“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part One)
Paul says good works have no place whatsoever when it comes to the ground of our justification (i.e., Galatians 2:16). No, says Paul, the only basis upon which we can be justified are the merits of Christ received through faith. James, on the other hand, is dealing with the question as to how can we tell if someone truly has faith. James’ readers must be aware that good works will accompany their profession of faith in Christ, if that profession is genuine. James is saying nothing more, but certainly, nothing less.
It would be hard to find a passage of Scripture which is more controversial than James 2:14-26.
The reason for the controversy is James’ assertion in verse 24 of chapter two of his epistle that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” On its face, this seems to fly in the face of a number of passages in Paul’s letters where the apostle appears to be saying the exact opposite thing. Take, for example, Galatians 2:16. “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Are James and Paul on the same page? Yes, they are as I intend to demonstrate.
Those who believe that the justification of sinners is a process which is not complete until death (Rome), view James’ assertion here as a classic proof-text which supports this view. But those who see justification as an instantaneous declaration made about the sinner because the merits of Christ are imputed to them through the means of faith, seem to stumble all over James’ declaration that works are somehow tied to justification, and that we are not justified by faith alone. But as we will see, James and Paul do not contradict each other. In fact, when James’ assertion is put in its proper context, there is nothing whatsoever in James 2 which conflicts with the doctrine of justification sola fide.
This section of James is somewhat of a sore spot to confessional Protestants who champion Paul’s doctrine of justification. One reason for this is because when addressing justification, the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (sixth session, Canon X)–Rome’s official response to the Protestant Reformation–teach that justification is a day to day process, depending upon how effectively people submit themselves to God’s grace, so that they increase their justification over time, and hopefully, attain final justification. James 2:24 is cited by the Council of Trent (sixth session, Chapter VII) as a proof-text supporting Rome’s view that justification is a process connected to the merit of our good works.
Granted, at first glance, James seems to be saying something quite different than Paul. And those who oppose the Reformation doctrine of justification often seize upon comments made by James in this chapter to prove that we are not justified by faith alone, but that we are justified by faith plus continual inward transformation, and the performance of good works which merit (earn) a reward from God.
Let me be clear here. Yes, James is saying something quite different than Paul is saying. But James is not contradicting Paul. The two apostles are addressing completely different issues. This is the critical point to keep in mind. I think a good case can be made that James wrote his epistle sometime in the mid 40’s of the first century—perhaps the first New Testament epistle written. The date of the composition of this epistle, understanding the context in which it was written, and then keeping in mind the specific issue which James is addressing, is the key to understanding James’ teaching on justification. When these factors are in place, the supposed controversy between James and Paul, and the apparent contradiction between James 2:24 and passages like Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:28, is easily resolved. In fact, there is no contradiction, since James is addressing a completely different matter than Paul is addressing.
There are three key points to consider. First, James writes this epistle several years before the controversy broke out in Asia Minor between Jewish and Gentile Christians over the role of the ceremonial law in the justification of sinners. According to Acts 15, when the Jerusalem Council convenes (about 49 A.D.), James, Peter, and Paul (along with all the elders of the church) were absolutely united in teaching that Gentiles are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, just as Jews were saved. This means that elsewhere in the New Testament (outside the Epistle of James), we have iron-clad evidence that the church was of one mind on the doctrine of justification sola fide. Christ saves us by grace, through faith, from beginning to end. Jesus does not give us grace so that we can improve ourselves and thereby earn a right-standing before God as Rome teaches. Given the fact that the apostles were of one mind on this critical doctrine in Acts 15, and since we believe in the inspiration of Scripture, we cannot interpret James in such a way as to contradict Paul, or vice-versa.
-
How to Teach God’s Commands to Children Living in a Hostile Culture
Written by Amy K. Hall |
Friday, March 1, 2024
As with the exodus, the cross is proof that God is real and powerful. He moved history in exactly the way he promised (see Isaiah 53). He raised Jesus from the dead! More than that, if he was willing to give his own Son for our good, we can trust that he is for us. He loves us. The objective evidence of his love is right there on the cross, and we can argue for the cross with objective evidence.In a society that’s hostile towards Christian morality, how should we go about teaching our children God’s commands so that they’ll desire to follow him rather than the culture surrounding and pressuring them?
Not a God of Blind Faith
The first thing to remember is this: Our God is not a God of blind faith. As our Creator, he knows we are beings who need reasons for what we do, beings who are rational and who love, beings who are motivated by a desire to seek our good and the good of our loved ones. Of course, our sin distorts these qualities, even at the best of times, and we can be deceived about what actually is good for us (see Eve). But at root, our rationality and our desire to pursue what’s good for us are both good aspects of our humanity that God repeatedly appealed to when revealing his commands to his people.
We see a clear example of this approach in Deuteronomy 6:20–25, where God instructs the Israelites as to what they should emphasize when teaching their children his commands:
When your son asks you in time to come, saying, “What do the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments mean which the Lord our God commanded you?” then you shall say to your son, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord brought us from Egypt with a mighty hand. Moreover, the Lord showed great and distressing signs and wonders before our eyes against Egypt, Pharaoh and all his household; He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land which He had sworn to our fathers. So the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today. It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the Lord our God, just as He commanded us.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Why Was a Man Killed for Touching the Ark of the Covenant? (2 Samuel 6)
Written by John L. Mackay |
Tuesday, December 26, 2023
“The anger of the Lord” is not some power inherent in the ark but the personal response of God to the contravention of his requirements. “God struck him down,” that is, killed him, “there,” on the spot where the offense was committed, so that there would be no doubt about the connection between offense and penalty. “Because of his error” involves a somewhat obscure term, but 1 Chronicles 13:10 makes it clear that Uzzah’s error was his unthinking irreverence in touching the ark.Read the Passage
1David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. 2And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. 3And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart, 4with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark. 5And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the Lord, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 6And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. 8And David was angry because the Lord had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day.
Military Presence and Pageantry
“David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel” is evocative of a military campaign, like those just described against the Philistines (2 Sam. 5:17–25), and this is probably how David views bringing the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 13:1–4)—but with the surprising difference that he does not inquire of the Lord (2 Sam. 5:19, 23). Whether “thirty thousand” men or thirty military units are involved, a military presence provides the pageantry and security for this major national milestone.
The phrase “they carried” (lit., “they made to ride”) along with the mention of a “new cart” signals how the first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem is flawed from the start. Though intended as a mark of respect, using a new cart is actually the Philistine mode of transporting the ark (1 Sam. 6:7), whereas the Lord had specifically directed the ark to be carried by Kohathites from the tribe of Levi, using poles inserted through rings incorporated into its sides (Ex. 25:13–15; Num. 4:4–6, 15, 17–20).
Three generations earlier, the ark had been left in the “house of Abinadab,” in the custody of Eleazar (1 Sam. 7:1). He has died in the interim, and Uzzah and Ahio, his descendants, are now its custodians. Though “Ahio” may mean “his brother” (ESV mg.), it is probably a personal name (as in 1 Chron. 8:31; 1 Chron. 9:37). The two brothers “were driving the new cart,” not seated on it but walking in front of it and beside it as they guide it.
A Joyful Procession
David and all the Israelites with him “were celebrating before the Lord.” The verb “celebrate” (found also in 2 Sam. 6:21 and in 1 Sam. 18:7, and as “compete” in 2 Sam. 2:14) indicates joyful exuberance, probably involving dancing.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Ultimate Goal of Reformation
Traditional Reformed worship is dialogical, meaning God and the worshippers are in a kind of conversation. But the agenda for the conversation is set by God’s declarations. This is why, traditionally, Reformed worship begins with a call to worship and ends with a benediction. God gets the first word and the last word. Our singing, confession, and prayers are a response to God’s Word. God’s Word also takes center stage in the high point of a Reformed service, which is the preaching of the Word of God.
The following post is part of our ‘Principles of Reformation’ series. For the first post in the series, please click here.
In order to make progress in a course of reformation, it is necessary to define the goal of any efforts that proceed under the Reformed banner. As Reformed believers, what is our target? What is the ultimate goal of our reformation?
Is our goal an increase in Bible knowledge and theological acumen? It must be said that many today who use the label Reformed or who discover Reformed theology find it intellectually stimulating and satisfying. For some, Reformed teaching answers basic questions and opens vistas for further intellectual exploration. This is a wonderful thing. Reformed churches have always insisted that pastors be educated and skilled in sound doctrine, and the best theologians in the Reformed tradition have tried to engage with the leading intellectual movements of their day. They do so drawing on a clear and realistic understanding of the nature of man and the sovereignty of our Creator God.
This means that Reformed theology can offer someone who is intellectually inclined much to study and talk about. At its core, though, Reformed theology is a balanced and thoughtful declaration of the teaching of Scripture. It is meant to shape lives and cultivate churches that are centered on the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a theology for life – not just the life of the mind, but the life of the whole person dedicated to God completely. This complete dedication to God is regularly expressed in the worship which God’s people render wholeheartedly to Him.
Meeting with God in Worship
Reformed theology has a high view of God. He is the sovereign Creator of all things, and He rules over His creation. This should provoke us to praise Him in a way that acknowledges His holiness. Because God is so majestic, so powerful, so great, our praise to Him ought to reflect this. The Bible says, “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised” (Ps. 145:3). The ultimate goal of reformation is to glorify our great God as He is, as He deserves, and as He decrees.
Read More
Related Posts:
