98 Andrew M. Bowden this paragraph is to advance the argument by providing two convincing examples (Abraham and Rahab) of people whose righteousness moved them to action. Watson argues that James probably uses this example of Abraham because it was the point in his life that he was declared righteous for his many previous acts of hospitality and charity (cf. Heb 11,17-19), which explains why James refers to Abraham’s works in the plural (ἐξ ἔργων)37. Thus, “Abraham’s faith was recognized for his acting on the needs of others, something which James’s audience has not done”38. Additionally, James’ statement in v. 24, ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον (“a person is justified by works and not by faith only”) has drawn great attention, especially in comparison with Paul’s doctrine of justification39. Davids’ response proves insightful: “A moral rather than a primarily judicial emphasis is intended … The point of James’ argument, then, has nothing to do with a forensic declaration of justification; the argument is simply that Abraham did have faith … but he also had deeds flowing from that faith. His faith was not just ‘saying’, but ‘saying and doing’. He had responded to the ‘implanted word’ (1,21)”40. In summary, the first section of the body-proper (2,1-26) is comprised of four paragraphs. Abraham and Rahab serve as persuasive examples of people whose genuine faith was expressed by righteous action. 2,26 serves as a fitting indicative summary statement of the entire first section: faith devoid of righteousness cannot save. This section’s unique contribution to the letter is to prove that the readers have in fact failed to bear righteous fruit. Their favoritism towards the rich is a serious sin, making them law breakers in danger of merciless judgment (2,12-13). 2.2.2.2 Section Two: Believers are Called to Repentance for Their Failure to Bear The Fruit of Righteousness (3,1 – 4,10) Just as the previous section began with a prohibitory imperative and a note of judgment, so also does the present one. The section continues to 4,10, where a cluster of staccato-like aorist imperatives gives way to 37 Watson, “James 2”, 115. 38 Ibid. 39 Taylor, commenting on ch. 2, states, “This passage, perhaps more than any other in James, has typically received an interpretation isolated from context” (James, 5). Similarly, Johnson says, “By having been taken out of James’ context and read over against Paul, James’ argument has been lost and these verses distorted” (James, 246). For an excellent discussion of Jas 2 and Paul, see Baasland, “Weisheit”, 127-33 and Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes”, in W. Haase and H. Temporani (eds.), ANRW 25/5 (Berlin – New York 1988) 3667. 40 P. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids 1982) 127-28.