James 2:14-19

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear.”

— ‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬-‭19‬‬ 

So many lessons to learn from this passage (and yes it extends to the end of the chapter), both in wisdom, faith, and hermeneutics and grammar. Someday I’ll have a separate post on the functions of the article, but that really is the key here. That “the” in v. 14 has been translated by the NET as “that kind of faith.” Seems odd at first, but it’s their way of interpreting an article that points back to something previously mentioned. 

If we saw a truck drive by making a crazy sound, or a certain person in the park, or we were talking about a famous event, we could use the English article in a similar way. We wouldn’t describe the whole item or concept every time. We would just say, “the truck” or “the boy,” (or more likely, “that truck/that man/that incident”). The article can function this way in Greek.

As much as I argue for staying in one book and gleaning its themes primarily, there’s nothing to be scared of when it comes to the big “James vs. Paul” showdown. Comparing Romans 3 and James 2 can be spooky at first, but that’s only because we strip verses of their context and don’t let authors say what they want to.

James is talking to a people hurting in famine. Impoverished. Far from home (Diaspora). He’s talked a bunch to the “poor/wealthy” divide in the church already in ch 2, and now he asks how any believing individual cannot help those in need? 

Genuine faith demonstrates itself in works. Empty words mean nothing. “I’ll pray for you.” “I hope you find some clothes and food.” God bless you and your family.” That doesn’t show faith. 

The question, “Can that faith save him?” is also written in a way to expect a negative answer. No, he has the wrong kind of faith. 

Are we to judge one another’s salvation? No, probably not a good idea. Is this the metric that lets me know someone’s eternal status? Again, I’m probably not going to judge. That’s not James’s point. His conclusion is simply that believers should help other believers in need. 

If not, our so-called faith is a lot like the demons. We believe God exists and even know Jesus pretty well. But we are not willing to share His love with others.

The neat thing is that Paul has nearly identical themes in his letters. “We owe no one anything but love.” Gal 5

Doing good things can never earn God’s favor, free us from sin or death, or gain life. But once we have received His life and love, it should be impossible not to share it with others. When we receive goodness and grace, we extend it. Otherwise, pretty much every NT author should conclude it’s possible we haven’t received anything.

Granville Sharp Rule

 Granville Sharp proposed a grammatical rule in 1798 regarding the Greek article. He restricted this rule to a very specific construction. Two substantives (same case but can be nouns, adjectives, participles) are joined by καί and the article precedes the first substantive only. Both nouns must be singular, refer to personal entities, and be improper.

When all these requirements are met, the two nouns refer to the same person. They have equal identity.

οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James" Mark 6:3

ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν "I ascend to my father and your father and my God and your God" John 20:17

Those who have analyzed each construction that matches Granville's restrictions have confirmed that every occurrence contains multiple substantives that have the same referent.

This is significant for some key passages like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where the deity of Jesus is confirmed by using this construction. Some object that "god" is a proper name, but this is simply not the case. Proper names can't be pluralized.

So what happens when people start applying this rule to constructions that don't follow Granville's limitations? They can reach erroneous conclusions. Don't try to make the rule do more than intended.

If proper names are joined by "and," it doesn't matter. They always refer to unique individuals.

If plural nouns are joined by "and," the groups could be identical (see Rev 1:3), but more likely the groups are either distinct (Matt 3:7), or one group is a subset of the other (Matt 9:11; Mark 2:16). In these cases, though, the groups are still related to one another. They either act in unison, or they are part of the same socio-economic circles, etc. We just can't say they are equal unless context allows it.

Impersonal nouns joined by "and" rarely (maybe one instance) have the same referent. More likely, the nouns are referring to distinct entities, or one noun is a subset of the other. Again, the fact that two nouns are joined by a single article indicates some sort of relationship, though. 

Some texts are interesting to debate and wonder how close that relationship is, but concluding that the referents are identical is unlikely unless the nouns meet Granville's limitations.

Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 270-90, for a more exhaustive explanation and examples from biblical and extrabiblical sources.

Colwell's Rule and John 1:1

 E.C. Colwell (1933) wrote an article in JBL concluding that a definite preverbal predicate nominative is usually anarthrous. Lots of words there, and if you do not love language or grammar, let’s break it down.

• Definite: specific entity in reality
• Preverbal: the word in question is written before the verb in the sentence
• Predicate Nominative: In a sentence with “is” or “become” as the verb (usually), there’s a subject and either predicate adjective or predicate noun. The predicate nominative/noun renames the subject. E.g., The painting is a masterpiece.
• Anarthrous: does not have the article

In English, word order is often crucial. The subject is typically before the equative verb/verb of being, and the predicate noun/adjective is after the verb. Greek word order doesn’t matter for syntax, while it may affect emphasis or semantics. 

Colwell noticed that when a definite predicate nominative is in front of the verb, it usually does not have the article. His point was that just because a predicate nominative doesn't have the article, one cannot assume it should be translated with "a" instead of "the." Context must decide the words definiteness. His key illustration was John 1:49, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (If you are the son of God, you are the king of Israel). Both subjects are the second person pronoun “you.” This leaves “the son of God” and “the king of Israel” as the predicate nouns in the first and second clauses, respectively. The first one has the article, and the second one does not. Jesus is not “a king of Israel,” but “the king of Israel.” One will notice, though, that context indicated the definiteness of the predicate noun "king.”

The problem is that many after Colwell misunderstood what he had concluded and reversed the rule. They stated that an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative is usually definite.

The key text used for support has always been John 1:1 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. “And the Word was a god/the God/god”

A couple studies in the 70s (Harper and Dixon, specifically), showed how Colwell restricted his study to passages where predicate nouns were definite. The semantic understanding of the predicate noun, therefore, was already decided by the context before looking at the structure. Harner further argued that 80% of Colwell’s constructions contain qualitative nouns. That is, the noun incorporates some attribute or characteristic of an object or person. These studies also focused on word order and how the structure of a sentence affects the spectrum of indefiniteness to definiteness. Basically, they sharpened Colwell's conclusions so students could use them more practically.

Here is one example of each kind of noun in Colwell’s construction:

• Definite: John 1:49, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (see above)
• Qualitative: John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“the word became flesh” --not a flesh or the flesh)
• Indefinite: (most likely one in the NT) θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ συ (“I perceive that you are a prophet”—could be “the prophet” of Deut 18 but debatable)

In light of these studies, we can revise Colwell’s rule to apply to structures as we find them in the Greek NT: "An anarthrous pre-verbal Predicate Nominative is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite." (See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 262)

What about John 1:1?

John 1:1 fits Colwell’s construction, but its semantics must be defined by context. Indefinite is the most rare meaning for this structure, and it would be nearly impossible for John to see Jesus as “a god.” 

Definite is unlikely. Most of the time, definite anarthrous preverbal predicate nouns are in genitive constructions, are proper names, or refer to a one-of-a-kind noun (e.g., sun). Having a definite noun for "god" here would also make "Word" convertible or precisely equal to its predicate. Essentially, the "Word" would be the same being as "the God," which would be difficult to distinguish from "God the Father" in a natural Jewish context. This is modalism, though John does have the strongest statements about Jesus' equality with the Father throughout the book (I and the Father are one; anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father).

A qualitative noun here fits John's theology and the structure of the construction best. Translation: "The Word was divine/deity." This allows balance between the Word's deity and His humanity in 1:14. The Word has the characteristics or nature of God. Their essence is identical, but He is not the Father.

Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 256-70, for a more exhaustive explanation and examples from biblical and extrabiblical sources.