We have been examining the vexing question of the relationship between James and Paul and their respective views with regard to justification by works. James has historically been understood as advancing justification by works (cf. James 2:21, 24), while Paul has been understood as denying such a position (cf. Rom 4:2, 5).

Thus far in our series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III), and most recently, we scrutinized the immediate and more distant textual context of James 2:14-24 (Part IV).

As a result of the preceding analyses, we have arrived at the following preliminary conclusions: (1) the Greek word that is generally translated “justify” (dikaioō) exhibits a semantic range, and as a result the term can appropriately be glossed either as “declare [someone] to be just or right” or “prove [someone] to be just or right.”²⁹ (2) Key to James’ polemic in Chapter 2 is the function of works – they demonstrate faith to be real (cf. James 2:18). (3) Along these lines, James appeals to Abraham (James 2:21) as one who is “justified by works” as a result of the Akedah (cf. Gen 12:1-12). Furthermore, it is clear from this narrative that Abraham is neither made or declared righteous at this point, but rather he is proven to be righteous (cf. Gen 22:12). Therefore, the “justification of Abraham” refers to his [universal] vindication as a truly righteous man. (4) James continues this line of argumentation in 2:24 when he argues that a man is justified (i.e. proven to be righteous) by works and not by faith only.

We now turn our attention to an analysis of the historical & cultural situation that underlies the composition of the Epistle of James.

THE HISTORICAL/CULTURAL BACKGROUND
Absolutely foundational to the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is an accurate understanding of the Sitz im Leben³⁰ in which the letter was composed. What was the historical setting and circumstance that prompted the author to write?

It is important to note that it is impossible to divorce a text from its historical and contextual setting if one hopes to arrive at an interpretation with any degree of credibility. As Sandy & Abegg have colorfully noted: “Any portion of Scripture divorced from its primary culture and the intent of the author is a homeless child wandering the streets, vulnerable to violent abuses.”³¹

The evidence gathered from the historical background is most consistent with the conservative evangelical proposal. The author addresses the letter to the Diaspora Jewish Christian Church, and although Gentiles have been identified with dispersion terminology in the NT (1 Peter 1:1), the reference to the 12 tribes (1:1), coupled with the author’s repeated interaction with Old Testament theological concepts (and an assumed familiarity of the audience to these concepts) probably identifies the intended audience as Jewish-Christians.³²

It seems most likely that the letter was composed before the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 (ca. A.D. 49) since it seems likely that James would have referred to that historic and important council that also addressed the matter of the law and the Gospel, had it already convened. If this dating is accurate, this would make James the earliest of books in the Christian Canon.³³

The circumstances that prompt James’ composition of the letter appear to involve a strain of antinomianism that has infected the church.³⁴ In light of the liberating nature of the Gospel, many Jews would have gladly welcomed the freedom from the oppressive requirements of the law.

Apparently there are those among the Jewish-Christians who think that freedom from the law gives them a freedom to sin (a proposition that Paul equally condemns in Romans 6), which results in libertine excess.

Especially prevalent among James’ intended audience is an apparent attitude of apathy toward the care and provision of the poor (James 2:15-16), in addition to blatant partiality being shown with regard to social status (James 2:1-4). There is also much critical and unprofitable speech (James 3:3-12; James 4:11-12; James 5:9), an infatuation with worldly wisdom (James 3:13), and a spirit of bitterness and self-service (James 3:14).

It is apparent that there are those who misunderstand the law of liberty (2:12), and who have lives that would not validate a true profession of faith. Therefore James’ remarks are best understood in light of the historical situation that he is addressing, i.e. a pervasive antinomianism that takes undue advantage of the law of liberty in the Christian Gospel.

In response to this, James seeks to demonstrate that true religion before God (1:27) involves a validation of one’s profession of faith by a demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit (2:14-26).

In our following installment we will examine some passages from the Pauline corpus in order to determine if Paul’s soteriology differs in any substantive way from what we have found in James.

End Notes
29 The meaning of this term is not exhausted by the two semantic categories that we explored, as my friend Sebastian has pointed out to me in private correspondence. However, these are by far the two predominant uses as found in the NT.

30 Please note that this author is not using this term as it is normatively employed in the contemporary approach to Form/Gattungsgeschichte. It is being used here to denote the original life setting surrounding the primary author and audience, for the purpose of identifying authorial intent.

31 D. Brent Sandy & Martin G. Abegg, Jr., in Cracking Old Testament Codes, eds. D. Brent Sandy & Ronald L. Giese, Jr. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 187.

32 D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to The New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 414-15; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th revised edition (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 747-49.

33 MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: James, 5; Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, cl.

34 John Calvin, Commentaries on The Catholic Epistles, XXII:vii. Note especially the many ethical imperatives which occur throughout the epistle. Peter Davids states: “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.” Peter Davids, Commentary on James, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 21.