Criswell Theological
Review 4.1 (1986) 31-50.
Copyright © 1986 by The
JAMES 2:14-26:
DOES JAMES CONTRADICT
THE PAULINE
SOTERIOLOGY?
ROBERT V.
RAKESTRAW
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
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
contradict Paul regarding the basis on which God justifies
sinners?
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--
which, when properly understood, reveal the waste and
tragedy of the
Reformation
and Counter-Reformation struggle over sola fide and the
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
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
James
is not a mere archaism.3 In more recent
years J. T. Sanders has
1 A brief survey of the
literature on the faith-works issue in Paul and James is found
in M. Dibelius, James, rev. H. Greeven
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 174 n 132. More
extensive bibliographies on this and related
issues are in C. Brown and H. Seebass,
"Righteousness,"
DNTT 3 (1978) 374-77; and P. H. Davids, Commentary on
James
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982) xxi-xxxviii.
The last mentioned work will be designated
James, and the briefer study by Davids
(see n 9) James, GNC.
2 Unless otherwise
indicated, biblical citations are from the New International
Version.
3 Luther's comment on
James as a "right strawy epistle" is found
in the Preface to
his 1522 edition of the NT. It appears only in this
edition. Elsewhere Luther states: "He
32
ISWELL 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
contrast, 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 confuse 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.
5 E. C. Blackman, The Epistle of James (London: SCM, 1957)
96.
6 J. C.
Beker, Paul the
Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 251.
7 S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (
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;
J.
Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New
Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977)
251-52; G. Schrenk,
"dike," TDNT 2 (1964) 201. A less severe contrast
between Paul and
James
in seen in J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of
St. James (
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
verse 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
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 solidarity
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 Epistle of James (Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976); P. H. Davids,
James (GNC;
1983);
D. E.. Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody,
1979); J. B. Mayor, The
Epistle of
of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966); D.
J. Moo, The Letter of James (
inter-Varsity, 1985); J. A. Motyer, The Message
of James (
1985);
A. Plummer, The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude
(
poubleday, 1978); A. Ross, The Epistles of James and John (
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 significant materials relating
to Jas 2:14-26, in addition to Via in n 3, are
studies in DNTT
vol. 1 (1975), "Faith" (O. Becker and O. Michel, 587 -606); vol. 3
(1978),
"Righteousness"
(C. Brown and H. Seebass, 352-77), "Work"
(H. C. Hahn and F. Thiele,
1147-59);
and E. L. Allen, "Controversy in the New Testament," NTS 1 (1954-55) 143-
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;
Paul
and James," Lutheran Theological
Journal 9 (1975) 33-41;
Background
for James II, 21-23," NTS 22
(1975) 457-64; J. Jeremias, "Paul and
James,"
Exp Tim 66 (1954-55) 368-71; T.
Lorenzen, "Faith without Works Does Not Count
before God! James 2:14-26," Exp Tim 89 (1978) 231-35; A. C. Thiselton,
The Two
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:
James
2:14-26" HTR 61 (1968) 283-90;
J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of
Righteousness in
Paul (
34
CRISWELL
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. Jeremias,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 urging 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.11
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
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
James 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 James 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
majority view appears preferable, it should not
be insisted upon.
Furthermore,
by leaning in this direction we are not suggesting that
J
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
Jeremias, Mitton, Davids, and others, three highly significant words--
faith, works, and justify--are used by both James and
Paul, yet with
widely different meanings.19 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."20
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 50-51.
20 Davids, James
130.
36
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
II. Terminologies of James and Paul
Faith
Whereas 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 commitment.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 (Rom 5:1-5).
In addition, the
object of Paul's faith is the blood of Christ (Rom
3:25), whereas the
object of the faith discussed by James is Judaistic (and probably
Christian,
see 2:1) doctrine.
Yet James does not deny the
propriety of theological orthodoxy
and belief, for he tells the objector "you do
well" for affirming the
Shema
(2:19).
He argues rather that faith without works
is barren and
useless. Nor is James saying that faith,
properly understood, does not
save, for this would be tantamount to a direct
contradiction of Pauline
soteriology. What he teaches is
that one's verbal profession of or
signature to a set of right beliefs does not
effect salvation (v 14). As
D.
Moo contends, "it is absolutely vital to understand that the main
point of this argument, expressed three times (in vv
7, 20. and 26), is
not that works must be added to faith but that genuine
faith includes
works. That is its very nature."22 A.
Thiselton cautions further that in
our text James is not simply the negative corollary
of Paul.
James is not merely attacking an
inadequate view of faith, but is also
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
21 Davids, James,
GNC 49.
22 Moo, James 99.
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.
J.
Ropes writes that "James's real contention in vv
20- 22 is not so much
of the necessity of works as of the inseparability
of vital faith and
works."24 It is thus wrong to infer
or imply that James contributes in
any way to a low view of faith; he rather elevates
and characterizes
positively the kind of faith that pleases God and
is instrumental in the
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
justifying faith, James thereby teaches the depth
and maturity of faith
as God intends it to be.
We have seen, then, that there is a
difference in the emphasis put
upon "faith" by Paul and James. To each,
faith is good and necessary
for salvation, but James emphasizes the
intellectual-objective aspect of
faith and Paul the volitional-subjective aspect which
actually includes
the former and which should follow it. A person must believe what is
true and then act from the heart upon that truth and
personally trust the
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
good works (Eph 2:8-10). There is no genuine
contradiction between
James
and Paul on the matter of faith, but an awareness of the
distinctive emphasis each gives to the word helps to
dispel the notion
that a real conflict exists.
Works
Whereas Paul teaches that
justification is "apart from works of
law" (Rom 3:28, RSV) James contends that a
person--such as Abraham
or Rahab--is, at least
in part, "justified by works" (2:21, 24-25, RSV).
The
majority of recent writers hold that the erga ("works") in James
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
Paul,
however, according to most of the same interpreters, are the
keeping of the Mosaic commandments (e.g.,
circumcision, dietary
regulations) and perhaps the Rabbinic accretions to
the law. These
23 Thiselton, Two
Horizons 424. See also Mitton, James 109.
24 M Ropes,
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
chapter 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
"works"--actions done in obedience to God and in the
service of God.
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
"Paul
and James"; Davids, James 50-51; Dyrness, "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 (James
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.
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 39
efficacy to pre-conversion works, but James is
pleading for the absolute
necessity of post-conversion works."30
An interesting twist to J
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
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
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.
six reasons supporting the declarative-forensic
sense in the NT (The Epistle to the
Romans, 5th ed. [
W.
R. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament
Greek (4 vols;
Rakestraw: JAMES 2:14-26 41