James 2:14-17 probes deeply into those who see needs (or ignore needs) and do nothing to alleviate needs. James, in fact, says that kind of response indicates the lack of faith -- the lack of saving faith. Notice his words:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.The language of James 2:16, while it can be generalized or taken in a less concrete sense, may well indicate "praying" for those in need but not giving to those in need. The language is passive voice stuff: "Go in peace" may be "May God's peace be upon you," and "keep warm" may be "may God keep you warm" and "keep ... well fed" may be "may God feed you." This could represent language that intends to show the prayer turning his or her face away from the needs and asking God to take care of the problems.
What good is it?, James asks, if this person does nothing about it.
His answer, implicitly, is: "It is of no good." In other words, those who see needs (or ignore needs) and do nothing about it, do not have the kind of faith that is consistent with Jesus, the Glorious One.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Scot, this is a powerful passage - and I agree with everything you say about it (so far anyway). But ... clearly the implication in this passage is that at least some members of James audience are "rich," at least rich enough to give to the poor and hungry and naked and thirsty without becoming poor, hungry, naked, or thirsty themselves. And I think the assumption could be made that they were failing to live out the teachings of Jesus at times - or James wouldn't need to write as he does. (Perhaps you disagree?)
Why do you think that this is true here - but is not true in Ch. 1? All of your discussion in Ch. 1 put the rich in the category of the "unfaithful them" in opposition to James's faithful poverty stricken messianic audience.
It makes me wonder how much better off our nation, and Christianity itself, would be if James had as many books as Paul in the canon.
RJS, fair enough. I wouldn't classify these folks as rich, but instead they are folks having enough to help others. Whenever James uses the word "rich" he snarls ... so I think.
I am struck by "faith" in this passage. If faith is simply "trusting in the work of Jesus on the cross for my righteousness", which is the summary definition I hear Sunday after Sunday, then the kind of response James is talking about seems odd, as though he is completely missing the point. If I am trusting in Jesus, why would I have to do anything else to validate or demonstrate my faith?
Perhaps this classic Protestant summary has simplified things too much? Is faith something bigger than this? This is curious.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.