In an attempt to downplay the difficulty Jas 2 poses to Reformed soteriology, one Protestant apologist wrote:
Commentators are united in one thing regarding James 2:18: it is a very difficult text, mainly because of the problem it presents in interpreting the punctuation of the passage. As one can see from a quick glance at the most popular translations, there are a number of possible interpretation . . . [I] would break the text down as follows:
But someone will say, “Do you have faith?” And I will say, “I have works. Shoe me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”
This then flows into verse 19, “You believe that God is one . . .”
. . .
[The interpretation I favour has two] assumptions: that the phrase συ πιστιν εχεις is actually a question (which is syntactically quite possible) and that the phrase καγω εργα εχω will allow the translation, “And I will say, ‘I have works,’” supplying the verbal ideas of will say or will respond. There is some warrant for supplying the phrase (Acts 9:5, 10; 25:22) in recording conversations which has some parallel here. The result fits perfectly, though, with the context; the imaginary objector, responding to James’s emphasis upon deeds, asks if James has faith at all. James, rejecting the abnormality already seen (faith that cannot prove its existence by actions), responds by saying that he possesses evidence, works, and that he can demonstrate the existence of his real faith by those very works. The objector cannot demonstrate the existence of faith without the corresponding actions . . .[In spite of the interpretive possibilities], the final sentence is fully understandable and in fact key to the rest of the pericope. James uses the term δειξον, from δεικνυμι, a word that refers to demonstrating something to someone else, proving, giving evidence of, showing, revealing. James challenges the questioner, and thus all professing believers, to prove and demonstrate the reality of their faith . . . That this provides the immediate context of 2:20-24 is key to understanding the rest of the pericope. Any attempted exegesis that ignores the challenge to personally and outwardly demonstrate (δεικνυμι) the existence of the inward quality of faith will, of necessity, misinterpret the entire passage.
In contrast to the futility of attempting to demonstrate faith sans deeds, James is confident that a true faith can provide its existence by deeds. James uses δειξω, the future form, to express this confident that true, saving faith has the capacity to provide external, personal demonstration. Further, we should note the contrast between χωρις (“without” deeds) and εκ (“by” or literally “from” deeds). The first speaks of attempting to make a demonstration without any basis (without deeds); the other speaks of proving the existence of faith from deeds, or by means of deeds. Deeds are a tool, an instrument thereby the existence of something that is unseen by nature (faith) can be proven to exist. (James R. White, The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001], 339, 340-42; italics in original; square brackets added for clarification).
One has to appreciate the valiant effort by White to salvage belief in Reformed theology from Jas 2, but, as with most of his biblical interpretation, it is eisegetical.
Firstly, Jas 2:22-24 does not allow for this “demonstration” meaning of Abraham’s (and Rahab’s) justification. As I explained elsewhere:
(1) If James were teaching a concept of vindication, he could have chosen a word that solely and clearly refers to a vindication or exoneration, rather than a word that is commonly used and understood in Scripture to refer to salvific justification. Such words are commonplace in Koine Greek. For example, James could have used such words as δοκιμαζο, δεικνυμι, παριστημι, περιαζω, συμβιβαζω, and φανερος.
(2) The addition of “and not by faith [alone]” in Jas 2:24 introduces a specific element and direction to James’ argument, for it clearly shows that his primary concern is to show that faith alone cannot justify a man, not merely to suggest that Abraham was vindicated by works. If his concern were to teach that works are added to faith only as a demonstration of a previous justification, there would be no reason to add “not by faith only,” for “faith [alone]” is not demonstrating anything in order to be negated, and thus it would be unnecessary to eliminate it from the works that are demonstrating
(3) If James were arguing for Abraham’s vindication, this line of argumentation would only make sense if in the context of Jas 2 one of James’ opponents had claimed that Abraham was “vindicated by his faith only.” If so, James would have easily refuted the argument by saying something to the effect of “you see, a person is vindicated by his works and not by faith alone.” But this phraseology would have required James to use the notion of “vindicated” in the early part of his argument (vv. 14-23) in order for him to use it in the latter part (v. 24); otherwise, the concept of vindication would have no referent in the context. Moreover, the syntactical structure of Jas 2:24 would require that the phrase “not by faith only” have its referent in “is vindicated,” and thus the text would have to mean: “you see, a man is vindicated by works and not vindicated by faith only.” It would assert that one is vindicated not only by faith but also by works. Consequently, by injecting the concept of vindication into Jas 2:24, the Protestant argument has actually done more damage to its case than would have otherwise occurred, for the concept of vindication must then apply to both faith and works, which then destroys faith itself as being salvific.
(4) The Protestant argument must assume that Paul and James are using two entirely different definitions of justification, the former referring to a forensic and salvific justification, the latter referring to a demonstrative vindication of a prior justification. But two definitions are unsupported by the context. This is noted as James quotes from Gen 15:6 (“And [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness”) in Jas 2:23. Gen 15:6 is the same passage from which Paul quotes in Rom 4:3. The Greek word for “righteousness” in both passages is δικαιοσυνη. Since both James and Paul quote from Gen 15:6, both must have the same definition and understanding of the word δικαιοσυνη. That being the case, it would be totally incongruous for James to suddenly inject a different meaning of δικαιοσυνη’s verbal form, δικαιοω (“justified”), which appears in both Jas 2:21 and 2:24, and surrounds the reference to δικαιοσυνη in Jas 2:23. To support its thesis, the Protestant argument is forced to conclude that James begins with a definition of the δικαιοω word group which means vindication (Jas 2:21), switches to another meaning which refers to salvific justification (Jas 2:23), and then switches back to the meaning of vindication (Jas 2:24).
(5) That vindication cannot be James’ meaning of the word δικαιοω is proven further by his addition of Rahab to the discussion of justification. As James opens up the review of Rahab, he introduces her account by the phrase, “Likewise” or, alternatively, “in the same way” (Jas 2:25). By this wording, James is equating the justification of Abraham to the justification of Rahab and declaring that they are the same. We must conclude then, that there is no theological difference in the way these two people were justified in the eyes of God. If there were a difference, then God would have two systems of justification, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles, but this cannot be, for God shows no favouritism between Jew and Gentile, and there is only one name under heaven by which men and women are saved. The importance of understanding the correspondence between Abraham and Rahab’s respective justifications becomes clear when we consider that James certainly does not view Rahab’s justification as a vindication. Using Protestant terminology, we cannot say that Rahab was given a forensic imputation of justification prior to the hiding of the Israelite spies. Rahab was a prostitute who lived an immoral life until she encountered God through the Israelites. Her justification comes on the heels of her acceptance of the God of Israel and his laws, which would necessitate that she immediately repent of her evil ways and decided to live righteously. An active event took place in Rahab’s relationship with God, not a demonstration of a previous justification. Hence, if Rahab is not vindicated but is salvifically justified during her encounter with the Israelite spies, and since James insists that Abraham was justified “in the same way,” then we can only conclude that both Abraham in Gen 22 and Rahab in Josh 2 was salvifically justified before God, not vindicated.
It should also be noted that White’s approach to Gen 15:6 informs much of his approach to Jas 2 (cf. Rom 4), but as seen here, Reformed theology is not supported by Gen 15:6.
Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist who has debated (and defeated) White on the topic of justification (youtube video) recently interacted with this (eisegetical) interpretation of White of Jas 2:18 which informs his approach to the rest of the chapter (link):
First, let’s get a proper translation of vr. 18 from the Greek: “But someone will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
Obviously, there are two positions: (1) one person has faith with no works and he is apparently not justified, and (2) a person who has faith and works who is apparently justified.
The sticky point is that person #2 is said to “show his faith by his works,” so that the works are not understood as independent from the faith, but actually “show” the faith.
So the next question is: how does work “show” faith? Well, let’s answer that by dealing with the negative first. The way that works do not show faith is when someone does a good work without believing in Christ. For example, there are many moralistic people who perform good works to other human beings, but are atheists. Obviously, their works are not “showing” their faith.
Hence, works can only “show” faith if the work is done in the name of the faith, or more precisely, in the name Jesus Christ or the Christian faith. If the Christian person does a good work in the name of Jesus Christ, he does so because his Christian faith requires him to do so. He does not have an option to do good works. In other words, to have “faith” in God means that we believe what God has told us about our obligations both to love Him and our neighbor, the two greatest commandments. (Incidentally, this is also why James mentions in vr. 8 the “royal law, to love one’s neighbor as oneself.” It is required to love one’s neighbor, otherwise, as he says in vr. 13, one “will be judged without mercy”).
Hence, if we perform our good works because, as Christians we want to follow the dictates of the Christian faith, we are “showing” our faith by doing our good works. Our faith in God requires us to work, hence, we perform work to display the faith we have in God.
You will notice, however, that doing works to show our faith does not mean that we are qualifying the faith as “saving faith,” since James never uses that phrase in his epistle.
The proper way to phrase it is that “faith by itself” (vr. 14), or “faith alone” (vr. 24) cannot justify, not that works qualify faith so that faith alone can justify. Rather, James insists that BOTH faith and works, working together, will justify a man, not that a qualified faith will justify a man.
Although the two position are close, the fact that Protestants use the “saving faith” phraseology precisely because they want to reject the idea that works need to be added to faith for justification (for they believe that justification is faith alone in the “alien righteousness of Christ” – a position that is not taught in Scripture) is the very reason we must reject their “saving faith” formulation.
The bottom line is this: Just because works “show” faith, that does not mean that faith alone justifies. It only means that works “show” that someone has faith (and only if the work is done in the name of the Christian faith).
If faith were really “alone,” no works would be required at any level. We must insist of the Protestant that, if he is going to claim that faith is “alone” in justification, then no works can enter into the discussion, not even to qualify the faith. The minute he insists that works can be used qualify the faith, then faith is not alone, and thus he should cease using the “faith alone” phraseology. He cannot speak out of both sides of his mouth. Either faith is alone or it isn’t.
Luther believed in the pure “faith alone” doctrine, that is, a faith that was not dependent on works in any way, shape or form. The reason he wanted to eliminate works is that if one tries to qualify his faith by the kind of works he does, then he will always wonder whether his works were good enough to qualify his faith, and thus he is back to the very problem Luther was trying to escape, that is, having to judge his works as good enough to meet God’s standards of righteousness. This is precisely why Luther, before he had is “faith alone” revelation, used to whip himself with chains – so that his works would be good enough (so he thought).
Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as “saving faith,” for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran. This is precisely why he wanted to jettison the book of James. He didn’t want to have James insisting that faith and works worked together in any way.
It was only the later Lutherans, under Philip Melanchthon, who rejected Luther’s pure “faith alone” doctrine and began to integrate James back into the picture. They thought they did so by claiming that James was merely speaking about qualifying faith by works, but once they did so they came right back to the Catholic position, yet they camouflaged it by using different phraseology than what was used in Catholic doctrine. But they were really only fooling themselves. As a Protestant, one cannot use works to qualify faith, since one can never know whether his works were sufficient to do the job of qualifying.
In effect, pure Lutheranism only survived in Luther’s generation. No Protestant since Luther has ever really believed in the original “faith alone” doctrine, but they keep using the phrase to make it appear as if they are distant from Catholic doctrine, and few have caught on to it.
Obviously, there are two positions: (1) one person has faith with no works and he is apparently not justified, and (2) a person who has faith and works who is apparently justified.
The sticky point is that person #2 is said to “show his faith by his works,” so that the works are not understood as independent from the faith, but actually “show” the faith.
So the next question is: how does work “show” faith? Well, let’s answer that by dealing with the negative first. The way that works do not show faith is when someone does a good work without believing in Christ. For example, there are many moralistic people who perform good works to other human beings, but are atheists. Obviously, their works are not “showing” their faith.
Hence, works can only “show” faith if the work is done in the name of the faith, or more precisely, in the name Jesus Christ or the Christian faith. If the Christian person does a good work in the name of Jesus Christ, he does so because his Christian faith requires him to do so. He does not have an option to do good works. In other words, to have “faith” in God means that we believe what God has told us about our obligations both to love Him and our neighbor, the two greatest commandments. (Incidentally, this is also why James mentions in vr. 8 the “royal law, to love one’s neighbor as oneself.” It is required to love one’s neighbor, otherwise, as he says in vr. 13, one “will be judged without mercy”).
Hence, if we perform our good works because, as Christians we want to follow the dictates of the Christian faith, we are “showing” our faith by doing our good works. Our faith in God requires us to work, hence, we perform work to display the faith we have in God.
You will notice, however, that doing works to show our faith does not mean that we are qualifying the faith as “saving faith,” since James never uses that phrase in his epistle.
The proper way to phrase it is that “faith by itself” (vr. 14), or “faith alone” (vr. 24) cannot justify, not that works qualify faith so that faith alone can justify. Rather, James insists that BOTH faith and works, working together, will justify a man, not that a qualified faith will justify a man.
Although the two position are close, the fact that Protestants use the “saving faith” phraseology precisely because they want to reject the idea that works need to be added to faith for justification (for they believe that justification is faith alone in the “alien righteousness of Christ” – a position that is not taught in Scripture) is the very reason we must reject their “saving faith” formulation.
The bottom line is this: Just because works “show” faith, that does not mean that faith alone justifies. It only means that works “show” that someone has faith (and only if the work is done in the name of the Christian faith).
If faith were really “alone,” no works would be required at any level. We must insist of the Protestant that, if he is going to claim that faith is “alone” in justification, then no works can enter into the discussion, not even to qualify the faith. The minute he insists that works can be used qualify the faith, then faith is not alone, and thus he should cease using the “faith alone” phraseology. He cannot speak out of both sides of his mouth. Either faith is alone or it isn’t.
Luther believed in the pure “faith alone” doctrine, that is, a faith that was not dependent on works in any way, shape or form. The reason he wanted to eliminate works is that if one tries to qualify his faith by the kind of works he does, then he will always wonder whether his works were good enough to qualify his faith, and thus he is back to the very problem Luther was trying to escape, that is, having to judge his works as good enough to meet God’s standards of righteousness. This is precisely why Luther, before he had is “faith alone” revelation, used to whip himself with chains – so that his works would be good enough (so he thought).
Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as “saving faith,” for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran. This is precisely why he wanted to jettison the book of James. He didn’t want to have James insisting that faith and works worked together in any way.
It was only the later Lutherans, under Philip Melanchthon, who rejected Luther’s pure “faith alone” doctrine and began to integrate James back into the picture. They thought they did so by claiming that James was merely speaking about qualifying faith by works, but once they did so they came right back to the Catholic position, yet they camouflaged it by using different phraseology than what was used in Catholic doctrine. But they were really only fooling themselves. As a Protestant, one cannot use works to qualify faith, since one can never know whether his works were sufficient to do the job of qualifying.
In effect, pure Lutheranism only survived in Luther’s generation. No Protestant since Luther has ever really believed in the original “faith alone” doctrine, but they keep using the phrase to make it appear as if they are distant from Catholic doctrine, and few have caught on to it.
Only by engaging in eisegesis (as seen in White’s comments above from The God Who Justifies), and then using that as the interpretive framework for the subsequent verses can one salvage belief in Reformed soteriology. Reformed theology, instead of being reflective of “biblical Christianity,” is instead, a perversion thereof.