Chapter 2, James chapter 2. We're going to try and finish up that section in verses 14 to 26. Last week we looked at verses 14 to 17, so God willing this evening we'll finish up 18 to 26. I'll just begin reading in James 2 at verse 14.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, you have faith and I have works. Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well.

Even the demons believe and tremble. But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

And the Scripture was fulfilled, which says, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Likewise was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Amen. Well, let us seek God's help. Father, we thank you for this passage of Scripture. We just pray for the ministry of the Holy Spirit to help us to understand, help us to appropriate what James is speaking to here, and help us to see he is not putting forth an alternate way of salvation.

He is not contradictory to the Apostle Paul. that cause us to reflect upon the unity of Scripture, the blessed harmony that we find in the writers of Scripture. We would ask that you would just forgive us again for our sins and our transgressions, help us to take away from this study James's point That if we profess faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only saving faith is that which is accompanied with all other saving graces. And that faith must lead to and produce good works. Help us in this, God.

Help us to engage in the almsgiving that Jesus speaks to in Matthew 6. Help us to put into practice the pure and undefiled religion. that James speaks to in chapter 1, grant us grace, Lord God, not to just be empty professors, but to be those who indeed have a saving faith in our Lord Jesus that fleshes itself out in the way that we conduct ourselves. And we would pray these things through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Introduction

Last week I introduced the sermon basically highlighting the various difficulties that persons have run into with reference to this particular passage of Scripture. The Apostle Paul, of course, insisting that we are justified by faith only, and then James says in verse 24, you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. I cited Martin Luther where he said the epistle of James gives us much trouble. For the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest.

If they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall also make rubble of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove." I would suggest that Martin Luther didn't have a good understanding of James. I suggest that he did not harmonize the two brothers adequately. That's kind of a funny thing, I want to throw Jimmy into the stove.

Really a bad thing for Luther to say, but he was quite a colorful figure in the way that he said certain things. Certainly brings a smile to one's face. But that idea that we should labor, and I think it's the task of preaching, it's the task of systematic theology, to harmonize and to show the consistency of Scripture. I think John Owen is on the right track when he says, for his, James, whole inquiry in 14 to 26 is after the nature of that faith whereby we are justified.

So James is not telling us that what Paul is saying is wrong. James is simply emphasizing, based on his particular context, the necessity of saving faith. Saving faith, as our confession states, is always accompanied with all other saving grace. So it's not a dead faith, but it worketh through love.

And that is the emphasis of James in this particular section. We rehearsed a few items last week in terms of some hermeneutical helps or interpretative helps in harmonizing James and Paul. Paul, in the first place, the unity of the Scripture. The Holy Spirit's not going to have Paul write one thing and James write another thing.

There is a unity of Scripture. As well, James' doctrine of salvation is exactly Pauline. It is precisely Paul's doctrine of salvation. Notice in James 1.18, he says, of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we might be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

That is sovereign grace. That is election. That is effectual call. That is the power of God to bring sinners out of darkness, to use a Petrine expression, into marvelous light.

So, Peter, James, Paul, they're all consistent that salvation is by God's grace alone, and as well, it is through faith alone. James emphasizes that in James 2.1. My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. One of the arguments as to why we ought not to show partiality is because of God's grace demonstrated to the poor.

Notice in 2.5, has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom? God did not choose them because they were rich in faith. God chose them so that they would be rich in faith. Again, it sounds very similar to what we have in Ephesians chapter 1.

Paul talks about sovereign election. He talks about the graces of faith and repentance, and James certainly agrees. As well, we ought to consider the immediate context. James is dealing with what appears to be a people that had professed saving faith in Christ, but were not bridling their tongues.

They had professed saving faith in Christ, but they were not visiting orphans and widows in their distress. They had professed saving faith in Christ, but they were not keeping themselves unspotted from the world. They had professed faith in Christ, but they were showing partiality in the corporate gatherings of God's people. James's point is obvious.

He is dealing with deadbeat professors. Paul is dealing with this idea that we are saved by grace, or we are saved rather by faith, plus works. He's saying, no, it's by grace alone through faith alone. James is dealing with the people who say they have that faith, and yet they are empty professors.

The difference in terms of audience ought to be appreciated. And then I asked you to keep in mind our confessional statement concerning faith. It says, faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness is the alone instrument of justification. Yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith but worketh by love," as Calvin says, with reference to their different purposes or focus.

Calvin says Paul means by it, justification, the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God. And James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct and that before men. So Paul deals with our justification before God, which is grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. James uses the word justification in a different sense.

It is the manifestation, the declaration, the evidence that we have indeed come to Christ, that we have indeed believed the gospel. John Owen says, James doth not at all inquire or determine how a sinner is justified before God, but how professors of the gospel can prove or demonstrate that they are so, and that they do not deceive themselves by trusting unto a lifeless and barren faith. And John Gill, the apostle Paul, speaks of justification before God, and James speaks of it as it is known, by its fruits unto men. I think if you keep those helps in your mind and in your heart, James 2, 14-26 makes perfect sense, and there ought never to be a temptation for any of us to throw Jimmy into the stove, but to hold on to it, to pray it in, and to seek by the grace of God to apply it.

As I said last week, we don't want to blunt James' sword. The emphasis in 17, 20, 24, 26 is that if you profess faith in Christ, that faith that is indeed saving will always result in good works. Now, there's certain exceptions. John Gill highlights elect infants, dying in infancy, the thief on the cross.

Certainly there are exceptions. There were not instances or opportunities for those persons to do good works. Not so for us. We have professed the saving faith, so it is our duty to bridle the tongue, just to use the examples in the context.

It is our duty to visit orphans and widows in their distress. It is our duty to pursue internal sanctity, thus keep oneself unspotted from the world. It is our duty to not be partial in the worship of God, not to show that partiality, even not in the worship of God. We ought to be no respecters of persons.

So we profess true and saving faith. There ought to be effects. There ought to be consequences. In short, there ought to be fruit.

That's James' point, a point elsewhere made by the Apostle Paul in his epistles. But

Controlling Context of James 2

let's go back to our text. Notice, just by way of reminder, verse 14. James introduces here the specifics of his argument. He says, what does it profit my brethren if someone says he has faith but does not have works?

So James is dealing with a particular type, a particular species, a particular kind of faith. It is a profession of faith, but there are no corresponding works, or rather, resulting works. And that's why he says at the end of verse 14, and it is literally, can that faith save him? That species, that type, that particular kind.

Certainly we know that faith does save. We are saved by grace through faith, according to Ephesians 2, 8 to 10. But James is not dealing here with that kind of faith. He is dealing with this profession of a faith that does not have works.

That controls the entirety of his discussion here. You've got to keep that in mind, so that when we get to, say, verse 18, and he says, someone will say, you have faith and I have works. The and I have works there is not a works versus faith. In the context, the works here are those works that result from faith.

So, when he says, you have faith, he is talking about the 14a type of faith, that profession, but there is no consequent good works as a result. So, we need to understand that. So,

Challenge to Those with False Faith

let's look at first the challenge posed to those with false faith in verses 18 to 20, and then the appeal to Old Testament examples concerning true faith in verses 21 to 26.

The Challenge Presented (v. 18)

first the challenge presented in verse 18. Now this someone is very hard to identify. This someone is very hard to nail down. Some have, you know, alleged that it was Paul, some have alleged that it's James just making someone up.

I think it's a rhetorical device wherein James is showing that those who possess genuine faith are now asking those who have a faith without works to show or to produce the evidence or the result. That's the someone in the passage. Again, very difficult to understand or to identify who this someone is. Most likely a true believer challenging one with false faith.

The idea is that someone says, you have faith and I have works. In context, as I said, this isn't faith versus works, but false faith, the non-accompanied-with-all-other-saving-graces type, verse 14a, versus true faith. You see the essence of the argument. The true believer says to the false professor, you have faith and I have works.

Again, not I have works as a means by which I'm going to enter into heaven. I have works that are the result of, the consequence of, the effect of my faith. You have faith, I have works. Now note, show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works.

Someone here asks to see a demonstration of the person's faith without works. And essentially he says you can't do it. This all fits in with the larger context, the point being very simply that true saving faith is always accompanied with all other saving graces, that when a man, a woman, a boy, or a girl believes the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, good works will always result. Now, they won't be the good works, say, of, you know, the Apostle Paul or of James himself.

James was noted to be a very godly and a righteous man. But they ought to be on sort of an upward trajectory. We ought to be pursuing these things. Doesn't Jesus emphasize this several times in the Gospel of Matthew?

Let your light so shine before men that they see what? That they see your good works and give glory to God. The whole emphasis in Matthew 25 at the end. He who has done these things, for the least of these my brethren has done them unto me.

And in the context, it's good works, clothing those who are naked, visiting those who are in prison, visiting those who are sick, ministering to the needs of God's people, the least of these, my brethren. So the person here says, you have faith, I have works, show me your faith. Without your works, I will show you my faith by my works. That's the reality in the context.

It is works that demonstrate, highlight, validate, confirm the existence of faith. Now, the reverse is not necessarily the case. Somebody can have good works and not have good or true faith. We've got to make sure we don't invert this.

Just because somebody goes out and does a nice thing doesn't necessarily mean they're a believer. In fact, at times, unbelievers show us up in terms of practical sort of good deeds. Now, we'd have to go back and define what a true good work is. A good work ultimately is for the glory of God, for His honor, and for His name.

But there are persons out in this world that do nice things. They do good deeds. That doesn't mean that they necessarily have faith. But when we have faith, the argument of James and the argument of Paul in Ephesians 2.10 is that good works necessarily follow as a result.

John Gill says, though works may deceive and do not infallibly prove the truth of faith, yet it is certain that where they are not, that persons live in a continued course of sinning, there cannot be true faith. Matthew Poole says the apostles' meaning only is that wherever true faith is, there good works will certainly be. That's the essence of the challenge posed by the believer to those with a false faith or an untrue faith.

The Reproof of Demon Faith (v. 19)

Now notice the reproof in verse 19. Still under the head, the challenge posed to those with false faith, verses 18 to 20. We see the challenge presented, verse 18, the reproof given in verse 19. He says, you believe that there is one God, you do well.

Now, brethren, in the context, this commendation has to be ironic. Because in verse 20, he's going to say, foolish man, empty-headed man, vain man. So when he says, you believe that there is one God, you do well. Sort of a tongue-in-cheek, ironic statement.

Sort of a thing to say, well, you know, you make this profession that there is one God. Some commentators say that entails the entire articles of the Christian faith. You know, I don't know specifically what all is involved here. It seems to have in the backdrop the Shema in Deuteronomy 6-4, hero Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." But with reference to this particular section, James is saying, the one posing the challenge is saying, you believe that there is one God. You do well. Now, notice he recognizes demon faith. He says, even the demons believe and tremble.

Again, what is it that the demons believe? Is it all the articles of faith? Is it just monotheism? Is it whatever the case is?

The bottom line that James is highlighting is this. The demons make a profession. Well, I don't think they make a profession, but they entertain notionally the same sort of thing that James' audience does. At least the demons tremble.

I think that's the point. In other words, you make a profession of faith that there is this one God. You make a profession of faith that Christ is the way to this one God. You make a profession of faith that the Christian religion is in fact true.

But it doesn't affect you one bit. Not only are you not, bridling the tongue, not only are you not visiting orphans and widows in their distress and keeping yourself unspotted from the world, not only are you not holding the faith with impartiality, but you don't even tremble at the thought of this God. At least the demons have this going for them. In the context, it is to underscore and highlight the emptiness and the futility of the verse 14a type faith.

Someone says he has faith, but he does not have works. You are no better than a demon. You are no better in terms of your status before God than those diabolical wretches of the underworld. You are along the same lines, and yet they at least tremble at the thought of this one God.

John Gill, or Calvin rather, says, the devil trembles, he says, at the mention of God's name. Because when he acknowledges his own judge, he is filled with fear of him. He then who despises an acknowledged God is much worse. Calvin says you're worse than the demons if you don't tremble, you don't bridle the tongue, you don't visit orphans and widows in their distress.

You hold the same faith that there is this one God, but it doesn't move you. It doesn't affect you. It is not accompanied with all other saving graces. He's not saying demons go to heaven.

He's not saying demons sing praises to God. He's not saying that demons have enjoyed salvation. He's saying that based on the information they have, it at least evokes a trembling from them. But James' audience doesn't even tremble.

And I think we can bring that home to our own generation and to our own day and age. There's a whole host of people that say, well, yeah, I'm a Christian. In fact, I think if you polled the groups in Canada, we would probably be considered a Christian nation. You've probably heard that before.

We're a Christian nation, or the United States is a Christian nation. How in the world could a Christian nation engage in a million abortions a year? How in the world could a Christian nation engage in 100,000 abortions a year here in Canada? How in the world could a Christian nation authorize euthanasia?

How in the world could a Christian nation openly promote sodomy? You see, we have a whole host of 14-A type people surrounding us. We have faith. We've said Jesus.

We walked an aisle. We signed a card. When every eye was closed and every head was bowed, we shot up our hand. But you don't have works.

You don't have fruit. You don't bridle your tongue. You gossip. You lie.

You slander. You cheat. You don't visit orphans and widows in their distress. You don't keep yourself unspotted from the world.

You look just like everybody else in the world. You don't engage in the worship of God with impartiality. Your churches are cliquish. People peel off together, and instead of having one sort of body of Christ, we've got these guys, we've got these guys, we've got these guys.

That ought not to be, brethren. If 1 to 13 tells us anything in James chapter 2, we ought not to have white churches or black churches or rich churches or poor churches. We ought to have churches. And in those churches, we ought to love each other. not just those in our particular peer group, not just those who relate to us in a way that we enjoy, but we ought to go out of our way to engage in a harmony of the body, a unity of the body.

You see, James is dealing with a very similar situation that we are dealing with today. You get people who go to church. You get people who say, yes, I'm a Christian. You get people who agree that Christianity is the right or true religion.

There's no works. There's no fruit. There's no demonstrable evidence. James says, at least the demons who acknowledge these things tremble at the thought of God the judge.

We've got a whole host of people that don't even tremble. In fact, the idea, the conception of the fear of God is mocked. We're not supposed to fear God. He's our big buddy.

He's our big pal. I mean, Daniel 1 has been put into service as a weight loss program by Rick Warren. I mean, that's the lengths to which we have devolved. If you get Daniel 1 as a means by which you ought to go out and lose weight, you're misreading Daniel 1.

Now, by all means, go out and lose weight, but don't justify it based on Daniel's diet plan. We live in a dark age. As much as there are good things in terms of reform theology, in terms of great expositional preaching, we still live in a context very similar to what James is dealing with. We got people who profess the true religion.

They not only don't fear, but they're pretty much being told that to fear God is an Old Testament, antiquated concept. It's intriguing because in Hebrews chapter 12, we are told to fear God because God is a consuming fire. That's James's point. The demons understand these things and they tremble.

Gil says, wherefore it follows that a bare historical faith will not profit and cannot save any. A man may have all faith of this kind and be damned, and therefore it is not to be boasted of nor trusted to.

The Assertion: Dead Faith (v. 20)

Now note the assertion in verse 20. It's very similar to what you see in verse 17. Again here in verse 20, verse 24, and verse 26. This is the constant refrain, said in a bit of a different way each time, but the emphasis and the point is the same.

Notice in 17, thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Verse 20, but do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Verse 24, you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Verse 26, for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

That's James' point. The type, the species, the kind, the variety of faith is the 14A faith he's dealing with. Someone says he has faith, but he doesn't have works. That's dead.

It's false. It's fake. It's not genuine. It is not legitimate.

True saving faith is always accompanied with all other saving graces. It's not a dead faith. It worketh by love. Galatians 5, 6.

A Pauline passage. You see the harmony and the unity between these two brothers. Notice that assertion indicates the same sort of thing in this passage that we have seen throughout. And he uses pretty sharp words, but do you want to know, oh foolish man, empty-headed man, vain man.

We're not supposed to commend people who say, well I'm a believer but I don't have any words. I'm a believer but I don't have any fruit. I'm a believer, but I don't really get into all that sort of practical stuff. I'm a believer, and I don't need to go to church, or I'm a believer, but I don't need to help people in the church.

I'm a believer, but I don't need to give money. I'm a believer, but I don't need to do all that sort of thing. We don't kind of fawn on them and say, well, it's a good thing you're a believer. Let's just be one of those carnal sorts, and that's OK.

No, they're fools. See, it's a foolish thing to imbibe the idea that somehow saving faith is just this ascent in the sense that there is no faith that is accompanied with all other saving graces. this notional, this idea, this sort of a nod toward Christianity, and somehow think that that's what is in view. I'm not suggesting there's more to faith in terms of, I've got to go out and climb a mountain, or I've got to go out and shimmy up a pole, or I've got to go out and live in the wilderness. I'm not suggesting that.

Truth-saving faith is to believe the propositions, the truth of the gospel. When that saving faith is present, however, it will always be accompanied with all other saving graces. And those who do not have all those other saving graces have not true faith. And instead of coddling them, and instead of creating a category for them, perhaps we should say to them, you're a foolish man.

You actually think that the type of faith that you profess is the legitimate article, the genuine article? You actually think that Jesus was kidding when He emphasized good works? You actually think that James was kidding when he emphasized good works? Do you think that the prophets, when they came to sue Israel for their wicked violations of the Decalogue, were kidding?

Do you think they just, you know, really didn't mean that they should not commit adultery, they should not commit murder, they should not steal? No, the scriptures throughout tell us that when a man believes the truth as it is in Jesus, that affects him. It fleshes itself out. There's this head, heart, hand context that we find in the scripture.

And James is condemning that variety that does not have works. Again, one more quote from Owen. The reason I'm quoting these guys is just so you don't think I've come to make, you know, made this up. And there's some tricky stuff in here, I'm not going to kid you.

You may not get all the satisfactory answers that you want when we're done tonight, because it's tricky. Not tricky in terms of what does it mean, I think it's crystal clear, but some of the grammar and some of the things and some of the way that James writes or says certain things, it takes better men than I to get in and unravel all of the intricacies. But I love what Owen writes here. He says, he doth not direct any how they may be justified before God, but convinces some that they are not justified by trusting unto such a dead faith.

That's his point. He's not telling here. This isn't an evangelistic plea. Okay, here's how you get right with God.

This is a pastoral rebuke. You see the difference? Evangelistic appeal. When a preacher is conscious that there's a whole host of sinners out there, what does he do?

He makes an evangelistic appeal. He preaches the gospel. He sets forth Christ. He emphasizes grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

He says, come to the Savior. Be reconciled unto God. But in a pastoral rebuke, James is dealing with a people that have made a profession, but there is no consequent good works. There is no fruits as a fact.

And so Owen goes on to say, he declares the only way whereby any man may really evidence and manifest that he is so justified indeed. And here's what I love about this particular quote. This design of his, talking about James's point in the context, this design of his is so plain as nothing can be more evident. I agree with Owen there.

Luther was wrong, absolutely, positively wrong for ever having the idea to throw Jimmy into the stove. He should have never said such a thing. Now, I know this is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, but I'd say it to him if he were right here. Don't try to yell at me and smack me around or something like that.

He was a colorful sort of fellow. As Truman said, he was the Donald Trump of the 15th century. This design of his is so plain as nothing," I'm sorry, 16th century, this design of his is so plain as nothing can be more evident. And they miss the whole scope of the apostle who observe it not in their expositions of the context.

If you learn anything in our exposition of 14 to 26 at all, learn. Context is king. Context is paramount. If you wrench James 2.24 out of the context and set it next to Romans 3.28 and say, see, there are contradictions in the Bible.

You will never make advances as an exegete. You gotta deal with it in its context. You gotta see what his scope is. You gotta understand who the audience is.

You gotta see what he's doing. So that's the challenge posed to those with false faith.

Appeal to Old Testament Examples

Let's look finally quickly at the appeal to Old Testament examples concerning true faith. I'm sorry, that might have been a lie that quickly. It's not going to be longer than a half hour, but it's probably not going to be shorter than five minutes, so stick with me. Verses 21 to 26, the appeal to Old Testament examples concerning true faith.

In the first instance, we have the example of Abraham. in verses 21 to 24, and then we have the example of Rahab in verse 25. But again, I think this shows harmony with Paul. Paul's use of Abraham in Romans chapter 4 and in Galatians chapter 3. And then if Paul wrote Hebrews, which many of us are convinced that he did, Paul's use of Rahab in Hebrews 11, verse 31, in that great hall of faith.

So it'd be pretty odd for two men that are at odds to use the same two examples. I mean, that would just be crazy. The fact that they use the same examples indicates their approach to and their appreciation of both Abraham and Rahab in redemptive history. But

Abraham: Faith Demonstrated by Works

note in the first place with reference to Abraham, justification by works. Verse 21, was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Now, Paul teaches or Paul deals with justification of Abraham before God. Remember the scope of the whole is that Paul is dealing with how a sinner is just before God.

James is dealing with how a believer is validated or confirmed or approved or evidenced before men. So, the justification of Abraham before God, Paul teaches in Romans 4, Galatians chapter 3. When James says that he is justified by works, he is using justification there in a sense different than Paul. And I've said this so many times that I hope it doesn't make you yawn because, again, Justification in Paul is our status before God by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Justification as used here by James are those who have faith demonstrating, affirming, confirming, validating, showing forth the proof that they have faith. That's the justification by works that is in view here specifically with James.

Genesis 22 and the Offering of Isaac

Now, note very specifically what he says. Verse 21, was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Now, we read that in Genesis chapter 22. It's an amazing passage, isn't it?

I had the privilege to teach the older Sunday school group this morning and that passage came up. Somebody mentioned Genesis chapter 22, that it was a bit of a tough passage. It is a tough passage. But if you look at the passage and you see what's happening and you see how James utilizes it, it's perfect in the context.

Not that James needs me to applaud him or to pat him on the back for his use of Abraham, but look at what Abraham is told. He is told to take his son, his only son. Do you hear echoes of New Testament in that statement? The son whom you love.

If Abraham and Isaac aren't a picture of the Father and Christ, I don't know who is. Abraham had other sons, but it was his only son, the son whom he loved, he was to take to Mount Moriah. For those who have read the rest of the Old Testament, what's the significance of Mount Moriah? That's where the temple would be built.

That's where Solomon would construct the temple and where animal sacrifices would be offered. So Abraham takes Isaac, and he takes the fire, and he takes the wood. And note the expression of Abraham's faith. You see, this is what is on display in Genesis chapter 22.

And you'll see how it functions in James's argument here. Evidence of Abraham's faith is communicated to us all throughout Genesis chapter 22. When he says to his servants, I want you to stay here, the lad and I will go and worship and we will return. That's faith, brethren.

God has told Abraham to take his son, his only son, the son whom he loves, up to Mount Moriah to take a knife and to bury it in that sun. You see, Abraham doesn't have the privilege of Genesis 22, verse 1, We the reader do, but Abraham didn't. In Genesis 22-1, we are told that God did this to test Abraham. Now there's all sorts of what's called improper predication going on concerning God.

God always knew that Abraham would stand the test. God always knew that Abraham was indeed a faithful man. God always knew that Abraham was indeed his friend. But the text is written to accommodate us.

He is testing Abraham so that when this all transpires, in 2212, God can say, now I know that you fear me. Again, it's not as if God learned something, God came to grips with something new. It is confirmatory. It is evidentiary.

It is demonstrable. It is for the sake and the benefit of us. ultimately. But that expression that he says to the servants, me and the lad will go worship yonder and we will return. What's the significance of that?

He thought, as far as he knew, that he was going to end Isaac's life that day. What does Hebrews 11 tell us about that? He was confident and he believed that God was able to raise the dead That's what Abraham says to the servants. I'm gonna take my son up there, I am going to kill him, and I trust that God is able to raise him from the dead.

You see, there's great faith on display with reference to Abraham there in Genesis chapter 22. It's a beautiful display of Abraham's faith. Another thing that we see as they're traveling to Mount Moriah, Isaac wasn't 5, he wasn't 3, he wasn't 2, he was probably 17 or 18. Is that accurate in that framework?

So Isaac wasn't a dim bulb. I'm not suggesting that 5-year-olds and 3-year-olds are dim bulbs. But in this instance, Isaac knew enough to identify, we've got the wood, We've got the flame, we've got everything necessary for sacrifice, Father Abraham, but where's the sacrifice? What's Abraham say?

The Lord will provide. Do you hear the theology of Abraham in Genesis 22? It oozes New Testament theology. So Abraham then goes about this particular deed.

He ties Isaac to the altar. He raises the knife. The angel of Yahweh comes and stops him. And then what is the next scene?

They see a ram caught in the thicket by its horns. And then the text is conspicuous. In case we miss it, it is crystal clear that he sacrifices the ram instead of Isaac. Substitutionary atonement is going on in Genesis 22.

It's typological. It's pointing forward to a father that doesn't stop in bringing the knife down to bear upon his son. The Lord God Most High takes his son, his only son, the son whom he loves, and delivers him up for us all, according to Romans 8.32. So that's the work that James holds up as a demonstration of the faith that Abraham had.

Now, that gets us really right back to the context, because James says in verse 23 in chapter 2,

Scripture Fulfilled: Genesis 15 and 22

do you see that the scripture was fulfilled? That said, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him, or it was imputed unto him, or it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now, just go back to Genesis chapter 22. Follow James' logic.

When did this scripture be fulfilled or become fulfilled? I think the idea being is that James is giving us this snapshot. Genesis 22 is the demonstration, the consequent effect of Abraham's previous faith. In other words, the faith that Abraham had in Genesis 15-6 was not a 14a type faith.

Abraham didn't say, I have faith, but had no works. Abraham had faith and works followed. There's about a 30-year gap between Genesis chapter 15 and Genesis chapter 22. James' point is simple.

In Genesis 15.6, Abraham was justified in the Pauline sense before God. Remember the context in Genesis 15. God tells Abraham, you're going to have a whole host of children. Now, Abraham was no spring chicken and neither was Sarah.

This was probably a difficult sort of thing to wrap one's mind around. But Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness, justification, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Now as Abraham there in chapter 15 continues on, he asks the Lord, well how do I know that this is indeed going to happen? And that leads to that ratification ceremony where Abraham is told to cut the animals in two pieces, wherein the two parties walk between the animals, basically saying that if we break covenant, then what happened to these animals happens to us.

It is very intriguing that the only party that walks between those two animals is not God and Abraham, it's God alone. The surety of the covenant is upon Yahweh. very specifically. But James' point, brethren, the scripture was fulfilled which says Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness and he was called the friend of God. You see it in James' argument.

He believes the gospel, Genesis 15, he is justified before God. Works follow. Works flow. Works are the consequence.

Works are the result of that faith. It is the type of faith that is true faith. It is a faith accompanied with all other saving graces. That's why James invokes Abraham specifically.

Gil says, the sense is that hereby his faith was, or this specifically, notice on verse 22. I skipped right over that. It's a bit of a difficult thing here. Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works, faith was made perfect.

That word perfect can throw us off a bit. It can almost seem like in Genesis 15, He sort of started, and then in Genesis 22, 30 years later, the faith was completed, the faith was perfected. Now, I think it's conditioned by the context. It was legitimized, it was confirmed, it was evidenced, it was manifested, it was demonstrated.

James is not suggesting that works complete faith. The whole context argues against that. James is suggesting that works evidence faith, and in that sense, it completes it, or it perfects it. Gill says, the sense is that hereby his faith was declared to be sincere, unfeigned, true, and genuine, just as love is said to be perfected in 1 John 4, 17.

Poole says, faith is the cause and works of the effects, but the cause is not perfected by the effect, only its perfection is demonstrated by it. As good fruit does not make a tree good, but shows that it is so. And that's the relationship that we ought to appreciate in this particular section. And that brings James to another one of his implications.

Again, same sort of thing that was in 17, 20, and 26. You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. That passage should give us absolutely no trouble whatsoever if we understand the context. Justification, as James uses it, is that manifestation, that confirmation, that approval before men.

Rahab: Faith Confirmed by Works

Now let's look finally at Rahab. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? She hid the messengers, didn't she? And think about what she did in that particular section.

Now, I know that the question is often asked, well, she lied. She lied. And there's a whole host of ink written on how to, you know, sort of explain that and deal with that. You know what I have to say?

James 2, Hebrews 11, show her as a hero. Shor is a hero. They don't devolve into a discussion on ethics and when it's right or okay to lie. She's a hero of the faith.

Let's not miss that. In her particular instance, though, that lie was also an act of treason. Why were the spies, or as James calls them, messengers, angels, angelos, why did the spies come to Jericho? Were they there to check their internet speed?

Were they there to see if there were gas stations and a Costco? No, they were there on a reconnaissance mission to bring back intel to General Joshua because the city was going to be destroyed by General Joshua and the troops. So when those spies were on that particular mission, to give them harbor, to give them quarter, to give them safe space was an act of treason against the city of Jericho. Now I think the contrast that James develops here is striking.

Remember back in verses 15 and 16. He says, if a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what is it profit? James is saying there, you deadbeats, profess faith in Christ, and a believer comes to your door and he's cold and he's hungry, you don't even give him a ham or a hot dog and a shirt or a jacket, you don't do anything for him? Look at Rahab.

Rahab at risk to her own life. Rahab at risk to her own status. Rahab at risk to everything. Give safe haven to these foreign spies that have come to survey the land so they can return word to Joshua who is going to destroy Jericho.

You see, Rahab's faith here is demonstrated by her work. The fact that she hides the spies gives us manifest proof that she has genuine faith in the living and the true God. You can see that even in the context as she rehearses to these men concerning God. In other words, she hides them and then she tells them of her faith.

She knew of God's promise to give Israel the land, Joshua 2.9. She knew of God's power, Joshua 2.10. She confessed God's majesty, Joshua 2.11. She cast herself on God's mercy, Joshua 2.12 and 13.

A mercy, not only in terms of salvation that she received, but a mercy in terms of temporality that she received. You see, when you get to Joshua chapter 6, guess who you find with the covenant people? Rahab the Pornei, Rahab the Harlet, as well. Ruth 4, 20 to 22, Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab.

You know who tells us that? Matthew 1, verse 5. That places Rahab, the harlot, in the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom Davis calls the shady lady of Jericho, finds herself in the genealogy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So the hiding of the spies, the hiding of the messengers, was the work that demonstrated that Rahab indeed had true faith.

Now, if we ask the question, and we are coming to a close,

Why Rahab? Grace to Jew and Gentile

if we ask the question, why Rahab? Like, why? I mean, we get Abraham, right? He's the father of the faithful.

We call him Father Abraham. He was the friend of God. He was this man distinguished by having these sort of insurmountable things. But who, contrary to hope, in hope believed.

But why Rahab? Well, first, the specimen of her faith is magnificent. That she hid these spies was a great risk to her own life, to her own family. But as well, she is a Gentile.

As well, she is a wretch. Not that Abraham wasn't a wretch. You know what Abraham was doing before he got out of Ur, the Chaldeans? He was an idolater.

He worshipped the same idols that his father, Terah, did. You see this in Joshua chapter 24. Abraham wasn't brought up in the church. Abraham didn't have, you know, Reformed Baptists.

Well, it used to be cassettes we'd keep in our pockets. Whatever happened to cassettes? Now they're all on phones. He didn't have, you know, podcasts of James White.

That just wasn't his story. He was converted out of paganism. But Rahab, the harlot, is a beautiful display of God's grace in the life of this woman. Gil says, this instance, Rahab, is produced with the other, Abraham, to show that wherever there is true faith, whether in Jew or Gentile, in man or woman, in greater or lesser believers, or in such who have been greater or lesser sinners, There will be good works.

That's the point germane to James' dealing. Manton has this beautiful observation. Believers, no, notice, the New Testament authors still call her Rahab the porne. I don't believe that means she continued to be a porne, a harlot, after her conversion.

But it's a way of identifying her. It's a way of remembering. Not for her shame. See, when I think of Rahab the harlot as a believer, I don't think, oh, that Rahab the harlot.

I think, praise God from whom all blessings flow. Praise God that Rahab the harlot is going to sit down at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Praise God that this woman who was a porne has been washed in the blood of Jesus. That's what Manton says.

Believers, though they justify their profession, are still monuments of free grace. It is Rahab the harlot justified by works. The scars and marks of old sins remain, not to our dishonor, but to God's glory. So James's point, whether you're a patriarch or a prostitute, true and saving faith will always be accompanied with all other saving graces.

In Genesis 15, Abraham believed God. It was accounted to him for righteousness. Genesis 22, he's ready to obey God to even killing his son Isaac. That is the demonstration, the justification by works.

And of course, in Rahab's situation, she hid those spies. And then

Conclusion: Faith Without Works Is Dead

the conclusion of the whole is a fitting summary, again consistent with 24, 20, and 17. For as the body without the spirit is dead, So faith without works is dead also. Now, it's a bit of an interesting thing. He's got faith corresponding with body.

You'd almost think that faith would correspond with spirit as the animating principle. But I don't think we're supposed to parse it out into those details. James' point is simple. If you profess faith in Jesus and you don't bridle the tongue, again, in context, you don't visit widows and orphans or orphans and widows in their distress, you don't keep yourself unspotted from the world, your faith is a dead body.

It's a dead carcass. Got flies buzzing around it. Pastor Porter referred to Lazarus, I think, earlier today, very specifically in that idea that Lazarus was called to come forth. Remember the report when Jesus says, roll away the stone?

What did they say? The old King James has it well. Behold, he stinketh. Behold, he stinketh.

What are they saying? You don't roll away a stone from a tomb and call a dead body forth. Well, James's point in verse 26, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. So let us ponder that refrain.

Let us ponder that consideration. Let us not blunt James's sword. Let us see the harmony between James and Paul. They both insist upon sovereign grace.

They both insist upon faith in Jesus Christ as that alone instrument of justification, and they both insist that that faith is not alone, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces. And it is no dead faith, but it worketh by love. Let us indeed imbibe that, let us appropriate it, and let us by the grace of God put our money where our mouth is. We have professed the true religion, we have professed faith in Christ.

Let us go, therefore, and live like it. Well, let us pray.

Closing Prayer

Our Father, we thank you for Abraham and the examples of Abraham and Rahab. We thank you for James' argument in this passage of Scripture. Give us grace and wisdom to see the blessed harmony and unity with James and Paul And let us see the emphasis in James and in Paul that we are saved unto good works. We are saved.

For this cause, God has saved us so that we would walk in good works, those things He has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Give us grace in these things, Lord God, and give us a desire to obey Your law, not for salvation but because we have been saved. Go with us now, watch over us, watch over the church. Bless Pastor Porter in the coming weeks as he preaches the Word of God.

Give all the brethren ears to hear and hearts to receive. And may Christ ever be glorified and praised and exalted in this local body. And we ask in Jesus' name, amen.

Scripture References

• Genesis 15; 15:6; 22; 22:1; 22:12
• Deuteronomy 6:4
• Joshua 2:9; 2:10; 2:11; 2:12-13; 6; 24
• Ruth 4:20-22
• Daniel 1
• Matthew 1:5; 6; 25
• Romans 3:28; 4; 8:32
• Galatians 3; 5:6
• Ephesians 1; 2:8-10
• Hebrews 11; 11:31; 12
• James 1; 1:18; 2:1; 2:5; 2:14; 2:15-16; 2:17; 2:18; 2:19; 2:20; 2:21; 2:21-24; 2:22; 2:23; 2:24; 2:25; 2:26
• 1 John 4:17