Paul and James

[GHansen]

Lot of effort has gone into reconciling the apparently contradictory messages of James and Paul, especially his comments on Abraham in Romans 4. While Paul saw in Abraham's life an example of justification by faith, Paul saw in it an example of justification by works. James 2:24 actually says we are not justified by faith alone in the NASB and NRSV. Romans 3:28 says that we are justified by faith excluding the works of the law. One possible explanation is that the works of the law and the works to which James refers are different. Another possibility is that there is an actual contradiction in the understanding these two had of justification. James may simply be an illustration of the justification by works view  of justification, rather than an actual prescription/description of how to be saved. To put it bluntly, the book of James includes a heretical view of salvation which contradicts the faith views held by Paul. Of course I don't mean to be dogmatic in this assertion but it makes more sense than the mental gymnastics performed by most in an effort to harmonize these apparently contradictory passages.

 

[GHansen]

8 hours ago, GHansen said:

Lot of effort has gone into reconciling the apparently contradictory messages of James and Paul, especially his comments on Abraham in Romans 4. While Paul saw in Abraham's life an example of justification by faith, [correction] James saw in it an example of justification by works. James 2:24 actually says we are not justified by faith alone in the NASB and NRSV. Romans 3:28 says that we are justified by faith excluding the works of the law. One possible explanation is that the works of the law and the works to which James refers are different. Possibly the two men are using the word  "justification" in a different sense. Another possibility is that there is an actual contradiction in the understanding these two had of justification. James may simply be an illustration of the justification by works view  of justification, rather than an actual prescription/description of how to be saved. To put it bluntly, the book of James includes a heretical view of salvation which contradicts the faith views held by Paul. Of course I don't mean to be dogmatic in this assertion but it makes more sense than the mental gymnastics performed by most in an effort to harmonize these apparently contradictory passages.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by GHansen
correction and add content

[Theophilus]

Could it perhaps be because of the audience they were writing to?

[Ron Amnsn]

Interesting question. It's one that theologians have grappled with for a long time.  You've allowed for four possible explanations of the apparent differences between James and Paul.  Let's look at the first one.

Paul's "works of the law" is different than the "works" that James speaks of.
The context of the two passages would support this explanation. James was not saying that "works" causes justification.  When we read in English, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" it sounds like "works" cause a person to become justified.  But that's not what the Greek says.  The Greek verb translated as "is justified" is dikaioutai. According to the Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon dikaioutai does not make "works" the cause for justification nor does it refer to any change from an unjustified condition to a justified condition, but rather it shows or proves that something is already right or justified.  Here is the full definition:

88.16 δικαιόω: to demonstrate that something is morally right—
‘to show to be right, to prove to be right.’ 
ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου ‘you must be shown to be right when you speak’ Ro 3:4.

James is responding to people who tried to define "faith" as something that happens without resulting in faithfulness.  In both Greek and Hebrew the word "faith" includes the "faithfulness" or "works"  that result from "faith".  Throughout Scripture, faith and faithfulness are two sides of the same coin.  You can't have one without the other. This is exemplified in Hebrews 11 where the men of great faith are commended for what they did rather than for only what they thought.  In English, we have artificially separated what happens in a person's thoughts ("faith") from what a person does as a result ("faithfulness").  But even in English we recognize that a person becomes known as "faithful" (full of faith) not by what he thinks, but by what he does.  So at some point in the past the English language also did not separate "faith" from the "works" that resulted from faith.  Because James is dealing with a "foolish" anomaly (faith without works), he splits the normal meaning of "faith" with faithfulness in order to talk about "faith without works" -- faith that is only in one's thoughts.  That kind of fake faith does not show that a person is justified. You can recognize that type of dead faith because the resulting works of faithfulness are missing.  When contrasted with the foolishness of dead faith, it is the "works" of faithfulness by which a person is shown to be already justified because "faith without faithfulness" is not real faith.

I think Paul was speaking to those who thought certain "works" caused a sinner to become justified in God's eyes.  That was never the purpose of the Law.

In some passages of Paul's writings the phrase "works of the law" could be referring to the man-made "entrance requirements" that the believing Jews were requiring of Gentile believers before they would be accepted into the community of Jewish believers. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the phrase "works of the law" is used to refer specifically to the rigorous man-made entrance requirements that people wanting to join that religious community near Qumran were required to successfully complete before they qualified to be accepted as members in the community.  You can confirm this if you have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that you can search.  Paul was dealing with the acceptance of Gentiles into a different community - the community of Jewish believers, as evidenced in Romans 2 and later.  Some of the Jews were apparently excluding or scornful toward the Gentile believers until they satisfied the traditional entrance requirements for Gentiles into the Judaism of that day through the "works of the law" -- certain man-made traditions. You can find this same attitude towards Gentile believers today in some Messianic Jewish congregations.