James 2:14: Can Faith Save?

Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

James 2:14

I am indebted to Dr. Wallace for his chapter on the use of the Greek article in his book, “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics.” That single chapter is worth the price of the book alone. It has opened my eyes and helped me move past the mundane “definite/indefinite” view of Greek nouns. This much debated verse from James has been cast in a whole new light for me.

The KJV translates this verse as: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” The controversy lies in the the second half of the verse (14b). At first hearing, it sounds as though James is saying that faith alone cannot save anyone. As much as I enjoy the majesty of language in the KJV, I must admit it often is somewhat lacking as a translation. In this case, I object to the KJV's treatment of the article in v.14b.

You will notice in 14a, the word πίστις (pistis, “faith”) is anarthrous (that is, it lacks an article). In 14b, the word now has an article (“the faith”). It is my opinion that this is an “anaphoric” use of the article which refers the reader back to the same word in 14a. Thus, 14a refers to “faith” and 14b refers back to the same “faith.” Let me offer a paraphrase:

“What is the profit, my brothers, if someone should claim to have 'faith' but does not have works? This kind of 'faith' is not able to save him, is it?”

Other translations do a better job of capturing this meaning:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (NIV)

What use is it my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (NASB)

What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? (NLT)

What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? (ASV)

Considering the context of the entire chapter, we can in see that James is not referring to a genuine, saving faith. Beginning in 14a, we see instead that he is referring to a particular kind of faith – a psuedo-faith which some claim to have so that they might earn the respect of others (James 2:1). The shallowness of their faith is demonstrated by their works. They love to associate with the wealthy members of the congregation but they despise the poor.

John talked about this same attitude in his letter 1 John 3:17-18. “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Also in 1 John 4:20, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

The message of James is not at odds with any other part of the Bible. We are saved by faith and James affirms this. Saving faith is evidenced by our works. James condemns those people who claim to have faith but are betrayed by their works. Theirs is a faith of social expedience. James correctly asks, “can this kind of faith save”?

Fair Weather Friends

The Tea Party Movement that's swept the country in the last year has really ruffled some feathers. At first, the liberal media tried to simply ignore them but their silence became so painfully conspicuous that they could no longer ignore the protests and still maintain the label of a news medium. Their next tactic was to attack the movement by trotting out the tired terms like “racists” and the much more vulgar term, “teabaggers.” Liberal politicians said this wasn't a “real” movement but referred to it as “astro-turf.” The concerned citizens who protested at the Town Hall meetings were called a “mob” and “un-American.” In other words, the Tea Party did not have any friends among the liberal elite.

It was a completely different story among conservatives. FOX News (a truly balanced news channel but seen as conservative) was the only news network to cover the Tea Parties. Rush, Sean, Glenn, and all the usual suspects discussed the protesters in glowing terms saying that the movement represented the true heart of America. The people were sick of out of control government and had finally had enough. These were citizens standing up to unfair taxes just like the early revolutionaries of their namesake had done.

Since tax-and-spend is the only play Democrats use to solve anything, much of the Tea Party protest was directed at them. Therefore, Republicans were overjoyed, seeing this as a possible windfall for the Republican Party in the 2010 elections. It seems the friendship was fated to be short-lived. After the recent Tea Party convention, I'm starting to hear a different tune from Republicans.

I think the Republican Party is starting to realize that the Tea Party movement isn't exactly a group of Republican cheerleaders but a movement against government waste – whether the “waster” is a Democrat or Republican. Moderate Republicans (like John McCain) aren't likely to receive a ringing endorsement from the Tea Party.

The fear of the Republicans is that the Tea Party will beginning running 3rd party candidates. In an election, a Tea Party candidate could very well split the conservative vote allowing the Democrat candidate to win. Suddenly, the Republicans aren't so keen on the Tea Party movement. They are starting to warn the protesters that running their own candidates would be against their own best interest.

If the Tea Party decided to run its own candidates, I have to agree that it it's not likely they would win and it very well cost also ruin the election opportunity for the Republican on the ticket. But the solution isn't for the Tea Party to water down their message. Conservatives shouldn't have to hold their collective noses and vote for the Republican (or RINO as the case may be) simply because of the “R” after his name. The solution is for the Republican Party to run more conservative candidates.

I still remember the Republican revolution of 1994. We've come a long way since then (the wrong way). We've not only lost our majorities in both the House and Senate, we've lost them in a big way – giving up until recently, a super-majority in the Senate. I saw it coming when I heard Colin Powell speak at the Republican National Convention, 1996. There had been talk leading up to the convention about how Republicans need to become a “big tent.” At one point, Powell mentioned he was pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) and got a standing ovation. I had to check my TV guide to make sure this was the Republican convention. Had they already forgotten the conservative message that swept them into office only 2 years earlier? What were they thinking?

The Tea Party needs to put as much pressure on Republicans as is necessary to insure they run conservative candidates. If it costs us a couple of elections, then so what? In the last election, Republicans pitted a very moderate McCain against the very liberal Obama and look at what happened?

They're Looking in the Wrong Place

I know I'm dating myself but here's a joke you may not have heard in a while:

A man was crawling around looking for something. Another man walked up and asked, “What are you looking for?”

The man answered, “I dropped a dollar. Would you help me find it?”

“Sure. Where were standing when you dropped it?”

“Over there by those bushes.”

“Then why are you looking here?”

“Because the light is better here.”

I shouldn't have to explain what makes the joke funny: it's ridiculous to search in the wrong place simply because the light it better. No rationally thinking person would do that, right? You'd be surprised. Evolutionists do it every day!

I've cited this quote before (here) but let me remind my readers of it:

“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added].

Every time I hear an evolutionist tell me there is no evidence for creation, I remind myself of this quote. When evolutionary scientists study the issue of origins, they do so with starting assumption that everything must have a natural explanation. They admit as much. The reason they do this (or at least the reason they offer) is because only natural processes can be tested. Supernatural events (i.e. miracles) are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Yet does that premise alone mean that miracles do not occur? Of course it does not. It's a not so subtle attempt to define creation away.

I see a striking similarity between the attitude of evolutionists and the man looking for his dollar. They both claim to be earnest looking for something but they both search in vain for the sake of convenience: the man in the joke searches in the light for something that was lost in the shadows and the evolutionists search only in the natural realm for something that was supernatural. It's funny when you think about it. If the miraculous explanation for the origin of the universe happens to be the correct one, it's no wonder evolutionists can't find it. They're looking in the wrong place!!

John 3:7: Who are You?

When I first began studying Greek, it didn't take long before I realized that learning a new language was more than just learning its vocabulary. Every language has its own rules of grammar which must also be learned. Yet more than that, every language has its own particular set of idioms which can confound non-native speakers.

Even though I strive to better understand Greek grammar, I still occasionally get tripped up on certain idioms. Even now, I occasionally project my English understanding onto a Greek text. One such instance came to my realization just recently concerning the 2nd person pronoun, "you." As a native English speaker, I have a very good understanding of what someone means when he says, "you." I know, for example, that if someone walked up to me on the street and asked, "How do you get to 1st Street?," I know that he's not really asking how "I" get to 1st Street. Instead, he wants to know how "he" can get to 1st Street. He's using "you" in an indefinite sense to mean, "anyone". He's asking, "How does someone get to 1st Street?" or more likely, he asking, “How do I get to 1st Street?”

The indefinite sense of "you" is an English idiom. It didn't really occur to me that other languages (in this case, Greek) don't use "you" in that same sense. As we read the Bible, every use of "you" means someone in particular.

For the sake of application, let's look at John 3:7:

μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπον σοι· δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.

"Do not marvel because I said to you, 'You must be born again."

First, many English readers are unaware that the second "you" in this verse is plural; that subtle point is lost in translation because there is not a plural "you" in English. I think the translators of the KJV were onto something by using "Ye" to denote a plural pronoun. But besides that, who did Jesus specifically mean when He said, "you (2p, pl) must be born again"? In English, this seems like a candidate for an indefinite pronoun:

Question: "How do you get saved?"

Answer: "You must be born again."

However, we must remember that there is not an indefinite use of "you" in Greek so Jesus meant someone in particular. Exactly who Jesus meant is not really the point of this post. The point of this post is simply to help us become more aware that we need to ask the question. However, since I raised the point I will answer it; I believe that, in John 3:7, Jesus was talking specifically about the Pharisees, of which Nicodemus was one. Thus, John 3:7 might be paraphrased as:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, that you Pharisees must be born again."

Of course, in John 3:3, Jesus used the indefinite pronoun "τις" to communicate that it is necessary for “someone” to be born again to enter heaven. But as we read the Bible, whenever we read the word "you", we need to stop and consider exactly who is being discussed.