Misreading James 2:24

A few days ago, the YouTube channel Lutheran Satire (makers of the wonderful "Saint Patrick's Bad Analogies" and "Horus Reads the Internet") released a video in which Martin Luther schools Pope Francis on the proper reading of James 2:24.

James 2:24 has always been a sticky wicket for those who ascribe to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  It's the one place in the Bible where we find the words "faith alone"... but they are preceded by the words "not by".

Luther's first instinct was to cast doubt the inspiration of the book - calling it "an epistle of straw" and not of true apostolic origin (he was later talked out of it).  But since then, more inventive ways have been found to defuse the troublesome passage.

That's what I want to look at today:


The Observation Hermeneutic:

Let's read the verse in question:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

Now, the more natural way of reading this is to regard the phrase "you see" as the sight of understanding.  Like when a person says, "see what I mean?"  Under that reading, the passage would mean:

"You now understand that we are justified by works and not by faith alone."

However, Pastor Hans (in the video) flips that meaning on its head by proposing that James' phrase "You see" actually refers to actual physical observation.

The context, he says, is that in adjudicating who is a member of the Church, one cannot observe interior beliefs - only exterior actions.  Thus, if one's actions are not in keeping with Christian morality, we can conclude that the person doesn't really believe and has actually apostatized.

So with the Observation Hermeneutic the passage would now read:

"You observe that a man is justified by his works, and not by his faith alone. (But he really is justified by faith alone)."

Non-Existent... or just Useless?

The problem for that interpretation is what happens when you try to situate it back into the original paragraph.

For instance, the Observation Hermeneutic insists that the man with no works actually has no faith.  The problem for this theory is this section of James 2 begins with a statement which indicates the exact opposite:

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" - James 2:14

Here, James doesn't say one would have no faith.  Rather, he says a person would have faith, but a faith which is incapable of saving.  

A similar thing is observed a bit later in verse 20 and 26:

"Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" - James 2:20

"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." - James 2:26

Here it says our faith is "useless" and "dead" without good works. It doesn't cease to exist.  It exists.  The person still has faith, but it's just a useless faith which has no capacity to save you.

An inert signal... or something more?

Further, the Observation Hermeneutic supposes that we are justified by faith alone after all - and good works are simply an outward signal to others that we have faith.

However, the same paragraph observes that Abraham and Rahab were, in fact, justified by works. It further further says their deeds - far from being an inert signal - actually brought their faith to completion:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed/perfected by his works." - James 2:21-22

"And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" - James 2:25

And here's the kicker, the sentence which says faith is completed by works also begins with the phrase "you see".  And in this context it is absolutely clear James is using the phrase to refer to understanding, not observation.

This means the Observation Hermeneutic was wrong from the get-go.

First Guess Best:

So we're back to the natural understanding of the passage.  James did not mean good deeds simply allow us to observe the interior faith of another.  The letter flat-out says we're justified by works (and not by faith alone) because good works complete/perfect our faith and make it efficacious for salvation.

Luther was right when he first desired to excise the letter from the Bible.  You see... it contradicts his doctrine.