← Back to sermon library

You can turn in your Bibles to 
James chapter 2. beginning in verse 1, "'My brethren, 
do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of 
glory, with partiality. For if there should come into 
your assembly a man with gold rings and fine apparel, and there 
should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay 
attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, 
"'You sit here in a good place,' and say to the poor man, "'You 
stand there,' or, "'Sit here at my footstool.'" Have you not 
shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 
Listen, my beloved brethren, has God not chosen the poor of 
this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which 
He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored 
the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and 
drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble 
name by which you are called? If you really fulfill the royal 
law according to the scripture, you shall love your neighbor 
as yourself, you do well. But if you show partiality, you 
commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 
For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, 
he is guilty of all. For he who said, do not commit 
adultery, also said, do not murder. Now, if you do not commit adultery 
but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So 
speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of 
liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown 
no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What does it profit, 
my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have 
works? Can 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." Well, let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we come 
to a passage of Scripture that we require the aid of the Holy 
Spirit as we investigate. We pray, Father, that He would 
illumine us, that He would guide us, that He would direct us and 
help us to appreciate the focus of James in this particular section 
of Scripture. Again, forgive us for all of 
our sins and all unrighteousness. and grant us the grace, Almighty 
God, to do the things that you call us unto, to be a faithful 
people, not saved because of our faithfulness, but saved because 
of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the active, the passive 
obedience of Christ, the beauty that you impute to us His righteousness, 
and you forgive us of our sins. Certainly, as we receive the 
grace of faith, we know that that saving faith is accompanied 
with all other graces. Grant us help to pursue the things 
that are pleasing in your sight, and we pray through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen. Well, we're going to spend 
a few weeks on chapter 2, specifically verses 14 to 26, because in the 
history of the church, this has been a notoriously misunderstood 
passage of Scripture. There are those who see a difference 
between James and the Apostle Paul, so I think it's good for 
us to indeed seek to have clarification concerning this passage. I know 
in my time here as a pastor, many times I've been asked about 
this whole section, because James says that apart from works, you're 
not actually saved, and Paul says just the opposite. So, we 
ought to be able or we should want to pursue harmony between 
these two brothers. For instance, in Romans 3.28, 
Paul says, therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith 
apart from the deeds of the law. Here in James 2.24, he says, 
you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. So, you see, at least on the 
surface, there is this tension that certainly needs to be dealt 
with. Well, I know you've heard of 
Martin Luther, but his view of the epistle to James. He believed 
it should be in the canon, but he certainly was troubled by 
it. He said that James is flatly 
against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture. It ascribes righteousness to 
works. In another place, Martin Luther 
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 make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy 
into the stove. So that was Martin Luther's take 
on this particular section of scripture. He believed that it 
was contrary to the Apostle Paul's emphasis on justification by 
faith alone. I think that John Owen represents 
a much saner approach to the interpretation of this passage. 
He says, for his, James, his whole inquiry is after the nature 
of that faith whereby we are justified. So James is dealing 
with a particular species or kind of faith, that which is 
not accompanied by all other saving graces, what Owen would 
call a barren faith, or what Gill would refer to as a historical 
faith. And as a result, James highlights 
that that's not genuine saving faith. We are justified by grace 
alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But that faith 
is indeed accompanied with all other saving graces, so that 
those who are justified will indeed pursue those things that 
are pleasing in God's sight. So I want to do two things tonight. I want to first of all set forth 
some hermeneutical helps in harmonizing James and Paul. I'll explain 
my terms in a moment. But first of all, the hermeneutical 
helps in harmonizing James and Paul, and then secondly, the 
question concerning the validity of a particular kind of faith. 
So we'll just look at verses 14 to 17, God willing, tonight. So the question concerning the 
validity of a kind or species of faith there in verses 14 to 
17. But first, what do I mean by hermeneutical help? Hermeneutics 
are the principles or the science of interpretation. They are those 
things employed by exegetes, hopefully by all of us, that 
help us to understand the Scripture. Hermeneutics is not confined 
to the Scripture. If you were a student of Shakespeare, 
At university, there would be hermeneutics, there would be 
helps, interpretive tools by which you uncover the meaning 
of Shakespeare. But when we refer to the Scripture, 
it's oftentimes called sacred hermeneutics, as we apply rules 
or principles of interpretation to the text of Scripture. And 
so the idea being, with reference to this first point, just some 
things to help us from the outset to harmonize James and Paul, 
to realize that we're not dealing with contradictory statements 
in Romans 3.28 and in James 2.24. There is harmony, there is blessed 
unity, and there is blessed consistency. So I want to offer up a few things 
by way of help in terms of interpretation. In the first place, we ought 
to appreciate the unity of Scripture. The unity of Scripture. Now, 
there's a lot of things written about this particular section. 
Some say that James, because he wrote early, probably in the 
early to mid-40s, wasn't aware of the Apostle Paul's letters. 
And conversely, when Paul wrote, perhaps he wasn't aware. But 
that is to ascribe a dichotomy between the two men that argues 
against the unity of sacred Scripture. There is one divine author of 
the Word of God. He has certainly used a whole 
host of men from different places, different backgrounds, different 
sort of socioeconomic status, from different regions, and over 
a period of a great number of years. But all of the Scripture 
is unified. All of the Scripture is harmonious. 
All of the Scripture is consistent. In fact, Turretin comments, since 
Paul and James were inspired by the same spirit, they cannot 
be said to oppose each other on the doctrine of justification, 
so that one should ascribe justification to faith alone and the other 
to works also. This is an important point in 
terms of interpretation. As Bible-believing Christians, 
we never approach the Scripture as if it's wrong. We are those 
who have given allegiance to the Word of God. We are those 
who hear the voice of God in the Word of God, and we understand 
that the Scripture is unified, it is consistent, it is the infallible, 
and inerrant Word of God. It's trustworthy in all that 
it affirms concerning history, science, doctrine, ethics, religious 
practice, or any other topic. It is to be believed, and there 
is not a contradiction. There is not tension. There is 
not... Now, on the surface, there may 
be some things that are tension for us, But we need to work harder 
to unravel the truth as it is in the Lord Jesus Christ. So 
the unity of Scripture argues against any sort of a disjunctive 
view of Paul and James on the matter of salvation. A second 
hermeneutical help in harmonizing James and Paul, and we have labored 
this over the last several weeks in terms of James' doctrine of 
salvation. Whatever James is saying here 
in chapter 2, verses 14 to 26, he is not going against what 
he's already said in chapter 1 at verse 18, chapter 2 at verse 
1, and chapter 2 at verse 5. Now, it's one thing to suggest 
that James didn't know what Paul wrote, though I think that is 
completely unlikely. But it's one thing to suggest 
that, and quite another to say that in the space of two chapters, 
James undoes everything he's already done. In other words, 
He has stressed sovereign grace in James 1.18. Of His will, He 
brought us forth by the word of truth. He doesn't ascribe 
that to works. He doesn't say we are saved because 
of our good works or God chose us because we are good men, good 
women. No, it's of His own will. He 
brought us forth, effectual calling, ascribed to God Most High. Regeneration, 
ascribed to God Most High. So whatever James is teaching 
here in 14 to 26, it is not contrary to his doctrine of God's sovereign 
grace in effectual calling. It's not contrary to his emphasis 
on faith in the Lord Jesus. Notice in chapter 2, verse 1, 
my brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Lord of glory, with partiality. So effectual calling, sovereign 
grace, James 1.18. We see the emphasis on the instrumentality 
of faith in James 2.1. But then thirdly, notice in James 
2, 5. Listen, my beloved brethren. Has God not chosen the poor of 
this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which 
He promised to those who love Him? Again, sovereign election 
of God unto faith. God didn't chose us because of 
our faith, God chose us in order to faith. He chose us to grant 
us this particular blessing in terms of faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. So when we get to chapter 2, 
verses 14 to 26, we ought not to forget James' insistence upon 
sovereign grace, upon regeneration, upon effectual calling, upon 
the instrumentality of faith, and upon the reality that sinners 
don't have faith apart from the sovereign election of God. Thirdly, 
we ought to appreciate the immediate context. The immediate context, 
we need to know what the authors of Scripture are addressing when 
they write. Well, the immediate context is 
obvious here in James chapter 2, for it starts back in James 
chapter 1. Notice in verse 22, but be doers 
of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. This alerts 
us to one of the things that James has in mind, or the focus, 
or the purpose for which he writes. He is dealing with persons who 
had professed faith in our Lord Jesus, but they were living, 
not as doers, but as hearers only. They were living as those 
who had faith, but no works. They were living as those who, 
in some sense, made this confession, but then did not live consistently 
with it, or live in accordance with it. James gives concrete 
examples on what this doing of the Word looks like. Verse 26 
in chapter 1, you need to bridle your tongue. If anyone among 
you thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue, but 
deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. Now 
for James, pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God 
and the Father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their distress 
and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. You see, he says, 
when you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, when you confess 
faith in the Savior, there must be sanctification. Justification, 
if it has occurred, will always result in and produce sanctification. True, saving faith will always 
result in good works. The pursuit of internal sanctity 
after the visiting of orphans and widows in 27a. We saw last 
week, or rather a couple weeks ago, the rejection of partiality 
in chapter 2, verses 1 to 13, and the emphasis on fulfilling 
the royal law in verse 8. So before we even get to verses 
14 to 26, we might surmise that James is dealing with a bunch 
of deadbeat professors. He is dealing with a bunch of 
people that had said they trusted in Jesus for salvation. James's point in 14 to 26 is 
that genuine saving faith is always accompanied with all other 
saving graces. In other words, it is not a barren 
faith, a la Owen. It is not a historical faith, 
a la John Gill. But true saving faith will always 
result in good works. You won't be partial or you'll 
struggle against it. You won't be a man who is reckless 
with his tongue. You'll visit widows and orphans 
in their distress. You'll be the kind of person 
that indeed saving faith is captivated. Fourthly, we ought to appreciate 
the different purposes of Paul and James. Paul's emphasis is 
upon justification by grace to provide a right status before 
God. It's obvious, that's what Paul's 
dealing with. Therefore, by the deeds of the 
law, no flesh shall be justified in his sight, Romans 3.20. For 
by the law is the knowledge of sin, and then he engages in this 
exposition or explanation of justification by faith alone 
before God. In other words, Paul is addressing 
the issue, how is a man right before God? James is dealing 
with how is a man approved before men? So when we see the different 
uses of the word justification between Paul and James, the context 
makes it evident what's in view. James is dealing with persons 
who profess faith but are not living according to their profession. Again, Francis Turretin says, 
Paul disputes against the Pharisees who urge the merits of works. 
James disputes against the Libertines and Epicureans who, content with 
the profession of faith alone, denied not only the merits of 
works but also their necessity. Against the former, Paul rightly 
urges faith alone for justification. Against the latter, James properly 
commends the necessity of works for the confirmation of justification. So you see the audience and the 
various things that are occurring and the various focus or purpose 
that the apostles have in terms of writing help us to understand 
what's going on in verses 14 to 26. It's a different situation, 
it's a different setting, it's a different context. So Paul 
uses the word justification in terms of a sinner standing before 
God. James uses the word justification 
in terms of a believer's validation before men. Again, several men 
in the history of the church have rightly understood and we 
ought to give heed to what they say. 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. He's reading 
Owen on in chapter or volume five, when he discusses Paul 
and James, he says, I'm amazed that people don't see this. It's 
something to that effect. I'm amazed that it's not as obvious 
as what I'm suggesting tonight. It is obvious, isn't it? We're 
not supposed to freak out and see Romans 3.28 and James 2.24 
and lose it. They're in contexts. They have 
specific theological ends in view. There's a focus. There's 
a purpose. There's a reason. There's a discourse. 
There are things that we need to appreciate with reference 
to the usage of terms. Owen says, he, 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. 
Brings out another element here that is necessary in 14 to 26. 
We ought not to blunt James' sword. What do I mean by that? I'm gonna spend a lot of time 
tonight telling you what the passage doesn't mean. But brethren, 
we can't miss what it does mean. If you profess faith in Jesus 
and you don't do anything, it is not accompanied with all other 
saving graces. You're not holy, you're addicted 
to porn, you're addicted to drugs, you're an alcohol abuser, you're 
two-faced, you're a hypocrite. Brethren, do not deceive yourselves. 
This is James' point. We don't want to blunt his sword. 
We want to feel the full weight of it. In other words, James 
is condemning this idea that if we can just articulate the 
name Jesus, then everything is going to be hunky-dory. No, genuine 
saving faith is always followed by the application of biblical 
principles in one's life. To put it in theological language, 
sanctification, or justification rather, inevitably produces sanctification. Salvation by grace through faith 
alone is then indeed followed up by persons who have been saved 
pursuing those things that are pleasing to God. John Gill said, 
the apostle Paul speaks of justification before God, and James speaks 
of it as it is known by its fruits unto man. And Thomas Manton, 
in this whole discourse, the apostle's intent is to show not 
what justifies, but who is justified. In Paul's sense, a sinner is 
absolved. In James' sense, a believer is 
approved. And then notice the demonstration 
verbs throughout the section. In other words, what James is 
doing is obvious on a bare reading of the passage. Notice in verse 
14, what does it profit my brethren if someone says he has faith? He's dealing with a profession 
of a specific type of faith. It's a kind, it's a species, 
it's a faith that is not true. But then notice along the way, 
verse 18, show me your faith without your words and I will 
show you my faith by my words. Notice in verse 22, do you see 
that faith was working together with his words? Verse 24, you 
see then that a man is justified by words. What I would term these 
demonstration verbs highlights James' purpose. The idea is simple. Those who have believed the gospel, 
those who possess genuine saving faith, it is demonstrable, it 
is manifest, it is evident to others. It won't be in the same 
case in every single person, but there will be a demonstration 
of righteousness on the parts of those who have indeed been 
conquered by sovereign grace. And then a final hermeneutical 
help in harmonizing James and Paul is in the Second London 
Confession of 1677-1689. I suggest and I submit that if 
you get chapter 11, paragraph 2 down, you will never have problems 
with a harmony between James and Paul. Second London Confession, 
11.2 says, faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His 
righteousness is the alone instrument of justification. We all affirm 
that on the basis of Paul. 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. You see, that's what 
James is taking to prove. That's what James is showing. 
That's what's on James' mind when he says, brethren, let me 
share my heart. This is his heart. He wants us 
to understand that the faith by which we are justified 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. So, in terms of some interpretative 
helps, the unity of Scripture, the author's doctrine of salvation, 
the immediate context, the different purposes of Paul and James, and 
this confessional statement in chapter 11, paragraph 2, hopefully 
goes a long way to setting the passage in its proper context 
and helping us to understand there is no contradiction between 
James and Paul whatsoever. Now let's move secondly to the 
question concerning the validity of a kind of faith in verses 
14 to 17. Note the question proper. What 
does it profit my brethren if someone says he has faith but 
does not have works? The question concerns a profession 
of faith. James, as it were, is taking 
this kind or this species of faith, and he is setting it under 
the microscope, and he is going to analyze it, and he is going 
to display it, and he is going to come to grips with the reality 
that it's not genuine saving faith. The description concerns 
a kind of faith that is not accompanied by other graces. Remember paragraph 
11? 11, paragraph 2, but is ever 
accompanied with all other saving graces. Not this species of faith 
that James is treating in James 2.14. What is it, prophet, my 
brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? You see, it's a faith that is 
not accompanied with all other saving graces. And the question 
sets the stage for the entirety of James' discussion and highlights 
that James is not attacking belief in the gospel. James is attacking 
hypocrisy. The issue with James is not faith 
versus works. The issue with James is not faith 
plus works. The issue is false faith versus 
true faith. False faith is the species or 
the kind given us in verse 14. Someone says he has faith but 
does not have words. True faith, as our confession 
rightly articulates from the teachings of the New Testament, 
saving faith is always accompanied with all other saving graces, 
so that when those who, by God's grace, believe the gospel, they 
engage in practical Christianity. Again, not perfectly, always 
standing in need of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but 
they attempt, by God's grace, to be a 122 doer of the Word. 
They attempt, by the grace of God, to be a 126 bridler of the 
tongue. They attempt, by the grace of 
God, to be a 127A visitor of orphans and widows. They try, 
by the grace of God, to be a 127B, one who keeps himself unspotted 
from the world. So, James's point, brethren, 
is simple. If you are not bridling your 
tongue, if you are not visiting those in distress, if you are 
not keeping yourself unspotted from the world, then what you 
profess is not the genuine article. James tells us that when we believe 
the gospel, when we are justified before God by His grace, through 
faith in Jesus Christ, we as the people of God have the law 
internalized upon our hearts. We have been given the Holy Spirit. 
We have been given forgiveness of sins. We now know Jehovah 
and it is our desire to pursue those things that are pleasing 
in His sight. James is not dealing in verse 14 with saving faith. He is dealing with hypocrisy. He is dealing with barren faith. He is dealing with historic faith. 
He is dealing with a faith that is not accompanied with all other 
saving graces. That's what he treats unto verse 
26. If we don't get that But we need 
to, we need to understand the issue for James is not faith 
versus works or faith plus works, but false faith versus true faith. Now note, after James asks the 
question in 14a, he says in 14b, can faith save him? Now, this unfortunately is an 
inaccurate translation. The new King James and the King 
James miss it here in 14b. Can faith save him? Well, yes, in Paul, because it 
is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. So we 
might have to answer the question, can faith save him? Yes, certainly. But it's the faith that James 
has introduced in 14a. It's a specific species or kind 
of faith. So when James says, can faith 
save him, the ESV gets it better. Can that faith save him? Well, the answer, of course, 
is no. No, because it's not saving faith. The NIV gets it right. Can such faith save them? These translations highlight 
James' point and better reflect the Greek grammar, because faith 
there appears with the article. It is dealing with a specific 
kind of faith, that introduced by way of question in 14a. The type of faith that says, 
I have it, but I don't have works." James is not saying, can faith 
save a sinner? James is saying, can that faith 
that I just mentioned, that is not accompanied with all other 
saving graces, can that faith save? Well, the answer is a resounding 
no, because it's not true faith. That's what James is doing in 
this particular section. Now, notice illustration in verses 
15 to 16. 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? 
Now, this is a pretty common sort of illustration. We've already 
seen James use such in the beginning of Chapter 2 with reference to 
the two men that enter into the public assembly, one dressed 
in finery, the other dressed in poverty, and we praise the 
man in finery, we give him the front seat, and the guy in the 
poverty, we tell him to sit in the back. James uses these concrete 
illustrations to demonstrate or to highlight or to validate 
the sorts of things that he is speaking to. Perhaps in the backdrop 
is Jesus' words in Matthew 25 concerning service to the least 
of these my brethren, the sorts of service wherein we feed those 
who are hungry, we give water to those who are thirsty, and 
we visit those who are in distress, and we clothe those who are naked. 
So James is using a pretty common illustration here. So there is 
a brother or a sister that is naked and destitute of daily 
food. And note what we typically do or what we can do if we are 
false professors. We say to them, depart in peace, 
be warmed and filled. That's pretty brutal, isn't it? 
Now, it's not necessarily. I mean, a well-wish isn't a bad 
thing. Right? I mean, if I say, you know, have 
a great day, that doesn't necessarily mean I have to follow you around 
and make sure your day is great. There's nothing wrong with a 
well wish, but as James continues, a well wish not backed up with 
some concrete application is wretched. It's unholy, it's ungodly, 
it's unrighteous. It's certainly not the spirit 
of mercy that James enjoins in 127. The idea wherein persons 
visit orphans and widows in their distress, wherein persons don't 
show partiality. wherein persons give themselves 
lovingly and charitably to others. So this brother or sister is 
naked, destitute of daily food. And we say to them, depart in 
peace, be warmed and filled. And now notice he follows up 
and says, but you do not give them the things which are needed 
for the body. What does it profit? Thomas Manton says the belly 
is not filled with words. We can't eat words. And the back 
is not clothed with wishes. This is James' point in the illustration. But if we ask the question, how 
does it illustrate, specifically, this faith without works? I mean, broadly and generally, 
we might suggest that works are the types of things that are 
evidenced here in this illustration by James. But if we think a little 
bit further and a little bit harder and a little bit deeper, 
we will see that the illustration is really an analogy. In other 
words, this profession of faith without works is akin to telling 
someone be warmed and be filled without giving them a hot dog 
and a shirt. And James says, if the latter, 
telling them to be warmed and to be filled without giving them 
a hot dog and a shirt, if the latter is useless, if it is unprofitable, 
if it is dead, if it is void, if it is nothing, then so is 
a profession of faith without corresponding words. And the 
corresponding works aren't unto justification, but they are the 
result of, or the consequence of, or the effect of justification. Allison says, an illustration 
by way of analogy, James compares faith without works to expressions 
of goodwill without works. The worthlessness of the latter 
suggests the worthlessness of the former. And that brings James 
to his implication or to his conclusion in this subset of 
the larger context. Thus also faith by itself, if 
it does not have works, is dead. Again, dealing with the kind 
of faith introduced in the question in 14a. Someone says they have 
faith, but they don't have works. James says it looks like this. 
We tell someone to be warmed and filled, but we don't give 
them food or clothing. James' conclusion here is thus 
also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. You 
have to appreciate and see that James is not teaching faith plus 
works in order to be saved. James assumes true saving faith 
will always be a working faith. because it is accompanied with 
all other saving graces. He is not suggesting an alternate 
way to God. He is not suggesting a hybrid. 
He is not suggesting a little Paul and a little bit of work 
and we will make it on onto heaven. No! He is dealing with a different 
situation or context, specifically, those who profess and yet are 
void with reference to practical Christianity. And when we compare 
verses 14 to 17, you see the empty declaration in verse 14, 
someone says that he has faith. Verse 16, the empty declaration 
is, one of you says to them, go in peace. You see the absence 
of deeds in verse 14, but has not works. Verse 16, but fail 
to give them what is necessary. You see the inadequacy of faith 
alone. Is faith able to save him? Verse 14, faith of itself, if 
it has no deeds, is dead. Again, we're justified by grace 
through faith alone, but that faith is never alone, but is 
always accompanied with all other saving graces. You see how 11.2 
should hopefully help you to navigate your way through this 
passage of scripture. So the verdict for James in verse 
17 is thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is 
dead. John Owen nails it when he says, 
for this was that which he undertook to prove. Not that we are not 
justified by faith alone without works before God, but that the 
faith which is alone without works is dead, useless, and unprofitable. That's the point of our brother. He will make it several other 
times from verses 18 to 26, and God willing, we'll notice those 
in the coming weeks. But I want to end by showing 
further harmony between Paul and James. We've already seen 
the difference in scope, audience, and their use of the term justification. We see their consistency in the 
way of salvation. You see, I didn't even have to 
elucidate or even have to parallel Paul in that presentation of 
James' emphasis on sovereign grace. No one's going to dispute 
that Paul taught James 1.18. No one's going to dispute that 
Paul would heartily, amen, of his own will, he brought us forth 
by the word of truth. I mean, Paul says that everywhere, 
doesn't he? Romans 9.16, it doesn't depend upon him who wills or 
upon him who runs, but on God who shows mercy. We see their 
harmonization in the terms or by what their consistency in 
terms of the doctrine of salvation. But then there are some other 
considerations. Notice in Galatians 2. Galatians 
chapter 2. I mean, if an exegete of the status 
of a Martin Luther messed up here, then we need to make sure 
we're not messing up. So I think it bears, by way of 
necessity, to emphasize this. Notice in Galatians chapter two, 
very specifically beginning in verse six, but from those who 
seem to be something, this is something of Paul's sort of defense 
of the gospel to be sure, but his part and portion in the preaching 
of the gospel. Notice in verse six, but from 
those who seem to be something, whatever they were, it makes 
no difference to me. God shows personal favoritism 
to no man. For those who seem to be something 
added nothing to me, but on the contrary, when they saw that 
the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as 
the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter, you see what he's 
saying? I was the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter was the apostle 
specifically to the Jews. That's what circumcised, uncircumcised 
means here. And then verse 8, for he who 
worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised 
also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles. And when 
James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived 
the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas 
the right hand of fellowship. If there is this contradictory 
attitude between Paul and James, Paul and James didn't see What 
is it suggesting when we spot contradictions that the biblical 
authors didn't? Are we supposed to suppose that 
they were that foolish, that James just, you know, revolutionized 
the way of salvation, it's by works now, without any conscious 
recognition that Paul had been writing? that Paul is writing 
and there's no conscious recognition that James is writing and Paul's 
just, you know. Some suggest that when we get 
specifically to verse 18 and James says, but someone will 
say, some posit Paul as James' interlocutor, that it's Paul 
there debating with James when it comes to this whole matter. 
That is to miss it completely. That is to misread not only James 
and Paul, but the entirety of the Bible. Brethren, you can 
rest assured that if what appears to you to be a contradiction 
in the space of a few verses or chapters, we can't suppose 
that the author didn't see that. Someone asked me recently about 
the reference in 1 Samuel 17, where at the beginning of the 
chapter, Saul doesn't know who David is. And he's introduced, 
rather, he's told who David is as the son of Jesse. And at the 
end of chapter 17, Saul doesn't know that he's the son of Jesse. 
How do we reconcile that? Well, in the first place, we're 
not to assume the author didn't see it. You mean he wrote a chapter 
and he forgot what he said at the beginning, and by the time 
he got to the end, it's completely the other? No, brethren, there's 
ways to interpret and to understand that. In that particular instance, 
so I don't leave anybody hanging, I think the idea being at the 
end is because the victor over Goliath was promised Saul's daughter 
and was promised tax-free status in Israel, it was probably a 
more formal registration in terms of who is David's father. Because 
if David's father is going to receive tax status or tax-free 
status in Israel, then the king needs to approve of such a thing. 
You see, the idea being is that there aren't contradictions in 
the Bible as is suggested by so many. And we're not to suppose 
that James and Paul had this great antinomy one to another 
that the later church found out. But here Paul says, no, they 
gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should 
go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only, or 
they desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing 
which I also was eager to do. And then notice as well the use 
of Abraham as an example by both Paul and James. Strange, they're 
teaching different things but they're using the same Abraham. 
And you'll see when we get to the example of Abraham in James, 
it makes perfect sense in the context. James is concerned with 
the validation or the demonstration or the manifestation or the evidentiary 
value of works in the approval of believers. So in Genesis chapter 
22, Abraham marches up to Mount Moriah with his son Isaac, his 
only son, the son whom he loved, in order to sacrifice him to 
God. James then goes on, you see then 
that the scripture was fulfilled. And he goes back 30 years to 
Genesis 15.6. Abraham believed God and it was 
accounted unto him for righteousness. So what happens in Genesis 15.6 
is justification by faith alone before God. 30 years later is 
manifested, demonstrated, evidenced by his journey up to Moriah to 
sacrifice his son Isaac. That's James's point when he 
invokes Abraham. And then certainly, if we accept 
Pauline authorship of the book of Hebrews, both authors appeal 
to Rahab the harlot, who is a champion of the faith, brethren. Rahab 
was someone we ought not to be embarrassed about. But then a 
final observation in terms of this harmony is the necessity 
of good works in Paul. Notice in Galatians 5.6. Galatians 
5.6, for in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision 
avails anything but faith working through love. That's how faith 
functions. It's not how it's formed. Just like James is dealing with 
the nature of saving faith. How does genuine faith function? Genuine faith is always accompanied 
with all other saving graces. So genuine faith will take Isaac 
up to Moriah to bury a knife in his belly. Genuine faith will, 
with Rahab, hide the spies. And notice the contrast there. The empty professors there in 
the illustration in verses 15 and 16, they say, be warmed and 
be filled, and they give them nothing for their food or their 
clothing. Rahab, in an act of treason against 
her own civil polity, hides spies in her own house. She outshines 
everyone who has ever professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's easy to give a hot dog and 
a shirt. Go ahead and commit treason against 
your civil state and see what happens then. That is the kind 
of faith, or that is the faith demonstrated in the life and 
ministry of Rahab the harlot. Rahab the porne, Rahab the sexually 
immoral one. Now when the scripture identifies 
her as that, it doesn't mean she continued in that. It's just 
the identifier to highlight from whence she came. So you see the 
both of them use these same illustrations. in terms of Abraham and Rahab, 
and then Paul specifically with reference to good works. Here, 
Ephesians 2, 8 to 10, 1 Thessalonians, Titus in several places. In fact, 
look at the Titus passage, Titus 2. In the space of two chapters, 
Paul hits good works three times. Notice in 2.14. who gave himself 
for us that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify 
for himself his own special people, zealous for good works." Notice 
in chapter 3 at verse 8, this is a faithful saying, and these 
things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed 
in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are 
good and profitable to men. And then notice in 3.14. And 
let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet 
urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful." That's a lot 
of emphasis by Paul on good works, isn't it? Sounds just like James. But if we ask the question, why? 
Why in the space of two chapters does Paul hit good works so hard? 
Well, I have a hypothesis. If you go back to chapter 1, 
notice in verse 12. One of them, a prophet of their 
own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. Therefore, 
rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith. Now, 
when Paul says this testimony is true, it probably goes one 
of two ways. This testimony is true, that 
one of their own said this, or this testimony is true, what 
one of their own said happens to be the case. Cretans are these 
kinds of people. Cretans have these issues. In 
fact, we use that language today. He's a real Cretan. If you haven't 
heard that, you don't get out enough. So imagine this, in this 
young church, having a Cretan-like background, what do you think 
Paul's gonna hit them with over and over and over again? The 
necessity of good works. You believe the gospel, you're 
justified freely by grace, Jesus gave himself for your sins, Now 
be faithful. Now be solid old men, solid old 
women, solid young women, solid young men, solid workers. Be 
faithful. Exhibit good works. Do the things 
that are called, that you are called by God to do. So the emphasis 
in both his justification by God's grace alone, through faith 
alone, in Christ alone, unto good works. So let us, as we 
treat the passage, remember, we don't want to blunt James' 
sword. If you find yourself tonight 
with the type of faith that is being examined in 14a, you say 
you have faith, but you do not have works here, James. Can that faith save you? Again, it's not a matter of, 
I need to believe a bit, I need to work a bit, and then God will 
accept me. No, the issue is, if I have, 
by God's grace, looked to Christ, believed the gospel, looked unto 
Jesus alone, that faith is accompanied with all other saving graces. 
And I will strive to be a faithful man. a husband, a father, and 
a worker. I will strive to be a faithful 
woman, wife, mother, and worker. I will strive to be a faithful 
child. I will strive to be obedient to the Lord. I will look to the 
royal law as my marching orders, and I will, by the grace of God, 
pursue those things which are pleasing in His sight. Well, 
let us pray. Our Father in Heaven, we thank 
You for Your Word. We thank You for the blessed 
unity and harmony that we find in Scripture. We ask God that 
You would cause us to think clearly concerning these matters, cause 
us to have a ready answer for Roman Catholics or any and all 
that would would challenge this interpretation. Help us, God, 
to see the harmony between James and Paul. Help us to see their 
emphases and help us to see, Lord God, their focus. And may 
we understand that justification before God is by grace alone 
through faith alone. But that faith does not remain 
alone, but is accompanied with all other saving graces. Grant 
us grace to pursue those things that are pleasing in your sight 
and not to be found out as the hypocrite of 14a. We ask these 
things through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.