Does the epistle of James (esp. 2:14-26) contradict or complement the epistle to the Romans (esp. 3:28; 4:1-5), with regard to justification by faith? The difficulty can be appreciated (at least on a surface level) by comparing the relevant passages from the two epistles. The Apostle Paul argues:

²⁸ For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law… ¹ What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? ² For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” — Romans 3:28, 4:1-3 (NAS)

James, on the other hand, states:

²⁰ But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? ²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? ²² You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected… ²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. — James 2:20-22, 24 (NAS)

The epistle to the Romans refers to a justification “by faith apart from works of the law,” and appeal is made to the Patriarch Abraham as an example of one who was not justified by works. The epistle of James argues that a person is justified by works and not faith only, and appeal is similarly made to Abraham – but as an example of one who was justified by works!

There certainly has been no dearth of material published from all quarters addressing this complex and intriguing subject. Many commentators throughout the centuries have proposed a variety of explanations, and indeed proposals were particularly forthcoming during the great soteriological debates that were naturally concomitant to the volatile atmosphere of the Reformation. Some, however, expressed great perplexity at their reconciliation (most notably Luther, whose notorious description of James as an “Epistle of Straw” has seemed to have since become a ubiquitous refrain of militant Catholic apologetics).

Although there has been significant interaction with this topic by capable theologians and exegetes, no clear consensus yet exists among professing Christians. Further, since there are only subtle distinctions among the various positions there seems to be confusion surrounding the issue at times.¹ Since there are a variety of proposed solutions, and since the doctrine of justification lies at the heart of the Christian evangel, great care and precision must be devoted to assessing the ultimate tenability of each proposed solution, especially when examining them in light of the demanding exegetical method, guided of course by biblical hermeneutics.

The purpose of the following series of posts is to study the pericope from James (2:14-26), with the goal of determining whether James and Paul present contradictory soteriological perspectives. ²

End Notes
1 For example, it is often asserted that James is only addressing a justification before men. Within this quarter, there are those who see it in a salvific context (the vindication of actual conversion), and those who see it in a non-salvific context (the vindication of the strength of the Christian life). To add further complexity to the matter, there are those who see the vindication in a salvific context, but they deny that it is limited only before man, asserting that it is a universal vindication of genuine conversion as God’s external declaration of righteousness is objectively demonstrated by works. This paper will treat the non-salvific context as it is normatively portrayed (only before men), and the salvific context in a universal sense (although it could be argued as strictly before men as well).

2 The scope of these posts does not include an interaction with the relevant texts as broadly as one will find in some of the more significant exegetical commentaries. Additionally, it will focus more specifically on the text from James and will interact only marginally and as necessary with the Pauline treatment of justification, and therefore the reader is strongly encouraged to consult Douglas Moo’s exceptional work on Romans in the NICNT series for a more extensive exegetical treatment of Paul. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).