Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

In the eyes of some commentators, however, this seemingly cogent argument
does not necessarily dismiss the case in favor of an objector. They argue
that James’ wording, “But someone will say ... ,” typically introduces
such objector throughout the NT (See Tasker, 65, with reference to Paul).
This, therefore, must by definition be the interpreter’s point of departure. If
this is, indeed, unavoidable, there are two variant possibilities, both of which
champion the artificial separation of faith and works. “Don’t get hot under the
collar, James! It would be no skin of my back, (even if) you (were to) have
faith (only) and I (were to) have works. Why would it? Both are legitimate
possibilities.” Or with a slight variation, “Don’t push it, James! (Any imaginary)
“You” (may) have faith, and (any imaginary) “I” works. So what?
Make both optional, and do not turn all this into a federal case!” In both instances,
“live and let live,” should be the motto (Tasker, 66; see also Motyer,
112). In short, in this scenario the statement of the objector is basically “an
assertion that faith and works are not necessarily related to each other and
that it is possible to have either one without the other” (Burdick, 183). They
are “separate entities” without any “interplay.” Therefore everyone should be
free to opt for the one or the other (See also Cargal, 124, for this interpretation
as an exegetical possibility).
If this interpretation is correct, James introduces his objector, whether a
real individual or a straw man, in order to knock him down immediately and
unceremoniously with his counter challenge, “All right, you seek to show me
your faith without deeds, ‘an impossible task,’ and I will reveal you my faith
by my deeds ‘as its proper expression’” (Laws, 124; Grosheide, 1955, 378).
No deeds? Evidently no faith! There simply is no demonstrable faith without
action (PDavids, 65). Only deeds prove that faith is alive and well (Martin,
88).
Most commentators, however, do not take this route, apparently unconvinced
that it must be an objector who is speaking. They understand James as
introducing two imaginary discussion partners, with the contrast not between
faith and deeds, but between “faith pretended and faith discovered by works”
(Manton, 238). The speaker puts himself squarely in James’ camp, the “faith
+ works” side, while the addressee would represent the “faith only” side. After
delineating the issue, “You (supposedly) have faith, and I (definitely) have
deeds,” either the speaker or James himself then confronts the addressee immediately.
“Well, show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my
faith by my deeds.”
Truthfully, it is difficult to determine with absolute certainty, whether
James introduces an objector or a cohort. But whatever interpretation is chosen,
in either of these two possible scenarios the issue is met head-on. Non-
520