Once Again: James 2

Once Again: James 2

Hello. I’m Ken Yates from Grace Evangelical Society, and I think you’re in for a treat. You’re about to see a video that Zane Hodges, my favorite seminary professor, gave at one of Grace Evangelical Society’s national conferences, and he’s talking about James chapter 2.

In my experience James chapter 2 is often misunderstood by teachers, and I’m sure most of the listeners and watchers of this video have had it explained to them in the same way. Zane does an outstanding job here of pointing out that James chapter 2 is talking to people who already are believers and what it means to have a strong, vibrant faith.

Again, I think you’re in for a treat. I think this is very informative, and if you like what you see, press the like button, and if you really like it, press the subscribe button at the bottom of the page and you’ll be notified when Grace Evangelical Society puts out other videos.

Thank you Bob, during the question-and-answer session yesterday we had a good many excellent questions, I thought, but nobody asked the really crucial question: are you still a Cincinnati Reds fan? And of course the answer to that question is yes. How are the Reds going to do this year? That’s a question I don’t want you to ask. Okay, instead of that, therefore, let’s get down to the important business of the morning. My title is “Once Again: James 2.”

I’d like to stop in the second chapter because the further you go the more you have to know. Once again, James 2. What else can I possibly say on a passage on which I have written so much? However, if I have nothing left to say, it’s not because I’ve exhausted the passage. It’s because I’ve exhausted my knowledge about the passage. But this morning I do have something new to say. In case you are concerned, I’m not about to shift back toward the traditional view of James 2. That view has bedeviled the church for too long, and the sooner everybody forgets it the better. Unfortunately they probably won’t all forget it till after the rapture, but I am not moving back toward the traditional view. If anything, I am moving farther away.

Before preparing this morning’s paper I looked over the commentary on James 2 that I wrote for the GES journal. I don’t think I’m going to contradict anything that is found in the commentary. However, I do think I’m going to say something the commentary doesn’t say. In fact I think I’m going to say something quite important for a fuller comprehension of James chapter 2.

Part one: the lifestyle error in grace circles. I think we understand that justification by works is not a condition attached to justification by faith. Justification by works is a separate consideration. Sure, in order to experience it we need to be justified by faith, but it is not an automatic outcome of justification by faith. On the other hand, if you ask a GES member to define justification by works, he might say something like this: we are justified by works when our lives exhibit the reality of our faith. A definition like this contains an implicit error. In oral communication I have probably made that error myself.

The mistake is to think that a general lifestyle of good works produces justification by works. Today I’m going to maintain that James himself would be amazed that we got such an idea out of his text. In my judgment James knows nothing of such an idea. Here I think we can detect the subtle influence of the contemporary debate about the significance of our lifestyle. To some a godly lifestyle is a necessary product of regenerating faith. To grace people it is a way of manifesting our relationship to God. But when we conclude that a general lifestyle of holiness justifies us by works, either before God or before men, we are not speaking the language of James 2.

Part two: when and how. Let’s begin by asking a simple question. James tells us that both Abraham and Rahab were justified by works. The question then is this: when and how were Abraham and Rahab justified by works? As a matter of fact James answers this question explicitly in both cases. Listen to his familiar words.

James 2:24. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

James 2:25. Likewise was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

Did you hear anything about lifestyle in these verses? If you did, your hearing is better than mine. I’m sorry, folks, it’s just not there. What is there is very simple. In both cases we have the precise occasion on which these famous people were justified by works, and we have the precise reason why they were justified. Lifestyle is totally irrelevant to James’s idea. Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. Rahab was justified by works when she received the spies and sent them safely away. That is what James says, and that is all he says, and what he says is enough.

Part three: a series of actions. Bear in mind that both of the Old Testament stories, in both of these Old Testament stories, the obedience that Abraham and Rahab exhibited involved a series of actions. Think of Abraham’s case. According to Genesis 22:2 God spoke to Abraham as follows:

Take now your son, your only son Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.

Notice the things that Abraham is asked to do. Number one, take your son. Number two, go to the land of Moriah. Number three, offer him as a burnt offering. Number four, do it on the mountain that I point out to you. Please remember that the Greek word ergon means a deed or an action. And I’m going to cite a brief quotation from the most recent edition of the standard Greek lexicon known by the acronym BDAG. BDAG, to use BDAG’s semantic domain, ergon is “that which displays itself in activity of any kind.”

Therefore a series of erga, works, were involved in Abraham’s obedience to God on this occasion. The same is true of Rahab. James in fact makes this explicit. Rahab did two basic deeds, two erga, on the occasion in question. These were number one, she received the messengers, and number two, she sent them out another way. The bottom line is the same in both cases. The works James has in mind were the erga that Abraham and Rahab did on the occasions that James is referring to. These are the works by which they were justified, these and no others.

That is why I say that James has nothing whatsoever to say about the general lifestyle of Abraham and Rahab. If we claim that lifestyle is the point, we are making a claim that the text contradicts. These two Old Testament worthies were justified by works performed on one occasion and one occasion only. Of course we know a lot about Abraham’s lifestyle in general, so it is easy to read that idea into the text here even though we do so without any warrant from James. But Rahab is another case altogether. What do we know about Rahab’s lifestyle after Joshua 2? The answer to that question is nothing at all. Clearly from James’s standpoint the works in question were performed on the occasions he is describing.

Part four: correct connections. Please keep in mind another simple fact. It is often overlooked. The fact is this: James refers to justification by works only in James 2:20-26. Please notice the range of verses. I did not say James 2:14 to 26 but James 2:20 to 26. Here and only here in his epistle does James refer to this idea.

I admit to you today that it is a serious interpretive mistake to think that justification by works is in any sense part of the main theme of this epistle. It is no more a part of the main theme than the idea of visiting orphans and widows in their trouble is, which is mentioned only in James 1:27. But please notice I am not saying that either of these ideas is totally unrelated to James’s main theme. Both are obviously connected to that theme. But the Epistle of James is not really about visiting orphans and widows, as important as that idea may be. Neither is the Epistle of James about justification by works. May I repeat that? Neither is the Epistle of James about justification by works.

I know that this last statement may be hard for us to take in. We have so often thought about the Epistle of James in connection with its treatment of works that we have unconsciously accepted the proposition that justification by works is central to the epistle. Justification by works is certainly an important idea, but James’s epistle is not basically about that. James’s real theme is about enduring and profiting from our trials. We are all too often the victims of the hot-button theological issues. When we think of James we think of the faith-works issue, and when we think of that issue we think of justification by works as if it were James’s most crucial idea. But when we think that way we are not thinking exegetically.

What is the role of justification by works in James? Simply put, its role is to answer the imaginary objector who speaks in verses 18 to 19. That is its correct connection to James’s text.

Part five: shutting the objector up. This is not the place to go into a detailed explanation of James 2:18-19 which contain the words of the objector. I have tried to do that in my commentary, and I understand that our brother Frank Tyler will tackle these verses in a session this afternoon. I’m deliberately deferring to Frank because I don’t like to do it, so we’ll all go and hear what those verses are about this afternoon.

Let me simply remind you that the objector does not believe that there is any intrinsic connection between faith and works. Human beings and the demons can both believe in the oneness of God, but their response to that truth can be widely different. A human being may be motivated to do good because of this belief, but the demons only tremble. They certainly don’t do good. How in the world then can James claim that faith is somehow dead apart from works?

James’s response begins of course in verse 20. “But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” Verses 20 to 26 are therefore James’s answer to the objector. Let me explain this answer as follows. I’m paraphrasing. James is saying something like this: there are certain times in the experience of men and women of faith when a failure to act would demonstrate the deadness of their faith. But on those occasions the appropriate actions manifest the vitality of the faith that is in their hearts.

Let me elaborate on this just a bit. If God had asked Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice and Abraham had said, “There’s no way I can do that to my son,” would we not say that Abraham’s faith had no vitality in life? If it was challenged by God’s command and he could not have responded, it was at that moment a dead letter. It was more a bond. It was lifeless. On the contrary, Abraham’s actual response testified to the vitality, to the aliveness of his faith in God.

The same was true of Rahab. Her city and its inhabitants were threatened with extinction by the forces of the God of Israel. She and her family would also perish even if she believed in the God of Israel. If she had refused hospitality to the spies, she would have signed her own death warrant. In that case her faith would have been dead, and she herself would soon have been dead along with all of her family. But her faith was alive and active, and she pleaded for the life of her family and herself. Joshua 2:12-13. And she got her request on the condition that she did not betray the spies to their pursuers. Joshua 2:14. Thus, as James says, she sent them out another way. She kept her end of the bargain. Her faith had been active and alive, and thus she and her family remained alive.

Thus Rahab, like Abraham, was vindicated, that is, justified by her actions. Both she and Abraham manifested the aliveness of their faith. And if the objector couldn’t see that, he really was a numbskull, a stronger language than James uses.

Part six: the special moments of faith. Let’s face it, there are many actions that we perform as a result of our faith in God, but not all of these actions are obvious manifestations of faith. Let me illustrate. Suppose that I hear that my neighbor is sick in the hospital, so I go to see him there. If I were not saved I might do the same thing as a neighbor. The action, but because I am a Christian I go to see him out of my Christian concern and looking for a possible chance to give spiritual help. But suppose I don’t get a chance for that.

Perhaps the patient is drowsy from medication or something else prevents me from saying anything particularly Christian. Yet even so my visit is still the result of my faith. But externally, mark this well, but externally it looks just like something that an unsaved man might do. The faith is in my heart, but it is not visible. My visit to the hospital doesn’t result in justification by works.

You see, James needed to show the objector that there really was a visible connection between faith and works. He didn’t need to prove that there was always a visible connection. There isn’t always a visible connection. So he needed cases where the visibility of faith in action was unmistakable. He found those cases in Abraham and Rahab. So listen closely. James wasn’t concerned about general lifestyle questions in this section of his epistle. He was only concerned to show that faith could be visibly manifested so that the person who had it could be vindicated, justified by his or her actions as a man or woman of faith. That’s what he needed to show. That’s what he did show. And that’s all he showed.

Part seven: conclusion. Could justification by works occur more than once in a person’s life? It certainly seems so. But James is not interested in that point. James is only interested in showing that there can be a vital connection between what we believe and what we do. The objector doesn’t think so, but the objector is wrong. Our faith is dead, however, when we fail to act on it. If Abraham or Rahab had failed to act, they would still have had faith in the true and living God, but on the occasion in question their faith would have been lifeless and unproductive.

Suppose I believe the Bible when it says that adultery is a sin, and suppose despite that belief I go out and commit adultery. At that point is my belief in the truth of God’s word about adultery dead or alive? You answer that question. And as you answer it recall the story in which the wife of Potiphar is trying to seduce Joseph. Genesis 39. She says, “Lie with me.” Joseph replies,

Look, my master does not know what is with me in the house, and he has committed all that he has to my hand. There is no one greater in the house than I, nor has he kept back anything from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?

And then one day she caught him by his garment and said, “Lie with me.” But he left his garment in her hand and fled outside. Remarkable manifestation of faith, don’t you agree? I would say that in this narrative Joseph’s faith was very much alive. He is a giant of faith in this incident, and his actions proved it. So I would say that by the actions recorded in this story Joseph was justified by works.

Thank you.

All right, we’re ready to go again. We’re ready to go. You see a distinction there. What I would like to know is how did that question come out of my discussion? No, I think whoever asked that question should come to me afterwards and define the terms active and passive in the sense in which I have addressed the issue this morning. An active faith is one that I act on. The passive faith where I refuse to act on that faith is a dead faith. But I don’t think that’s what that question’s about. So I think the person should come to me and discuss that. Let me know exactly what he means by active and passive.

Okay, the next question is, in your book The Power to Make War we see a picture of a very foreboding looking person. They want to know how you got this person or how we got the photograph. How did that come out of the discussion this morning? But this one I’m going to try to answer. Our photographer got a hold of an actor who was passing through the city of Dallas, got him to pose for the picture, got him to sign away his rights to the picture, and we used it as a cover photograph.

All right, here’s a great one, and this is just a comment: why couldn’t I see that? I think that was a statement about the things you mentioned. Well, here’s one. If justification is by faith alone, how can there be justification by works? You talked repeatedly through your message about justification by works. Are there two types of justification and two different conditions?

There are two types of justification, and the second type of justification in my judgment, as my paper implies but doesn’t state, is before men, not before God. That Abraham and Rahab demonstrate visibly, observably before the eyes of men that they are people of faith.

Okay, if justification before God is the first kind and that’s being declared righteous before him, right?

Right. Well then how would you define justification when you talk about before men? Is it being declared righteous before men or no?

It is those special occasions when the person rises to a height of acting on his faith in such a way that it is visible and unmistakable that his faith is alive and that he’s a believing person who is doing what he believes.

Okay, here’s another one. You suggested that Rahab received the spies because of something she believed. What was it she believed? Are you saying she was regenerate when she received the spies or something else?

Well, I have to admit that I can’t prove definitively from scriptural statements that Rahab was regenerate. It’s very clear she believed that the God of Israel was the true God and that He was about to overthrow the city of Jericho and wipe it out. This implies to me that she had come in some way to understand more about the God of Israel, but definitely I can’t prove that she was as yet justified by faith. But neither can it be proved she wasn’t. And she becomes an ancestress of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I shall be very surprised if I don’t meet Rahab in heaven. In fact if I thought I could collect a bet in the kingdom I’d clean up my betting order.

Okay, this one I’m not sure if you want to handle this one, but it basically is asking if there’s some significance to the fact that this James who wrote the book is the brother of Jesus or the half-brother Jesus rather than James the apostle. Would that have some significance in the passage you’re discussing, that this is the half-brother of Jesus?

I think it’s significant that this was written by the half-brother of Jesus, but I wouldn’t know how to pinpoint that significance for James 2. It does seem to me however, this is an off-the-top-of-my-head observation, that growing up in the same household with Jesus, who always acted consistently on the basis of His faith, he may have had the most compelling illustration right in the household of someone whose faith is made visible by their actions.

Okay, keep passing if you have other questions. We’ll pick them up. Just hold your hand up and we’ll have Jeremy come down and get him because we’re down to the last few.

If faith is only externally visible in certain situations, that’s what you said, right? That in certain situations we can’t see faith. Is faith always externally visible to God? In other words, maybe to people it’s not always externally visible, but does God see all acts of faith?

Well, of course God sees all acts of faith, and also he sees faith that doesn’t require action, the things that we are committed to in our hearts that we understand and believe. So yes, it’s a question about the knowledge of God that’s complete and total.

Okay, and the question, another, this is an isn’t a question. Are you saying that faith will at least be manifested externally at some point in the life? I mean, no, you haven’t specifically addressed that question, but here’s the question: would you say that faith is externally manifested at least at some point in every believer’s life?

No. Would you like to elaborate on that?

No. However I will. This is closely related to the long-running question: is there such a thing as a believer who never ever does anything as a result of his faith? My answer to that, what I have gone into print as saying, is I don’t think there is any such thing as a believer who never ever does anything at all as a result of their faith. But I cannot prove it from Scripture, so it cannot be a fundamental doctrine. But even if a person does one or two things as a result of their faith, that is certainly not grounds for assurance of salvation. And the really important issue is that works are not indispensable to an assurance of eternal life. What is indispensable to that is the promise of God and our conviction that that promise is true.

Okay, you just segued into another one of the questions, and that is this, wasn’t what you were speaking about but it relates: can we ever be sure of someone else’s salvation? I’m sure by that they mean regeneration. If so, based on what? First John 5:1 says, “Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” And it says that in the context where it is trying to identify the brother that we are to love. I think that has to be understood in the light of Johannine theology, but to believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that he is the one who gives eternal life to the person who believes in him.

And personally I don’t think there’s any grounds for doubting the salvation of someone who apparently with all sincerity and understanding says that is what I believe. Now I admit that I’ve met a few people who told me that and I didn’t think that was really what they believed, so I had some doubts about that. But most of the people that I meet and interact with can easily convince me they’re saved by saying, “Yeah, I know I’m going to heaven because I believed in Christ and he’s given me eternal life.” And unless they’re the best liars in the world I think they’re brothers.

Just to follow up on that, what would lead you to question if someone affirmed what they, what would lead you to, what in those situations made you question that?

Well, I knew a little bit about the person and the circumstances under which the person was talking to me, so I had suspicions they were mollifying you. They were telling me, I think, what they thought I wanted to hear. And that does happen. That does happen. People are capable of that. But you know how often does that happen to me? It hasn’t happened very much, but it’s happened a couple of times.

Okay, the question is, in verse 22 what does the phrase “faith was perfected” mean? What does that mean, faith was perfected or fulfilled?

I think this is not the New King James. This is probably, I don’t know what. Yeah, I think the idea that James has is that to act upon our faith strengthens the faith and fulfills its potential. So when Abraham acts in this way his own faith in God is strengthened and it is made more stable and it is obviously very productive. The incident that James chooses for the chapter here is an incident that has made Abraham famous in three religions. Yes, so that is an obvious and impressive manifestation of Abraham’s faith in God.

And just related to that, when you were talking about Rahab you weren’t saying this was not necessarily faith in the Messiah for eternal life or in Rahab’s case this was faith in God concerning His Son and the seed. When you’re talking about faith you’re not, in the illustrations you gave were not about saving faith. You’re talking about faith in anything we believe that God has said. Is that correct?

That’s essentially correct because James is not talking about the issue of saving faith. That’s a misconception that is brought to the Epistle of James. James is talking to Christian readers, people who have received the perfect gift of new birth from above. And so he wants to point out to Christian readers that the way in which we manifest our faith is by acting upon it, and that is the test of whether our faith is alive or unfunctionally dead.

This question says, did I hear you imply or state that Rahab was justified by works before men before she was justified by faith before God? If so, would we call these good works moralistic behavior? How would this be connected to saving faith?

No, you did not hear me correctly. I personally think that she was justified by faith. I just can’t prove it at this point, but there’s no reason to doubt that in my judgment.

Well, would you say an unbeliever could be justified, for example Cornelius in Acts 10, was he justified by works before he was justified by faith?

I don’t think so. James’s discussion is within a Christian context, and it seems to me we need to keep his discussion in the Christian context. What would James have said about Cornelius before he was converted? I don’t know.

These tennis balls come back so fast I can’t even see them, you know, as they go by.

Can you have both live or living faith and dead faith at the same time at the same moment of time? That’s like this says, for example was Rahab a harlot as she’s receiving the spies and sending them out? It seems like she’s got dead faith in that area but living faith in another area. That’s what they say.

Yeah, again I, Bob doesn’t want responsibility for this, neither do I. Again I think that’s asking questions that the text is not intended to answer because the text is trying to prove to the objector that it is possible for faith to have an obvious connection with what we do so that it is possible to see that the faith is alive and productive. Once we begin to skate on the skateboard of theology through this passage and try to answer all our questions about it, we’re going beyond, it seems to me, the intent of the passage. That is always a very dangerous exegetical procedure to make a text answer questions it’s not addressed to. Right? So that’s the problem with a question like that.

I think this one asks, if justification by works is before men, how do you explain First Corinthians 4 verses 2 through 4? What are those verses?

Yeah, I can’t recall all of them, but that’s the part, I don’t judge before the time, and Paul says I’m not afraid of being judged by men but I’m being judged, you know, my judgment is by the Lord, and he’s looking forward to the bema. Have I paraphrased? Why doesn’t somebody read it out there? First Corinthians 4:2-3-4. I think I know what that’s, but go ahead and read it please.

Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this, but he who judges me is the Lord.

Okay, and he goes on in that passage to say that judge nothing before the time when the Lord comes who shall bring to light the hidden thoughts of the heart and make manifest the counsels of the heart and so on. I think the point here is that no one can pass definitive judgment on other people on the basis of what they do unless they have a perfect knowledge of the person’s heart. I can certainly see faith manifested, but I’m not the judge of Abraham. Could he have done better than that? I don’t know. God does. It’s hard to see how he could have, but nevertheless the point is that I can’t pass a definitive judgment on anybody’s behavior because I do not know enough about the inner life of that person. But God knows the inner life as well as the expression of that in actual deeds. But again that’s not connected particularly with this passage.

The passage only wishes to prove that, that was one of my major emphases this morning. The passage is only intended to prove that a person who has real faith can manifest that faith in what he does and prove that his faith is alive and productive. And if we try to make more out of it than that, in fact my talk this morning can be summarized by saying don’t make more out of this passage than James meant.

What about First Corinthians 3:10-15 where Paul talks about the wood, the hay and the stubble and the gold, silver and the precious stones, and that’s looking at some things that are external and yet it says he shall be saved yet so as through fire? What’s going on in that passage?

Well, it means, the way I read the passage, it means that even if a person’s good works were entirely burned up in the judgment seat of Christ he’d still be in heaven. I don’t think that this passage proves that anyone’s works will be entirely burned up because this is a hypothetical issue for Paul. I think it would be going too far to say that he’s saying that there will be people standing in the judgment of Christ whose every deed will be burned to a crisp. I don’t think that’s the intent. But his point is that if that did happen it wouldn’t affect their salvation.

And how do you take the wood, hay, stubble and the gold, silver, precious stone? So those good works and bad works in the context it appears to me that he is talking particularly about works done professedly within the church and in service to God. And some things that we do for God have real and enduring value and some things do not. It is possible to serve God out of bad motives with wrong objectives with an effort to glorify ourselves instead of God. That kind of thing would be wood, hay and stubble.

So you wouldn’t see those as bad works, just they’re not permanent. There’s no lasting value to those works?

Well, I don’t think that again. I think that he’s describing the judgment seat of Christ, and it’s clear from other passages that our whole life is reviewed. And so probably Paul would have said yeah, your bad works, well they’re done in or outside the church or in or outside the ministry or wood, hay and stubble. I think he would probably have said that.

Okay, we have time for one or two more questions. I’ve got one last one here. If you’ve got one write it down and pass it up. But here’s this last one. The expression “faith without works is dead” occurs three times, once outside of your passage James 2:17 and then 20 and 26. What precisely does that expression “faith without works is dead” mean, and why does it occur in the preceding context too in 2:17?

Well, I didn’t say that “faith without works is dead” occurred only in 20 to 26. What I said was justification by works occurs only in that section. And so I’m arguing against justification by works being expanded to general lifestyle issues. But obviously from the start of the passage in 2:14 James wants to tell his readers if you don’t act on your faith you’re dead. Your faith is a dead letter. It’s unproductive. It’s lifeless. The objector says how can you say that? You really can’t see a connection between faith and works. And James says oh yes you can see it. Look at Abraham. Look at Rahab.

So when people say faith without works is not faith, that’s not at all what James is saying. He’s saying faith without works is, are you saying not productive?

Yeah, we must remember that I used the term polymorphous yesterday, which is a technical term for a wide range of meanings. I think in most advanced languages the word dead is a very polymorphous term. So even in English we can think of almost off the top of our heads a series of ways in which the word dead is used. It’s a dead letter. It’s a dead end. You can think of lots and lots of others. We use the word dead both literally and metaphorically, and we use it freely. And so it should not be assumed when we come to James 2 that there’s only one possible meaning for the word dead. We have to try to understand James 2 within the context and framework of James’s basic argument.

And so I think it would be better to say, I think we understand what we mean when we say if Abraham doesn’t do anything despite the fact that he believes that his faith is dead. We mean it doesn’t have vitality. It doesn’t have productivity. It doesn’t act. It doesn’t work. We don’t mean it ain’t there.

Right. And we certainly don’t mean he ain’t saved. So you know, let’s be reasonable about this. Why should we read such heavy-freighted theology into a simple metaphor? How can faith literally be dead? It can’t be. You could say faith without works is not faith, but that’s not what he says.

Right. That’s what a lot of people think he says, but he didn’t say it. So let’s remember the fluidity, the variability of a word like dead, and take that into account in James 2.

Okay, the final question I’m not sure I fully understand it, so it’s a risk to read it, but I’ll give it a shot. And that is you mentioned justification by works are not always visible. You know, some of these things you might do and like the idea of going to the hospital with someone and they say you know if you do something that is sacrificial but it’s not observable to other people, would God look at that as some sort of vindication before him? I mean not in terms of eternal life but in terms of reward.

I’m tempted to say you know what has happened to me is what happens to James in this passage. I did not say that justification by works is never, is sometimes invisible. I said faith is sometimes not visible in what we do. That’s different. You understand that? It’s one thing to say that faith is always visible. Faith is not always visible. But I didn’t say that justification by works is sometimes invisible. No, it wouldn’t be justification by works in James’s sense of the term if it were invisible. And by the way I didn’t ask this question. I’m just really okay. You just preserved our friendship.

All right, well thank you so much. Just give him a hand. Thanks so much.