Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
New Perspective on James
by Robert P. TerryUpdated September 5, 2026
I wrote this commentary on James 2:14-26 to give a new perspective on James. In order to understand the Gospel correctly, it is vital to have a correct understanding of the nature of faith. Although James' main intention was to exhort believers to add works to their faith, in the process of doing this, he incidentally told us some important things about the nature of faith.
Context
When we consider James 1:1-2:13, we can see that James is concerned about how the recipients of his letter are living. It is beyond question that he regards them collectively as genuinely saved people and is writing to them with such an assumption. For example, he calls them "beloved brothers" three times (1:16, 1:19, 2:5), "brothers" an additional two times (1:2, 2:1), believers in Jesus Christ (2:1), and refers to himself and them collectively as being born again (1:18) and having the same glorious Lord Jesus Christ (2:1).
James 1:18 is instructive because it sets the theme of the letter. He writes, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." This verse explains one of the purposes of God saving them. God wants them to be the firstfruits of His creatures, meaning that He wants them to be the "light of the world" (Matthew 5:14-16). This reminds us of Ephesians 2:8-10 where Paul similarly says that one of the reasons why God saved the Ephesians was that they might live a life of good works (see my article here for a discussion on Ephesians 2:10). Likewise, it also reminds us of Titus 2:14 where Paul explains that God saved His people so that they might be zealous for good works. In light of this, good works definitely have an important role in the life of a believer. James' intention is to remind, exhort, and rebuke them, as born-again people, so that they might fulfill God's intention for them in being the firstfruits of His creatures. We must always keep this in mind as we read James 2:14-26.
Another part of the context that is vital to understanding James 2:14-26 is James' consistent emphasis on helping the poor. He calls the poor blessed (1:9), says that pure and undefiled religion is to help the fatherless and widows in their affliction (1:27), says that the recipients of his letter should not neglect the poor in showing partiality to the rich (2:1-4), again calls the poor blessed (2:5), rebukes them for despising the poor (2:6), exhorts them to fulfill the royal law to love one's neighbor (2:7), continues to rebuke them for showing partiality (2:9), and finally says that they will be judged by the law of liberty according to how they had mercy presumably on the poor (2:12-13).
James 2:14-16
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
The first thing we need to notice is that the words "What doth it profit?" form an inclusio (i.e., a bracketed section) for verses 14-16. Whatever "What doth it profit?" means at the beginning of verse 14 is what it means at the end of verse 16. So, the first thing we need to ask is "Who is supposed to be the recipient of this profit?" Is James referring to personal profit or the profit of others? Based on everything James has written so far in verses 1:1-2:13, the most natural answer is that he has the profit of others in mind. This assumption is really solidified in verses 15-16 where we see that James is still thinking of the poor. James seems to have had a special place in his heart for needy people, for in Galatians 2:10, he also encouraged the Apostle Paul to remember the poor. It is interesting that Paul, writing in the same spirit as James, said, "This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men." So, here again, we see that believers should do good works for the profit of others. With this context and background, when James says, "What doth it profit?" in verse 14, it is apparent that he means "What doth it profit [the poor]?" and then in verse 16, "What doth it profit [them]?" In fact, there is nothing in James 2:1-13 at all that suggests that James had personal profit in mind.
Next, we need to consider why James says, "though a man say he hath faith." James seems to be expressing some doubt concerning the man. Does the man have faith or does he just say he has faith? It is important to see that the point of doubt here is not regarding the nature of faith, whether such faith be authentic or inauthentic, but regarding the existence of faith. This is why James uses the verb "have." Does he have faith or not? As we shall see, there is a positive correlative relationship between faith and works, so if a man "have not works," it can be suggestive that the man does not have faith. Yet because, as we shall also see, faith can exist by itself apart from works, James is only able to raise the doubt without making a firm judgment.
Before moving on, I need to say a little more about the word faith. Many commentators assume that James was equivocating as to the meaning of faith, sometimes referring to "inauthentic faith" (i.e., faith that does not have works) and sometimes to "authentic faith" (i.e., faith that has works). As a result, commentators usually conclude that the nature of faith is such that it includes works, has a works-principle, or produces works. However, James was not equivocating. As mentioned above, the issue for James, at this point, is not regarding the nature of faith, but the existence of faith. If James wanted to distinguish between "inauthentic faith" and "authentic faith," he could have said "though a man say he hath pure and undefiled faith," similar to how he distinguished between "religion that is vain" and "pure and undefiled religion" in 1:26-27. However, James makes no such distinction when it comes to faith.
Let's move on to the last part of 2:14 where it says, "Can faith save him?" Although James had expressed doubt concerning the man, whether or not he had faith, we see here that he gives the man the benefit of the doubt. So, now, the issue is not whether or not the man has faith, but, assuming that he does have faith, whether or not faith can save. Some translations such as the NASB and ESV render this clause as "Can that faith save him?" However, the word "that" is not explicitly in the Greek, and the decision to render it this way was probably based on the translators' assumption that James is referring to "inauthentic faith." Greek has a word for "that" and if James wanted to be explicit, he could have been. In the Greek, instead of the explicit word "that," the word "faith" is preceded by the definite article. It is true that the definite article can sometimes function in place of a demonstrative, such as "this" or "that," and it can also function in place of a possessive pronoun, such as "his" or "her," but in most cases, it is simply best to translate it as the English definite article "the" or just ignore it all together, depending on the context. In the case of 2:14, I think the KJV made the correct decision not to translate the definite article. The reason is because Greek abstract nouns used in the nominative case are often used with the definite article without any special meaning attached to them. For example, in James 2:14-26, the same Greek definite article and abstract noun "faith" also occur in 2:17, 2:20, 2:22 (x2), and 2:26, but neither the NASB nor ESV rendered any of these instances by anything other than the plain word "faith." So, to make an exception in 2:14 seems more contrived to fit the theology of the translators than to accurately reflect the Greek. In fact, in order to be consistent, the NASB and ESV would have also needed to render the instance in 2:17 as "that faith," since the word "faith" in 2:17 is referring to the same "faith" in 2:14. But their failure to render the instance in 2:17 as "that faith" exposes the arbitrariness of their choice in 2:14.
Next, we'll consider the word "save" in the question "Can faith save him?", but before we do this, it is important to point out that the letter of James is often classified as Jewish wisdom literature, similar to the book of Proverbs. Also, there are some instances in James that seem to allude to the Jewish wisdom book of Sirach found in the Old Testament Apocrypha. For example, see the articles here and here for some of the striking similarities between James and Sirach. In the book of Sirach, the theme of helping the poor is an important topic that is covered in Sirach 3:30-31, 4:1-10, 7:32, and 29:9. What is especially interesting is that Sirach 4:1-10 speaks of helping the poor, the fatherless, and widows in a way that closely resembles James. Against this backdrop, we need to understand that in the Bible, the word "save" often means being delivered from some adverse temporal circumstance, such as the sick person being healed in James 5:15 or Paul being saved from the shipwreck in Acts 27:44. This is especially true in wisdom literature like Proverbs, Sirach, and James where the word "save" rarely refers to eschatological salvation from hell. As just mentioned, in 5:15, the word clearly refers to being healed from illness. The other four instances of the word in James are at 1:21, 2:14 (the verse in question), 4:12, and 5:20. None of these instances seems (at least clearly) to refer to eschatological salvation, especially when read as wisdom literature. For example, 1:21 and 5:20 both speak of "saving a soul," but 1:21 is in the context of people who are already eschatologically saved (according to 1:18) and 5:20 seems to be referring to saving a life from death. In fact, the expression "save a soul" often just means "to save a life" from temporal calamity or physical death, such as when Jesus spoke of "saving a soul" on a sabbath in Luke 6:9. In the Psalms, Proverbs, and Sirach, the word "soul" is often just translated as "life." With this understanding, the word "save" in the question "Can faith save him?" does not need to be referring to eschatological salvation from hell. Based on James' other usages of the word, it most likely refers to being saved from adverse temporal circumstances or physical death. It is also important to realize that James does not use the word "save" reflexively in 1:21, 4:12, 5:15, and 5:20. In other words, "save" is used as a transitive verb with a direct object that is someone other than oneself. If 2:14 means to "save oneself," this would be the exception in James because he usually uses the word in the context of "saving others."
Finally, we get to the word "him" in the question "Can faith save him?" Who is the "him" in this question? We might be tempted to say that it refers to its closest antecedent, being the person who possesses the faith. If this is the case, then the question would mean "Can the faith of such a person save himself?" However, Greek is much more flexible than English and pronouns sometimes refer to far-removed antecedents. This is especially true with the pronoun being used for "him" in 2:14. For example, the Greek scholar Joseph Henry Thayer said, "Very often αὐτός [translated "him" in 2:14] is used rather laxly, where the subject or the object to which it must be referred is not expressly indicated, but must be gathered especially from some preceding name of a province or city [commenting on its usage in Matthew 4:23], or from the context." As some examples where the pronoun "him" is used to indicate a person other than its closest antecedent, please refer to Matthew 12:10-14 where the last "him" refers to Jesus, not the man who was healed; Matthew 22:15 where the "him" refers to Jesus all the way back in Matthew 22:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:9 where the pronoun "who" refers not to the Lord, but the man of perdition; and 1 John 3:5 where the demonstrative pronoun "that one" refers not to God the Father, but to the Son of God. In the case of James 2:14, while the closest antecedent is the person who possesses the faith, the poor man has been at the center of James' thought the whole time. As mentioned above, the poor man was introduced in 2:2, but was mentioned either directly or indirectly all the way up to 2:13 and then immediately again in 2:15-16. Also, grammatically speaking, the pronoun "him" can also refer to the "poor man" since both of them are singular masculine nouns. So, based on the surrounding context, the inclusio "what does it profit?", the genre of James, James' use of the verb "save," and the grammar, there is strong evidence that the word "him" in the question "Can faith save him?" refers to the poor man. Therefore, I suggest that the correct interpretation of 2:14 is "What doth it profit [the poor man], my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works [to help the poor man]? Can faith save him [i.e., the poor man]?"
Before moving on, I'd like to make a a couple more observations. I think it is important to notice that James speaks of faith and works as two separate things. As we will see, James never speaks of works as if they were inherent in faith or as if faith produced them. Also, the expected answer to the question "Can faith save him?" is "No." This is instructive because it tells us that faith, existing by itself (2:17), is incapable of producing works. In order to save the poor man, a person must "have works" to accompany his faith, that is, add works to his faith. This is a point that James will make more explicit in the following verses.
James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Before analyzing this verse, it is first necessary to dispel the idea that dead means inauthentic. The word dead is simply being used figuratively here to mean useless, idle, or unprofitable, which is clear from the question in context, "What does it profit?" Faith apart from works is unprofitable in helping the poor. That has been James' main point so far. In fact, there are some Greek manuscripts that actually use the word "idle" instead of the word "dead" in 2:20, showing that there were some scribes who associated the word "dead" with "idle." There are examples in the New Testament where the word dead is used figuratively of things that are clearly not inauthentic. A notable example of this is in Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14 where the author speaks of "dead works." In these verses, the works were not inauthentic. Rather, they were useless. When the word dead is used figuratively to mean useless, the uselessness needs to be ascertained from the context. In Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14, the author is pointing out that the cultic works of the Old Covenant were useless in that they were only types and shadows of the fulfillment in Christ. Another important example is in Romans 7:8 where Paul says, "For without the law sin was dead." A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures in the New Testament says, "Dead (νεκρα [nekra]). Inactive, not non-existent. Sin in reality was there in a dormant state." Sin was real and existent, but without the law it was dormant (like a body without a spirit in James 2:26). When James says, "faith without works is dead," he doesn't mean that faith without works is inauthentic, but idle and useless in helping people.
Let's now look at the actual content of the verse. The Greek word translated "even so" can also be translated "in this way" or "thus." James is saying that faith without works, in the context just described in the preceding verses about the poor and needy, is idle, useless, and unprofitable. This is instructive. James is not saying that faith without works is useless in every context. Faith without works is definitely useful in the context of justification by faith. But in 2:17, he is merely saying that faith without works is useless in the context of helping the poor.
Moving on, James says, "if it has not works, is dead, being alone." As pointed out above, for James faith and works are separate things. James knows of no type of faith that includes works, has a works-principle, produces works, or contains the motions of works. He expresses this beyond a shadow of a doubt in verse 2:17. In this verse, he clearly says that faith can exist alone (literally translated "by itself" as rendered in the ESV). This means that works are not inherent in faith. This is highly instructive because later when James quotes Genesis 15:6 and says that "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness," which is a favorite passage of the Apostle Paul's in proving that a person is justified by faith apart from works, he means that it was this "dead faith" (i.e., a faith that exists by itself, namely, the persuasion of the mind that a proposition is true apart from any qualifying or accompanying deed or thought) that was imputed unto him for righteousness. We know this is true, because as we will see, James refers to Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, not as a type of justification by faith, but as justification by works wherein works were added to faith to create a synergistic effect. In other words, the faith that enjoys justification does not work (see also Romans 4:5). Although James' main purpose so far has been to exhort believers to perform good works, which was one of the purposes of God in saving them, he has in the process completely vindicated Paul's teaching on justification by faith by emphatically stating that faith can exist by itself apart from works.
Change of Emphasis
In verses 2:18-26, James changes the focus a bit. In verses 2:14-17, his emphasis was on the need of adding works to faith to help the poor man. In verses 2:18-19, he introduces an interlocutor so that he can offer a counterargument in verses 2:20-25 that serves to further persuade his readers that they should be adding works to their faith. He does this by establishing the relationship between faith and works, explaining the mechanics of how works can be added to faith, and the reason why adding works to faith is not only beneficial to others but also to the performer of the works. In verse 2:26, he summarizes and ends this pericope in irrefutable fashion meant to leave his opponents speechless and dispel every excuse for not adding works to faith.
Demarcating the Interlocutor's Words
Because the original Greek New Testament had no punctuation or parentheses, the use of an interlocutor requires demarcating the beginning and end of the interlocutor's words. For example, the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:19-20 signals the beginning of the interlocutor's words with "Thou wilt say then unto me..." and signals that the interlocutor's words ended by saying, "Nay but, O man..." James does likewise in James 2:18-20. He signals the beginning of the interlocutor's words with "Yea, a man may say..." and signals that the interlocutor's words ended by saying, "But wilt thou know, O vain man..." Many modern English translations end the words of the interlocutor midway through verse 18, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works," but this is completely arbitrary and makes it unclear what exactly the interlocutor was intending to say or object to, since his words are abruptly cut short. Likewise, by having James' reply start midway through verse 18, "Shew me thy faith...," it is equally unclear how the use of an imperative (with the first and second person pronouns reversed with regard to faith and works) answers the objection. The only solution is to follow the typical rules of Greek diatribe where the objection and the reply are clearly demarcated. This requires ending the interlocutor's words in verse 19.
James 2:18-19
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
In these verses, James introduces an interlocutor who attempts to reduce James' argument to absurdity. The interlocutor's contention is that there is no relationship between faith and works, so it's pointless to speak about faith and works together in the same sentence. The interlocutor's argument basically boils down to this: "Let's assume you have faith and I have works. You cannot show me your faith apart from works anymore than I can can show you my works to demonstrate my faith. Here's the proof: a man and a demon can believe the exact same thing but respond in very different ways."
It is interesting that there is a major variant in 2:18 among Greek manuscripts. Instead of the word "without" (Gr. choris), some manuscripts have the word "from" (Gr. ek). If we translate the Greek with the variant, it becomes even clearer that James' interlocutor is trying to reduce James' argument to absurdity: "You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith from [ek] your works, and I will show you, from [ek] my works, my faith." The interlocutor is basically saying, "Faith is faith and works are works, and the two shall never meet." Whichever manuscript reading is correct, the interlocutor's point is clear, especially when viewed together with James' response in the next verse.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James doesn't directly rebut the interlocutor's argument (but as we shall see in the following verses, he does proceed to show the folly of it). The interlocutor's words are, in some sense, true, both theoretically (when the two variables faith and works are isolated from other variables) and practically (when they are confounded by other variables). However, for James, the interlocutor's argument is really a moot point because James never intended to convey an inherent relationship between faith and works in 2:14-17 (nor can such a relationship be deduced from those verses). However, whereas the interlocutor would have been happy to conclude that there can be no relationship at all between faith and works, James responds by calling him a "vain man" because even though there is no inherent relationship between faith and works, the interlocutor has failed to understand James' contention, namely that there are benefits of adding works to faith (see also 2 Peter 1:5ff.) and that these benefits become an extra variable that can incentivize the addition of works to faith and create a relationship between them. More to the point, when James says, "faith without works is dead," he is, by implication (although it cannot be deduced by the laws of logic), saying that "faith with works is beneficial" (thus introducing an extra variable that creates a positively correlated relationship between faith and works). Remember that the word "dead" here doesn't mean non-existent or inauthentic. It merely means idle or useless. In fact, as mentioned above, there are some Greek manuscripts of 2:20 that use the word "idle" instead of "dead." So, according to James, combining faith and works is useful, and by saying "wilt thou know?", he intends to now give a couple examples of the benefits of adding works to faith.
James 2:21-22
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
The first thing that we need to recognize is that James never says that Abraham was justified by faith and works. He says that Abraham was justified by works. As mentioned above, if James was teaching that "authentic faith" produced works (or inherently contained the seed of works or the motions of works), then he might as well have said that Abraham was justified by "pure and undefiled faith" (see James 1:27) when he sacrificed Isaac. But by saying Abraham was justified by works, he is once again making a hard distinction between faith and works. As far as this justification by works is concerned, the Apostle Paul also hints at it in Romans 4:2 when he says, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Paul seems to be implying that Abraham was justified by works, and while these works might have given him reason to boast relative to other people, they ultimately had no sway with God. This is why Paul immediately goes on to say that Abraham was justified by faith before God. So, what we see are two ways of justification, one by works and one by faith, which James also describes in 2:24 below. Justification by faith is what enabled him to experience the justification that would be accomplished by Christ on the cross (John 8:56, Galatians 3:8ff.), but justification by works also has several benefits, such as strengthening his faith (Hebrews 11:19) and allowing him to be called the friend of God (2 Chronicles 20:7).
Moving on to 2:22, James says that "faith wrought with his works." The Greek word translated "wrought with" means "work together." In fact, it is the Greek word from which we get our English word "synergy." It refers to a combined effect of two or more more things that is greater than the sum of the effects of the things themselves. It might seem anachronistic to read our English word "synergy" into 2:22a, but James goes on to describe this synergistic benefit of combining faith and works in 2:22b-23. Before moving on, it is interesting to ponder why James says, "faith worked together with his works" instead of "works worked together with his faith." After all, if works need to be added to faith according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:5ff.; or as James says in 2:22b, "works perfect faith"; or as can be deduced from 2:26, "the spirit of works need to be added to the dead body of faith"), then why does faith get the primacy? I can think of a couple reasons.
First, faith serves as a variable in creating the conditions necessary to perform works. Faith by itself can't produce works or influence behavior (2:17). It is simply what it is: a mental attitude that assents to propositions. Whatever happens after believing is due to the influence of other variables, such as desire and other factors that create motivation to perform works. Again, as mentioned above, the potential for benefits (such as enjoying the blessing of God), owing to desire (and other things) seizing upon faith, can create an incentive that becomes the cause of adding works to faith. In this case, there would not be an inherent relationship between faith and works because without the incentive, faith and works would have never gotten together, yet because of the incentive and because faith existed first as a strictly essential variable, we can say, "faith worked together with his works."
Second, James doesn't want to mislead us into thinking that works have the primacy. Works are added to faith, but "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Faith without works enjoys justification with God, whereas works without faith incur condemnation from God. Faith without works works peace, whereas works without faith work wrath. So, faith must have the primacy. Works can be added to faith, but faith cannot be added to works because justification by faith is apart from works. Therefore, when James says, "faith worked together with his works," he is reminding us that faith is the only necessary thing.
Continuing on in 2:22, James says that "by works faith was made perfect." It is regrettable that some English translations such as the ESV render this as "faith was completed by his works." This is probably due to the bias of the translators, thinking that faith without works is inauthentic, and that the performance of works somehow "completes" faith to prove that it was authentic. In this view, faith is like a fruit tree where the fruit is inherent in the seed, and it is only a matter of time before faith produces works. This view requires equivocation as to the meaning of faith, sometimes regarding it as inauthentic such as in 2:14, and sometimes regarding it as authentic such as in the case of Abraham. The ESV's rendering is also paradoxical in that it implies that Abraham's faith was somehow "incomplete" until he sacrificed Isaac, despite Scripture saying that he was justified by faith many years earlier. Instead of getting entangled in such a paradox, it is better to just take James' words at face value and realize that he has been talking about the only type of faith that exists the whole time, whether it be the faith of the hypothetical person in 2:14 or the faith of Abraham in 2:21-23. When James says that "by works faith was made perfect," he is not implying that faith was somehow insufficient or incomplete until works were performed. Rather, he is simply saying that works strengthened faith (see my article The Nature of Faith Technically Explained for a brief discussion on how works strengthen faith). By way of analogy, works are to faith what wind is to fire. Wind and fire are two completely different things. Wind is not evidence of fire, and fire is not evidence of wind (see my article Works Are Not Evidence of Faith (Technical Explanation) for a brief discussion on the relationship between fire and air). However, when wind blows properly on a fire, the wind can perfect the fire. The same thing goes with works and faith. When a person with faith performs works, his faith is strengthened. As a result, works benefit not only the beneficiary of the works, but also the performer of the works. And this is the synergistic benefit of combining faith and works.
James 2:23-24
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
To understand James 2:23 properly, we need to remember that in 2:21, James said that Abraham was justified by works. James has been laboring to show the benefits of adding works to faith, but he doesn't want to do this to the detriment of justification by faith. As we saw in 2:22, works are very important in James' theology, but faith gets the primacy it deserves. In 2:21-23, James enumerates these two ways of justification, one by faith and one by works. Although it isn't apparent in the English, James indicates them using the Greek correlative conjunctions kai ... kai (both ... and) (i.e, [1] "Both the Scripture was fulfilled ... and [2] he was called the friend of God"). By saying "the Scripture was fulfilled," James is telling us that when Abraham sacrificed Isaac, he had the faith that he had many years previously when he first believed God. We know this because of Hebrews 11:19 where it says that he "considered that God was able to raise him even from the dead." For Abraham, the sacrifice of Isaac enabled him not only to experience justification by works, but also experience justification by faith all over again in a more magnificent manner that pushed faith to its limits. So, we see in this example how works perfected his faith, as mentioned by James in the previous verse. Moreover, the addition of works to his faith gave him the honor of being called God's friend, thus enabling him to be justified by works.
James 2:24 is very important in confirming our interpretation of 2:23 and overall conclusions in 2:14-26. Again, this is a verse where our English translations have a hard time conveying the underlying Greek properly. In particular, the translation "not by faith alone" fails to clearly convey the meaning of the Greek. The word translated "alone" in 2:24 is not the Greek adjective mones. Rather, it is the Greek adverb monon that modifies the omitted verb "justify" in the second clause. The American Standard Version (ASV) is one of the only English translations to render this clearly. It reads, "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith." The verb in the second clause is omitted, but if we supplement it, we would have the following translation, "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only [justified] by faith." What is clear is that James is talking about two ways of justification. The justification by works in 2:21 and the justification by faith in 2:23. Justification by faith apart from works enabled Abraham to experience a right standing with God by beholding the justification to be accomplished by Christ (John 8:56, Gal. 3:8), and justification by works gave him the benefits of deepening his faith in God and his relationship with God, even to the extent of him being called the friend of God. It is this way of justification by works that James is exhorting his letter's recipients to pursue, as is evident in 2:25 where he gives another example of justification by works.
(At the risk of being too technical, I'd like to say a little more about the Greek adverb monon translated "alone" in the KJV. It is sometimes said that Greek adverbs can occasionally function as adjectives, but this is rare and the examples of this usage are usually debated among scholars. I've personally looked at all the examples provided by Henry Alford and Georg Benedikt Winer, but none of them are conclusive, and Winer didn't wholeheartedly commit to this usage, simply saying that "Certain adverbs approach more nearly to adjectives." More importantly, however, from my observation of the examples provided by these scholars, the most plausible examples of this phenomenon occur with adverbs that don't have a corresponding cognate adjective. In other words, the adverb is only used as an adjective when no cognate adjective is available. When a cognate adjective is available, but an adverb is used, it should be interpreted according to normal usage as an adverb that modifies an explicit verb or omitted verb. In the case of James 2:24, if James wanted to use the Greek adjective mones to modify the noun "faith," he certainly could have, but his use of the prepositional phrase "by faith" anticipates a verb in the passive voice. Therefore, it is only natural that the Greek adverb monon would modify the omitted passive verb "justify," giving us "not only [justified] by faith" (ASV) as mentioned above.)
James 2:25
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
James gives us a second example. Again, James says nothing about justification by some works-producing faith, but explicitly says that Rahab was justified by works. For James, faith and works are always two separate things, and this is why he spoke of two ways of justification in the previous verses. In this case, he says nothing about Rahab being justified by faith, but we know that she believed based on what we read in Hebrews 11:31. Abraham's works enabled him to be called the friend of God, but in the case of Rahab, her works enabled her and her family to survive the siege of Jericho.
James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
In this verse, James returns to the conclusion he made in 2:17. Now, however, his scope of application goes beyond the poor man of verses 2:14-16. Having explained through the examples of Abraham and Rahab that adding works to faith is also highly beneficial to oneself, he has essentially dispelled every excuse for not adding works to faith. As a result, he offers his irrefutable conclusion that faith without works is just as dead as the body without the spirit. The analogy of comparing faith and works to the body and spirit was well chosen. The body and spirit represent the whole person of man. As such, his point was to say that any believer in Jesus Christ (for as we saw above, he was writing under the assumption that his readers were born-again people) who neglects to pursue good works is just as useless as a dead body. He is neither useful to others nor to himself.
As far as the nature of faith is concerned, as mentioned above, it was never James' intention to give a discourse on it, but in the process of exhorting his readers to add works to their faith, he incidentally revealed much about faith. Verse 2:26 is no exception, for in this verse, we learn that faith is like a dead body when works are not added to it. This leaves no room to smuggle in any ideas about "inauthentic faith," for nobody in their right mind, upon seeing a body in front of them, would question its authenticity. The question is not whether faith is authentic, but whether or not it is being empowered by works. Therefore, contrary to what theologians tell us about faith being like a fruit tree that produces good works, in James' theology, works are the engine that must be added to faith for anything good to happen.
To conclude, I'd just like to say one thing about justification by faith. If you are offended by the idea that faith is like a dead body, then you still haven't properly understood the Gospel. In such a case, I would recommend reading Jesus Is the Christ, the Son of God. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.