A reader writes:
What’s your opinion of the translation that one often sees in James 2:14:
Can such faith save him? (NIV)
Can that faith save him? (NAS)
as apposed to the KJV and NKJV:
Can faith save him?
To
me, this one translation choice seems to be make a big difference in
how one reads James in light of the Sola Fide debates. But I’d be
interested in your thoughts on it from an "original language" viewpoint
and if it’s really as critical as it seems to me.
The Greek of the passage allows either translation. In the Greek original there is a definite article (the Greek equivalent of "the") in front of the word for faith in this passage. The thing about the definite article in Greek is that it’s a little tricky. It doesn’t fully correspond to the English word "the" in its meaning and usage.
If I may put it this way, the Greeks were kind of definite article happy. They slapped it in front of all kinds of nouns where we just wouldn’t. For example, if you’re reading along in the Greek New Testament you’ll run into statements that "the Jesus" or "the Paul" did or said things. (In other words, they’ll put the definite article in front of a proper name.) They also put it in front of a lot of other words where we wouldn’t use it, and in these cases it doesn’t convey the same force as the English "the."
In other cases, though, they used it with more force than "the" has. In these situations, it has the force of a pronoun, like "that."
There are thus three ways the translator may need to handle the definite article:
1) Leave it untranslated because it doesn’t correspond to English usage/doesn’t have as much force as "the"
2) Translate it as "the"
3) Translate it with a pronoun or similarly more forceful term, like "that"
Pretty much everybody agrees that option #2 is not the correct one in James 2:14. A reference to "the faith" would be most naturally understood as a reference to "the Christian faith," and it does not seem plausible that James wants to say that the Christian faith does not save people.
Translations thus divide between following option #1 (like the KJV and NKJV) and option #3 (like the NIV and NAS).
If you are coming from an interpretive school that tries to solve the James/Paul issue by saying that James is talking about a different kind of different and inferior faith than Paul is (e.g., "dead faith") then that would push you toward option #3. I think that there are problems with that approach, and I’ve written about that elsewhere.
The passage is more naturally handled with option #1, as the King James and New King James translators (who were firmly Protestant) did. The passage naturally reads like one in which the definite article has less force rather than more, and if you aren’t being motivated by a variant of the "dead faith" solution to the James/Paul problem, I don’t see why you’d want to go with option #3.
Thus Protestant author Bob Wilkins (who founded a ministry in support of the doctrine of sola fides) writes:
The Greek merely has the definite article. The noun faith occurs 11 times in vv 14-26. Of the 11 uses, 8 times James uses the definite article. Yet clearly in none of the other 7 places does it make any sense to translate the noun and article as that faith or such faith. For example, v 17, if handled the same way as some translate v 14b, would read, "Thus also that faith by itself, if it does not dead." Is there some kind of faith, then, that is not dead when devoid of works? Hardly. James’s point is that faith without works is dead. Not some special kind of faith [SOURCE].
I’ve always been puzzled by the, “demons have faith” issue. If faith is the belief in what is unseen then does this mean the demons are unsure whether there’s a God? Could a demon be an atheist…a mormon?
St. James is showing that Faith Alone Sola Fide cannot save you. After St. Paul wrote to the Romans and the Galatians, St. James wrote his epistle to correct some of the errors people had after reading St. Paul’s letters and spreading their interpretations of what he wrote.
St. James wrote his epistle to correct some of the errors people had after reading St. Paul’s letters and spreading their interpretations of what he wrote.
Dr. Eric:
Good point!
In light of your above comment, is that any different from today?
Esau,
Nope!
Just ask St. Peter.
Slowboy I think it would be impossible for demons to be atheist or Mormon because demons are fallen angels and the angels were THERE.
Before they were fallen, those same angels saw God and worked directly with him. Hence the name “angels” which means “messenger”. (I have no idea if the fallen angels still see God, though I like to think they do.)
Though it was their pride that led to their fall, the angels still have much more developed intellects than human beings. Their knowledge and understanding is further beyond us than we are beyond the insects. Not to mention the fact that they have a purely spiritual nature whereas humans are spirit/material hybrids.
Angels do not suffer from the same mental limitations that humans do. Their memories are not forgotten and age does not bring on mental decay like we humans who suffer from Alzheimer’s and spaciness.
Therefore, the angels would know who they are/were working for and could never forget this even if they wanted to. Denial would not be an option either because it would require them to have a changeable nature that would accept the fact that there once WAS a God (or non-Mormon God) and now there IS NOT.
In short, all angels, even the fallen ones, have the full Catholic understanding of God and the created universe.
So what point is Bob Wilkens’ article trying to make? What does it mean to be saved by faith alone? That faith without works will not save you from the death-dealing consequences of sin, but it is still sufficient for eternal salvation?
StubbleSpark:
About what you said:
I have no idea if the fallen angels still see God, though I like to think they do.
Wouldn’t it be the case that the very fact that these angels are fallen would, then, suggest (at least, to me) that they would no longer have benefit of the beatific vision and, therefore, would not see God unlike in times past prior to the fall?
James’s point is that faith without works is dead.
Right. And can “such a faith”, i.e. a faith without works, save? No.
Works are the outward expression of inner faith. A lack of works indicates an emptiness of faith within. Thus, says James, such a faith cannot save.
(I have no idea if the fallen angels still see God, though I like to think they do.)
My guess is not as the Beatific Vision is the defination of being in heaven. My working image of demons though has been that of them in Hell looking up, seeing God and hating Him.
I know just enough to copy this from newadvent.com:
FAITH IS……….the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God” (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but “Ask and ye shall receive.” ….
and again I ask myself. Just how does a demon have faith. Since no one who knows anything has answered I will now dangerously proceed from my ignorance.
1. Faith is a gift of the intellect.
a. Demons are spiritual creatures of pure intellect.
2. Faith (in this case) is a spiritual gift.
3. Once in heaven we have the Beatific Vision and thus the spiritual gifts of Faith and Hope will be unneeded.
4. Demons, by defination, are spiritual beings in Hell thus cannot have the Beatific VIsion.
thus Demons are spiritual creatures of pure intellect who have faith (the intellectual/spiritual gift of the belief in God) but have chosen to reject God and his goodness thus exist in a state of punishment (Hell). Part of the punishment is their undiminished abilities: ie they have intellect, faith and will undimished by their fall.
Furthermore, “Hope, in its widest acceptation, is described as the desire of something together with the expectation of obtaining it.”
thus demons posses the vice of “anti-hope” also.
Or so says Dr. SLowboy.
French and Arabic are also “definite article happy.”
As far as demons having faith, the comparison that I think of comes from the area of the intersect of criminal behaviour & abnormal psychology.
Sociopathic persons, (let us say, Ted Bundy for argument’s sake) know perfectly well what the difference is between right & wrong. They also possess the ability to choose whether or not to behave as they do, though not the ability to change what they feel & desire. Hence, they are legally “sane”.
However–and it’s a big ‘however’– Such persons (A) want what they want, when they want it, & (B)Don’t care what whether something is right or wrong; they want it & they take it/do it, regardless.
I suspect that this may be something of a reflection of the condition of demons. They know that God exists, that He is loving & forgiving. They know that Christ died for the sins of us all. In their minds, they know all these things.
But, in their hearts, they don’t give a rat’s tushy about what they know….They want what they want, they want it when they want it, & they firmly believe, in John Milton’s words, that “It is better to reign in hell than to serve in Heaven”.
The saddest thing may well be the fact, that they feel this way, after having been present with God. They walked (to paraphrase the scripture)not by faith, but by sight. And threw it all away……
” …they firmly believe, in John Milton’s words, that “It is better to reign in hell than to serve in Heaven”.”
Or at least they believed that at one time. I expect they know better, now. They know what they threw away. That is their punishment. They are doomed to remember heaven, but never to have it again.
That’s why they hate us. Because we weak, brutish, ignorant sacks of protoplasm still have the hope of heaven. It sickens and enrages them.
From Oration 40, by St. Gregory Nazianzen:
“If [Satan] wrestle against you to a fall through avarice, showing you all the kingdoms at one instant and in the twinkling of an eye, as belonging to himself, and demand your worship — despise him as a beggar. Say to him, relying on the Seal [of Baptism], ‘I am myself the Image of God; I have not yet been cast down from the heavenly Glory, as you were through your pride; I have put on Christ; I have been transformed into Christ by Baptism; worship thou me.’ Well do I know that he will depart, defeated and put to shame by this; as he did from Christ the first Light, so he will from those who are illumined by Christ.”
John E asked:
[Quote]
So what point is Bob Wilkens’ article trying to make? What does it mean to be saved by faith alone? That faith without works will not save you from the death-dealing consequences of sin, but it is still sufficient for eternal salvation?
[End Quote]
If you’re interested, you can see a more full-orbed discussion of the James 2 passage that takes similar view as that held by Dr. Wilkin on Dr. Thomas Constable’s website here:
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/james.pdf
The discussion of the passage begins on page 29.
Cordially.