BOUND, JAMES BOUND: DID JAMES REALLY TEACH JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS?

AN EXEGETICAL PAPER

of James 2:18 26

INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01 THE EXEGETICAL PROBLEM IN JAMES 2:18-26 ------------------------------------------------- 02 THE HISTORICAL CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF JAMES 2:18-26 ------------------------------ 02 PURPOSE (02) AUTHOR (04) DATE (05) AN EXEGESIS OF JAMES 2:18-26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 08 TEXT-CRITICAL ISSUES (08) LITERARY CONTEXT (09) HANDLING THE TEXT (10) CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Appendix A: Block Diagram --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

INTRODUCTION Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain, spoke the great reformer, Martin Luther, to his mealtime companions. He was clearly frustrated over the troubling exegetical issue, Faith justifies and Faith does not justify contradict each other flatly. If anyone can harmonize them I will give him my doctors hood and let him call me a fool.1 Dr. Luther is certainly not the only Christian who ever wrestled with the short epistle of James and particularly with the somewhat uncouth presentation of justification presented in that letter. From the very outset James stood on shaky ground, struggling to gain full acceptance by the believing community.2 Even today the debate continues. A discussion of the full range of complaints against the letter goes well beyond the present purpose; however, the shrill note of discord many hear in James theology plays no small part in the trouble. A quintessential representative passage, James 2:18-26, seems to overtly teach justification by works poor Luther! and denies the efficacy of simple faith for eternal salvation. Even the demons believe,3 (2:19) pens James almost in ridicule of the notion of faith alone. If there is to be any fellowship then between James and Paul, if there is to be any reconciliation between grace and works, the exegete must take up his many tools and mine this

Preserved Smith, The Life And Letters Of Martin Luther, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911), p. 269. Luther made many other disparaging remarks about James as well. In his Preface to the New Testament (1522), he concluded that compared with other parts of the NT, James is really an epistle of straw, since, in his estimation, it lacks in strong Gospel content. A note in the margin of Luthers Bible at James 1:6, reportedly read, This is the only good place in the whole epistle. For all that however, the reformer admitted that James should not be forbidden since there are otherwise many good sayings in him.
2

Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Kindle Edition, 2000), Kindle Locations 133-42. Eusebius, for instance, could not bring himself to grant the epistle full endorsement, and thus awarded it only the status of a disputed book. In fact, it was not until the cusp of the fifth century that Jerome broke a church wide stalemate regarding its canonical place, by including it in his Vulgate. When Augustine eventually followed suit the battle for James on the canonical level came to an end.
3

Unless otherwise indicated all Scripture quotations in this exegesis are taken from the New English Translation.

deep vein of Gods Word, seeking to discover whether there is indeed housed here a treasure trove of pure spiritual gold. THE EXEGETICAL PROBLEM IN JAMES 2:18-26 It will be seen that the Epistle of James is highly pragmatic, yet for all his practical talk, the writer certainly made some provocative statements. Consider this breakdown of the nineverse passage of 2:18-26. Three times the writer uses the controversial phrase justified by works. He applies it to Abraham (2:21), claims it for Rahab (2:25), and even demands it of all humanity (2:24). Twice (three times if one counts the entire chapter) he claims the uselessness of faith apart from the energizing factor of works (2:20, 26). One time, as noted above, he even claims that faith alone is nothing less than demonic (2:19)! Viewing the passage as a coherent whole does not automatically make the view any nicer either: essentially James proposes a straw-man argument in which an objector claims justification by faith (2:18), only to have his notion quickly and thoroughly demolished by the writers intense ideology.4 All of this stands in tight tension against Galatians, Romans, and indeed large swaths of the New Testament in which the Gospel message is one of a restful, dependence upon the finished work of Christ.5 THE HISTORICAL CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF JAMES 2:18-26 Purpose. In 1954, the feature film Godzilla hit the big screen, destined to become a cult classic with international acclaim. Yet at its release, critics were quite less than enamored.6

Verses 22 and 23, the only two individual verses from 2:18-26 untouched by this treatment, each offers its own controversial perspective. Verse 22 indicaes that works are the superior of the two facets, since it is works that perfect faith. Verse 23 applies Genesis 15:6 to justification by works, whereas Paul in Romans 4:9 cites the very same OT Scripture as an example of justification by faith.
5

Jesus himself explicitly taught that [t]his is the deed [Gk: ergon, the very same word James uses] God requires to believe in the one whom he sent (John 6:29).
6

See David Bells online article, 10 Classic Movies that Critics Hated, at http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-classic-movies-that-critics-hated-dbell.php .

New Testament expert, Douglas J. Moo, observes a similar phenomenon in relation to the epistle of James, a book not well loved by the scholarly community. modern theologians often dismiss the letter as a holdover from Judaism that does not truly express the essence of the Christian faith. Yet quite in contrast to the sometimes negative view of the letter among academics and theologians is the status of James among ordinary believers. Few books of the NT are better known or more often quoted than James. It is probably one of the two or three most popular NT books in the church.7 And what is the cause of this disparity? Obviously theologians are basing their estimates on theological concerns, but Moo points out that everyday Christians have a different agenda. James is practical, concise, and full of vivid illustrations, a combination quite appealing to the rank and file.8 Moo explains, James's purpose is clearly not so much to inform as to chastise, exhort, and encourage.9 Despite its popularity, defending the orthodoxy of James against its theologian detractors is sure to be no simple task. The evidence is stacked high, the case is tough: yet all is not lost. Writer and scholar D. A. Carson, reflecting upon the New Testament Cannon reminds his readers that there is sufficient evidence to suggest, that this final decision [regarding what spiritual books should be accepted as Holy Scripture] did not originate solely at the human level.10 The sovereignty implied in this truth, of course, demands that James be given a fair chance. In other

Moo, Letter, 100-02. Ibid., 104-14. Ibid., 106-07.

10

D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, Kindle Edition, 2005), Kindle Locations 18818-821.

words, if God is sovereign over the church, then he superintended the process of canonization. If he superintended the process of canonization, then James is inspired Scripture. If James is inspired Scripture, then the church can trust it as a faithful guide pertaining to the Gospel and to the life of sanctification. The task of the exegete, then, is to uncover the clues that will confirm this prognosis. In investigating Scripture, it is useful to realize that clues most often hide themselves within context. No manuscript is drafted in a vacuum and a perusal of the historical-cultural background in which James wrote may reveal much. Author. Though there is no definitive statement on the matter, the author of the epistle was most likely the brother of the Lord Jesus, who came to faith following the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), tarried in the Upper Room with the 120 (Acts 1:14), and eventually became the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, as revealed by his prominence at the highly important Apostolic Council (Acts 15:4-29) His leadership is also confirmed by the commendation of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 2:9).11 In vivid fashion Eusebius presents James as a deeply pious man by reporting that he was so given to prayer that his knees were hard like the knees of a camel.12 Such a remark certainly matches the profile one would suspect of a man given to pragmatic, experiential, busy Christianity just the sort of author who could pen the epistle of James.

11

Thomas Lea, Holman New Testament Commentary. (Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Reference, 1999), p. 251. See Lea, pp. 251, 256 for a brief but clear discussion of this issue. Or for a longer treatment, including objections to this identity and counter arguments see Douglas Moo, The Letter of James (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Kindle Edition, 2000), Kindle Locations 209-401.
12

Ibid. Indeed hints from Hegesippus via Eusebius indicate that James was a lifelong Nazsarite. This could potentially explain his delay in accepting his brothers Messianic claims till after the resurrection, since Christ, took a rather more liberal path through life. It certainly casts light on the hardline James takes in his epistle. See Ecclesiastical History 2.23 for more information.

Date. Several factors are indicative of an early date for the writing of this letter. James, himself suffered martyrdom in 62 A.D and many scholars assume that he wrote the epistle just prior to this event.13 Moo, however, takes a rather more ingenious approach, one which may very well contain the key for unlocking the enigmatic second chapter. Partially based upon the absence of any awareness of the conflict over torah that emerged in the early church as a result of the Gentile mission14 he argues for a date not in the early-60s, but rather earlier, in the mid40s. Of course, arguments from silence are hollow at best, but Moo clarifies that it is not only the writers omissions, but more particularly it is his assertions which are particularly important: James's casual references to torah in the letter (1:24-25; 2:8-13) make more sense if this issue had not yet arisen.15 There is a much more significant reason to accept such an early date for the epistle; however it may first be worthwhile to piece together the scenario thus far. The Epistle of James, full of lifestyle imperatives, but strangely lacking in references to the cross, or even theological statements in general, is far more concerned with orthopraxy than it is in orthodoxy. In fact, history points to a writer who in no small way followed his own advice, liv[ing] out the message and not merely listen[ing] to it (James 1:22). As an active Nazarite, dedicated to prayer, dedicated to personal holiness, James was a product of the Judaism of his age and thusly a living witness to orthopraxy.

13

Moo, Letter, 434-35.

14

Ibid., 449-50. Moo is careful to note that the socio-economic conditions at this time, such as the famine of 46 and the crises which would lead to the Jewish rebellion against Rome, were also a good match for the conditions described internally within the letter of James.
15

Ibid., 456-57.

Julius Scott observed that during the intertestamental period a strong adherence to orthopraxy was fomented amongst the Jews. He elaborates, Whereas Christianity frequently stresses the importance of orthodoxy (right doctrine or belief), Judaism is more concerned with orthopraxy (correct and proper behavior, actions, practice). Even the discussion of whether right belief or right conduct should have priority is more Christian than Jewish [T]he Hebraic mind has always stressed orthopraxy; in the intertestamental period it did so even more. This was inevitable with the increased focus upon the meaning of the law for daily life, the first shift of emphasis.16 The objection that as a Christian, James no longer possessed a Judaist worldview is insignificant since at this youthful stage Christianity had not yet fully distinguished itself from its mother religion.17 To be a Jewish Christian at that stage was by almost by definition to share in the Hebraic worldview, including most of its religious tenants. Particularly in this man James one sees a deep Judeo-religious heritage which marked him quite as profoundly as his newfound faith. That intertestamental heritage was not so much concerned with formulizing a doctrine of God as it was in living a life for God. Whereas such things as the atonement and justification certainly impacted James in the most intimate of ways, the salvation of his eternal soul, they were not to be broken down and analyzed (as the Hellenist might have done), but they were to be experienced and enjoyed. James would rather walk it out than figure it out. As Moo reminds his readers, the suggestion is

16

J. Julius Scott Jr, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, Kindle Edition, 2000), Kindle Locations 1833-840.
17

Everett Ferguson, Church History (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), Kindle Locations 685-89.

certainly not that James was somehow un-theological. He possessed a definite worldview which radiates through the epistle he wrote.18 However, it seems abundantly clear that theology was not his primary concern. Returning to the issue of dating James epistle to the mid-40s, it is important to note that the Apostolic Council, at which the leaders of the first century church met together to reach a consensus on the status of Gentile converts did not take place till the late-40s. In other words, according to the current theory, the event did not even occur until after James wrote.19 It was at the Apostolic Council that the early church hammered out the rough relationship between law and grace. Therefore, when James penned his epistle, he not only did so from a basically nontheological frame of reference, but he did so firmly according to the perspective of torah Law, since the grace doctrine was not yet formulated by the church as a whole. Reports probably reached James, in Jerusalem, that the Apostle Paul was experiencing great success amongst the Gentiles and that he did not require them to keep Judeo-orthopraxy, but at the time of the writing of James epistle in the mid-40s, the meaning of such things would have remained quite mysterious. Moo expounds, James shows awareness of Paul's distinctive emphasis on "justification by faith alone," but does not really come to grips with what Paul meant by this doctrine. Such a misunderstanding of Paul's teaching was unlikely after the two had met and hashed out a consensus on the requirements to be imposed on Gentiles for entry into the people of God [Furthermore some] were apparently using the slogan "justification by faith alone" as

18

Moo, Letter, Kindle Locations 107-08. Ibid., Kindle Locations 450-51.

19

an excuse for neglecting a commitment to discipleship and practical Christian living. It is this "perverted Paulinism" that James attacks in chap. 2.20 In the end, it is patently unfair, like charging Dr. Seuss with teaching faulty zoology, to accuse James of heresy. The purpose of his letter was never to elucidate theology in the first place, and if the present theory on the date of his writing is correct, he himself did not yet fully understand the nature of justification anyhow. AN EXEGESIS OF JAMES 2:18-26 Text-Critical Issues. Already enough evidence is assembled within the epistles historical-cultural context, to reasonably clear Brother James of all charges. A large part of the task, however, remains ahead since the text itself is yet essentially untouched. A quick note on manuscript issues: the textual critic will probably find himself a bit bored during this study. Although James is conflicted somewhat with various readings, only one directly affects the current exegesis in a significant way. That instance is found in James 2:10 which reads, But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless []? The Majority Text, however, reads or dead and though this is a well attested rendering, it is quite likely an example of harmonizing with the similar instances found in verses 17 and 26. A final alternate reading, or empty, probably stems from a duplication of the same word earlier in the verse.21 However, no argument can be made that James is not actually discussing dead faith, since he directly says so on two other undisputed occasions. For the present purpose at least, the alternate readings here are a nondeterministic issue no matter what stand one takes.

20

Moo, Letter, 443-47. NET Bible, text-critical (tc) note on James 2:20, https://net.bible.org/#!bible/James+2:17 (accessed July 01, 2012).

21

Literary Context. More pertinent to this study is a survey of the epistle as a whole, to discover the meta-sense of what James is trying to say. In his opening chapter James takes up the issue of practical righteousness. Crucial to the task, he lists a right attitude toward money (1:9-11), listening ears (1:21), a calm disposition (1:19, 20), a bridled tongue (1:26), a commitment to care for those in need (1:27), and a distancing of oneself from the evil world (1:21, 27). Most of these items to one extent or another involves the way Christians interact with others. Righteousness then is not the superficial lists of rights and wrongs so many churches unfortunately enjoin upon their parishioners, but simply a matter of love. Calling the injunction to deeply love ones neighbor the royal law (2:8), James demands that the church literally put their money where their mouth is, that they directly and practically care for those who lack. Throughout the short book, he never looks back either, filling each chapter with instructions that answer the implied question of the Great Commandments. How are we to love our neighbor as ourselves? The answer of course is purposefully and very, very practically. Along with what weve already discovered in the first two chapters, James 3 is the New Testaments classic exhortation on the power and proper use of the tongue, which is meant to bless God and not to curse men. Chapter four continues that theme with the aim of quieting quarrels and gutting gossip, since those vices have nothing to do with heavenly wisdom and have no place in the church. Finally, chapter five begins as a treatise against the greedy rich whose miserly ways exploit the hurting poor watch out Corporate America! and ends with instructions for body ministry in which Christians minister to the sick and sinning amongst themselves. Whereas George Stulac sees in James a Holy Spirit given commentary on Jesus sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain22 one could also (and quite ironically) view

22

George M. Stulac, James (IVP New Testament Commentary) (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), p. 34.

10

James as a Holy Spirit given commentary on Pauls famous description of -love in 1 Corinthians 13. James 2 opens with a definitive statement that the church is no place for socio-economic prejudice (2:1-4). The one who faithfully loves his neighbor, i.e. the least of these my brethren, is a law keeper (2:8), but the one who fails to do so is convicted by the law (2:9). Since the Law is tough and everyone ultimately needs mercy, everyone should also be given to a lifestyle of mercy (2:10-13). Echoes of Micah 6:8 with its profound, simple necessities To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God (New International Version) fill the conversation. Handling the Text. James 2:14 begins the discussion of a pragmatic, hypothetical situation which leads into and encompasses the specific text under consideration in this study (2:18-26). A fellow Christian, a spiritual sibling, in fact, lacks the necessities of life: her cupboards are bare, his wardrobe looks like a warzone, full of holes, shabby, ineffective to protect against the elements. Though it lies entirely within the power of the Christian brother to be a blessing by opening his purse, he decides instead to utter a blessing by extending an empty platitude: God bless you, bro. Eat well tonight and make sure to keep warm. Its freezing out here! James asks a simple question: Can someone who acts like that claim to be right with God on the basis of faith (2:14)? This is exactly where so much of the trouble comes from. Divorced from their context statements like, faith without works is dead (2:26) and a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (2:24) come across as legalistic and ignorant of the work of the cross. In its natural setting though, James does not even come close to suggesting self-salvation based upon

11

toil and sweat. He simply expects that saved people will do their best to save others from the hardships of life. In his own way, he writes again about the servant of the king who wanted to settle accounts (Matthew 18:23-35). How could that man having been forgiven so much expect to walk in blessing, when he refused to be a blessing to the ones who were in his power to touch? Two preacher friends were conversing. One said, This Sunday Im going to preach on How to Get a Miracle. The other wisely responded, Thats funny, because this Sunday I plan to preach on How to Be a Miracle. James would expect every Christian to live out the later message. Those who have been forgiven much love much, and true love always expresses itself in service (Luke 7:40-48). It is not the bare concept of saving faith with which James has trouble. Throughout the passage he uses the Greek feminine noun, , along with its verbal cognate , whose meanings speak simply of belief. In 2:18 he sets up an argument in which a person ridiculously implies that believing is enough, in and of itself.23 Even though this objector uses the same Greek vocabulary as do true Christians, the definition he applies is far different. See Appendix A, where verse 18 is blocked out to observe this clearly. In that block diagram, Number (3), Show me your faith, in juxtaposition to number (4), and I will show you my faith clearly reveals two different kinds of faith. Their respective modifiers, without the works and by my works reveal just what the difference is. One definition of faith is incomplete, an empty believing, like the demon who fully believes in God, but to no personal avail. The other right definition is truly
23

NET Bible, translators note (tn) on James 2:18, https://net.bible.org/#!bible/James+2:18 (accessed July 02, 2012). There is some uncertainty, as can be seen by comparing translations, where exactly the quotation marks should be placed, thus defining the parameters of the textual argument. The NET translators argue that by placing them around the opening phrase alone, You have faith and I have works, The someone is then an objector, and the sense of his words is something like, Some have faith; others have works; dont expect everyone to have both.

12

a faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6, NIV): in the end this is the only kind of faith that matters. Somewhat parallel to this, Matthew Henry sees the issue as two different kinds of works under discussion in the New Testament. (Interestingly there is a single Greek word for work, a Greek neuter noun, , meaning deeds, throughout the passage and quite often in the NT as a whole.) Furthermore, he points out that it is not merely James who is misunderstood, but it is also Paul! When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus Paul may be understood as speaking of that justification which is inchoate, James of that which is complete; it is by faith only that we are put into a justified state, but then good works come in for the completing of our justification at the last great day; then, Come you children of my Father for I was hungry, and you gave me meat, etc.24 It is no wonder then that James could proclaim Abraham, Rahab, and even the New Testament believer to be justified by works, since the belief those people expressed toward God was an active, working belief. In other words, some were proclaiming a type of irresponsible faith that wallowed in the self, refused sanctification, and contributed nothing to the
24

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary On the Whole Bible, 5th Edition (Osnova, Kindle Edition, 2010), Kindle Locations 295544-548 & 295564-566.

13

church. In response to that James spoke of being Justified by works and probably meant the same thing others do when speaking of justification by faith! Abraham walked in a faithful, obedient relationship to God, leaving his home country, living in tents, and waiting for the fulfillment of the promise. Likewise, Rahab expressed her faith in the God of Israel by caring for his people, the very thing James has been talking about. The New Testament believer stands in an active relationship with the Lord Jesus which impacts every facet of his life and progresses toward ever greater sanctification. In each example grace is an absolutely free gift extended to one whose faith is expressed in obedience. CONCLUSION Every now and then James faces charges of heresy because of the stringent demands and firm expectations he places upon the believer, along with his direct, somewhat non-theological phrasing. It becomes clear, though, that when one considers the historical, cultural situation from which he wrote, the thrust of his epistle as a whole, and even the details of the arguments which he employs, that James said nothing different from what the Lord Jesus had already taught. Even Paul is more theologically similar to James than different, though the two men certainly approach the message from differing perspectives. Where faith is properly understood justification by faith is probably the most correct wording for the redemptive process, since it excludes any self-righteousness and all notions of earning the grace of God. However, where faith is seen as a blind, lazy belief that expects nothing of the indulgent, sinful self, is indifferent to the plight of Gods people, and does nothing to motivate an actual trust relationship between the believer and the Lord, then the church certainly needs another James to come along and straighten out the mess.

14

Bibliography Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005. Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005. Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary On the Whole Bible, 5th Edition. Osnova, Kindle Edition, 2010. Lea, Thomas. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Reference, 1999. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000. NET Bible. https://net.bible.org/ (accessed July 01, 2012). Scott, J. Julius, Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2000. Smith, Preserved. The Life and Letters of Martin Luther. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911. Stulac, George M. James (IVP New Testament Commentary). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

15

Appendix A: Block Diagram James 2:18 26 (NASB): [The Argument in Thesis] 2:18 But someone may well say, (1) (2) (3) (4)

You have faith and I have works; show me your faith and I will show you my faith

without the works, by my works.

[An Inadequate Definition of Faith] 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons (1) also believe, (2) and shudder. 2:20 you foolish fellow, But are you willing to recognize, that faith without works

is useless?

[Example 1: Abraham Justified by Works] 2:21 our father Was not Abraham justified by works his son when he offered up Isaac 2:22 You see that faith

on the altar?

(1) was working with his works, and as a result of the works, (2) faith was perfected; 2:23 (3) and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, (c.r. Ge. 15:6) And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, (4) and he was called the friend of God.

16

2:24 You see that a man is justified (1) by works (2) and not by faith alone. [Example 2: Rahab justified by works] 2:25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works (1) when she received the messengers (2) and sent them out by another way? 2:26 For just as the body is dead, without the spirit so also faith is dead. without works