The differences between Paul and James with respect to justification have stimulated considerable debate throughout church history. Are these differences contradictory or are they complementary? If the authors are not in conflict, in what way do they complement each other?

Thus far in our continuing series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), and we have surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III).

We have seen that the word commonly translated “to justify” (dikaioō) displays a semantic range and that it can carry either a declarative or a demonstrative force. It may either mean to declare [someone] to be right or just (cf. Rom 8:33-34)²² or it may mean to demonstrate [someone] to be right or just (cf. Luke 16:15; 1 Tim 3:16).

In light of the range exhibited by this and other terms, the immediate textual context must critically inform interpretive decisions made by later readers with regard to which meaning the author had in mind concerning specific terms.

Our series continues now with an examination of the immediate and more distance textual context of James 2:14-24.

THE PERICOPE FROM JAMES (2:14-24)
Context is the final determinative ground upon which an exegete must ultimately base his/her interpretation. We contend that the immediate textual context not only firmly supports the conservative evangelical proposal but that it also eliminates all other proposed solutions as viable options.

The near context of James seems to indicate that the justification that he is referring to is a demonstration of the validity of one’s profession of faith. It is apparent from the tenor of the Epistle that James is convinced (together with Paul) that a true saving faith will result in a changed life and will produce works. It appears that there are those among his readers, however, who have a profession of faith that is not “justified” by righteous conduct.

Structurally, James begins this pericope by describing a dead faith (2:14-20), which in reality is nothing more than a mere claim to faith, and he then proceeds to contrast this barren and useless faith with a true and living faith and the evidence that completes, fulfills, and vindicates that faith (vv. 21-26).

Note specifically James’ particular emphasis of a claim to faith in verse 14:”…if someone claims to have faith…,”(author’s translation of legÄ“ tis echein). The contrast begins by describing an individual who merely says he has faith, but this bald profession is not validated (as James labors to demonstrate in the succeeding verses) by the presence of works.

The Greek of v. 14 indicates that the expected answer to the rhetorical question is negative. Therefore the verse should properly be translated: “What is the profit my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? That faith cannot save him can it?” (author’s translation).²³

James then writes that a profession of faith that does not result in good deeds is just as useless as one who extends blessings on the destitute without providing for their needs (2:15-17). This type of faith (i.e. one that does not produce works) is a dead faith.

James then proceeds to debate an imaginary interlocutor²⁴ whom he facetiously asks to show (i.e. demonstrate) his faith without works (v. 18). Such a request is impossible,²⁵ of course, since the only way one can see faith is by the inference of its presence based on the behavior that faith produces.

This question (and James’ response) presents the reader with the interpretive key for James 2:14-26. James realizes that the only way to objectively and conclusively demonstrate or prove one’s faith is through the presence of works, and thus he responds that he will show his faith (before God and man) to be a true faith by his works (v. 18).

Here we see the explicit purpose of works in James’ polemic, they show or demonstrate the presence of faith.

After demonstrating that even the demons possess a certain orthodoxy (v. 19), and repeating the charge that a mere intellectual assent is dead, he then gives an example of Abraham showing his faith to be a true faith by his works.

Specifically, the Patriarch Abraham is said to be “justified by works,” and this becomes a central plank in the argument James is constructing with regard to “justification by works.”

The question we must ask ourselves is this: In what way is Abraham “justified by works” when he offers Isaac up on the altar?

It seems clear that the idea of vindication is in mind since Abraham is said to be justified (edikaiōthē) by works when he offers up Isaac his son on the alter, which is a reference to the narrative found in Genesis 22:1-12:

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.” So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance. Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you.” Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together. Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (Genesis 22:1-12, NAS)

How is Abraham justified by works in this text? Abraham is proven to be a righteous man by his willingness to sacrifice his son. This is explicit in verse 12 (God says, “Now I know that you fear God” – i.e., “you have conclusively demonstrated this by your behavior”). Abraham was not declared righteous in this passage - nor was he made righteous - he was proven to be righteous in light of this test from God. It seems hard to avoid the conclusion, based on this text, that Abraham’s “justification” represents his vindication as a righteous man before God. His earlier profession of faith in God (Gen 15:6) is vindicated by his act of obedience to God on Mount Moriah (Gen 22:12).

That this is the proper interpretation of verse 21 is further supported by the published translations of other scholars. Note how Roman Catholic Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson translates this verse:

“Was not our father Abraham shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?”²⁶

Additionally, James Adamson translates verse 21 as: “Was not our father, Abraham, shown to be in the right by works, when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?”²⁷

In a similar fashion, Hugh Schonberg translates verse 21: “Was not our Father Abraham vindicated by his deeds?” ²⁸

The immediate context of James’ argument, which is that authentic faith must be demonstrated by deeds (v. 18), is entirely consistent with this use of Abraham as an example of one who also proves his faith by his deeds (vv. 21-23).

In v. 22 he then writes, “You see that his faith was working with his deeds, and by works faith was made perfect” (author’s translation). This recalls v. 18: Just as one can see James’ faith by his works, here one can also see Abraham’s faith by his works.

The point in v. 22 is that faith and works are inseparable, that works are the necessary corollary to a genuine faith, and that one’s behavior “works together with” (sunÄ“rgei) faith to vindicate a person as truly righteous. In verse 22 when James writes, “by works faith was made perfect,” he means that Abraham’s culminating act of Gen. 22 is the work, par excellence, that is the natural fulfillment (v. 23), completion, and therefore, perfection of his faith since it most naturally proves it to be true.

In other words, James asserts that faith is perfected (eteleiōthē) in the sense that works bring faith to its divinely ordained telos - an objective manifestation of righteousness in the here and now.

In v. 23 James writes that Abraham’s act of obedience is the “fulfillment” of Gen. 15:6, which is, incidentally, the same verse Paul quotes in Romans 4:3, and it is the verse that both authors employ to demonstrate that Abraham’s basis for righteousness is his faith.

In verse 24, James leaves the interlocutor and returns to his audience: “You see that a man is vindicated by works and not by faith only” (author’s translation).

Since the immediate context strongly suggests that James is using dikaioō to connote the idea of vindication, or the demonstration of faith, as the previous argument has labored to prove, it removes the probability that James is polemicizing against Pauline theology (as per the liberal proposal). It also exempts the Catholic proposal which requires James to have been referring to a sinner’s conditional acceptance with God (a view which lacks any identifiable immediate contextual support), not a demonstration of true faith.

WIDER CONTEXT OF JAMES
The wider context of the epistle as a whole also favors the conservative evangelical proposal and militates against the other proposed solutions.

The antinomian proposal asserts that James is referring to a justification only before men, but James plainly states that “pure undefiled religion before God” (1:27) demands works of righteousness. This is not only a vindication before men, but also an objective vindication before God. It is a universal and salvific vindication of the efficacy of God’s saving activity in the lives of the elect.

The following question is legitimately posed to those who propose only a vindication before men: to which man was Abraham vindicating himself as he offered up Isaac? Further, why did Abraham leave the two young men behind who accompanied both he and Isaac (Gen 22:5) if this was a vindication before men?

That Abraham’s “justification” in Genesis 22 was a universal vindication is demonstrated by the Lord’s own Words: “He said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me’” (Gen 22:12, emphasis added). This is not merely a vindication before men, but a universal vindication before God and men.

Additionally, the epistle frankly states that “the implanted Word is able to save your souls” (1:21), which is in the context of the new birth (v. 18), and which, therefore, virtually eliminates the antinomian proposal as truly viable, since it asserts that James was only dealing with physical salvation (not eternal).

The wider context also argues persuasively against the Catholic proposal, which posits that James was giving a “fuller” formula for justification than Paul. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans to establish the basis for a sinner’s acceptance with God, and he devotes fully 6 chapters (1-6) to virtually nothing else. James, in contrast, never mentions justification again outside of these mere 13 verses. Throughout the epistle James makes no mention of the cross, or even the term “Gospel.” Christ is referred to only twice in James (compared to more than 60 times in Romans). No mention is made of Christ’s incarnation, sufferings, death & resurrection, or any other significant aspect of the gospel throughout the epistle.²⁹

The wider context of the epistle, especially when compared to Romans, makes it highly unlikely that James is presenting a “fuller” or more practical scheme of justification. However, the rest of the epistle is filled with exhortations directed specifically to inveigh against any antinomian tendencies, which would support the conservative evangelical proposal which asserts that James is giving objective criteria by which his audience can live and measure the ultimate veracity of their profession.

In the following installment we will examine the historical and cultural context which surrounds the composition of the Epistle of James.

End Notes
22 As noted in the previous installment, 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). Further the most transparent declarative use of dikaioō in Paul occurs at Romans 8:33. Note here that God’s act of “justification” is presented in essential relationship with the forensic act of an indictment (”who will bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies”) and contrasted with the declarative concept of “condemnation” in Romans 8:34 (”who is it who condemns?”). It is essential to note that both acts (to justify/condemn) are declarative and forensic acts that are opposite to one another and this forms the basis for their contrast in this passage.

23 See A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. VI (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1930), 34 for additional support for the translation of the article here as a demonstrative pronoun.

24 Admittedly, there is a legitimate and difficult debate concerning the nature of the discussion that James is presenting with the interlocutor in this verse, and additionally where James’ own words end and the interlocutor’s begin (The NASV diverges from the NEB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV and NIV at this point). A corollary to this debate is the significance of James’ statement: “You have faith, and I have works.” The impact of this statement depends upon the conclusion one adopts with the aforementioned debate, but the real point of import is that James is demonstrating the futility of driving a wedge between faith and works, because works are the natural result of a true saving faith. Luke Timothy Johnson correctly identifies James’ use of a reductio ad absurdum here to refute such a false dichotomy. It would be as equally absurd to claim to have a true saving faith without the presence of works as it would be to claim to have works without faith. The treatment of this issue is rather complex, and is beyond the scope of this paper; however, the exact conclusion of this debate does not significantly affect this argument (although obviously this author prefers the view proffered by Johnson as the most persuasive in his fine commentary at this point, regarding the otherwise capable remarks made in Adamson’s excursus (Adamson, The Epistle of James, 135-37), as ultimately missing the mark). The point remains, as stated, the inseparability of faith and works. See also J. Ronald Blue’s interesting and able discussion of these verses for a similar but slightly different perspective. J. Ronald Blue, “James,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1983) 2:825-26.

25 That is, it is impossible to show faith without works. The reason lies in the answer to the simple question, What exactly does true saving faith look like, and how can one see it?

26 Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, p. 237.

27 Adamson, The Epistle of James, 128.

28 Hugh Schonberg, The Authentic New Testament (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1964), 375.