Posted on 12/04/2019 6:11:57 AM PST by Gamecock
ristians throughout the ages have noticed that Paul and James, at the word level, use the verb “to justify” (dikaio ) differently relative to “faith” and “works.” Paul writes, “One is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). James writes, “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Since God is the ultimate Author of both Romans and James, this cannot be a concept-level contradiction. But how do we put these two verses together?
In the 1500s, portions of the Roman Catholic Church were insisting that the verb “to justify” is used in the exact same way in both Paul and James. Given this and other assumptions, “to justify” includes infusing righteousness into the believer. This understanding is also intimately connected to believers’ works’ being partly meritorious, to purgatory, and to possessing no assurance of salvation until the final judgment. Frankly, this understanding did violence to both Paul and James. Unfortunately, this wrong view was codified by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1547.
Contrary to the Roman Catholic view, the Reformers insisted that “to justify” means to declare something/someone righteous. And more specifically, Paul often used the word in a technical manner, with a paragraph of information attached to a word though not necessarily given every time he uses the term. In the full technical sense, Paul used “to justify” to mean that God declares (sinful) men righteous, not based on their own merit/works but on the merit/work of Christ (i.e., the righteousness of Christ). The only instrument by which one obtains this justification is faith in the person and work of Christ. Yes, as Paul elsewhere points out, a true Christian from his love for God and neighbor will do good works (Gal.5:6; Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3), but these are an evidence of true faith, not the meritorious ground of one’s justification.
But how did the Reformers explain James’ use of “to justify” in their responses to the Roman Catholics? Does not James say that one is “justified by works and not by faith alone”? Uniformly, the Reformers noted that the Bible occasionally uses the same word that is translated “to justify” in both a general and a technical sense. The context of James 2:14–26 demands that “to justify” be used in the general sense as opposed to the Pauline technical sense. James is arguing against “dead” faith, which is simple intellectual assent with no real trust in Christ or accompanying good works. This “dead” faith will not save. He then gives biblical examples (Abraham and Rahab) to conclude that true, saving faith will evidence itself with good works. Hence, the general sense of “justify” as used by James could be correctly understood in modern English as “demonstrate.” That is, a person’s true faith is demonstrated by their works.
But what is the linguistic connection between “to demonstrate” and “to declare righteous” even for the general sense? Further, how are James’ general sense and Paul’s technical sense related? The Bible actually uses “justify” in three related senses. For the remainder of this article, I want to explain the three senses of “justify” with the goal to increase the reader’s understanding of “justify” in both Paul and James.
In the Greek New Testament and in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), the verb dikaio has the root meaning of “to declare righteous,” which is traditionally and accurately translated as “to justify” (the cognate groups of right/righteous/righteousness [Germanic] and just/justify/justification [Latin] are equivalent). I prefer to think of the verb “to justify” as having three “ascending” meanings in the Bible. That is, meaning number 1 is generic; meaning number 2 includes meaning number 1; and meaning number 3, the most technical use of the term, includes numbers 1 and 2.
MEANING NUMBER 1 Meaning number 1 is “to declare, show, or demonstrate that something/someone is righteous.” More specifically, it means to declare that certain actions demonstrate the truth of a prior claim. This is how most English speakers use “to justify” in nontheological situations. Before getting to biblical examples, allow me two sports examples. First: “The Yankees’ actions in the World Series justified Bob’s preseason prediction.” Note that even though we say the actions justified the prediction, we really mean that someone’s mind compared Bob’s truth claim (preseason prediction) with the actions/results and declared that they matched, that they are “righteous” in the sense that the prediction and actions agree. Another modern example: “Alabama’s numerous wins over the last several seasons justify the coach’s high salary.” Here there is an implied truth claim—a high salary should go only to a coach who can produce wins. The speaker’s mind compared the salary and the number of wins and concluded that they matched; hence, the salary was justified, it was “declared righteous” because the salary and the record agree.
The Bible states that “wisdom is justified [dikaio ] by her deeds” (Matt. 11:19). This proverb notes that correct truth claims (wisdom) are declared/shown to be “righteous” based on the resulting actions.
James uses meaning number 1. “You see that a person is justified [dikaio ] by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). The truth claim in context is that true or living faith will result in good works, demonstrating that the person is a true believer. James implies that anyone who reads the biblical story should come to this conclusion. Abraham’s willingness to offer up Isaac (James 2:21 // Gen. 22:1–19) occurred many years after Abraham’s faith commitment to God (James 2:23 // Gen. 15:6). Hence, Abraham should be declared-to-be-righteous/shown-to-have-true-faith in the mind of any reader by the fact that his later works were consistent with a true faith.
One final comment about the James passage. James 2:23 says that based on faith, and that alone, Abraham’s believing God “was counted [logizomai] to him as righteousness [dikaiosyn ].” Although not all agree, I view this as conceptually related to Pauline justification. Note that James uses the different verb logizomai as opposed to dikaio . Hence, James sees Abraham as justified in the Pauline sense through faith alone (“Abraham believed God”), although his larger point is that works demonstrate/show/declare that Abraham’s faith was true and living.
MEANING NUMBER 2 Meaning number 2 of dikaio is to declare that a human being’s actions are judicially/forensically/legally righteous. That is, it means to declare actions in harmony with a law or legal standard as opposed to simply in harmony with any type of truth claim as in meaning number 1. Normally in the Bible, a judge issues this declaration (there were no juries). The judge compares the law and the defendant’s actions. If they match, he declares the defendant righteous. If they do not match, the judge declares the defendant guilty. In modern English, instead of “justified,” we might say that the judge “acquitted” the defendant. Deuteronomy 25:1 is an often-cited example: judges should be “acquitting [dikaio in Septuagint] the innocent and condemning the guilty.” Similarly, “I [God] will not acquit [dikaio in Septuagint] the wicked” (Ex. 23:7). For example, let us assume that someone is accused of deviously moving a property boundary marker. The case is brought to the judge. After all the evidence is presented, the judge determines that the accused did not move the marker and then openly declares the defendant righteous. This use of “to justify” is fairly straightforward. If a person’s actions are in conformity with the standards of the law, the judge declares him righteous; that is, the person is justified by his actions.
MEANING NUMBER 3 Meaning number 3 is to declare that a human being is judicially/forensically/legally righteous meritoriously based on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; this is received through the instrument of faith and is ultimately all by grace (Rom. 3:24, 28; 4:16; 5:9). Similar to meaning number 2, this use also involves a judge, legal standards, and actions required to meet those standards. However, the judge is the holy God, and the legal standard is moral perfection. On the surface, one would assume that if God were to compare our actions to His moral standard, He would come to the conclusion that all humans should be condemned. Another surface-level complication is that one would expect this evaluation to take place after all the actions have been considered. Yet, Paul says believers are justified—declared righteous permanently—when they first believe, before they have lived out their entire lives (Gal. 2:15–16; see Rom. 8:1). Nonbelievers will receive their official judgment at the end of their lives, but they will be condemned, not declared righteous.
This, in turn, raises two questions: (1) What is the logic for a perfect Judge to declare one righteous in the middle of his life and not wait until the end when all the evidence is in? (2) What is the meritorious basis for a perfect judge to declare a sinner righteous, since a perfect Judge would have to declare the sinner unrighteous if the basis for the judgment were the sinner’s deeds? The glorious solution to both of these “problems” is the same. God declares believers righteous based on the merit of the righteous work of Christ imputed to them. Hence, the meritorious basis is Christ, and since His perfection is the basis, there is no need to wait for our works to be evaluated in our justification.
In sum, the key to the Paul-vs.-James difficulty is that each uses the verb “to justify” (dikaio ) in different but legitimate ways. In Romans 3:28, Paul uses it in the most technical sense; in James 2:24, it is used in the general sense.
Ping
You are known by your fruits, as Jesus said. If you’ve “got it,” it shows. That is what James is saying, and Paul doesn’t contradict that.
Paul does not mean that justification is a one time completed action based on Christ’s crucifixion.
Paul teaches that there are multiple stages of justification. In Romans 2:13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” James 1:22 “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” Paul spoke in the future tense “who will be justified”
Obedience leads to righteousness. Romans 6:16
The problem with this whole treatise is the the subject is not “Justify” but “Works”. James is speaking of the modern day works as what we think of today as “good works” but that is not what Paul is speaking about, he is speaking about the Jewish Law, the works Paul is referring to is about following Jewish law as outlined in Mosaic Law.
So realizing this both Apostles are in agreement since they speak on different topics. Paul says that the obeying of Jewish law does does not justify you while James is saying that if you have faith as your motivation for good works and have a belief in Jesus Christ then good works justify you since they prove your faith in Christ.
Please don’t throw rocks at me thinking I am saying that works can save you, they cannot, they are simply a proof of faith, a symptom of your faith. I like the way the Apostle James states it, “Faith without works is dead.” I also like his expression of “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works”. These quotes may not be exact since I just pulled them from memory but I’m pretty sure that is the jist of them. James also tells us that Faith alone without works will not save you. He explains that if you don’t have works you don’t really have faith. James treatment of works and faith in his epistle, I think especially the 2nd chapter is good reading.
IF read in context, and understanding the terms correctly, there is no contradiction between Paul and James...especially as they both hold up Abraham as an example in their writings.
Good works are product of salvation, not a means of salvation. The writings of Paul and James are not in opposition; they are back-to-back defending against legalism (Paul) and antinomianism (James).
Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, not by works. Furthermore, Ephesians 2:10 states we were saved by faith for good works. James 2 says that works show faith. It is cause and effect, not faith plus works.
We are saved by faith,
AND
We are judged on our works.
Like the old time gospel song teaches
Will there be any stars in your crown after you get to heaven?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUQ5hvAco
What? You mean one is not justified by fealty to the sacrementals? /sarc
I recall watching a really interesting video on this years ago. The preacher was an ex-hooker that had married some old guy preacher. Seriously. She didn’t come across as a huckster, and the entire video was her sermon which was more like a Bible Study.
Anyway, she said their were three(?) Greek words that we translate into works. “Dynamos” (iirc - which we get dynamite from) was the word used when describing God’s works through us. This was the term used for the above verses associating works and faith. Another word was used for our own personal works. A third word, rarely used in the Bible, was Satan’s works through humans.
Not sure how accurate she was - but it made sense to me.
You are in error. Paul tells you that the righteousness of Christ is IMPUTED to the believer when they believe in their heart. What would a Catholic add to that imputed righteousness to make it more efficacious?
Jesus did not die on that cross to redeem your sinful flesh nature (your behavior mechanism known as 'soul'). He died so that you can have eternal LIFE in your spirit. How will a Catholic add to the perfected righteousness GOD places in the spirit of those who are born again in the here and now?
She wasn’t a hooker, she was an ‘exotic dancer’ and she married Eugene Scott, and upon his death she assumed the pulpit he left behind.
Have you ever experienced Gene Scott’s annual sermon on the Resurrection? It is one of the most powerful witnessing sermons I have ever heard in my 74 years on this planet and 47 years as a born from above member of God’s Family.
No, and you will find no Catholic who claims otherwise. Sacramentals are a way of expressing (and reminding oneself of) faith. Same as using the "sign of the Cross", or saying grace at meals (which Protestants apparently have no problem with).
When I cross myself and say grace at breakfast (eaten by muself when no one else is awake yet), I'm calling MYSELF to "be attentive" to my faith.
"But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, . . " James 2:18
Thank you for the names! And I’ll look for the resurrection video.
I would be interested to hear what your brand of Catholicism says about pope Gregory's Purgatory and indulgences??? There may be a vane of Catholicism I am not aware of ...
Quoting Romans 6:16, are you confused on the difference between Justified as a born again believer and sanctification as an eternal life living member of The Body of Christ? It appears you are a bit confused, as if you can earn your way to Justification, which you cannot.
Excellent! I’m gonna use that one fer shur
Kerping ... a most succinct wording!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.