__8 --II -
JAMES 2:14-26:
DOES JAMES CONTRADICT
THE PAULINE SOTERIOLOGY?
ROBERT V. RAKESTRA W
Criswell College, Dallas, TX 75201
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
J 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
I contradict Paul regarding the basis on which God justifies sinners?
if 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-
I which, when properly understood, reveal the waste and tragedy of the
r Reformation and Counter-Reformation struggle over sola fide and the
f! 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
I, 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
I J ames is not a mere archaism.3 In more recent years J. T. Sanders has
1\
;
I .I ~ bri~f su,rvey of the literature on the ~aith-wo.rks issue in Paul and James is found
Ii In M. Dlbehus, James, rev. H. Greeven (PhIladelphIa: Fortress, 1975) 174 n 132. More
I extensive bibliographies on this and related issues are in C. Brown and H. Seebass,
Ii "Righteousness," DNTT 3 (1978) 374-77; and P. H. Davids, Commentary on James
I (G~and Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) xxi-xxxviii. The last mentioned work will be designated
~ James, and the briefer study by Davids (see n 9) James, GNC.
t 2 Unless otherwise indicated, biblical citations are from the New International
~,
V.
i erSlon.
r 3 Luther's comment on James as a "right strawy epistle" is found in the Preface to
f his 1522 edition of the NT. It appears only in this edition. Elsewhere Luther states: "He
I
i:
I"
",!"" CrisweU Theological Review 1.1 (1986) 31-50
L--- -
".,-.- -..~' "","-~-"-;",
32 CRISWELL 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
contras~, 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 confus~ 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.
5cE. C. Blackman, The Epistle of James (London: SCM, 1957) 96.
6J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 251.
7 S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (San Francisco: Harper and
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; New York: Scribner's Sons, 1955) 2. 162-63;
J. DuI)n, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977)
251-52; G. Schre~k, "dike," TDNT2 (1964) 201. A less severe contrast between Paul and
James in seen in J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1978
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 vers-e 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 ames' use of Abraham, and to view James' understanding of the
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 st;)lidarity 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 Epmle of James (Grand
;Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976); P. H. Davids, James (GNC; San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1983); D. E.. Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody, 1979); J. B. Mayor, The
Epistle of St. James (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954 printing); C. L. Mitton, The Epmle
of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966); D. J. Moo, The Letter of James (Leicester:
inter-Varsity, 19&5); J. A. Motyer, The Message of James (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity,
19&5); A. Plummer, The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1891); B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (Garden City:
poubleday, 1978); A. Ross, The Epistles of James and John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
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 signific~nt materials relating to Jas 2:14-26, in addi~on to Via in n 3, are
I studies in DNTT vol. 1 (1975), "Faith" (0. Becker and O. Michel, 587 -606); vol. 3 (1978),
"., '
i "Righteousness" (C. Brown and H. Seebass, 352-77), "Work" (H. C. Hahn and F. Thiele,
I 'V47-59); and E. L. Allen, "Controversy in the New Testament," NTS 1 (1954-55) 143-
:III 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; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 2. 199-21,1; H. P. Hamann, "Faith and Works in
':'...,...,...,'...'faul and James," Lutheran Theological Journal 9 (1975) 33-41; I. Jacob, "The Midrashic
,'.:",' Background for James II, 21-23," NTS 22 (1975) 457-64; J. Jeremias, "Paul and James,"
.: ;,...,...£xP Tim 66 (1954-55) 368-71; T. Lorenzen, "Faith without Works Does Not Count
c? ? '"
:f,.: ' :,'pefore God! James 2:14-26," Exp Tim 89 (1978) 231-35; A. C. Thiselton, The Two
1"...,...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:
"':',:c : James 2:14-26" HTR 61 (1968) 283-90; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in
,c"'" '... ,
It".:.:...,Paul (Cambridge, 1972) 9-14.
r... .:,'tt",tt... .
"7
(,
"
I
34 CroSWELL 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. J eremias,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 Qrging 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.Il
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 ames reveals
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 J ames 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 J ames 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
l majority view appears preferable, it should not be insisted upon.
j Furthermore, by leaning in this direction we are not suggesting that
J ames is systematically developing his argument in close relation to the
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
.J eremias, Mitton, Davids, and others, three highly significant words-
faith, works, and justify-are used by both James and Paul, yet with
widely different meanings.I9 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."2o 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 SO-51.
20 Davids, James 130.
--
.
---
36 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
II. Terminologies of James and Paul
Faith
Wheras 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 commitm~nt."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 (Rom5~1-5). In addition, the
object bf Paul's faith is the blood of Christ (Rom 3:25), whereas the
object of the faith discussed by James is J udaistic (and probably
i Christian, see 2:1) doctrine.
I' +j'i' Yet James does not deny the propriety of theological. orthodoxy
f\ and belief, for he tells the objector "you do well" for affirming the
-{ 1. Shema (2:19). He argues rather that faith without works is barren and
j, !
I: useless. Nor is James saying that faith, properly understood, does not;
save, for this would be tantamount to a direct contradiction of Pauline 1
soteriology. What he teaches is that one's verbal profession of or j
signature to a set of right beliefs does not effect salvation (v 14). As ,1
D. Moo contends, "it is absolutely vital to understand that the main ~
point of this argument, expressed t~ree times (in vv :7, 2°. an? 26), is j
not that works must be added to faIth but that genume faIth mcludes ,i
works. That is its very nature."22 A. Thiselton cautions further that in i
our text James is not simply the negative corollary of Paul.. 1
J
James is not merely attacking an inadequate view of faith, but is also J
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 1
f
;:(
ii
21 pavids, James, GNC 49. j
22 Moo, James 99. :1
'\ Il j
,
Ii) J
Ct, li'r \I
C c' j;:: :~
:
,
~
(-
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.
~t J. Ropes writes that "J ames's real contention in vv 20- 22 is not so much
) of the necessity of works as of the inseparability of vital faith and
:al works." 24 It is thus wrong to infer or impiy that James contributes in
ns any way to a low view of faith; he rather elevates and characterizes
he positively the kind of faith that pleases God and is instrumental in the
in 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
~s Justifying faith, James thereby teaches the depth and maturity of faith
IS as God intends it to be.
.21 We have seen, then, that there is a difference in the emphasis put
'a- upon "faith" by Paul and James. To each, faith is good and necessary
of for salvation, but James emphasizes the intellectual-objective aspect of
Id faith and Paul the volitional-subjective aspect which actually includes
he the former and which should follow it. A person must believe what is
he true and then act from the heart upon that truth and personally trust the
ly 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
~y good works (Eph 2:8-10). There is no genuine contradiction between
he James and Paul on the matter of faith, but an awareness of the
Id distinctive emphasis each gives to the word helps to dispel the notion
ot that a real conflict exists.
oe
or Works
\s Whereas Paul teaches that justification is "apart from works of
.in law" (Rom 3:28, RSV) James contends that a person-such as Abraham
is or Rahab-is, at least in part, "justified by works" (2:21,24-25, RSV).
es The majority of .recent writers hold that the erga ("works") in James
in 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
so Paul, however, according to most of the same interpreters, are the
h.e keeping of the Mosaic commandments (e.g., circumcision, dietary
llS regulations) and perhaps the Rabbinic accretions to the law. These
23 Thiselton, Two Horizons 424. See also Mitton, James 109.
M Ropes, St. James 219.
,'"
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
ch~pter 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 j
"works"-actions done in obedience to God and in the service of God. ;1
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 ames and Paul are Jeremias,
"Paul and James"; Davids, James SO-51; Dymess, "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 (lames 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.
c~~-~.~"~-~-~
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 39
efficacy to pre-conversion works, but James is pleading for the absolute
necessity of post-conversion works."3D
An interesting twist to J ames' argument emerges from the fact that
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 ames has already shown in chapter one, and particularly by the fact
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 ames and Paul is dikaioo, translated in many
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. W. Sanday andA. C. Headlam offer
six reasons supporting the declarative-forensic sense in the NT (The Epistle to the
Romans, 5th ed. [Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902] 30-:31). See also J. H. Moulton and
W. R. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols; Edinburgh: T. and T.
Clark, 1920) 2.397.
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 A V, RSV, NIV, NASB, and Phillips).4o
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. ..J oseph in the time
of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt."
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.
8