Faith and Works in Paul and James

By C. Ryan Jenkins

[C. Ryan Jenkins is Director of Sola Gratia Ministries, Montrose, California.]

Does James 2:14–26 (especially verse 24) contradict Romans 4 (especially verse 5) with regard to justification by faith, or does it complement Romans 4:1–8? Throughout the centuries commentators have proposed a variety of solutions, while others have expressed perplexity at how to reconcile the passages. Martin Luther, for example, described the Book of James as an “epistle of straw.” Also since only subtle distinctions exist among some of the positions, confusion seems to surround the issue at times.[1] Since the doctrine of justification lies at the heart of the gospel, great care and precision are called for in assessing each proposed solution.

This article seeks to evaluate several significant proposed solutions in order to judge their probability in light of seven principles of biblical hermeneutics.[2]

Proposed Solutions

The following are four different approaches to this question proposed in contemporary theology.

View A

In this view James 2 shows that works are instrumental in a sinner’s justification before God. Those who propose this view assert that James was arguing that a sinner’s acceptance with God depends on both faith and works. When Paul spoke of a justification apart from works in Romans 4, he was speaking only of works of the Old Testament Law, refuting Judaizers by demonstrating that works of the Old Testament are not sufficient to justify a sinner. James, however, was dealing with the works required of all Christians, and was addressing justification in a fuller sense than Paul. James affirmed (no less than Paul did in Romans 2:13) that a person’s acceptance with God depends on both faith and works.[3]

View B

In this view Paul was concerned with eternal salvation in Romans 4, while James was dealing with physical deliverance from the devastating effects of sin. James was not addressing unbelievers concerning salvation. He was addressing believers about temporal judgment for wanton sin (cf. Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor. 10:28–30), and their vindication before others as either “friends of God” (John 15:14; James 2:23) or carnal Christians (1 Cor. 3:1–3). James then was referring to a justification/vindication only before others in a nonsalvific context. He was addressing the intimacy of relationship (or absence thereof) between a believer and God that would show that he or she is either a true disciple or a carnal Christian.[4]

View C

In this view James was stating that a Christian’s justification before God depends not on faith alone but on faith and works, and that he was directly refuting Pauline theology (as expressed in Romans 4 and Galatians 2–3). Paul, in contrast, firmly believed in justification before God by faith alone. In this view James’s and Paul’s views on justification are in sharp contrast. This view is not committed to the inerrancy of Scripture.[5]

View D

In this view Paul and James had different purposes and were using the same terms (particularly δικαιόω, “to justify”) with different connotations. Paul’s concern was the sinner’s basis for justification with God (i.e., the basis for his legal standing with God), while James’s concern was to refute antinomianism by showing that one’s true conversion will be “justified” objectively by works. Paul was writing of a forensic declaration of righteousness that a sinner achieves only through faith, and James was writing of a universal demonstration[6] of righteousness that is accomplished by works. James sought to show that a person who possesses faith in Christ will be justified (i.e., vindicated as a true Christian) by his or her works, and that a mere claim to a profession of faith that is not vindicated or evidenced by works is not characteristic of genuine conversion.[7]

The Preferred View

Although each of the proposed solutions may have aspects that would commend it as the correct solution, this author believes proposed solution D possesses the strongest interpretive weight. The following principles of hermeneutics[8] support this conclusion.

The Principle of Word Study[9]

Since there is 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. It is important to recognize that words are not invariable or wooden constants, but are capable of semantic ranges that depend on contextual, lexical, and other grammatical features by which one may ascertain precision in meaning. The key words that must be examined are “faith” (πίστις), “works” (ἔργα), and “justify” (δικαιόω).

Faith (πίστις) suggests both an intellectual affirmation of the propositional truths of the gospel, in addition to an internalization of those truths that is manifested most especially in a life of trust in Christ. James and Paul used πίστις in two different senses that are germane to this discussion.[10] Normally πίστις expresses a living and vibrant faith, in which an external profession of assent is coupled with an internal acceptance of and commitment to the professed faith as truth, and this dramatically affects one’s comprehensive worldview and subsequent actions.

Πίστις is also used in a more restricted sense to connote an intellectual assent to theological truth, but without the confluence of that assent with an internal confiding trust in and love of those truths. It suggests a notitia and perhaps even an external assensus to the gospel, without an internal fiducia in the gospel message.

The difference between the two uses may be expressed as the difference between a mere profession of faith and a dynamic possession of faith. Paul used “faith” in Romans, inherently assuming a true living faith[11] (which is demonstrated especially in chapter 6), to stress that it is the singular instrument of a sinner’s acceptance with God. Paul implicitly assumed an active faith in his argument for justification that results in appropriate works. Elsewhere Paul made explicit the type of faith he advocated, namely, a faith that produces works (1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11).[12] James, however, was contrasting a dead faith (which is only an intellectual assent) with a living faith that produces works and subsequently vindicates that profession.[13]

The word “works” (ἔργα) can refer broadly to any deeds, or it may have a more restricted sense as a reference to the specific works that the Law commands.[14]

The most critical term in this examination, however, is the verb commonly translated “justify” (δικαιόω). This word may carry either a declarative or a demonstrative force, but it never connotes the moral sense of “making one innately righteous.”[15] Paul employed it extensively as a theological term to indicate God’s declaration that a believing sinner stands righteous before Him.[16] This declarative sense of the word was derived from the delocutive use of צָדַק (“he justified”) in the Piel and Hiphil stems in the Hebrew Old Testament (Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23).[17] When used in this sense, justification constitutes the basis of one’s acceptance before God. It is used in this declarative sense in Romans 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30; and Galatians 2:16–17; 3:8.

Δικαιόω may also mean “to vindicate” or “to prove or demonstrate something to be true or just.” Thus when Christ said, “Wisdom is justified by her works” (Matt. 11:19, author’s translation), He meant that wisdom will be proved true by observing what it produces. When Paul cited Psalm 51:4, “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 shown to be righteous in His words. The word is also used in this demonstrative sense in Genesis 44:16; Luke 7:35; 10:29; 16:15; and 1 Timothy 3:16.[18] When it is used in this sense, it means to demonstrate the truth or rightness of a claim, and thus James 2:24 may 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.”[19] Since both senses of δικαιόω are established uses (a forensic justification and a vindication of a claim), Bible students must rely on the context to ascertain which meaning the biblical author intended.

The Principle of Context[20]

The context supports view D and also eliminates the other proposed solutions as viable options.

Near context. The near context of James almost surely seems to indicate that the justification he was 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 was convinced (as was Paul) that a true saving faith will result in a changed life and will produce works. However, some of James’s readers had a profession of faith that was not “justified” by righteous conduct.

James began by describing a dead faith, which is a mere claim to faith (2:14–20), and then he contrasted that with the evidence of a living faith (vv. 21–26). In verse 14 he referred to a claim of faith: “If someone claims to have faith” (author’s translation of ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν). The contrast begins by describing an individual who merely says he has faith, but whose profession is not validated (as James demonstrated in the succeeding verses) by the presence of works. The Greek wording in verse 14 indicates that the expected answer to the rhetorical question is negative. Therefore the verse should be translated, “What benefit is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?”[21]

James then wrote 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. That type of faith (i.e., one that does not produce works) is a dead faith. He then quoted an imaginary interlocutor,[22] whom he facetiously asked to show (i.e., demonstrate) his faith without works (v. 18). Such a request is impossible, of course,[23] since the only way one can see faith is by inference from the fruit of that faith. This question (and James’s response) presents the reader with the interpretive key to James 2:14–26. James realized that the only way to demonstrate or prove one’s faith conclusively is through the presence of works, and so he responded that he would show his faith (before God and people) to be a true faith by his works (v. 18).

After stating that even the demons possess a certain orthodoxy (v. 19) and repeating the charge that a mere intellectual assent is dead, he then gave an example of Abraham showing his faith to be true by his works (hence the “you see” language of vv. 22, 24). Adamson translates verse 21 this way: “Was not our father, Abraham, shown to be in the right by works, when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?”[24] In a similar fashion Schonberg translates this verse, “Was not our Father Abraham vindicated by his deeds?”[25]

James’s statement that authentic faith must be demonstrated by deeds (v. 18), is consistent with his use (in the immediate context) of Abraham as an example of one who also proved his faith by his deeds (vv. 21–23). In verse 22 James stated, “You see[26] that his faith was working with his deeds, and by works faith was made perfect” (author’s translation). This recalls verse 18. As one could see James’s faith by his works, here one can also “see” Abraham’s faith by his works. The point in verse 22 is that faith and works are inseparable, and that works are the necessary corollary to an active faith. In verse 22, where James wrote, “by works faith was made perfect,” he meant that Abraham’s culminating act of obedience to God (Gen. 22) was the natural fulfillment (James 2:23) or completion of his faith, since that act most naturally demonstrated that his faith was genuine.

In verse 23 James stated that Abraham’s act of obedience was the “fulfillment” of Genesis 15:6, which is the same verse Paul quoted in Romans 4:3 and which both authors used to affirm that Abraham’s basis for righteousness was his faith. Starting in verse 24, James left the interlocutor and returned to his audience: “You see[27] that a man is vindicated by works and not by faith only” (author’s translation). Since the immediate context strongly suggests that James was using δικαιόω to connote the idea of vindication or demonstration of faith, this removes the probability that James was polemicizing against Pauline theology (proposed solution C). It also exempts proposed solution A, which says James was referring to a sinner’s conditional acceptance with God (a view which lacks any identifiable contextual support).

Wider context. The wider context of the epistle as a whole also favors proposed solution D and militates against the other proposed solutions. Proposed solution B says that James was referring to a justification only before others, but James has already asserted that “pure undefiled religion before God” (1:27) demands works of righteousness. This is not only a vindication before others, but also an objective vindication before God. If view B is correct, then the question must be asked, To which person was Abraham vindicating himself as he offered up Isaac? Further, if this act was a vindication before people, why did Abraham leave the two young men behind who accompanied him and Isaac (Gen. 22:5)?

Also the epistle frankly states that “the implanted Word is able to save your souls” (1:21), a statement that is in the context of the new birth (v. 18). These facts render view B unviable, since view B depends on the supposition that throughout his epistle James was discussing only physical salvation and not eternal salvation.

The wider context also argues persuasively against view A, which suggests that James was giving a “fuller” formula for justification than was Paul. In Romans Paul discussed extensively the fact that the basis for a sinner’s acceptance with God is faith plus nothing else. By contrast, James never mentioned justification again outside of these 13 verses in James 2:14–26. He never mentioned the cross or even the word “gospel.” Christ is referred to only twice in James (compared to more than sixty times in Romans). James made no mention of Christ’s incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection, or any other significant aspect of the gospel.[28] The wider context of the epistle, especially when compared with Romans, makes it highly unlikely that James was presenting a “fuller” or more practical scheme of justification. However, the rest of the epistle is filled with exhortations that argue against any antinomian tendencies, a fact that would support view D, which asserts that James was giving objective criteria by which his readers could measure the ultimate veracity of their profession of faith.[29]

The Principle of Historical/Cultural Background[30]

Foundational to grammatical, historical hermeneutics is an accurate understanding of the Sitz im Leben in which the letter was composed. What historical settings and circumstances prompted the author to write? If one hopes to arrive at an interpretation with any degree of credibility, a text must not be divorced from its historical and contextual setting. As Sandy and 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 historical background of James’s epistle is most consistent with view D. He addressed the letter to the Jewish believers of the Diaspora, and although Gentiles have been identified in a dispersion in the New Testament (1 Pet. 1:1), James’s reference to the twelve tribes (James 1:1) and his many references to Old Testament theological concepts (which assume that his readers were familiar with these concepts), almost certainly identify the intended audience as Jewish Christians.[32] Most likely the letter was composed before the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which probably occurred in A.D. 49. If that council had already convened, James would no doubt have referred to that historic and important council that also addressed the matter of the Law and the gospel. In fact it seems highly improbable that James could have failed to mention (if even marginally) that decisive council that addressed the tension between the Pauline mission and Jewish legalism, when the entire tenor of James’s epistle focused on the relationship between the objective manifestation of righteousness and the gospel. If this date is correct, this would make James the earliest of the New Testament books.[33]

The circumstances that prompted James’s writing of this letter seem to have involved a strain of antinomianism that had infected the church.[34] In light of the liberating nature of the gospel, many Jews would have gladly welcomed its freedom from the oppressive requirements of the Law. However, apparently some Jewish Christians thought that freedom from the Law gave them a freedom to sin (a proposition that Paul also condemned in Rom. 6), which resulted in libertine excess. Especially prevalent among James’s audience was an apparent attitude of apathy toward the care and provision of the poor (James 2:15–16), in addition to partiality being shown to rich people (2:1–4). Also many were guilty of being critical in their speech (3:3–12; 4:11–12; 5:9), were infatuated with worldly wisdom (3:13), and had a spirit of bitterness and self-service (3:14). Obviously they misunderstood the law of liberty (2:12), and their lives would not validate a true profession of faith. Therefore James’s remarks are best understood in light of the historical situation he was addressing, namely, a pervasive antinomianism that took undue advantage of the law of liberty in the gospel. In response to this, James sought to demonstrate that true religion before God (1:27) involved a validation of one’s profession of faith by a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit (2:14–26).

The Principle of Historical Appropriateness[35]

Basic to proper hermeneutics is an understanding of how the original recipients would have understood a written communication. As the previous section demonstrates, James’s intended readers consisted of Jewish Christians who were struggling with the relationship between the Law and grace (a situation not uncommon even today). James was concerned that there were those who had professed faith in Christ, and yet had lives that would not “justify” (validate) such a profession. “Characteristic of James’ treatment of the subject is his campaign against a dead orthodoxy which speaks of faith but does not take works seriously.”[36] Reading James’s epistle, Jewish Christians would vividly recall the great patriarch Abraham and the righteous life he lived (demonstrated especially by his life of trust in and obedience to Yahweh). The readers would be compelled to concur with James’s forceful assertion that the fulfillment of Abraham’s forensic justification by faith (James 2:23) was the fruit of a regenerated life that culminated in his willingness to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (v. 21). In light of the gospel’s annullment of the Law as a way to righteousness (expressed thoroughly in Paul’s writings; see especially Rom. 10:4) and the Jewish struggle between libertine excess and rigorous legalism (which is manifested consistently throughout the apostolic record; cf. Acts 15:1–29), it is appropriate to understand James’s letter as attempting to “tread the fine line” between the deviant influence of both legalism and antinomianism on the gospel by demonstrating that faith will prove and validate itself by its works (James 2:18, 21, 24).

Therefore this principle of “historical appropriateness” is most consistent with view D. The historic situation would also militate against proposed solution C, for James could not have been arguing against the Pauline doctrine articulated especially in Romans 4:5, since Romans had not yet been written.[37]

Also, and even more compelling, the Book of Acts portrays James as the mediating personality (Acts 15:12–21), who tried to keep peace between Jewish legalism and the supporters of the Pauline mission, a portrait of James that is quite different from how advocates of view C portray James in this epistle.[38]

The Principle of the Clarity of Scripture[39]

The clearest, most natural sense of James 2:14–26, especially when seen in its context, and with an informed understanding of the lexical nuances of the words, is that James was concerned about people who had made a profession of faith but failed to exhibit fruits of regeneration. Therefore James was not contradicting Paul in Romans 4; instead, he was qualifying the type of faith Paul addressed, namely, a living and vibrant faith that produces works. It seems foreign to the context of James’s letter to suppose that he was outlining the way a sinner could be accepted by God (view A), particularly since he spent such a short time dealing with the subject of justification (a mere thirteen verses, contrasted especially with Paul’s extensive treatment in Romans). In objection to view B, it seems unnatural to assume that James 1:21 and 2:14 refer to a “physical” salvation rather than an eternal one, especially since the word “soul” (ψυχή) and not “life” (ζωή) is used in 1:21.[40] It seems equally strained to assume that James was arguing against Pauline theology (view C). Apart from the fact that he never mentioned or alluded to such a concept, one could conclude that James failed if these thirteen verses were all he managed to present in his defense against the formidable argumentation presented by Paul in Romans. One would expect a much more detailed defense (particularly from such a lucid author as James), if engaging in polemics against Pauline theology was his intent.

The Principle of Cross Reference[41]

Utilizing the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is often helpful in understanding the intent of a biblical passage. Other verses that address the same issue can often help clarify one’s interpretation.[42] This principle also supports view D, which asserts that James was concerned that a profession of faith be vindicated by works (elsewhere described as “fruit,” since they are the product of sovereign regeneration and subsequent to saving faith). Interestingly, as Jesus said, the only way to discern wheat from tares, which look much alike (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43) was by the fruit[43] that the wheat produced (i.e., the heads of grain that eventually appeared on the wheat but not on the tares). Christ later explained that the good seeds (which produced the wheat) represent “the sons of the kingdom” and that the tares represent “the sons of the evil one” (v. 38). Thus the only way to tell the difference between the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the devil is by the eventual fruit that is produced.

Paul also addressed the antinomian tendency that would naturally be attracted to his bold proclamation of free-grace salvation in Romans 6. He rhetorically asked if the law of liberty gives believers the right to sin, since they are under grace and not the Law (6:15).[44] His answer is a forceful rejection of such a concept by proclaiming that freedom from the Law most certainly does not entail a freedom to sin. Paul penned thoughts comparable to the concept articulated by James—that fruit is a natural result of conversion—when he wrote, “But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life” (Rom. 6:22). Perhaps even more striking are Paul’s words to Titus, “they profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient, and worthless for any good deed” (Titus 1:16). Paul, no less than James, was concerned that a profession of faith be vindicated by righteous living.

Jude also opposed any teaching that turns the grace of God into a warrant for licentiousness. “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 3–4). Further, Peter wrote that a saving knowledge of Christ gives believers all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), and that the ultimate veracity of justifying faith would be demonstrated by the virtues it produces in the life of the truly regenerate (vv. 5–9).

The Analogy-of-Faith Principle[45]

The analogy-of-faith principle argues strongly in favor of view D. Scripture is a unified and composite whole that is inerrant and harmonious in all its parts (Ps. 19:7–11; John 17:17).[46] The uniform report of the New Testament is that God justifies a sinner through faith alone (Luke 18:9–14; John 1:12–13; 3:15–18, 36; 5:24; 6:28–29, 35, 47; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 16:30–31; Rom. 3:21, 24, 28; 4:5; 5:1–2; 10:4, 9–10; 11:6; Gal. 2:16, 19; 3:11, 22; Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:8–9).[47] Not only are works of the Old Testament Law useless for salvation; even works of righteousness fall short (Titus 3:5). Yet the New Testament rejects antinomianism just as strongly as it does a works-righteousness (Matt. 25:31–46; Rom. 6:1–23; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; Titus 1:15–16; 1 John 1:6; 2:3–6; 3:6; Jude 4). In light of the many Scriptures that confirm that faith alone justifies, and that a true saving faith will not be barren of the fruit of works, it is entirely understandable why James (no less than any of the other New Testament writers) would be concerned about those who professed to be saved but lacked fruits of regeneration. James was ultimately calling his readers to do exactly what Peter exhorted his readers to do: “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). How could Peter’s audience make their calling and election by God sure? In the same way James’s audience could—by examining the fruit of their lives that would either vindicate them as true believers or condemn them as professing hypocrites.

Conclusion

The historical situation that seems to have prompted James to write his epistle to the Jewish-Christian church involved a strain of antinomianism that greatly concerned James. This is commensurate with the proposal that his purpose in 2:14–26 was to stress the validating nature of works for those who professed faith in Christ, especially in opposition to those who lacked such works. Further, it would be anachronistic to introduce the later soteriological debates of the church concerning the nature of justification in James’s letter and to suppose that he was either engaging in polemics against Paul’s theology of justification (proposed solution C) or correcting a misunderstanding of Paul’s theology by presenting the “fuller” formula of justification (proposed solution A).

The words “faith,” “works,” and “justify” exhibit a semantic range, which when read in the context of the passage, support James’s point that works validate one’s profession of faith. This is the clearest and most natural sense of the passage, for it harmonizes James’s argument that one’s works show that his faith is genuine (2:18) with the examples of Abraham and Rahab, whose works likewise showed that their faith was genuine (2:21–26).

Nothing is unique about James’s great aversion for false professions of faith that were not vindicated by works. Other apostolic writers also stressed that an objective righteousness of the truly justified should be proved by works since they are the natural product of saving faith. This interpretation is also confirmed by the uniform report of the New Testament that although faith is the sole instrument by which the righteousness of God is revealed in fallen sinners (Rom. 1:17; 4:5), it will nevertheless be normatively and objectively demonstrated by the fruits of regeneration. These factors present a persuasive case that James was arguing in this passage against antinomianism by demonstrating that a true saving faith will be evidenced by the presence of works.

Notes

1. For example many have asserted that James was addressing only the subject of justification before people. Within this approach some see it in a salvific context (the vindication of conversion), and others see it in a nonsalvific context (the vindication of the strength of the Christian life). To add further complexity to the matter, some who see the vindication in a salvific context deny that it is limited to people alone (i.e., they assert that it is a universal vindication of genuine conversion, as God’s external declaration of righteousness is objectively demonstrated by works). This article discusses the nonsalvific context as it is normally portrayed (only before people), and the salvific context in a universal sense (although it could also be argued as strictly before people).
2. Space does not permit an interaction with the passage in James as broad as some exegetical works have provided. Also this study focuses specifically on the text from James and interacts only marginally and as necessary with the Pauline theology of justification. Therefore readers are encouraged to consult the cited commentaries for a more extensive exegetical treatment.
3. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Herder, 1964), 354; and E. H. Plumptre, The General Epistle of St. James, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1878), 75.
4. Zane Hodges, The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), 41–42, 60–72.
5. James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1916), 34–35; E. C. Blackman, The Epistle of James, Torch Bible Commentaries (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957), 93; and J. T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 115–18.
6. Both views B and D assert that James was speaking of the vindication of a claim, but a subtle variation exists between the two. View B asserts that the vindication is of the diligence (or lack thereof) of the Christian life, while view D asserts that the vindication is of the very claim of faith itself (and therefore it is a vindication of the veracity of one’s conversion). View B asserts that the vindication is in a nonsalvific context and only before others, while view D asserts that the vindication is universal (i.e., an objective vindication before God and man) and is stated in a salvific context.
7. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 309–17; James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 34–38, 121–37; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1977), lxxxix-xciv; C. Leslie Mitton, The Epistle of James (Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1977), 98–117; Colin Brown, “Righteousness, Justification,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 3:365–73; John MacArthur Jr., James, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1998), 119–42; R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 160–71; and D. Edmond Hiebert, James (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 157–79.
8. Roy B. Zuck addresses the vexing epistemological dilemma inherent in establishing an authoritative hermeneutic (in the absence of explicit and prescriptive New Testament references). He draws several natural corollaries from axiomatic truths—that the Bible is a human book, and that the Bible is a divine book—that provide the framework for the principles of hermeneutics. He demonstrates that hermeneutical principles are not arbitrary human inventions, but rather are universal rules governing cogent communication (Basic Bible Interpretation [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991], 59–75).
9. See Grant R. Osborne’s excellent analysis of semantics as it relates to hermeneutics and especially his exposure of common semantic fallacies (The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991], 64–89). See also William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 183–99.
10. For a philological discussion of the use of πίστις and its cognates in secular Greek literature and the Old Testament see Rudolf Bultmann and Artur Weiser, “πιστεύω κ.τ.λ.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich and Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 6:174–96. Paul Holloway cavalierly dismisses Bultmann’s formidable philological scholarship here, and unfortunately offers no substantive specific objections (other than a bald claim that Bultmann’s work here is “not so much the result of his own philological competence”) and no competing scholarly semantic analysis, nor does he offer his own alternative analysis of this word group (“A Return to Rome: Lordship Salvation’s Doctrine of Faith,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 4 [autumn 1991]: 14).
11. Zane C. 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 and a false faith that is dead and useless). He calls the distinction “absurd” (Absolutely Free! [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989], 207). In his chapter “Faith Means Just That—Faith!” Hodges commits the semantic “one-meaning fallacy,” and seems to ignore altogether the polysemy of individual words (ibid., 25-33). See Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 72-73. Further, the term “dead faith” is derived from James’s usage (2:17), and the obvious antithesis to a “dead” faith is a faith that is “alive.” Although Hodges claims that James’s characterization of a “dead” faith implies that it was once alive (Hodges, Absolutely Free! 124-26), 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? In addition 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.
12. In both instances the existence of a verbal cognate (πιστεύω) of the genitive substantive τῆς πίστεως and the fact that both nouns are articular in the nomen regens-nomen rectum construction in 1 Thessalonians 1:3 suggest that these are subjective genitives. Therefore the words in this verse could be rendered, “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), 113–16.
13. For a discussion of the distinction between faith in Romans 4:5–20 and faith in James 2:14a, b, 17, 18a, b, c, 20, 22a, b, 24, 26, see Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 663–64. Ironically Hodges appeals to this 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” (Absolutely Free! 207). However, the very lexicon he cites acknowledges the distinction he denies.
14. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 308.
15. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 510. There is no passage in Scripture where it can be conclusively proven that δικαιόω or its Hebrew equivalent צָדַק carry such a meaning. In fact there are many instances where these words cannot have such a meaning (Ps. 51:4; Prov. 17:15; Rom. 3:4).
16. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 197.
17. E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, rev. A. E. Cowley, 2d ed., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 144; and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 349.
18. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 197.
19. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 237.
20. See Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 19–40. See also Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 156–71; and Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 65.
21. For additional support for the translation of the article here as a demonstrative pronoun see A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 6:34.
22. Scholars debate where James’s own words end and the interlocutor’s begin. (The NASB differs from the NEB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and RSV at this point). A corollary to this debate is the significance of James’s statement: “You have faith, and I have works.” The impact of this statement depends on the conclusion one adopts with the aforementioned debate, but the important point is that James was pointing out the futility of driving a wedge between faith and works, because works are the natural result of a true saving faith. Johnson correctly identifies James’s use of a reductio ad absurdum here to refute such a false dichotomy (The Letter of James, 239–46). It would be as 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 complex, and is beyond the scope of this article; however, how one views this issue does not significantly affect James’s argument (although obviously the present writer prefers Johnson’s view as the most persuasive). (The otherwise capable remarks made by Adamson in his excursus [The Epistle of James, 135–37], miss the mark.) The point remains, as stated, that faith and works are inseparable. See also J. Ronald Blue’s interesting and able discussion of these verses for a similar but slightly different perspective (“James,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983], 825–26).
23. 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 would one see it?
24. Adamson, The Epistle of James, 128.
25. Hugh Schonberg, The Authentic New Testament (St. Louis: Herder, 1964), 375.
26. Βλέπεις, “you see” (second person singular), is a part of James’s response to the interlocutor as he continues to argue that genuine faith must be vindicated.
27. Here James used ὁρᾶτε (“you see,” second person plural), in reference to demonstrating one’s faith.
28. Hiebert, James, 38.
29. Ryrie makes an important observation by suggesting that although every Christian will bear some spiritual fruit at some time in his or her life, nevertheless a believer continually struggles with sin and therefore may not always be fruitful (So Great Salvation, 45).
30. See Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 76–97. See also Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 127–48; and Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 172–83.
31. D. Brent Sandy and Martin G. Abegg Jr., in Cracking Old Testament Codes, ed. D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese Jr. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 187.
32. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 414–15; and Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 747–49.
33. MacArthur, James, 5; and Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, cl.
34. Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, vii. Note especially the many ethical imperatives that 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” (Commentary on James, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 21).
35. This particular appellation is the author’s own, although Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard express the same general thought as they expose the invalidity of ana-chronistic interpretations (Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 10–12).
36. Gottfried Quell and Gottlob Schrenk, “δικαιοσύνη,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2 (1964), 201.
37. This hinges, of course, on the date of Romans, although it was most likely written later than James’s epistle (Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, 241–42, 414; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 406–08; 749–53). Though it is theoretically possible that James could have been arguing against Paul’s oral teaching, which had not yet been committed to writing, there is no explicit indication of this in either the historical record or from the authors themselves.
38. Davids, Commentary on James, 19.
39. See Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 9–10.
40. While it is true that ψυχή can indeed mean “life,” ζωή (and to a lesser extent βίος) are by far the normative words for life in the physical sense. See Hans-Georg Link, “Life,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:474–83; and Günther Harder, “Soul,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:685. Also, as mentioned earlier, the immediate context of the “saving” here is in the context of the new birth (1:18).
41. See Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 168–71.
42. Bible students must not impose the meaning of a foreign context on an isolated and distant text while attempting to relate apparent similarities. A danger is that the exegete will allow the alleged similarities of a distant passage to govern his or her exegesis disproportionately while applying this principle. This can result in failing to give primacy of consideration to a particular text as a complete literary unit in a unique grammatical and historical setting of its own.
43. The Greek of Matthew 13:26 literally reads, “but when the wheat sprouted and produced fruit” (ὅτε δὲ ἐβλάστησεν ὁ χόρτος καὶ καρπὸν ἐποίησεν). The tares are almost certainly bearded darnel (lolium temulentum), which are botanically similar to wheat and are nearly indistinguishable from wheat while both remain in blade. The only way to tell the difference between the darnel and the wheat is by the eventual fruit (i.e., the heads of grain) that the wheat produces. In fact the servants in the parable did not become aware of the existence of the tares until the wheat bore its fruit (Matt. 13:26). For an insightful analysis of this parable see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:315–17, 324–27.
44. If Paul only intended to inveigh against works of the Law in Romans 3–4, he certainly passed up a perfect opportunity to elaborate on such a concept in chapter 6, where he rhetorically asked if the salvation by grace that he had just articulated (i.e., apart from works) gives believers the right to sin. Rather than expressing the simple stipulation that he had only been referring to works of the Law, Paul pursued a totally different approach, expressing the point that true saving faith results in the objective fruit of obedience (6:17–18).
45. Grant Osborne prefers the term analogia scriptura for this principle (The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 11). Caution must be exercised in applying this principle, however, because it presupposes that proper exegesis has been performed on the relevant passages that led to the supposed “analogy of faith.” There is the danger that one’s preconceived theological commitments (whether they are informed by a legitimate exegesis of the Scriptures or not) may lead to an abuse of this principle by imposing an incorrectly derived theological dictum on passages that would seem to oppose it, and reading every consecutive passage in light of that dictum. It seems that an abuse of this very principle is characteristic of both positions A and B.
46. This author does not give credence to the relatively late historical phenomenon (arising specifically from the Enlightenment) of approaching Scripture with an a priori commitment to critical doubt, especially in the tradition of Ernst Troeltsch, an early pioneer of historical criticism. Certain persuasive objective and subjective proofs affirm the inerrancy and harmony of Scripture, but discussion of these lies outside the scope of this article.
47. Admittedly this is a rather extensive example of “proof texting,” which this author would normally eschew as a faulty and fragmentary method of exegesis. As Robert L. Thomas has lucidly noted, it treats the Bible as if it were merely a collection of statements thrown together in a cavalier and haphazard manner (Introduction to Exegesis [Sun Valley, CA: By the author, 1987], 21). This approach ignores the immediate context of each text (which should properly govern the exegesis of each passage) and strings them together in support of a preconceived doctrine. However, a proper understanding of each of the examples presented leads to the concept of justification by faith apart from human works.