[Esaias]

Just my 2 shekels:

The idea that there is any kind of tension or dichotomy or paradox between "faith" and "obedience" is a post-apostolic Calvinistic Reformation theological issue. Even Luther, in spite of his skepticism regarding the canonicity of the Epistle of James, had no misunderstanding that "faith" and "obedience" were somehow contrasts or in competition with one another. Biblically, and prior to the errors introduced by certain radical sectors of the Reformation, nobody had any problem understanding the relationship between faith and obedience, nor did anyone think there was some kind of distinction between faith and obedience.

James, however, addresses a concern that apparently had arisen in the apostolic era, and which persists today, which is the idea that faith is contrasted with WORKS. Paul clearly taught that faith (in Jesus, Gospel faith) was contrasted with "works (of the law)". Works of the law was and still is a specific rabbinical theological term for rabbinic halachah (rules or methods of how to specifically obey God, primarily how to obey the mishna or "oral law" aka "traditions of the elders" or "customs of the fathers"). Paul had no dichotomy between "faith" and "obedience to God" as is clearly proven by a perusal of his epistle to the Romans. James, however, had to deal with people who disconnected faith from "works", and HIS teaching was that faith is not visible unless it is acted out and demonstrated by works (actions). Again, the issue in James isn't really about "faith versus obedience" but "faith versus works". As he says, a man may say "I have faith apart from works". Really? Okay, show us this faith without reference to any works or actions, and *I* will show you my faith by/through my actions/works. In other words, claiming to have faith, but not living according to that faith, means one has "dead faith" which is no real faith at all.