James and Paul

[cavalier973]

James 2:20-24
“But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

This passage seems to be saying that faith alone is not enough to be justified. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, says this:


“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.” Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him,
but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.”

Notice that Paul does not bring up the offering of Isaac, except, perhaps, obliquely (“God, Who gives life to the dead”; see Hebrews 11:17-19). Paul does talk about circumcision, and that Abraham was declared righteous, based on his believing God, prior to the giving of the sign of circumcision.

James and Paul, then, seem to be making opposite claims about works, faith, and salvation.

Let’s look at James’s view, now. He says that Abraham’s offering of Isaac was the “righteous work” that brought him justification. Consider, though, that in Genesis, Abraham was declared righteous in chapter 15 (when Abraham was in his mid to late 70s, by my understanding) but the offering of Isaac do not occur until chapter 22, which was well over twenty years later—Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, and then Isaac was old enough to talk and to carry the wood for the offering. So, for 20+ years, Abraham was in a state of “declared righteousness” before the offering of Isaac; that is, the “good work that justified him”. (Notice that James does not mention circumcision, like Paul does; that might be a clue that the two authors are making different arguments—that is, arguing about different things.)

The “good work” that “justified” Abraham was not the Ten Commandments. In fact, it was in direct violation of the commandment to “not murder”. So, why was this a righteous act that justified Abraham? I think it is because Abraham’s complete trust in God was demonstrated. He trusted God’s promises, but also trusted God’s character.

God had previously told Abraham that Isaac was the one through whom all His promises to Abraham would be fulfilled—it wouldn’t be through Ishmael, and it wouldn’t be through Eliezer, Abraham’s servant. In fact, God calls Isaac Abraham’s “only son”. Think about the situation: God tells Abraham, “Isaac is the child of promise; your many descendents that I said you would have will be through Isaac. Now, take him out and kill him.” (I will point out here that God did not ask Abraham to do something that God, Himself, was unwilling to do—and, in fact, did).

Abraham did not hesitate. Why? The Hebrews passage I mentioned earlier (11:17-19) explains that Abraham’s faith in God’s promises was so complete, that he still believed that Isaac was the one through whom the promises would be kept, even if Isaac died. Abraham believed that God would have to raise Isaac back from the dead, because God’s promises were stronger than death.

I think, also, that Abraham trusted God’s character completely. If God asked me, as a hypothetical example, to offer my child in sacrifice to Him, I would assume that it was Satan trying to trick me, at first, but, having verified that it was actually God making the command, I might refuse, and abandon faith in God due to my perception that He is evil. At the very least, I would equivocate, and rationalize that God didn’t really mean to “kill” my child, only to “offer” him, and/or that maybe I could use a doll or something to represent my child instead. Abraham didn’t do that. He was reaching for the knife when God stopped him.

A lot of people want to judge God’s character by His actions. That is the wrong way to look at things, however. We must judge His actions by His character. This is what Abraham did. He didn’t protest that killing his son was an evil act, but rather trusted that a good God would not ask this of him without a good reason, and that God was the one asking him made the act of sacrificing his son a righteous act, even if he did not see how. Abraham trusted God completely, without question. His “work” was not the observance of moral or ritual law, but an act of supreme obedience based on trust in God, and that God would work everything out as He promised.

To sum up: some try to use James chapter 2 to make an argument along the lines of: “Well, Abraham was justified by works, therefore, you need to keep the Ten Commandments and be a good person in order to be saved.”

That is not the argument James is making, though. Abraham wasn’t justified by keeping the Ten Commandments—they hadn’t yet been given. Murdering a child as a sacrificial offering seems to be in violation of the Ten Commandments. Abraham also wasn’t justified by periodically marching Isaac up the mountain to be offered as a sacrifice; it was a one-time event. The offering of Isaac was a picture of Abraham’s complete dependence on God to arrange everything to His purpose. When Isaac asked where the lamb was, Abraham declared that God will provide it.

In the same way, the Lord Jesus handles every part of our salvation. To be justified, we only believe in Him, and add nothing of our own “good works”. We believe first, and are declared righteous. The works that “justify” will follow from our faith.

[Intrepid]

Paul was a fount of delusional ideas about Jesus and God. If he said "this" you can be sure the answer is "that".

[wizardwatson]

Paul was a fount of delusional ideas about Jesus and God. If he said "this" you can be sure the answer is "that".

This is a common rumor going around no doubt connected to Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" where Nietzsche posits that Paul's "version" of Christianity emphasizes weakness, pity, and false piety, rather than strength, courage and true virtue.

Of course this is mostly believed by people who have never read the bible. Paul does none of those things and he wasn't some "corruptor of the faith".

Paul was vouched for by Peter in the text of the New Testament, for starters. But mostly, people just don't like what Christianity preaches in general, and because most of that preaching comes through Paul's letters (as he was the chosen witness to the Gentiles) naturally, people who reject Christianity aim the brunt of their rejection of it at Paul.

[donnay]

This is a common rumor going around no doubt connected to Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" where Nietzsche posits that Paul's "version" of Christianity emphasizes weakness, pity, and false piety, rather than strength, courage and true virtue.

Of course this is mostly believed by people who have never read the bible. Paul does none of those things and he wasn't some "corruptor of the faith".

Paul was vouched for by Peter in the text of the New Testament, for starters. But mostly, people just don't like what Christianity preaches in general, and because most of that preaching comes through Paul's letters (as he was the chosen witness to the Gentiles) naturally, people who reject Christianity aim the brunt of their rejection of it at Paul.

+1

[wizardwatson]

In the same way, the Lord Jesus handles every part of our salvation. To be justified, we only believe in Him, and add nothing of our own “good works”. We believe first, and are declared righteous. The works that “justify” will follow from our faith.

In short, I would say Paul's emphasis is that works don't "get you there". James is saying, if you don't have works, you aren't "there".

They are different contexts.

It's like addressing the over-puritanical catholic rites crowd (the circumcision group Paul railed against) vs. the "Just Believe!" evangelical mega-church crowd (gentiles who still want to live how they live but have the "Jesus approved" stamp.)

"Becoming" or "converting" to Christianity is ultimately an act of repentance. A turning towards God from the neutral/opposed spectrum. The mechanism of that turning can be studied and dissected but ultimately it is a personal matter between God and each individual. It's a matter of the heart. God's domain.

However, the evidence of that turning is much less of a mystery. At the most fundamental level, the journey to God begins with a real acknowledgement of what sin and judgement is.

Jesus, of course, is the key to all of this. His preaching and his very life are prophetic, symbolic and a lot more. He rebuked sin. Spending most of his time on the most common sin-lying and hypocrisy. But the miracles were undoing the judgement of sin (disease and death). However, he didn't do the miracles where there was no faith.

I never worry about things like "does Paul contradict James", etc. All that really matters is does Paul or James contradict Jesus.