The passage
      v14-17. James contends that a faith which claims to look to the mercy of God, but does not show itself in works of mercy, is a fraud. Such religious faith cannot save since it has no substance. It is nothing more than an expression of religious piety. Such faith is dead and means nothing; it is false, futile and barren. James describes how this faith can produce a cold, hard, callous disregard for the needs of others, and yet be expressed within the framework of a supposed religious faith. Such a faith is unable to do what it claims.
      v18a. James now presents the argument of his objector, v18-19. The objector tries to separate faith and deeds. He would actually argue, "I have faith, you have deeds", but James restates the point with himself as the "I".
      v18b, The objector holds a "faith without deeds" viewpoint, while possibly accepting James' argument that faith will normally issue in deeds. The objector's point is that faith exists before it's validation in deeds, and is therefore, superior and independent to deeds. James' response is that good deeds demonstrate the reality of a person's faith.
      v19. The reference to the demons is probably an element of the objector's argument that faith can exist independent of deeds. Of course, the "faith" referred to here is "assent", not saving "trust", but the point can still be made that the faith of the demons doesn't issue in good deeds, so faith can exist independent of deeds. This the objector argues against James' point that faith and deeds are inseparable.
      v20-25. James now demolishes the objector's argument with two illustrations which support his contention that faith without works is useless, a dead thing. The illustrations are addressed to the "foolish", vain man, the objector - the man who lives the form of religion, but not the substance.
        i] The illustration of Abraham is a powerful one indeed. His deed was done out of complete devotion to God. He set about to do what God commanded, even though the cost would be enormous. The illustration drives home the point that faith and good works go hand in hand. A genuine faith in the mercy of God will show itself in deeds of mercy. You can't have one without the other. Good deeds are the fruit of faith, thus "faith was made complete by what he did".
        ii] The illustration of Rahab again makes the same point. She was counted righteous for what she did, in that her faith in God was of such a quality that it expressed itself in doing all that she could to protect the servants of God.
      v26. James brings his argument to a conclusion. As the absence of breathing in a body indicates an absence of life, so the absence of good deeds (acts of mercy, forgiveness, love, obedience...) indicates the absence of a genuine faith. Genuine faith expresses itself in deeds of love. So then, James sees only one form of faith; it is a saving faith that relates a person to the living God in Jesus Christ. Such a faith is a faith of action.

The fruit of faith
      How do we approach a passage like this? At first sight, it seems to be an exhortation to obedience. It is certainly surrounded by passages encouraging us to obey - don't show favoritism, tame the tongue. Yet, it would be dangerous to take it as an exhortation to obey. If we took it that way it would be saying something like.... "demonstrate your faith through obedience", or in simple terms, "be what you are." We probably do need to be reminded to allow the motivating love of the indwelling Christ to shape love in our lives. It is good to be reminded of our little love and draw anew from the cleansing presence of Christ. Yet, is this the point James is wanting to make?
      In this letter, James is not so much encouraging his readers toward deeds of love, as toward genuine faith. He makes the point that if we are unwilling to walk before the Lord in deeds of love, then we really have no claim on him. He is obviously not our friend. There is no value in trying to find security in religious faith while our lives are lived out in rebellion, for a genuine faith will show itself in good deeds. So, the passage removes the false security of an intellectual faith and forces the reader to see their rebellion for what it is. If we are unwilling to listen to exhortations to do good, then such unwillingness only shows we have not come to a saving faith in Christ. We are driven back to the cross to seek forgiveness.
      Just as there is no security in legalism, so there is no security in an intellectualized religious faith. Our security lies in the mercy of a loving God whose mercy makes us merciful. Where does our security lie if we are not merciful, if we show partiality 2:1-13, if we use our tongue as a "restless evil, full of deadly poison" 3:1-12?

v18
      alla erei tiV "but someone will say" - but a certain person will say. Who is James addressing? Who is the "foolish man"? James and the apostle Paul are dealing with two different groups of believers. Paul is dealing with believers who see salvation as something confirmed and progressed by works of the law. He therefore makes the point that justification and sanctification are a matter of grace through faith and not by works. James, on the other hand, is dealing with those who devalue the law of love while at the same time affirming their religious faith, a faith that believes that God exists. James therefore makes the point that a faith which does not issue in love is a pretence; it is not genuine faith. It is difficult to work out exactly what James' opponents are on about. Have they misunderstood Paul's teachings and so proclaim a slogan-like "by faith alone" coupled with ethical indifference and unbridled license? The tension between the indicative and the imperative is easily lost. A reliance on the indicative, while ignoring the imperative, results in a form of perfectionism which discounts the need for ethical endeavor. For James, genuine faith shows itself in kindness toward the poor and afflicted. Bo Reicke suggests that James is arguing against those Christian leaders who have adopted a Pharisaic way of dealing with new converts where "if anyone finds it difficult to accommodate himself to the practice of true Christian piety, it will suffice for him to make a confession of faith, while others assume the responsibility for deeds."
      "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do" - The thrust of James' argument is open to some debate, but it is likely that James is arguing against a view put forward by an objector, namely, that faith and deeds are unrelated, that one person my express their piety in a religious faith and another in religious deeds. That is, the objector holds the view that both pathways are a valid expression of discipleship. Not so, says James. Faith without mercy, forgiveness, love.... is worthless; for true faith will always show itself in the fruit of good deeds. Therefore, a life lived without deeds demonstrates a life without true faith.

v19
      su pisteueiV (pisteuw) pres. "you believe" - The argument, as noted above, is most likely that belief, which is merely intellectual assent, as is the belief of the demons, is worthless by itself. The demons know that God exists and shudder at the thought of their coming judgement.

v20
      hJ pistiV cwriV twn ergwn argh estin "faith without works is useless" - faith apart from works accomplishes nothing. In trying to resolve the problem between faith and deeds, as it relates to the teachings of Paul and James, numerous positions get presented ranging from Paul and James being irreconcilably opposed, to both being in total harmony. The problem is at least partly resolved when we recognize that Paul and James are dealing with totally different problems in the church. Paul counters a view which contends that the Christian life is established and progressed through obedience to the Law of God. For Paul, to return to the law is to return to slavery and ultimately to undermine salvation - a salvation which is wholly of grace through faith. James, on the other hand, is dealing with a completely different problem. He counters a view which contends that the Christian life need not be concerned with the royal law of love - with mercy, forgiveness, acceptance.... To counter this view James argues that genuine faith always issues in kindness. Where there is no kindness there is no faith.