Criswell Theological
Review 4.1 (1986) 31-50.
Copyright © 1986 by The
JAMES 2:14-26:
DOES JAMES CONTRADICT
THE PAULINE
SOTERIOLOGY?
ROBERT V.
RAKESTRAW
A
perennially difficult issue in the epistle of James is the author's
treatment of faith, works, and justification in
Jas 2:14-26. The paragraph
is difficult to interpret not only because of the
complexity of the
language and argument itself, but also because of
James' seeming
contradiction with the soteriological emphasis of Paul.1 Does James
contradict Paul regarding the basis on which God justifies
sinners?
Does
Paul contradict James? Are there two equally-valid ways of
justification set forth in the NT--a
way of faith and a way of works--
which, when properly understood, reveal the waste and
tragedy of the
Reformation
and Counter-Reformation struggle over sola fide and the
subsequent centuries of division within the
Christian Church?
Paul maintains adamantly that
"a man is justified by faith apart
from observing the law" (Rom 3:28; see also Gal
2:16 and Rom 9:23),
yet James argues equally strenuously that "a
person is justified by what
he does and not by faith alone" (2:24).2
The contrast is striking. Luther's
celebrated phrase, "ein recht strohern Epistel," to describe the letter of
James
is not a mere archaism.3 In more recent
years J. T. Sanders has
1 A brief survey of the
literature on the faith-works issue in Paul and James is found
in M. Dibelius, James, rev. H. Greeven
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 174 n 132. More
extensive bibliographies on this and related
issues are in C. Brown and H. Seebass,
"Righteousness,"
DNTT 3 (1978) 374-77; and P. H. Davids, Commentary on
James
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982) xxi-xxxviii.
The last mentioned work will be designated
James, and the briefer study by Davids
(see n 9) James, GNC.
2 Unless otherwise
indicated, biblical citations are from the New International
Version.
3 Luther's comment on
James as a "right strawy epistle" is found
in the Preface to
his 1522 edition of the NT. It appears only in this
edition. Elsewhere Luther states: "He
32
ISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
set James and Paul in such direct opposition that
the Bible reader is
virtually compelled to choose one over the other.4
E. C. Blackman
insists that the view of James is "a
deliberate contradiction of Paul."5
J.
C. Beker contends that the writer of James ignores
Paul's gospel of
grace apart from law and, instead, "understands
the gospel to be a
Christian interpretation of the Torah."6 And S. Laws believes
that
attempts to
harmonize James and Paul and thus produce an apostolic
consensus
are probably fruitless. . . . Paul could surely never have tolerated
James's
explicit assertion that justification is not by faith alone nor his lack
of
attention to an initial saving act of God that makes faith and consequent
good works
possible. However much one may modify the superficial
contrast, a
basic lack of sympathy must remain.7
Similar
points of view are expressed by G. Bornkamm, R. Bultmann,
J.
Dunn, and G. Schrenk.8
Because the allegations--both
written and spoken--of a genuine
contradiction between James and Paul
continue to confuse and even
demoralize the people of God by undermining their
confidence in the
unity--and thereby the authority--of scripture, a
continual need exists
for those with a high view of biblical inspiration
to address the
problem. Renewed interest in the theme in the
current theological
debate calls for fresh analyses of the matter.
The primary purpose of this essay is
to examine the issue of faith
and works in Jas 2:14-26, particularly vv 20-24, to
ascertain whether or
not there is a genuine conflict between James and
Paul on the matter of
justification. A secondary purpose is
to illuminate the section itself and
[James]
does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. . . . I
therefore refuse him a place among the writers of
the true canon of my Bible; but I
would not prevent anyone placing him or raising him
where he likes, for the epistle
contains many excellent passages." See J. Dillenberger, ed., Martin Luther: Selections
From His Writings (Garden City: Anchor,
1961) 18-19,35-36. Also see D. O. Via, Jr.,
"The
Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in BiblicaJ Ethics and Hermeneutic,"
JR 49 (1969) 253-67.
4 J. T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975) 115-28.
5 E. C. Blackman, The Epistle of James (London: SCM, 1957)
96.
6 J. C.
Beker, Paul the
Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 251.
7 S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (
Row, 1980) 132-33.
8 G. Bomkamm,
Paul (New York: Harper and Row, 1971)
153-54; R. Bultmann,
Theology of the New
Testament (2
vols;
J.
Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New
Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977)
251-52; G. Schrenk,
"dike," TDNT 2 (1964) 201. A less severe contrast
between Paul and
James
in seen in J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of
St. James (
printing) 204-5.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 33
thereby draw upon its rich insight for Christian
theology and ethics.
Because
of the abundance of solid expository material on our text, both
older and more recent, this article is not a verse by
verse study.9 Our
intention, rather, is to investigate and clarify
the theological-ethical
dimensions of the faith-works issue, especially
from the perspective of
J
patriarch's justification vis-a-vis
Paul's discussion of the same.
Our central presupposition has
already been suggested. In opposi-
tion to the views of
Sanders, Blackman and others of similar mind we
maintain, from a standpoint of scriptural solidarity
and infallibility,
that there is no genuine contradiction between the
Jacobean and
Pauline texts. However, we recognize
the need for a satisfying basis for
this position. Mere theological assertions regarding
the fruit-bearing
character of genuine faith do not alleviate the
prima facie tension
between the apostles. To the task stated above,
therefore, we now turn.
9 Some generally helpful
English-language commentaries on James, although of
uneven quality and varying theological persuasions,
are those by Davids, Dibelius,
Laws,
and Ropes mentioned above, as well as: J. Adamson, The Epistle of James (Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976); P. H. Davids,
James (GNC;
1983);
D. E.. Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody,
1979); J. B. Mayor, The
Epistle of
of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966); D.
J. Moo, The Letter of James (
inter-Varsity, 1985); J. A. Motyer, The Message
of James (
1985);
A. Plummer, The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude
(
poubleday, 1978); A. Ross, The Epistles of James and John (
1954); E. M. Sidebottom, James, Jude, and 2 Peter (London: Nelson, 1967); R. V. G.
Tasker, The General Epistle of
James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957); C. Vaughan,
James (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969).
Other significant materials relating
to Jas 2:14-26, in addition to Via in n 3, are
studies in DNTT
vol. 1 (1975), "Faith" (O. Becker and O. Michel, 587 -606); vol. 3
(1978),
"Righteousness"
(C. Brown and H. Seebass, 352-77), "Work"
(H. C. Hahn and F. Thiele,
1147-59);
and E. L. Allen, "Controversy in the New Testament," NTS 1 (1954-55) 143-
49;
J.. A. Brooks, "The Place of James in the New
Testament Canon," SWJT 12 (1969)
41-55;
C. E.. B. Cranfield,
"The Message of James," SJT
18 (1965) 182-93, 338-45; W.
Dyrness, "Mercy Triumphs Over Justice:
James 2:13 and the Theology of Faith and
"Works,"
Themelios
6, 3 (1981) 11-16; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (2
yols;
Paul
and James," Lutheran Theological
Journal 9 (1975) 33-41;
Background
for James II, 21-23," NTS 22
(1975) 457-64; J. Jeremias, "Paul and
James,"
Exp Tim 66 (1954-55) 368-71; T.
Lorenzen, "Faith without Works Does Not Count
before God! James 2:14-26," Exp Tim 89 (1978) 231-35; A. C. Thiselton,
The Two
Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 422-27; A. E. Travis, "James and Paul,
A
Study,"
SWJT 12 (1969) 57-70; R. B. Ward, "The
Works of Abraham:
James
2:14-26" HTR 61 (1968) 283-90;
J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of
Righteousness in
Paul (
34
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
I. Concerns of James and Paul
A resolution of the apparent
conflict is aided by the thesis, popu-
larized in recent years through
an influential article by J. Jeremias,10
that the concerns addressed by James and Paul are
quite different, and
thus necessitate separate lines of argument and
different theological
languages. C. L. Mitton writes:
The kind of error Paul is seeking to
correct in Romans and Galatians is
very
different from the error which James is resisting, and our statement.
of a truth
varies according to the error we are opposing. If we ourselves
were
arguing against antinomians, who believed that moral conduct in a
Christian was of little importance,
our arguments would be very different
from those
we should use if our opponents were 'legalists' who believed
that good
conduct alone secured all the benefits of religion. So we must
remember
that in general Paul is urging his case against Judaizers,
who
believed
salvation depended, in part at any rate, on doing the works of the
law,
whereas James was ranged against antimonians who
believed that
inward
faith was all that mattered.11
Paul
and James “are not antagonists facing each other with crossed
swords, they stand back to back, confronting different
foes of the
Gospel.”12 "Paul is attacking
self-righteous legalism, and James self-
righteous indifference."13 When we
thus understand the different areas
of concern addressed by Paul and James we are
helped considerably in
understanding that the apparent
conflict between them is not genuine
opposition. A careful reading of Romans, Galatians,
and J
behind the argument of each apostle the kind of false
teaching being
refuted.
This raises the question of which
author wrote first or taught first.
Did
Paul presuppose James, or did James presuppose Paul? While we
maintain that neither Paul nor James was directly
opposing the other,
we ought to ask whose theology had been
disseminated first among the
diasporic Jewish Christians whom
James is addressing. The position of
most commentators-- J. Mayor is a notable exception14--is
that Paul's
theology is in some way the prior doctrine, and
that James is seeking to
10 Jeremias, "Paul and James."
11 Mitton, James
104.
12
Ross, James and John 53.
13
Brown and Seebass, "Righteousness" 370.
14
Mayor, St. James xci-cii.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 35
correct a distortion of the Pauline teaching on
justification by faith
apart from works. This view does not necessitate the
writing of
Romans
or Galatians before James, but depends upon the prior knowl-
edge and subsequent corruption of Paul's basic soteriology. While the
majority view appears preferable, it should not
be insisted upon.
Furthermore,
by leaning in this direction we are not suggesting that
J
Pauline teachings. P. Davids
notes that "it is possible that James is
reacting to Paul, but if so it is a Paulinism so garbled and misunderstood
that every term is redefined and no trace of a
conflict over Jewish cultic
rites remains."15 To Davids, "it seems best to understand James to be
refuting a Jewish Christian attempt to minimize
the demands of the
gospel rather than a misunderstood Paulinism."16 It is
difficult, however,
to avoid seeing some glimpses of Paul's thought--however
distorted--in
Jas
2:14-26.17 C. Brown appears correct in stating that "James'
position
presupposes the radically non-Jewish separation of
faith and works
wrought by Paul."18
A further stage in the
commonly-attempted resolution of the
apparent conflict between James and Paul is to
demonstrate the
different meanings of terms employed by the
writers. According to
Jeremias, Mitton, Davids, and others, three highly significant words--
faith, works, and justify--are used by both James and
Paul, yet with
widely different meanings.19 All are found
together in Paul in Rom 3:28
and Gal 2:16, and all are in Jas 2:24, which, as Davids observes, "must
be viewed as a crux
interpretum, not only for James, but for NT
theology in general."20
Because of the great importance
of these three
terms we will consider their meanings in James and
Paul to ascertain
what differences there may be between the writers
and how such
differences affect their arguments. Following that,
we will examine the
arguments of James and Paul from the life of
Abraham.
15 Davids, James 21.
16
Ibid. See also Plummer, St. James
and St. Jude 138-48.
17 However, we ought not
to see "by faith alone" in 2:24 as a deliberate reference to
Paul,
as does Jeremias, who writes that there can be no
doubt 2:24 presupposes Paul, for
the thesis "by faith alone" which James
apparently contradicts, "is nowhere met with in
the whole literature of Judaism and of the earliest
Christianity except only in Paul" ("Paul
and James" 368). The error here (and in Via, "Right Strawy
Epistle" 257) is in failing to
realize that the phrase "by faith alone"
never actually occurs in the Pauline corpus.
18
Brown and Seebass, "Righteousness" 369.
19 Jeremias,
"Paul and James"; Mitton, James 104-8; Davids,
James 50-51.
20 Davids, James
130.
36
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
II. Terminologies of James and Paul
Faith
Whereas Paul champions justification
by faith, James teaches that
justification is "not by faith
alone." For James, however, pistis ("faith")
in vv 14-26 is equivalent to the intellectual
acceptance of theological
assertions, particularly the monotheistic creed
(which even the demons
believe) mentioned in v 19. His emphasis at the
beginning of the
paragraph (2:14) on the vocal agreement with right
doctrine ("if a man
claims to have faith")
and his deliberate use of the article ("such faith")
indicate the kind of faith he has in mind. In
addition, his speaking of
"faith by itself"
(v 17) and "faith alone" (v 24) reveal that his concept is
one of mental agreement. And, as Davids notes, "the fact that James
writes you
believe that rather than 'you believe in' shows that he is
thinking of intellectual belief rather than
personal commitment.”21
Paul,
however, considers faith as reliance upon God that brings salva-
tion and its fruits. The
conclusion to his magisterial development of
justification stresses faith as trust
which brings peace with God, and
with it rejoicing--even in sufferings (Rom 5:1-5).
In addition, the
object of Paul's faith is the blood of Christ (Rom
3:25), whereas the
object of the faith discussed by James is Judaistic (and probably
Christian,
see 2:1) doctrine.
Yet James does not deny the
propriety of theological orthodoxy
and belief, for he tells the objector "you do
well" for affirming the
Shema
(2:19).
He argues rather that faith without works
is barren and
useless. Nor is James saying that faith,
properly understood, does not
save, for this would be tantamount to a direct
contradiction of Pauline
soteriology. What he teaches is
that one's verbal profession of or
signature to a set of right beliefs does not
effect salvation (v 14). As
D.
Moo contends, "it is absolutely vital to understand that the main
point of this argument, expressed three times (in vv
7, 20. and 26), is
not that works must be added to faith but that genuine
faith includes
works. That is its very nature."22 A.
Thiselton cautions further that in
our text James is not simply the negative corollary
of Paul.
James is not merely attacking an
inadequate view of faith, but is also
giving what
amounts to a fairly sophisticated and positive account of the
logical
grammar of his own concept of faith. . . . He is saying that his
21 Davids, James,
GNC 49.
22 Moo, James 99.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 31
concept of faith would exclude instances of supposed belief
which have
no
observable backing or consequences in life.23
With
Paul faith is entailed in the very concept of justification, whereas
with James right actions are entailed in the very
concept of faith.
J.
Ropes writes that "James's real contention in vv
20- 22 is not so much
of the necessity of works as of the inseparability
of vital faith and
works."24 It is thus wrong to infer
or imply that James contributes in
any way to a low view of faith; he rather elevates
and characterizes
positively the kind of faith that pleases God and
is instrumental in the
salvation of men and women. This is not to say
that the actual
occurrences of the word "faith" in Jas
2:14-26 contain this full sense of
of the word, for we have just said otherwise. But
by focusing upon the
is mental aspect of faith--something good in
itself--as being only part of
justifying faith, James thereby teaches the depth
and maturity of faith
as God intends it to be.
We have seen, then, that there is a
difference in the emphasis put
upon "faith" by Paul and James. To each,
faith is good and necessary
for salvation, but James emphasizes the
intellectual-objective aspect of
faith and Paul the volitional-subjective aspect which
actually includes
the former and which should follow it. A person must believe what is
true and then act from the heart upon that truth and
personally trust the
object of his or her faith. This kind of faith is
saving faith. It brings
justification apart from works, and
it issues in a Christian life full of
good works (Eph 2:8-10). There is no genuine
contradiction between
James
and Paul on the matter of faith, but an awareness of the
distinctive emphasis each gives to the word helps to
dispel the notion
that a real conflict exists.
Works
Whereas Paul teaches that
justification is "apart from works of
law" (Rom 3:28, RSV) James contends that a
person--such as Abraham
or Rahab--is, at least
in part, "justified by works" (2:21, 24-25, RSV).
The
majority of recent writers hold that the erga ("works") in James
refer to practical deeds of righteousness,
particularly works of charity
done as the fulfillment of the royal law of love
(see 1:21; 2:8-13). These
deeds are the spontaneous fruit or expression of
saving faith. Works for
Paul,
however, according to most of the same interpreters, are the
keeping of the Mosaic commandments (e.g.,
circumcision, dietary
regulations) and perhaps the Rabbinic accretions to
the law. These
23 Thiselton, Two
Horizons 424. See also Mitton, James 109.
24 M Ropes,
38
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
may be the old covenant regulations themselves, or
such works done in
a legalistic spirit, in order to procure favor
with God by one's own
merits.25
Quite recently Moo has questioned
this prevailing understanding
of erga. In his view, "in general, Paul and James mean the
same thing
by 'works': actions done in obedience to
God."26 Moo contends that
Paul's
concept of works is much broader than the popular interpretation
allows. In Rom 9:10-11, the closest Paul comes to
giving a definition of
"works," the apostle states that Rebecca was told
concerning her
children, "the older will serve the
younger," before the twins had done
anything good or bad--"in order that God's
purpose in election might
stand: not by works but by him who calls." Moo
contends that "in these
verses, it is clear that 'works' includes anything
that is done, 'either
good or bad.'" In addition, in Romans 4,
"the 'works of Abraham,' in
which he could not boast, must clearly be 'good
works.' And yet
Romans
4 is closely tied to the argument in 3:20-28, where 'works of
the law' is used."27 Paul thus
seems to view "works of the law" as a
specific kind of "works"--those done in
obedience to the Mosaic law.
"Paul's
purpose, then, is to exclude all works--not just certain works or
works done in a certain spirit--as a basis for
justification."28 Moo also
questions the commonly--held view of James'
"works" as works of
charity. While James certainly stresses
fulfillment of the law of love in
chapter two and elsewhere, the specific events
chosen by him from the
lives of Abraham and Rahab
(vv 21-25) do not clearly involve acts of
charity. Abraham's action in particular is an
act of personal obedience
to God (v 21).29
Moo's argument is convincing, and
should receive considerable
attention on the popular level now that his
commentary has replaced
the older work by R. V. G. Tasker
in the Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries series. Paul and James, then,
mean the same thing by
"works"--actions done in obedience to God and in the
service of God.
The
difference between them is in the context in which these works are
done--in the sequence of works and conversion.
"Paul denies any
25 Some who hold, in
general, to this view of erga
in J
"Paul
and James"; Davids, James 50-51; Dyrness, "Mercy
Triumphs Over Justice" 14, 16;
Laws, James
129; and Vaughan, James 56.
26 Moo,
James 101.
27
Ibid. 101-2.
28
Ibid. 102. See also D. J. Moo, "'Law,' 'Works of the Law' and
Legalism in Paul,"
WTJ (1983) 73-100. Mitton (James
107-8), while stating that "works" in Paul usually
means "works of the law," contends that
Paul also uses "works" to describe "good
works " and that this is the sense of
"works" in James.
29 Moo,
James 102.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 39
efficacy to pre-conversion works, but James is
pleading for the absolute
necessity of post-conversion works."30
An interesting twist to J
in vv 21 and 22 Abraham's works are considered as
the basis for his
justification (the question in v 21
assumes the answer yes), yet only one
work--the offering of Isaac--is mentioned. Perhaps,
as Davids suggests,
the works refer to the ten testings
which in the Jewish tradition
Abraham
endured. This is rendered plausible by the interest in testing
J
that the binding of Isaac which James cites forms in
Jewish tradition
the capstone of a series of tests, with the binding
and subsequent
release seen as evidence not only of Abraham's
obedience to God but
also of the value of the previous works.31
It is simpler and more natural
in the immediate context, however, to understand
"by his works" as a
formula for "by his conduct."32
The plural is used because throughout
the paragraph "works" are repeatedly
discussed alongside of faith (ten
times in the thirteen verses), and for James to
switch to the singular
"work" would interrupt the flow of the argument and
distract the
reader from the essential point that works are the
necessary outgrowth
of genuine faith.
It does not appear, then, that there
is a significant difference in the
general meaning of "works" for Paul
and James. For James works are
obviously good. For Paul, while he employs the
formula "works of
law" when developing his argument for
justification by faith apart
from works, there is no hint that these works in
themselves are
negatively perceived by him. Paul rather seeks
continually to "uphold
the law" and its works (Rom 3:31; 7:7-18). A
resolution to the alleged
conflict between James and Paul is thus not
augmented by recourse to
an understanding of erga that is substantially
different for each apostle.
Justify
A third term used by J
English
versions (e.g., A V, RSV) as "justify." James contends that
Abraham
and Rahab were justified ("considered
righteous," NIV) by
their works, whereas Paul asserts that people are
justified by faith.
30 Ibid. Calvin writes: ”As Paul contends
that we are justified apart from the help of
works, so James does not allow those who lack good
works to be reckoned righteous"
(Inst.
III. xvii.12).
Calvin's discussion of James and Paul, while recognizing the different
senses in which "faith" and
"justify" are used, does not treat "works" as having a
different
meaning for the apostles (Inst. III. xvii. 11-13).
31 Davids, James
127-28. See also Dibelius, James 162.
32 Dibelius
(James 162) recognizes this
possibility. See also Laws, James
135.
40
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Unless
we are willing to grant that the apostles are in opposition we
must examine the precise meaning each gives to dikaioo.
The explanation of Calvin has
frequently been followed by con-
servative commentators. In his
view, "we are said by Paul to be
justified when the memory of our unrighteousness
has been wiped out
and we are accounted righteous." James,
however, is not speaking of
this imputation of righteousness. Rather, it is as
if he said: "Those who
by true faith are righteous prove their
righteousness by obedience and
good works, not by a bare and imaginary mask of
faith."33 J. Adamson,
in sympathy with this position, translates v 21:
"Was not our father,
Abraham,
shown to be in the right by works, when he offered his son
Isaac on the altar?"34 This
demonstrative-analytical sense of dikaioo is
thus held to be distinct from the
declarative-forensic-judicial usage
found in Paul.
Once again the prevailing view has
been questioned. Moo, while
acknowledging that there is some
precedent for the meaning of dikaioo
as demonstrate,
states that this is not its usual meaning. "More
importantly, this meaning does not fit very well in
James 2, where the
question is not, 'How can righteousness be
demonstrated?' but 'What
kind of faith secures righteousness?'" Moo
contends that James is
probably using dikaioo declaratively, "but
he differs from Paul in
applying the word to God's ultimate declaration
of a person's righteous-
ness rather than to the initial securing of that
righteousness by faith."
James
thus uses "justify" where Paul speaks of the judgment.35
First of all, in reply to this recent
challenge, it is probable that
dikaioo in James is used in a
certain declarative or judicial sense--the
pronouncing of one righteous, as in a court of law,
on the basis of some
observable criterion or criteria.36 This
is the dominant meaning of the
term in the LXX, in the Pseudepigrapha,
and often in the NT.37
However,
Moo's contention that dikaioo
in James 2 refers to the
sinner's ultimate or final justification at the
last judgment is not as
readily apparent. While Moo argues persuasively
that this significance
of the term has ample precedent in the OT,
Judaism, and the teaching
33
Calvin, Inst. III. xvii.12. See also Vaughan, James 56.
34
Adamson, James 128.
35 Moo, James 109; see also 110-111. Reicke (James, Peter,
and Jude 34-35) also
understands James to be referring to the last
judgment.
36 Davids
(James 51, 127), however, prefers the demonstrative sense.
37 Dibelius, James
162-65; Moo, James 109-11.
six reasons supporting the declarative-forensic
sense in the NT (The Epistle to the
Romans, 5th ed. [
W.
R. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament
Greek (4 vols;
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 41
of Jesus (e.g., “by your words you will be
justified, and by your words
you
will be condemned," Matt 12:37),38 it
is not necessitated by the
text, and seems to add an extraneous element to the
argument. This is
not to say that the final judgment is absent from
James 2 (q.v; vv 12-
14),
but that James moves from a focus upon that judgment to an
emphasis upon right conduct for the helping of
the needy now (vv 15-
17)
and the alerting of mere professors to their barren and perilous
condition now (vv 18-26). It is correct to see the
final judgment as the
ultimate backdrop for vv 14-26, but the most
obvious sense of the
paragraph indicates that the justification of
Abraham and Rahab is
something that occurred during their earthly
lives. This in-life justifica-
tion was of course
prerequisite to their final justification but is not
identical with it. The fact that Abraham and Rahab were justified
when" they did certain things (vv 21, 25) is,
as Moo admits, an
important objection to the final judgment
viewpoint.39 While there is no
Greek
adverb for “when” in the text, the aorist participles for ”offering”
Isaac
and “housing” the spies may have the temporal significance, and
most likely do here (so AV, RSV, NIV, NASB, and
Phillips).40
Why must our choice be limited to
either initial or final justification?
It
is of course evident that James is not referring to the initial
declarations of righteousness--i.e.,
at the “conversion” experiences--of
Abraham
and Rahab, for if this were the case James would be
teaching, in opposition to Paul, that a person is
justified initially by right
actions. But this does not necessitate a concept
of final judgment to
explain James' meaning. Instead, the plain sense
of the text argues for
some kind of justification during the lifetimes of
Abraham and Rahab,
concomitant with a specific action or actions of
each. As M. Dibelius
indicates, Abraham in James 2 is not considered a
justified sinner but a
righteous man who is recognized or declared to be
righteous and
rewarded by God. The expression “was justified”
thus means approval
by God, which Abraham received not merely at the
final judgment but
already during his lifetime.41 A
parallel is in 1 Macc 2, where the dying
Mattathias gathers his sons for a final exhortation
to be zealous and, if
necessary, to die for the covenant of their
fathers. As Mattathias refers
to the fathers one by one, he mentions in each
case two things--a
noteworthy deed or character trait and its reward. “Joseph
in the time
of his distress kept the commandment, and became
lord of
38 Moo,
James 109-11.
39
Ibid. 109-10.
40 "The aorist
participle records an action antecedent to the announcement of
justification; the verdict pronounced
on Abraham arose 'out of' (ek) the act of offering up
his son" (Hiebert, James 192).
41 Dibelius, James
162.
42
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Phinehas, "because he was deeply zealous,
received the covenant of
everlasting priesthood." "Caleb, because
he testified in the assembly,
received an inheritence
in the land." These are rewards experienced
during the lifetimes of these leaders of
the head of the list, is to be understood
similarly: "Was not Abraham
found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to
him as righteousness"
(v 52, RSV)? Abraham's reward began during his life on earth.
God
declared that his servant was truly righteous and
his friend.
It appears, therefore, that both
Paul and James use dikaioo
in a
declarative-judicial sense, but that the
emphasis in Paul is upon the
sinner's initial justification by God at
conversion (e.g., Rom 5:1),
whereas James' focus is upon the declaration by
God (and perhaps by
people) during a believer's lifetime that he or she is
truly a righteous
person (e. g., Jas 2:21, 25). With this understanding,
sinners are indeed
justified by a trusting faith without works
(Paul), and such justified
believers are then considered righteous often
during their lives from
observation of their actions (James).
III. Abraham in Genesis and James
Having considered the quite different
errors addressed by Paul
and James and the manner in which their
vocabularies are adjusted
accordingly, we now turn to two closely-related and
often-confusing
matters: the way in which James uses the life of
Abraham to develop
his argument, and the way in which James'
references to Genesis differ
from those of Paul in Galatians and Romans.
With regard to the argument of
James, the question of 2:2042 and
the concluding statement of 2:24 indicate quite
clearly the central point
James
is making in vv 21-23: a faith that has no deeds concomitant with
it is useless, barren, and unprofitable in the
matter of one's justification.43
However,
before we can fully grasp the unfolding of this thesis in vv
21-23,
and the argument of Paul as well, we need to outline briefly
certain crises in Abraham's life from the book
of Genesis.
Upon leaving
journeyed only as far as
died (Acts 7:2-4). Understanding Gen 11:31-32 and 12:1-3
to refer
together to God's call and promise to Abram while
he was still in
42 Reicke
(James, Peter, and Jude 33) places v
20 as the conclusion to vv 18-19, not
as introductory to vv 21-24 as NIV. Hiebert (James
189), however, recognizes the
transitional character of v 20.
43
Ropes,
44 While the pluperfect
"had said" (AV, NIV) in Gen 12:1 is not the usual translation
of the Hebrew (which merely employs the imperfect
with the waw consecutive), it is
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 43
and knowing that Abram was married when he left
quite some time in
likely over 65 when called by Cod. In support of this terminus ad quem
we consider that Abram was 75 when he left
years in
here whether or not his stay in
obedience. The point is that Abram was most likely
converted at or
prior to his original call in
amazing promises of 12:1-3 to an unconverted
man, and in that
condition Abram would have obeyed God--leaving his
country and
people. Against this is the fact that Heb 11:8
commends Abraham as a
man of faith because when called he "obeyed
and went, even though
he did not know where he was going." Even if
this suggested time of
Abraham's
conversion to the one true God is not accepted, his conver-
sion certainly took place
soon after Abram's entrance into
we see him at that time building altars and
calling on the name of the
Lord
(12:7-9).
The next major crisis occurs when
Abram "believed the Lord, and
he credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen
15:6). Because the patri-
arch's impregnation of Hagar occurred after he had
been in
ten years (Gen 16:3), and because the events of Gen
12:10-14:24 seem
to necessitate several years at least (see 12:10,
16; 13:2, 6), we may
approximate his age as close to 85. Now, when Abram
seemingly could
not perform the righteous act he wished to do--i.e.,
have a son to
inherit the promises--God accepted his faith as
righteousness. It is
most important to realize that Abram was already a
converted man
when he believed that God would give him an heir
from his own body,
resulting in offspring as the stars of heaven.
This is the word of God
which Abram believed, and his faith on this occasion
was that which
was credited or imputed to him as righteousness. Abram
was surely not
"saved" or justified initially at this time as
commentators frequently
state or assume.45 Of course Gen 15:6
expresses exactly the truth of
both grammatically permissible and preferable here
(D. Kidner, Genesis
[Downers
Grove:
Inter-Varsity, 1967] 113 n 1; J. J. Davis, Paradise
to Prison [
1975] 166. H. C. Leupold,
however, prefers the usual rendering "said" (Exposition of
Genesis [2 vols;
thus consider the call of God to have been given to
Abram while still in
"had told" in Gen 12:4.
45 See,
e.g., Hiebert, James
192, 195; and Tasker, James 67. Others correctly note
that Gen 15:6 does not describe Araham's
confession of salvation:
Prison 186; Leupold,
Genesis 1.
478-79; H. G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 154.
44
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
justification by faith and describes
the justified character of Abraham
throughout his lifetime as a believer. The
statement here, however,
refers to one event that showed Abraham's original
justifying faith in
operation.
When he was 99 (Gen 17), after
waiting over 14 years, and after
wrongly fathering Ishmael, Abram believed God
again--believing this
time that Sarai (now 89)
would be the mother of the offspring promised
in Gen 15:1-6. This revelation resulted in the
names of Abram and Sarai
being changed and Abram and Ishmael being
circumcised. The crisis,
however, was in Abraham's believing God's
specific promise to give an
heir from the seemingly "dead" bodies of
him and his wife (Gen 17:15-
17,21; Rom 4:18-22).
The final crisis, for our purpose,
is Abraham's offering of Isaac in
Genesis 22. Since Isaac was born when Abraham was
100 (Gen 21:5),
and since Isaac was old enough to carry the
firewood (22:6), Abraham
was perhaps 115-125. The significance of this event
is that when it was
.over
God declared Abraham to be a man who feared and obeyed him
(Gen
22:12,18), and acted in total faith (Heb 11:17-19).
After some 50
or more years Abraham died at the age of 175 (Gen
25:7).
With the above outline in mind we
return to James 2. Verse 21
appears clear in light of the previous
examination of "justify." The
question, which assumes the answer yes, instructs
us that Abraham was
"justified" or "considered righteous for what he
did when he offered his
son Isaac on the altar." This is certainly not
Abraham's initial justifica-
tion, nor his final
justification at the last judgment, but is one occurrence
in his lifetime when God declared his servant to
be a righteous person,
because he feared and obeyed God (Gen 22:12,
18). God desired
Abraham
and subsequent generations to know that the patriarch--a
man who had come to know the one true God many years
before--was
indeed one who believed God and acted upon that
belief. "You see that
his faith and his actions were working together46
and his faith was
made complete by what he did" (v 22). James is
not teaching that
Abraham's
faith before Genesis 22 was insufficient to save, but that his
faith was perfected--brought to its intended goal,
accomplished its.
intended purpose47--by the offering of
Isaac. "As the tree is perfected:
by its fruits, so faith by its works."48
In v 23 James recalls Gen 15:6 and
teaches that in the event of
Genesis
22 the declaration of Genesis 15 some 30 or more years earlier49
46 synergei (imperfect active
indicative) signifies that this working together of faith
and works was not a unique Occurrence, but was
characteristic of Abraham's life.
47 eteleiothe (BAGD
809).
48 Mayor, St. James 104.
49 According to the
Rabbis this took place 50 years earlier (Mayor, St. James 104).
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 45
was "fulfilled" or made full. Here is a
most strategic move in the
argument. When Abraham began to offer Isaac he
was prevented by
God. He did "work"--up to a point (v 22)--but
the offering was as
much an exercise of faith as a work since Abraham
didn't actually
sacrifice Isaac. At every step in the drama he had
to work and exercise
faith in God's promise to give him offspring through
Isaac--the very
one he was about to slay. When God intervened,
however, the work
that Abraham had begun, and was about to complete,
was not allowed
to continue. His faith in God was therefore
accepted and credited to
Abraham's
account as righteousness (i.e., as a work of righteousness50)
in lieu of the work that Abraham would have done
if he were able. In
addition; James weaves into his argument the
tradition that Abraham
was declared to be God's "friend" (2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8), indicating
that
the patriarch was one who exercised both faith and
obedience toward
his God.
In what sense was the scripture of
Gen 15:6 "fulfilled" in the
Genesis 22 account? "Fulfilled"
here is not referring to prediction-
fulfillment, as Ropes understands it,51
but connotes rather that Gen 15:6
was shown to be in agreement with the Genesis 22
narrative. James'
approach in chapter 2 is typical of the midrashic method: a primary
event or text is cited (v 21), the text is discussed.
(v 22), and then a
secondary text is added to the discussion (v 23).52
Gen 15:6 was thus
"fulfilled" or made full in the sense that the truth of
God expressed
therein--that Abraham was a person whose firm
trust in God's promises
was accepted for righteousness--agreed with the
theological meaning
of Genesis 22 and actually blossomed fully in the
offering of Isaac.
Even
more than in Genesis 15, Abraham in chapter 22 had to trust God.
The
truth-principle of Gen 15:6, which characterized Abraham from
his initial conversion to his death, was gloriously
revealed in the
offering of Isaac. Abraham's willingness to offer
his son brought out the
full meaning of the words in Gen 15:6. His action
made it clear that
Abraham
had the caliber of faith that God reckoned for righteousness,
whether initially, finally, or throughout one's
lifetime. This was a faith
50
"Righteousness" in Jas 2:23 seems to have the sense of
"fulfilling the divine
statutes"--the righteous deeds which issue
from the righteous person, the one who has
been declared righteous through faith (BAGD 196 2a).
This appears to be the notion of
dikaiosyne in such scriptures as
Matt 3:15; 5:20; Acts 10:35; 1 Tim 6:11; 1 John 2:29; 3:7,
10; as well as in the two other occurrences in
James (1:20; 3:18). In James there is thus a
profound ethical quality to the word. See also
Moo, James 110-111. “Additional Note”
on
justification.
51
Ropes,
52 Davids,
James 129; R. N. Longenecker,
Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period
(Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 23-28.
46
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
that did what God commanded. "Abraham was
justified by the kind of
faith which involves obedience, even costly
obedience."53 While the
argument could proceed smoothly from v 22
directly to v 24 (and
would certainly seem to strengthen the argument thereby!), James
adds v 23 to emphasize the faith-foundation for
Abraham's actions.
In v 24--the scripture said to
contradict Paul most sharply-James
concludes the argument from Abraham by stating
that a person is
declared to be righteous "by what he does
and not by faith alone." The
alleged conflict with Paul, however, disappears
when this verse is read
in the light of the previous verses, the Genesis
account, and the
different concerns and vocabularies of Paul and
James. How can one
be declared or said to be righteous if all one
knows about the person is
his or her affirmation of a set of doctrines?
James' point is certainly not
that orthodox belief is wrong, but that such faith
must be active in the
tangible experiences of life in order for God or
anyone else to declare
its owner a truly righteous person. The central
element in the Jewish
concept of righteousness was that of active,
visible, and practical
deeds, and the thoroughly Jewish writer, James, is
teaching here that a
person of "faith" without such deeds cannot
be justified--cannot be
declared righteous. C. E. B. Cranfield
says it well: "Had there been no
works, Abraham would not have been justified; but
that would have
been because the absence of works would have meant
that he had no
real faith."54
IV. Abraham in Galatians and Romans
Bible students have often been
confused by the way in which Paul
argues from the life of Abraham when this is placed
alongside James'
use of the patriarch. Both use the same leading
example and both quote
from the same leading text (Gen 15:6) to arrive
seemingly at opposite
conclusions. The two chief texts in which Paul
argues from the Genesis
account are Romans 4 and Galatians 3.
Paul's argument in Galatians 3 is to
convince those in the churches
who had begun the new life of the Spirit by faith
(as evidently many
had) that they were "foolish" and
"bewitched" to think that they could
add to their Christian standing before God and
reach the goal of final
salvation by human effort through works of law (vv
1-5). Abraham is
then introduced in v 6, where Paul quotes Gen 15:6
to establish his
point: Abraham believed God and this faith was
credited to him for
righteousness. He stood righteous
before God by faith. As noted above,
53 Mitton, James
113.
54 Cranfield,
"Message of James" 340.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 47
of this key scripture states exactly the
truth-principle of justification by
he faith, even though the event in Abraham's life
where it is mentioned is
not his initial conversion. The scripture also
depicts the general charac-
ter and actions of Abraham
from his conversion to his death. It is used
here by Paul to demolish the false teaching that
adherence to works of
law was essential for attaining salvation at any
stage in the life of a
person. "Those who believe are children of Abraham" (v
7). The
Christian
life is begun by faith and is lived
by faith. Of course, just as
James
insists, works are necessary in the life of the believer, but these
are to be works of love that spring from faith (Gal
5:6; 1 Thess 1:3), not
works of law when these issue from fear or from
disbelief of the
sufficiency of divine grace under the new covenant.
"Now that faith has
come, we are no longer under the supervision of the
law" (v 25).
In Romans 4 we find Paul again using
Gen 15:6. Following his
classic statement in 3:21-31 concerning God's
imputed righteousness
through faith apart from works, Paul then
considers Abraham as a
central example of this doctrine. Abraham's
justification was not by
works (v 2), for he believed God and this was
credited for righteous-
ness--a righteous standing before God (vv 3-5). Paul
thus uses the
event of Genesis 15, when Abraham as a justified man
for many years
again had his faith reckoned for righteousness, to
establish that the
patriarch was a person justified by faith, not
works. Paul goes on to
explain that Abraham was reckoned righteous when
he was approaching
85--long before his circumcision at the age of
99 (vv 9-12).
The apostle
is seeking especially to establish the fact of
Abraham's justified condition
because of his belief in God's promises, not
because of his obedience to
God's
laws, however important those laws may have been (vv 13-17).
It
is the faith-principle of Gen 15:6 that is important to Paul and to his
argument. Paul is not saying that Abraham was
converted initially in
Genesis
15, but that he was a converted, justified person in Genesis 15.
He
was a man of faith before the promise of Gen 15:1-5 was given and
he showed this by his trust in God's word at that
time.55
Paul continues developing the
faith-principle in Rom 4:18-24, but
here he uses Genesis 17 to make his point. When
Abraham was 99 and
55 E. Kasemann's
(Commentary on Romans, 4th ed. [
1980]
110) statement on Rom 4:1-8 that Paul "does not have in mind here either a
quality
or a meritorious work of the patriarch but the
latter's devotion to the issued word of
promise, according to which God wills and
acknowledges nothing but faith," needs to be
adjusted by the realization that Abraham's
faith-devotion to God's promises was a quality
of the patriarch's life. K. Barth
(The Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed. [
University,
1963] 121) asserts: "Abraham believed. Here is the action which makes him
what he is; here is the hidden source of all his
well-known works (iv. 2). As a believer
Abraham
is what he is."
48
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Sarah
89, Abraham believed God's promise that Sarah
would be the
mother of the seed promised in Genesis 15. He and
Ishmael were then
circumcised. Once again Paul uses Gen 15:6 (vv
22-24), obviously not
because Abraham was justified initially at this
time, but because the
principle underlying this
doctrine of justification by faith--believing
God's
promises and having this faith credited for righteousness--again
was shown to be operative in the patriarch's life.
Several
events in Abraham's life, then, argue for the Pauline
doctrine of justification: the initial call and
promise to Abraham (Gal
3:6-9)
and the experiences of Genesis 15 and 17 (Rom 4). (Even the
offering of Isaac is a profound statement of
Abraham's faith according
to Heb 11:17-19.) Paul's central application from
the life of Abraham is
that '"those who have faith are blessed along
with Abraham the man of
faith" (Gal 3:9). While his concern is the faith
that initially justifies,
thereby procuring a righteous standing before
God, the principle
applies also to the faith that is continually
accepted for righteous deeds
throughout a believer's life--those deeds which a
justified person
would do in certain situations if it were possible to
do something other
than trust.
With this understanding of Paul's
use of Abraham, it is now
apparent that there is no conflict with James.
While both use the same
leading example and the same leading text, they
do not arrive at
opposite conclusions. Paul refers to Gen 15:6 and
Genesis 17 to show
the necessity of faith--to argue that no one, not
even the law-abiding
Abraham,
is justified initially by works, even if those works are good in
themselves. Paul refers to Abraham's trust in God,
concerning his
offspring in Genesis 15 and 17, to emphasize that
Abraham was
declared to be righteous through faith, not
works. He could not work in
those two instances, for he had tried and failed to
produce seed
through Sarah. God therefore credited Abraham's
unshakeable faith in
the promises as righteousness. But Abraham's faith
is not presented as a
work, as in later Judaism. Paul teaches that it is
this kind of faith--a
faith that believes apart from works--that is the
medium for a person's
initial justification, procuring a righteous
standing before God and
leading to exploits for God.56
James refers to Gen 15:6 and Genesis
22 to show the necessity of
works--to establish that Abraham's faith was an
active, obedient faith"
which resulted in this already-justified man being declared righteous.
56 We are not saying here
that a person's faith is equivalent to the righteousness of :
Christ
that brings salvation. Faith is rather the God-appointed means whereby a person
receives the righteousness graciously given by
God. see Kasemann, Romans 111-12; and
R.
Haldane, Exposition
of the Epistle to the Romans (
reprint) 162-71.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 49
For
James the formula "the scripture was fulfilled" (2:23) holds a major
clue to the way he uses Gen 15:6. The truth of this
scripture was made
full and blossomed beautifully when Abraham believed
God and acted
upon that belief by offering his beloved son.
Similarly, James' insertion
that Abraham was called the friend of God (v 23)
reveals that James is
not talking about Abraham's initial justification
through God's imputed
righteousness, but a personal
relationship whereby Abraham, through
obedient faith, maintained close fellowship with
God.
V.
Conclusion
Does James contradict the Pauline soteriology? Are there really
two ways of salvation presented by Paul and James?
This article has
sought to demonstrate that there is no genuine conflict
between the
apostles. As C. Vaughan writes, "Paul was
expounding the way of
justification. James was describing
the life of the justified. Paul was
combating Jewish legalism; James was combating
antinomianism."57
James
is not contrasting two methods of salvation--one of faith and
one of works--but two kinds of faith: one which
saves and one which
does not.
In Rom 2:13 Paul sounds very much
like James: "For it is not those
who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight,
but it is those who
obey the law who will be declared righteous."
The apostles do not
oppose each other, but work together to combat the
enemy on different
fronts. Paul stresses the initial justification of a
sinner by grace through
faith without works, whereas James stresses the continuing
justification
of a believer by grace through faith which issues
in works. Paul's words
in Gal 5:6 can be thought of as the text James is
expounding: "For in
Christ
Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any
value.
The
only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." As
Davids states, "to argue
that James directly attacks Paul is to argue that
James
is a consummate blunderer, for he fails to meet Paul's arguments
at all and instead produces a work with which Paul
would have
agreed"'58
The ethical ramifications of Jas
2:14-26, as well as of the entire
epistle, are enormous. The situation which James
faced was in essence
not dissimilar to that in the Church today. L. Goppelt wisely observes
that James was confronting
a Christianity
for which God and justification by faith alone had become
metaphysical
theories. People were so convinced of these theories that
57 Vaughan,
James 56.
58 Davids, James,
21.
50
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
they no
longer had any impact on conduct. Such a Christianity of
conviction
can come about in a variety of contexts.
It can be a lifeless
orthodoxy
that suffocates in intellectualism; it can also be a middle-class
Christian liberalism that lives in
conformity with the world and turns
grace into
cheap grace.59
Whenever
people trust in their religious activities for salvation, God’s
servants must strenuously and without compromise
declare
message of justification by faith. Whenever those in the churches
consider correct doctrine to be the
distinguishing mark of true Christi-
anity, James’ message that
only an obedient faith is a saving faith must,
just as forcefully, be proclaimed. “As the body
without the spirit is
dead, so faith without deeds is dead” (Jas 2:26).
59 Goppelt,
Theology of NT 2. 209.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: