# James 2:24



## NoxNoctum (Jul 3, 2012)

I know the normal explanation for this apparent contradiction between Paul and James is that James is speaking of the proof of justification rather than the justification before God, or the "vindication" of justification (and he clearly draws a distinction because in verse 23 he acknowledges that is it is faith that justified Abraham).. but then I wonder... why does he use language so similar to Paul? If he is really speaking of a different justification why does he seem to be "answering" Paul by even bringing up the same illustration with Abraham? It's almost as if he's intentionally causing a paradox, do you guys think that might be the case?

I know that in proverbs sometimes paradoxes are used to illustrate a point, for example Proverbs 26:4-5 where the same word "according" means two different things, and James does have a certain wisdom literature feel at points.

The proving of genuine faith is definitely talked about in scripture, but I just wonder... why didn't James say "you see that a person is shown to be justified by works". He could have easily put it that way, but he put in the most controversial way possible which is why I thought it might be an intentional paradox. (something I read in a commentary that made sense to me)


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 3, 2012)

I think that you misunderstand the previous passages if you come to the conclusion that Paul and James are at odds. Verse 18 describes what faith in Christ brings forth: works. Think about it this way, Christ describes where sin comes from, i.e. the heart. Your heart is full of evil desires. Christ specifically says: "19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person" (Matt 15). We see these as acts of what is within man. Man expresses his desire, which is in essence, a lack of faith in Christ. When we sin, as believers, we show lack of faith in Christ as well. Instead of trusting and obeying Christ, we do as we want, rather then as we ought. However, we are distinct from unbelievers outwardly because we show the fruits of the spirit (Gal 5). This would be an outward expression of what has already taken place within the heart, i.e. faith in Christ. This is what Christ meant by telling us that we "may have life and have it abundantly" (Matt 10:10). So, since this is an outward expression of the change and transformation in the heart, we can see that these people are acting out this change. Thus, this is what James meant when he stated this: "14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Also, he further uses Abraham as the example of a changed man acting upon his transformed heart: "21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works". Abraham was actively working out his faith from his already transformed heart.

I want to leave you this quote from the Reformation Study Bible that, I believe, helps. It's on James 2:24:


> A person in not shown to be just by the mere profession of faith or by having a faith that remains alone. A person is only shown to be just by what he or she does. None of our deeds are worthy of ultimate justification in the sight of God. Only the merit of Christ avails for that kind of justification. Only by trusting in Christ alone can we be made righteous in the sight of God. Here James attacks all forms of antinomianism that seeks to have Jesus as Savior without embracing Him as Lord. Just as Paul demonstrated that trusting in one's own works is deadly, so James teaches that resting on empty or dead faith is deadly.


----------



## NoxNoctum (Jul 3, 2012)

Right, I'm not saying I think that James and Paul are contradicting, but that I think it's strange that James doesn't put it in a way that would make this passage less prone to misunderstanding by simply adding "shown to be justified"/"justification proved" since that is what this passage _has_ to be about. That's what I meant by how it seems to be almost a deliberate paradox, maybe to force the reader to really think about what's he's speaking of?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 3, 2012)

NoxNoctum said:


> Right, I'm not saying I think that James and Paul are contradicting, but that I think it's strange that James doesn't put it in a way that would make this passage less prone to misunderstanding by simply adding "shown to be justified"/"justification proved" since that is what this passage _has_ to be about. That's what I meant by how it seems to be almost a deliberate paradox, maybe to force the reader to really think about what's he's speaking of?



That's the thing though, there isn't a paradox. It's something the reader forces onto the text. Saying there is an apparent contradiction pushes the reader's thought onto the text. This is eisegesis. However, if you take the text from an exegetical standpoint, you wouldn't say there is a paradox.


----------



## NoxNoctum (Jul 3, 2012)

You don't think it's paradoxical though that he uses the word "justification" to mean something different from the way Paul uses it in Romans 3-5 despite paralleling Paul's language in several ways?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 3, 2012)

First, no where in this passage does James use "justification". He uses justified. Second, justified is used frequently throughout scripture meaning other things besides a legal declaration of a person before God (e.g. Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:35). Third, this passage is about the relationship between works and faith, not (the doctrine of) justification.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 3, 2012)

Not everyone uses language the same way. Let's remember that Paul and James are two different writers and they're not consulting a theological dictionary or systematics textbook as they write. Words have a range of meaning and it takes context to understand what a particular author is saying in a particular place when he uses a particular word. What James means by "faith" may not be precisely how Paul often uses it. For example, Paul could have in mind what our textbooks call "saving faith" while James could be speaking of mere "intellectual consent"—even if they both use the same word. (I'm not saying they necessarily are, but they could be.) When you consider the context and the points they're trying to make, you can see that they're in agreement even though individual sentences may seem, at first glance, to disagree with each other.


----------



## NoxNoctum (Jul 5, 2012)

The only thing that throws is that why does James even fit faith into it at all if he is speaking about "justified" in the "manifested/vindicated" or "justified before men" sense? Obviously faith cannot justify at all in that sense, because we can't see it, it's not even a part of it. So why not say "a man is [shown to be] justified by works and not by faith"?

Hope that makes sense what I'm asking.

Then again, in verse 18 James *does* offer a challenge to "justify yourself by your faith" essentially, so I guess it goes along with that.

Thoughts?


----------



## NoxNoctum (Jul 7, 2012)

One other thing that I find a bit troubling is James 2:23 which says _and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God._

This is treating Genesis 15:6 like a prophecy, or something that had not yet been accomplished (i.e. predicting Abraham's believing God when he offered Isaac, rather than his initial belief in Gen 15), but Paul clearly says that Abraham had the righteousness by faith before he was circumcised (which was before he offered his son Isaac):

_He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
_

In other words,, since Abraham clearly had the righteousness by faith before he was circumcised which was before he offered Isaac, the "fulfilled" of James 2:23 can't be that it was something that was predicted in Gen 15 but did not already occur. But I still find this passage a bit strange.

Are there any other prophecies in the bible that are treated in a similar way: Not in the accomplishing of something previously predicted but the showing of what was already true?

thanks


----------



## Jack K (Jul 7, 2012)

NoxNoctum said:


> One other thing that I find a bit troubling is James 2:23 which says _and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God._
> 
> This is treating Genesis 15:6 like a prophecy, or something that had not yet been accomplished (i.e. predicting Abraham's believing God when he offered Isaac, rather than his initial belief in Gen 15), but Paul clearly says that Abraham had the righteousness by faith before he was circumcised (which was before he offered his son Isaac):
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that treating this discussion as being about predictive prophesy fits the point James is making. Suppose we summarize James' point as this: You ought to live righteously, proving that your faith is real.

Then, the discussion of Abraham simply means that he lived righteously, proving that the statement made in 15:6 was true. So using the context to understand how James is using his words, we find that "fulfilled" has more of a "proven true" meaning than a "correctly predicted" meaning (though these meanings are not all _that_ different, are they?).


----------



## NoxNoctum (Jul 8, 2012)

Good point, thanks


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 8, 2012)

*Leighton*


> but then I wonder... why does he use language so similar to Paul? If he is really speaking of a different justification why does he seem to be "answering" Paul by even bringing up the same illustration with Abraham? It's almost as if he's intentionally causing a paradox, do you guys think that might be the case?



If James is directly answering such as openly abused the doctrine of justification by faith alone, his language is perfectly understandable, although there may be additional considerations as mentioned by Jack and Andrew above.


----------

