shall see My salvation" (ix. 7, 8). "These are they that have works
and faith towards the Most Mighty" (xiii. 23). With Philo faith and
the faith of Abraham are common topics. He calls it "the queen of the
virtues," and the possessor of it "will bring a faultless and most
fair sacrifice to God." Abraham's faith is not easy to imitate, so
hard is it to trust in the unseen God rather than in the visible
creation; whereas he without wavering believed that the things which
were not present were already present, because of His most sure faith
in Him who promised.[62]
Other instances might be quoted from Jewish literature; but these
suffice to show that the nature of faith, and the special merit of
Abraham's faith, were subjects often discussed among Jews, and were
likely to be familiar to those whom St. James addresses. This being
so, it becomes probable that what he has in his mind is not Pauline
doctrine, or any perversion of it, but some Pharisaic tenet respecting
these things. The view that faith is formal orthodoxy--the belief in
one God--and that correctness of belief suffices for the salvation of
a son of Abraham, seems to be the kind of error against which
St. James is contending. About faith in Christ or in His Resurrection
there is not a word. It is the cold Monotheism which the
self-satisfied Pharisee has brought with him into the Christian
Church, and which he supposes will render charity and good works
superfluous, that St. James is condemning.[63] So far from this being
a contradiction to St. Paul, it is the very doctrine which he taught,
and almost in the same form of words. "_What doth it profit_ (τί
ὄφελος), my brethren," asks St. James, "if a man say he hath faith,
but have not works?" "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing," says St. Paul. "And if I bestow all
my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but
have not love, _it profiteth me nothing_" (οὐδὲω ὠφελοῦμαι).
St. Paul and St. James are thus found to be agreed. It remains to be
shown that in spite of his own statements to the contrary, Luther was
as fully agreed with the latter as with the former. When he writes
about St. James, Luther's prejudices lead him to disparage a form of
teaching which he has not been at the pains to comprehend. But when he
expounds St. Paul he does so in words which would serve excellently as
an exposition of the teaching of St. James. In his preface to the
Epistle to the Romans he writes thus: "But faith is a Divine work in
us, that changes us and begets us anew of God (John i. 13); and kills
the old man, makes of us quite other men in heart, courage, mind, and
strength, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. Oh, it is a living,
active, energetic, mighty thing, this faith, _so that it is impossible
that it should not work what is good without intermission. It does not
even ask whether good works are to be done, but before one asks it has
done them, and is ever doing._ But he who does not do such works is a
man without faith, is fumbling and looking about him for faith and
good works, and knows neither the one nor the other, yet chatters and
babbles many words about both.
"Faith is a living, deliberate confidence in the grace of God, so sure
that it would die a thousand times for its trust. And such confidence
and experience of Divine grace make a man merry, bold, and joyful
towards God and all creatures; all which the Holy Spirit does in
faith. Hence the man without compulsion becomes willing and joyful to
do good to every one, to serve every one, to endure everything, for
the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. Therefore
_it is impossible to sever works from faith; yea, as impossible as to
sever burning and shining from fire_."[64]
[60] _Introduction to the N.T._, 4th ed. (Murray, 1889), pp. 504, 506,
a work which may be most heartily commended to every student of the
New Testament.
[61] _History of the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T._, translated by E.
L. Houghton (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1884), p. 143.
[62] See the passages quoted by Hatch, _Essays in Biblical Greek_,
pp. 85-87 (Oxford, 1889).
[63] This kind of error is alluded to by Justin Martyr, in his
_Dialogue with the Jew Trypho_: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin; that is, who receives remission of his sins from
God as having repented of his sins; but not as ye deceive yourselves,
and some other (Jews) who resemble you in this, who say that even if
they are sinners, but attain to a knowledge of God, the Lord will not
impute sin to them" (cxli., p. 370, D).
[64] _Werke_, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt am Main, 1840, p. 1415.