A few quotations from Douglas Moo's Commentary on the book of James to fill in a bit more background to the material we looked at during Kemsing's Useful! service on the second half of James 2.
“Critical to understanding the argument of the section and integrating it successfully into a broader biblical perspective is the recognition that James is not arguing that works must be added to faith. His point, rather, is that genuine biblical faith will inevitably be characterized by works. Trying to add works to a bogus faith is an exercise in futility, for only by ‘accepting the implanted word’ (1:21) and experiencing the inner transformation that it brings can one produce works pleasing to God” (120)
As well as recognising that this passage has links into the immediate context of 2:1-13 (explaining the “law of liberty that will be the criterion of judgement, and continuing the theme of rich and poor), we need to recognise that it is tied into the whole letter and so has a wider focus than themes of wealth and poverty. “This paragraph is the capstone on James’s presentation of ‘true religion,’ begun in 1:21. Obedience to the word, James has insisted, is a necessary mark of authentic Christianity. Taken by itself, however, such an emphasis could lead to an externalistic interpretation of Christianity, as if all that mattered was outward conformity to the demands of Scripture. And so 2:14-26 adds a necessary corrective: ‘true religion’ begins with faith – but a faith that works.” (120)
This passage is also tied into the wider canon: “The criticism in v. 24 of a ‘faith only’ view of justification suggests further that these false views have some relationship to the apostle Paul. To be sure, a connection is not altogether clear, for this kind of view might well have been circulating in Jewish circles independent of Paul and early Christianity. But it is more likely, considering the distinctively Pauline vocabulary of v. 24, that the teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles is lurking here in the background.” (121)
“The scenario that makes most sense is to think that he is writing to oppose a misunderstood form of Paul’s teaching.” (121)
Add new comment