James 2:18

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.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(18) Yea, a man may say . . .—The bearing of this verse is commonly misunderstood; its words are those of scorn, uttered probably by some enemy of the faith—Jewish or Pagan—and are another instance, like that of the unruly tongue, by which those outside the pale of Christianity may and will judge us within. James 2:18-22 are all the speech of this practical opponent of first century solifidianism. The English version, “Show me thy faith without thy works” is correct, though according to some editors (see marginal variation) it should be by or from.

The sense is obvious; and whether the speaker be Christian or no, he lays claim to faith in God, the Father of all, as the efficient cause of his good deeds.

Benson Commentary

James 2:18-20. Yea, a man — Who judges better; may say — To such a vain talker, in order to bring matters to a short issue; thou hast faith — Thou sayest; and I make it appear by my life and conversation that I have works — Which naturally spring from that principle. Show me thy faith without thy works — If thou canst. Or, εκ των εργων σου, by thy works, as the most and the best copies read it, and as it is read in the margin. And I will show thee my faith by my works — Let us, without contending about different explications of faith, make it manifest to each other that our profession is solid, by its substantial effects upon our tempers and lives. As if he had said, The only way in which thou canst show thy faith is by thy works; but as thou hast no works to produce, thou never canst show thy faith in this way. Thou believest that there is one God — I allow that thou dost: but this only proves that thou hast the same faith which the devils have. Nay, they not only believe, but tremble at the dreadful expectation of eternal torments. So far is that faith from either justifying or saving them. But wilt thou — Art thou willing; to know — Indeed thou art not, thou wouldest fain be ignorant of it: O vain — Κενε, empty, man — Devoid of all true religion; that faith without works — A persuasion of the truths of the gospel, if it produces no real fruits of holiness; is dead — As to any valuable purpose that can be expected from it. Indeed it cannot justly be said to be faith, as a dead carcass is not a man. By a dead faith, then, St. James means a faith which, because it has no influence on a man’s actions, is as incapable to justify him, as a dead carcass is to perform the offices of a living man.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls? Can this faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us, as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith. There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, ver. 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle. By faith any thing we do is really good; as done in obedience to God, and aiming at his acceptance: the root is as though it were dead, when there is no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits; and we must see to it that we have both. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it. There is no middle state. Every one must either live God's friend, or God's enemy. Living to God, as it is the consequence of faith, which justifies and will save, obliges us to do nothing against him, but every thing for him and to him.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Yea, a man may say ... - The word which is rendered "yea" (ἀλλὰ alla) would be better rendered by "but." The apostle designs to introduce an objection, not to make an affirmation. The sense is, "some one might say," or, "to this it might be urged in reply." That is, it might perhaps be said that religion is not always manifested in the same way, or we should not suppose that, because it is not always exhibited in the same form, it does not exist. One man may manifest it in one way, and another in another, and still both have true piety. One may be distinguished for his faith, and another for his works, and both may have real religion. This objection would certainly have some plausibility, and it was important to meet it. It would seem that all religion was not to be manifested in the same way, as all virtue is not; and that it might occur that one man might be particularly eminent for one form of religion, and another for another; as one man may be distinguished for zeal, and another for meekness, and another for integrity, and another for truth, and another for his gifts in prayer, and another for his large-hearted benevolence. To this the apostle replies, that the two things referred to, faith and works, were not independent things, which could exist separately, without the one materially influencing another - as, for example, charity and chastity, zeal and meekness; but that the one was the germ or source of the other, and that the existence of the one was to be known only by its developing itself in the form of the other. A man could not show that he possessed the one unless it developed itself in the form of the other. In proof of this, he could boldly appeal to anyone to show a case where faith existed without works. He was himself willing to submit to this just trial in regard to this point, and to demonstrate the existence of his own faith by his works.

Thou hast faith, and I have works - You have one form or manifestation of religion in an eminent or prominent degree, and I have another. You are characterized particularly for one of the virtues of religion, and I am for another; as one man may be particularly eminent for meekness, and another for zeal, and another for benevolence, and each be a virtuous man. The expression here is equivalent to saying, "One may have faith, and another works."

Show me thy faith without thy works - That is, you who maintain that faith is enough to prove the existence of religion; that a man may be justified and saved by that alone, or where it does not develop itself in holy living; or that all that is necessary in order to be saved is merely to believe. Let the reality of any such faith as that be shown, if it can be; let any real faith be shown to exist without a life of good works, and the point will be settled. I, says the apostle, will undertake to exhibit the evidence of my faith in a different way - in a way about which there can be no doubt, and which is the appropriate method. It is clear, if the common reading here is correct, that the apostle meant to deny that true faith could be evinced without appropriate works. It should be said, however, that there is a difference of reading here of considerable importance. Many manuscripts and printed editions of the New Testament, instead of "without" (works - χωρίς chōris), read "from" or "by" (ἐκ ek), as in the other part of the verse, "show me thy faith by thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."

This reading is found in Walton, Wetstein, Mill, and in the received text generally; the other (without) is found in many manuscripts, and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, English, and Armenian versions; and is adopted by Beza, Castalio, Grotius, Bengel, Hammond, Whitby, Drusius, Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and is now commonly received as the correct reading. It may be added that this reading seems to be demanded by the similar reading in James 2:20, "But wilt thou know that faith "without works" (χωρὶς τὼν ἔργων chōris tōn ergōn) is dead," evidently implying that something had been said before about "faith without works." This reading also is so natural, and makes so good sense in the connection, that it would seem to be demanded. Doddridge felt the difficulty in the other reading, and has given a version of the passage which showed his great perplexity, and which is one of the most unhappy that he ever made.

And I will show thee my faith by my works - I will furnish in this way the best and most certain proof of the existence of faith. It is implied here that true faith is adapted to lead to a holy life, and that such a life would be the appropriate evidence of the existence of faith. By their fruits the principles held by men are known. See the notes at Matthew 7:16.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

18. "But some one will say": so the Greek. This verse continues the argument from Jas 2:14, 16. One may say he has faith though he have not works. Suppose one were to say to a naked brother, "Be warmed," without giving him needful clothing. "But someone (entertaining views of the need of faith having works joined to it) will say (in opposition to the 'say' of the professor)."

show me thy faith without thy works—if thou canst; but thou canst not SHOW, that is, manifest or evidence thy alleged (Jas 2:14, "say") faith without works. "Show" does not mean here to prove to me, but exhibit to me. Faith is unseen save by God. To show faith to man, works in some form or other are needed: we are justified judicially by God (Ro 8:33); meritoriously, by Christ (Isa 53:11); mediately, by faith (Ro 5:1); evidentially, by works. The question here is not as to the ground on which believers are justified, but about the demonstration of their faith: so in the case of Abraham. In Ge 22:1 it is written, God did tempt Abraham, that is, put to the test of demonstration the reality of his faith, not for the satisfaction of God, who already knew it well, but to demonstrate it before men. The offering of Isaac at that time, quoted here, Jas 2:21, formed no part of the ground of his justification, for he was justified previously on his simply believing in the promise of spiritual heirs, that is, believers, numerous as the stars. He was then justified: that justification was showed or manifested by his offering Isaac forty years after. That work of faith demonstrated, but did not contribute to his justification. The tree shows its life by its fruits, but it was alive before either fruits or even leaves appeared.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

A man; any true believer.

May say; to any such boasting hypocrite.

Thou hast faith; thou pretendest to have faith, or admit thou hast faith; and an historical faith he might have, as Jam 2:19.

And I have works: I do not boast of my faith; or, to say nothing of my faith, yet works I do profess to have.

Show me thy faith without thy works: there are two readings of these words, but in both the sense agrees with the rest of the apostle’s discourse. If we take the marginal reading, show me thy faith by thy works, the sense is, evidence the faith thou pretendest to by thy works, as the fruits of it; let thy actions vouch for thy profession. But if we take the reading in the text, without thy works, it is a kind of ironical expression; q.d. Make it appear by convincing arguments that thou hast true faith, when yet thou wantest works, the only argument of the truth of it. Understand here, but this thou canst not.

And I will show thee my faith by my works; I will easily prove my faith to be true and genuine, by those good works it brings forth in me. Demonstrate the cause to me without the effect, if thou canst; but I will easily demonstrate the cause by the effect, and prove the root of faith to be in me, by my bringing forth that fruit which is proper to it. It cannot hence be inferred, that wherever such works are, as men count and call good, there must needs be faith: the apostle’s meaning only is, that wherever true faith is, there good works will certainly be.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works,.... That is, a true believer in Christ may very justly call upon a vain boaster of his faith, who has no works, to give proof and evidence of it, and address him after this manner; you say you have faith, be it so that you have; I have works, you see I have, I say nothing about my faith at present; now,

shew me thy faith without thy works, if thou canst; see what ways, means, and methods thou canst make use of, to make it appear to me, or any other, that you have the faith you talk of: the words are a sort of sarcasm and jeer upon the man, and yet very just, calling upon him to do that which is impossible to be done, and thereby exposing his vain boast; for faith is an inward principle in the heart; an hidden thing, and cannot be seen and known but by external acts; and where it is right, it is operative, and shows itself by works, which is not practicable in those who have none:

and I will show thee my faith by my works; there may be indeed an appearance of good works, where there is no faith, as in the Heathens, in the Scribes and Pharisees, and in the Papists, and others; and on the other hand, there may be the principle of faith implanted, where there is not an opportunity of showing it by a series of good works, or a course of godly living, as in elect infants dying in infancy, and in those who are converted in their last moments, as the thief upon the cross; wherefore works are not infallible proofs and evidences of faith, yet they are the best we are capable of giving of it to men, or they of receiving. In short, works may deceive, and do not infallibly prove truth of faith, yet it is certain, that where they are not, but persons live in a continued course of sinning, there cannot be true faith.

Geneva Study Bible

Yea, {i} 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.

(i) No, by this every man will be eaten up with pride.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Jam 2:18. The words ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις, with which this verse begins, apparently introduces an objection, as in 1 Corinthians 15:35; by which under τις a certain one is to be considered as an opponent of the thought above expressed, who with σύ addresses James, and by κἀγώ denotes himself. But against this explanation the sentiment itself is opposed; for as James reproaches those, against whom he argues, that they have indeed faith but not works, he could not possibly put into the mouth of his opponent, that the same had works, but he (James) had faith. The opinion of Pott, that σὺ … κἀγώ = ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, cannot be justified (so also Bouman: hic … ille). By that explanation it would require to be said: σὺ ἔργα ἔχεις, κἀγὼ πίστιν ἔχω, namely, in the sense: If thou place all stress on works, I am not the less entitled to place all stress on faith. Kern attempts to remove the difficulty by taking the first sentence: σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, as a hypothetical protasis, and the second, on the other hand, κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω, as the apodosis, and explains it: “If thou hast faith, so have I also works, because, as thou sayest, faith and works cannot be separated.” But to this explanation is opposed not only the fact that James has not in what has gone before properly expressed the inseparableness of faith and works, but has only presupposed it; but also that the opponent should appeal to works, whilst James considers him as a person who has no works.[135] With these difficulties it is not to be wondered at that almost all expositors have decided for the view that ἈΛΛʼ ἘΡΕῖ ΤΙς is not here to be taken as the form of an objection, and that by ΤΙς not an opponent of James is meant, but a “vir sapiens et intelligens,” to whom James assigns the part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his opponent. Wiesinger: “ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις cannot here be possibly taken, as in 1 Corinthians 15:35, Romans 9:19, as an objection, for, as ΣῪ ΠΊΣΤΙΝ ἜΧΕΙς already shows, the person introduced as speaking is on the side of James, and like him combats faith without works.” Accordingly, with ΣΎ the same opponent is addressed whom James had hitherto in view, and with ΚἈΓΏ the person called ΤΙς designates himself as agreeing with James. But against this explanation there are many objections. 1. It cannot be denied that the words ἈΛΛʼ ἘΡΕῖ ΤΙς have most decidedly the character of an objection. 2. If they are not so understood, then ἈΛΛʼ is not only an interruption, but inexplicable; Hottinger, indeed, maintains: ἈΛΛΆ hic non adversativum esse per se patet; but who will agree with him in this? De Wette assumes that by ἈΛΛΆ here is expressed not primarily the contrast with what immediately precedes, but with the error already combated. Wiesinger has, however, correctly rejected this opinion, which is the less to be justified “as the error has not yet been per se expressed.” ἀλλά must at all events be referred to what directly precedes. According to Schneckenburger, it refers ad negationem, quam notitio ΝΕΚΡΌς involvit, quasi dictum foret: ista fides non est fides, sed dicat aliquis; but that πίστις, if it has not works, is not ΠΊΣΤΙς at all, is so little the opinion of James that he ascribes a ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ to the devils (Jam 2:19); ΝΕΚΡΆ is here arbitrarily explained as = nulla, and not less arbitrarily is it observed on ΠΊΣΤΙΝ ἜΧΕΙς: “interlocutor ad hominis errorcm descendens fidem, quam profitetur, eum habere sumit,” since James does not the least indicate that the words σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις are to be understood in the sense: “I will even assume that thou hast faith.” The opinion of several critics, that ἈΛΛΆ is here (= quin etiam) “a correction of the preceding judgment, heightening it” (Wiesinger), and indicates “that the opinion that a faith without works is dead is here surpassed” (Gunkel), is of no avail, as the opinion contained in this verse on faith without works is evidently not, as Brückner falsely thinks, stronger than that which is expressed in Jam 2:17 with ΝΕΚΡΆ ἘΣΤΙΝ.[136] Accordingly, all attempts at the explanation of ἀλλά do not attain their object.[137] 3. With this explanation it is entirely uncertain how far the speech of τις extends, and where James again resumes; and accordingly the greatest uncertainty here occurs among expositors. 4. Lastly, it cannot be perceived why James should express his own opinion in the person of another who is designated by the entirely indefinite term τις. Wiesinger and most expositors do not touch on this point at all. Baumgarten thinks that James speaks here in the words of a stranger, in order the better and the more freely to convey the notion of erroneousness in severer terms. But this is a pure fiction; that James did not shun from expressing himself freely and strongly the whole Epistle is a proof.[138] These objections are too important to permit us in spite of them to rest on the above explanation. But, on the other hand, the difficulties which arise if ἈΛΛʼ ἘΡΕῖ ΤΙς is taken as a form of objection appear to be invincible. They are only so, however, when it is assumed that the person introduced with ΣΎ as speaking means James, and with ΚἈΓΏ himself. But this assumption is by no means necessary. Since James introduces ΤΙς as speaking, so both words ΣΎ and ΚἈΓΏ can be understood as well from the standpoint of James as from that of the speaker; that is to say, that with ΣΎ the opponent with whom James argues, and against whom he asserts that πίστις without works is dead, is meant, and with ἘΓΏ James himself. The meaning, then, is as follows: But some might say in answer to what I have just stated, defending thee,[139] thou (who hast not the works) hast faith, and I, on the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works;[140] my one-sided insisting on works is no more right than thy one-sided insisting on faith. By this explanation, which has nothing linguistically against it, not only is the nature of ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις preserved, but it expresses a thought entirely suited to the context, whilst the following words give the answer by which this objection is decidedly repelled. This answer is in form not directed to the person introduced as speaking, but to the opponent with whom only James has properly to do, and whom he in his lively style can now the more directly address, as the objection made was the expression of his soul. The meaning of this answer is as follows: Hast thou actually, as that person says, faith, and if this is to be of use it must manifest itself, but this without works is impossible; thou canst not even show thy faith without works; as for myself, who have works, these are a proof that faith is not wanting, for without faith I could do no works. On δεῖξον, Schneckenburger correctly remarks: vide ne verbo tribuas significationem exhibendi et manifestandi (per vitam), sed retine primam et simplicem comprobari quasi ante judicem.

τὴν πίστιν σου is said because the opponent ascribed faith to himself (Jam 2:14); thus “the faith which thou sayest thou hast” (Wiesinger).

With the reading of the Rec. ἐκ τ. ἔργων (instead of χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων) the words are to be taken as ironical (so also Lange), as the supposition is that works are wanting to him.

With these words not faith generally, but living faith which saves is denied to the opponent; if the same is not proved by works, it is dead.

In what James says of himself, ἔργα are the works which proceed from faith, as these could not otherwise authenticate it. It is to be observed that in the first clause τὴν πίστιν, and in the second ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, stand first, because these ideas are the points on which the whole turns.

[135] The explanation of Knapp, that the first words are interrogative: tune quia ipse fide cares, propterea eam contemnis? and to which the answer is then given: immo vero plus habeo, quam quantum tu et habes et postulas, fidem videlicet cum factis conjunctam, is correctly relinquished by himself, as it is too artificial to be considered as correct.

[136] Wiesinger observes: The person introduced as speaking not only confirms what was said before, but goes beyond it; not only that such a faith is dead, but that it cannot even prove its existence without works: it is nothing. But with these last words Wiesinger inserts a thought into the words which they by no means contain, the same thought which, according to Schneckenburger, is contained in νεκρά ἐστι.

[137] The pointing ἀλλʼ, ἐρεῖ τις, σὺ κ.τ.λ. (Schulthess, Gebser, Rauch) does in no way remove the difficulty, and has also this against it, that the closely-united formula ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις is thus disunited.

[138] Lange thinks to remove the difficulty by ascribing to the words “a grand prophetical character,” whilst by τις is meant “the Gentile-Christian world,” which has proved “by its works of faith that it has had the true faith, whereas Ebionism, with its want of consistency in Christian works of love, has proved that its orthodoxy was not a living faith.” But, apart from the arbitrariness of this interpretation, ἀλλά is by it referred not to the preceding declaration, but falsely to the erroneous opinion of τις (ver. 14).

[139] The view of Stier, that by the speaker a Pharisaical Jew is to be understood, who takes occasion from the inoperative faith of Christians to mock the Christian faith in general, has been rightly rejected by Wiesinger. If James had meant by τις a Jew, he would have called him such.

[140] This is a form of expression which frequently occurs. Thus, if one speaks with Charles, and says to him: Henry says thou hast found the book which I have lost. Brückner, indeed, thinks that this example is not appropriate, but he does not give his reasons for saying so. Lange calls the explanation here given artificial, but he does not say in what its artificial character consists. The objections which Lange brings against it are founded on his having read erroneously defending himself instead of defending thee.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Jam 2:18.—ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις: these words, together with the argumentative form of the verses that follow, imply that a well-known subject of controversy is being dealt with. Ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις is a regular argumentative phrase, used of an objection. “Instead of the future the optative with ἄν would be more common in classical Greek, but the latter form is rather avoided by the Hellenistic writers, occurring only eight times in the N.T.,—thrice in Luke, five times in Acts” (Mayor).—ἔχεις: the interrogative here suggested by WH does not commend itself, as the essence of the argument is the setting-up of two opposing and definite standpoints.—κἀγὼ: In the N.T. καί “often coalesces with ἐγώ (and its oblique cases), ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖθεν, ἐκεῖνος, and ἄν; but there are many exceptions, and especially where there is distinct coordination of ἐγώ with another pronoun or a substantive. There is much division of evidence” (WH, Ths N.T. in Greek, II. App., p. 145).—δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου …: πίστις is not used quite consistently by the writer; faith which requires works to prove its existence is not the same thing which is spoken of in the next verse as the possession of demons; the difference is graphically illustrated in the account of the Gadarene demoniac; in Luke 8:28 the words, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God, express a purely intellectual form of faith, which is a very different thing from the attitude of mind implied in the words which describe the whilom demoniac, as, sitting, clothed and in his tight mind, at the feet of Jesus (Luke 8:35).—With the whole verse cf. Romans 3:28; Romans 4:6.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

18. Yea, a man may say …] The objector thus introduced, after the same manner as by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:35, is here the representative neither of an opponent to be refuted, nor yet of the writer’s own thoughts, but rather, as we should say, of an outsider, the man of common sense and practical piety, in this instance, of the Gentile convert whom the orthodox Jew or Jewish Christian despised, who might be less expert in formulating the Truth, but lived by the Truth which he believed.

shew me thy faith without thy works] The reading followed by the English version is at once more intelligible and supported by better MS. authority, than the alternative “by thy works,” which, in fact, destroys the whole point of the antithesis. The man who relied on faith is challenged to exhibit it, if he can, apart from works, as a distinct entity by itself. It is assumed that no such exhibition is possible. If he is to give any evidence that he has the faith that saves, it must be by having recourse to the works which he neglects, and, it may be, disparages. On the other hand, the challenger, starting with works, can point to them as proofs of something beyond themselves. Deeds of love, implying a victory over self, could not have been wrought without, not a dead faith in the dogma of the Divine Unity, but a living trust in God.

Bengel's Gnomen

Jam 2:18. Ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις, but some one will say) entertaining more correct sentiments than the other person, mentioned in Jam 2:14, and asserting the true nature of faith and works.—δεῖξόν μοι) show me thy faith without thy works (show, if thou canst; that is, thou canst not); and I will show thee by my works, of which I know that I cannot be destitute, my faith. There are two sayings, the former of which[24] speaks of faith before works, the latter of works before faith, and this for the sake of emphasis; the former has reference to the clause, Thou hast faith; the latter to the clause, and I have works. See Apparat. Crit., Ed. ii., on this passage.[25] [The ΧΩΡῚς gives point to the challenge, ΔΕῖΖΟΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ.—Not. Crit.]

[24] Thus also verse 22. See the note on Luke 11:36.

[25] ABC Vulg. have χωρίς. But Stephens’ Rec. Text (not Engl. Vers.) has ἐκ, with later authorities.—E.

Pulpit Commentary

Verses 18, 19. -

(2) Second point: Even the devils believe (πιστεύουσι). How worthless, then, must be faith (πίστις) alone! Verse 18. - Yea, a man may say (ἀλλ ἐρεῖτις). The objection in 1 Corinthians 15:35 is introduced by precisely the same words. It is somewhat difficult to see their drift here, as what follows cannot be an objection, for it is just the position which St. James himself adopts. The formula must, therefore, be taken as introducing the perfectly fair retort to which the man who gives utterance to the sentiments of ver. 16 lays himself open. Without thy works. Instead of χώρις (א, A, B, C, Latt., Syriac, Coptic), the Received Text has the manifestly erroneous reading ἐκ (K, L), in which it is happily not followed by the A.V. James 2:18

Vincent's Word Studies

Without (χωρὶς)

Rev., more literally, apart from.

And I will shew thee, etc

The Rev. brings out the antithesis more sharply by keeping more closely to the Greek order: I by my works will shew, etc.