This passage is the center of the epistle. The flow of James' argument in this section serves as an extension of v1-13 where he argued that snobbery and favoritism are not a fruit of authentic faith. Such faith is worthless. He carries this thought into v14 with the question, "Can such faith save?" He argues that it cannot because it is not authentic.

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.

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?

1. A person cannot exhibit good "deeds" and not have faith? Discuss this possibility in the light of v18.

2. Relate the intellectual belief of demons to the human equivalent, v19.

3. Discuss the "cross bearing" example of Abraham and Rahab.