Are James and Paul in conflict with regard to their respective theologies of justification? In the preceding post we set forth four proposals that have been offered as potential answers to this perennially vexing question.

Although each of the proposed solutions have aspects that would commend it as the correct solution, this author believes that the conservative evangelical proposal is the most probable, and the one which carries the most interpretive weight. The following principles of hermeneutics⁸ most clearly suggest this conclusion:

LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF KEY TERMS⁹
Since there is, strictly speaking, a verbal conflict between James 2:24 and Romans 4:5, any view that proposes them to be complementary must posit different uses of the same terms by the authors. In this vein, it is important to recall that words are not invariable or wooden constants, but are, in fact, entities capable of semantic ranges that are dependent upon contextual, lexical, and other grammatical features from which they derive precision in meaning.

The relevant words that must be examined are “faith” (
Faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11).¹³ James, however, was contrasting a dead faith (that was in reality nothing more than an intellectual assent) with a living faith that produces works and subsequently vindicates that profession.¹⁴

Works (Romans 9:11), or it may have a more restricted sense as a reference to the specific works that the law commands.¹⁵

The most critical term in this examination however, is the verb commonly translated as “justify” (Rom 8:33), and it constitutes the basis of man’s acceptance with God. This declarative sense of the word was derived from the delocutive use of tsadaÄ· (“he justified”) in the Piel and Hiphil stems in the Hebrew Old Testament (Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23).¹⁸ Rom. 3:26, 30; Rom 4:5; Rom 8:30; and Gal. 2:16-17; Gal 3:8.

The word may also mean to vindicate or to prove or demonstrate something to be true or just. Thus when Christ said: “but wisdom is justified by her works” (Matt. 11:19, author’s translation), He meant, of course, that wisdom would be proven to be true wisdom by the results of that wisdom. Likewise, when Paul cited Ps. 51:4 to proclaim of God: “In order that You might be justified in Your words and will prevail when You are judged” (Rom. 3:4, author’s translation), he meant that God would be proven to be righteous in His words. Gen. 44:16 (LXX); Ps. 51:4 (LXX); Luke 7:35; Luke 10:29; Luke 16:15;¹⁹ and 1 Tim. 3:16.²⁰ When it is used in this sense it means to demonstrate the truth or rightness of a claim, and thus James 2:24 may properly be translated: “You see that a person is shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds and not on the basis of faith only.”²¹

Since both senses of James 2:24.

End Notes
8 Roy Zuck, addressing the vexing epistemological dilemma inherent in establishing an authoritative systematized hermeneutic (in the absence of an explicit and prescriptive NT reference), draws several natural corollaries from 2 axiomatic truths (i.e. that the Bible is a human book and that the Bible is a Divine book) that provide the framework for the principles of hermeneutics. In an intriguing and capable discussion (that the reader is encouraged to consult), he demonstrates that hermeneutical principles are not arbitrary human inventions, but rather universal rules governing cogent communication. Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, Il.: Victor Books, 1991), 59-75.

9 See Grant Osborne’s excellent analysis of semantics as they relate to hermeneutics, and especially his exposure of common semantic fallacies. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Il.: Inter Varsity, 1991), 64-89. See also William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, & Robert Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 183-199.

10 For a capable philological discussion of Mk 1:24; 5:7), and by human unbelievers (Acts 27:26-27). It appears true then, that mere knowledge of and assent to the truth of the gospel is not indicative of genuine conversion/salvation. The element of trust is the element that distinguishes genuine saving faith from the “faith” of demons and unbelievers.

12 Zane Hodges takes considerable issue with the legitimacy of a distinction between different types of faith (such as a true faith that is alive and active distinguished from a false faith that is dead and useless), calling the distinction “absurd.” Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 207. Additionally, in a chapter tautologically entitled “Faith Means Just That-Faith!” (Idem, 25-33), Hodges commits the semantic “one meaning fallacy,” and seems to be either unaware of, or ignores altogether, the polysemy of individual words. See Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 72-73. Further, although such emotionally laden, popular, and pejorative appeals might well appeal to a popular audience, they cannot be sustained exegetically. The term “dead faith” is derived from James’ own usage (2:17), and the obvious antithesis to a “dead” faith is a faith that is “alive.” Although Hodges claims that James’ characterization of a “dead” faith implies that it was once alive (Hodges, Absolutely Free!, 124-126), he unduly strains the language here. Does he also claim that sinners who were “dead” in their trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1) were once alive as well? Further, Paul himself spoke of the “obedience of faith” at the beginning and end of his great epistle to the Romans (1:5 & 16:26). See especially the following footnote for further exegetical support for the apostolic concept of a “vibrant” and “living” faith that produces works.

13 In both instances, the existence of a verbal cognate (pisteuō) of the genitive substantive tēs pisteuōs, and the fact that both nouns are articular in the nomen regens-nomen rectum construction at 1 Thess. 1:3 suggest that these are subjective genitives, therefore: “your faith-produced works,” and hence a faith that is “alive” and “active.” See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 113-116.

14 As the following installment on the immediate textual context of James 2:24 will argue. Note also, though, the distinction BAGD makes between the faith of Romans 4:5-20 and James 2:14a, b, 17, 18a, b, c, 20, 22a, b, 24, 26; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd rev. edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), eds. William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, 663-664. Ironically, Hodges appeals to this very lexicon as he denies the distinction between different types of faith and as he attempts to establish a basic definition of assent for the biblical concept of “faith.” Hodges, Absolutely Free!, 207. Unfortunately for his position, the very lexicon he cites acknowledges the distinction he denies.

15 Note especially that Paul defines “works” comprehensively (”anything good or bad”) at Romans 9:11. Bauer et al, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 308.

16 The word never connotes the moral sense of “making one innately righteous.” In addition to the fact that there is no passage in Scripture where it can be conclusively demonstrated that either Psa 51:4; Prov 17:15; Rom 3:4). See the excellent discussion of justification in Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 510-26.

17 Bauer et al, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 197. See esp. Gottfried Quell and Gottlob Schrenk, “ Filed under: NT Studies by C. Ryan Jenkins |