Harmony of James and Paul

[Mr. Bultitude]

I was reading a paper called "The Gospel in the Epistle of James" (by Jonathan Ritchie Smith in 1899) and found the following section on James 2 intriguing:

The decisive fact is that both James and Paul regard faith and works - true faith and good works - as inseparable, though Paul emphasizes the one and James the other. Paul affirms that works without faith are dead; James affirms that faith without works is dead. Paul discovers no value in works except as the fruit of faith; James discovers no value in faith except as the root of works. Yet Paul declares that God "will render to every man according to his works" (Rom. 2:6), and that not the hearers but the doers of a law shall be justified (Rom. 2:13). And James asserts that works have no merit apart from the motive which prompts them, for the royal law, the supreme law of the Christian life, is love (Jas. 2:8). Faith without works is dead, says James; faith without love is dead, says Paul (1 Cor. 13:2), love which is the fulfilling of the law. And John teaches that love without works is dead (1 John 3:17-18). If there be a question at issue between Paul and James, it is simply the question whether the root or the fruit is more important - the root from which the tree proceeds, or the fruit for which the tree was made. The common formula of salvation in which James and Paul and John unite is faith that worketh by love.

James clearly teaches, then, that works have no independent value. They are acceptable to God as the fruit of faith and love. By works faith is shown and proved. Salvation is not of works. "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all" (Jas. 2:13). "In many things we all stumble" (Jas. 3:2). We have all therefore need of mercy. Judgment without mercy is condemnation (Jas. 2:13). James is evidently in full accord with his Master (Mt. 7:17-27, 25:31ff., John 5:28-29), and differs from Paul only in emphasis and proportion. Of Abraham, the typical example of faith, James teaches that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. Evidently neither is sufficient alone. And, again, by his works was the Scripture fulfilled, that he believed God (Jas. 2:22-23). Abraham furnishes the most notable illustration of the truth that faith and works are inseparable in the godly life.​

What do you think? Does he represent both scriptural authors' messages fairly without contortion? Is this a good capsule summary of the congruence of their respective messages?

 

[Afterthought]

I have had similar thoughts about justification by faith alone being taught by James and wrote the following brief thoughts on the matter (from James 2). However, I don't think it's right to say the authors view the root or fruit as more "important;" they just are emphasizing different things due to their audiences and subject matter. The key in James is noting WHAT works are said to justify (faith); one can then understand that the statements about PERSONS later on in the chapter are about their faith being justified, not them.

Faith is the root: "23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

Works are the fruit (and in this case, works of the First Table!): "21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

"24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Justification of persons is by faith alone; but a person's faith is justified/shown to be real by works. The "man" is "justified" by works in that they show the sincerity and reality of his faith (or in concepts that James uses: that the man's faith is alive). Belief -> Action"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't wish to criticize too much, because I sense the noble desire of the author (Smith) to reconcile two inspired authors. Both men's Source is the Holy Spirit, who being God does not deny himself, he does not contradict.

There is an evident weakness in the first series of the defense (of Paul), in that Mr. Smith draws (apparently) from Rom.2 for witness that Paul affirms work's place in the life of the Christian. This is the wrong text, because there is only one conclusion that can be safely drawn from this passage that assumes the general context of the Covenant of Works. That conclusion is: no one will survive a judgment according to his works, because no one is a doer of the law; ergo, no one will be justified by that standard.

If one would understand the place, and the need for, good works in Paul, let him go to Rom.6, and follow the argument out. There is only one legitimate outcome of saving faith: the fruit of holiness (v22), because the outcome of anything else is death (vv21 & 23). And see 8:6, 13, etc.

With Calvin, I don't think that "faith working through love" is a kind of unifying thematic chord that harmonizes the various apostles' teaching together. Their teaching IS harmonious, but it will not do to settle on one form of words from this or that human author and make it the key to the whole. Calvin writes that when one is connecting faith and justification theologically (exegeting Paul), he must "hew to the exclusive particle," i.e. "alone."

Still on the whole, the idea that Paul puts stress on the faith at the root of justification, and James on works at the fruit of it, is typical of the Reformed treatment of their combined witness.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Thank you both for your helpful responses.

I agree that it's problematic to say that they disagreed on which is "more important," though he may have simply meant that they differed on which was more important to emphasize in their respective contexts.

Bruce, I've got some follow-up questions, if I may.

If one would understand the place, and the need for, good works in Paul, let him go to Rom.6, and follow the argument out. There is only one legitimate outcome of saving faith: the fruit of holiness (v22), because the outcome of anything else is death (vv21 & 23). And see 8:6, 13, etc.

This brings to mind another question I had about James, regarding what looks like a possible blurring of the law-gospel distinction. James 1:18-25 refers to the "implanted word," that is, "the word of truth," which would seem to reference the gospel. But then he immediately talks about being "doers of the word" and seems to equate it with "the perfect law." What gives here?

With Calvin, I don't think that "faith working through love" is a kind of unifying thematic chord that harmonizes the various apostles' teaching together. Their teaching IS harmonious, but it will not do to settle on one form of words from this or that human author and make it the key to the whole. Calvin writes that when one is connecting faith and justification theologically (exegeting Paul), he must "hew to the exclusive particle," i.e. "alone."

Could you point me to a particular writing of Calvin's where he critiques the view you reference here?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Could you point me to a particular writing of Calvin's where he critiques the view you reference here?

https://heidelblog.net/2013/11/calvin-resolutely-adhere-to-the-exclusive-particle/
https://heidelblog.net/2015/09/the-logic-of-fruit-as-evidence-2/

regarding what looks like a possible blurring of the law-gospel distinction. James 1:18-25 refers to the "implanted word," that is, "the word of truth," which would seem to reference the gospel. But then he immediately talks about being "doers of the word" and seems to equate it with "the perfect law." What gives here?

It is James attending James' concerns. James blurs nothing; v21 sounds (to me) practically indistinguishable from Paul's terms, Col.3:12f, "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." (cf. Rom.12:1).

The Word of God comes to the elect; and by it the Spirit does his sovereign, secret, saving work. That's v18. But James style isn't to wait until a full doctrinal rehearsal, or some other fulsome introduction that takes half the letter; he gets shortly to his main concern, which is the requirement for Christians to live righteously. He must needs have the professing believer get willfully engaged, and abandon any inclination to spiritual laziness.

Christians--probably mostly ethnic Jews to whom he writes this early letter, especially those who are living as a minority among Jews who are not Christians in cities all over the empire, just as they were from day1 in Jerusalem--I can imagine various temptations coming against them: to excuse-make as to holiness the way they did before conversion, the way their neighbors still did; or to abuse the gospel so as to excuse even worse behavior, the forgiveness of Christ being treated like a free-pass. What about the temptation to emphasize those externals, the areas we think we're good at and will impress people around us?

James feels the need to emphasize the Christian's duty to cultivate a humble (meek) holiness, in light of the mercies of God, on account of the good work begun in him. James writes as to professing believers, without cluttering up his admonitions with asides that affirm, "the elect won't fall away." That is true, but basically election is one of God's secret things (Dt.29:29); and those who either obsess over it or presume upon it aren't wise in any case. He seems to say to the reader/hearer, Live as if the assessment of your "pure and undefiled religion" was your personal responsibility.

*************
I would have to return and do some research into my (long-past) sermon series on James, to offer deeper insights. I believe one of my conclusions was that James' letter contains the essence of probably three distinct sermons of his, a "series," if you will, condensed into a letter (cf. 1:2; 2:1, & 3:1). It is this pattern, plus his particular ethical concern, that leads to repeated (and varied) focus on moral defections. I suspect his verbal presentation had more sermonic emphasis on the gospel; and the letter gives us just enough to make sure we know he did not leave it out.

No, I don't think James blurs law and gospel; I also don't think he's aiming to identify one part of his audience as "the unbelievers" and a second part as "the believers," so he can target only the latter with "the third use." He just aims at his (largely Jewish) audience and, and discharges the law in their direction. Holy Spirit knew the NT needed one letter like this.

 

[DTK]

Still on the whole, the idea that Paul puts stress on the faith at the root of justification, and James on works at the fruit of it, is typical of the Reformed treatment of their combined witness.

And so agreed Augustine...

Augustine (354-430): So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified?” The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; Gn 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
3. Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God's scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep.
My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God's command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won't. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.
4. What are we to make of this? That no good actions take precedence of faith, in the sense that no one can be said to have performed good works before believing? Yes, that's right, because although people may claim to perform good works before faith, works that seem praiseworthy to onlookers, such works are vacuous. They look to me like someone running with great power and at high speed, but off course. This is why no one should reckon actions performed before belief as good; where there was no faith, there was no good action either. It is the intention that makes an action good, and the intention is directed by faith. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, §2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.

As an aside, many Roman apologists claim wrongly that Augustine never distinguished between true faith and a dead faith (the latter of which he often attributed to demons). But the fact of the matter is that Augustine distinguished between true faith and false faith repeatedly and quite forcefully, which would be quite easy for me to demonstrate.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Thanks Bruce for the reply, and thank you David for the Augustine quotes.

Bruce, the remaining itch I have regarding James and the law-gospel distinction is that it seems that he uses the same term (namely, "word") to refer to the gospel, and then to refer to the law, within a very short space. Would you say that it's a mistake to read Jas 1:18 as a reference to the gospel?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think calling James' use of the same term, "word," between v18 and v21ff a "blurring" effect is a mistake. I don't think that understanding v18 as more of a gospel reference is error, but fact. And I think v21ff has more of a law reference.

What he says about the truthful word in v18--that it has, in effect, brought us out (of slavery, of death, of non-being) into his new creation--is not exactly what he says about the ingrafted word's effect shortly thereafter in v21ff. That he calls the latter, "salvation," reflects his orientation away from concern about the origin of one's covenant relationship to God to its culmination. Salvation, in biblical terms, is more than election, more than justification; but also sanctification unto glorification.

The one, unified word has both its promise and its demand. It's ALL the word, sometimes with one emphasis, sometimes with the other. Our attention isn't always drawn to the bifurcated nature of the word; sometimes it is the united whole. James' view seems primarily related to the latter, noting that the word functions in both senses or conditions, both creating (v18) and blessing (v25).

Undertaking the harmony of theology is essential to the Bible teacher's task. It's his job to analyze and explain James' terms, in order to show (for example) that James and Paul are not fundamentally at odds, or he and John, or he and Jesus, or he and Isaiah, or he and David, etc. The breakdown in modern theology is the result of denying a necessary, a priori commitment to real, thoroughgoing, Spirit-wrought harmony; privileging "diversity" to the extent of forcing some or all the biblical writers into (at least a little!) conflict. Because that's what makes it fun and novel for them.

Why does one, unified word create, then bless? Is it exactly the same kind of working? Or is it exactly the same kind of reception? Where is the difference, if any? That's your systematical theology engagement. Because James (preoccupied with his own thrust) isn't diverting his discussion into a lengthy aside, where he details all his background understanding. The harmony of Scripture does that for him.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

I think a part of my difficulty, which I haven't expressed previously in this thread, is the fact that other NT writers use the term "word of truth" and seem to define it as the gospel. Maybe I've been reading it too simplistically, as though that term must therefore always refer exclusively to the gospel. Is it fair to say that even those other writers aren't intending "word of truth" to exclusively mean "gospel"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It is a needless straitjacket, and usually gravely mistaken, to imagine that even one writer is bound to use a certain term or phrase always and everywhere in one particular sense. Let alone that numerous writers all sound alike.

There are "technical terms" in Scripture, for instance the word "gospel." It's probably safe to apply a narrow range of meaning across the NT, given the nature of the term. But "word of truth," that expression doesn't (to my ear) instantly call to mind a distinctly gospel-reference.

2Tim.2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." How could this use possibly refer exclusively to the gospel? Does it not refer to the Scriptures as a whole in Timothy's possession, i.e. the OT?

Col.1:5 speaks of, "the word of the truth of the gospel," thus making the gospel-specific reference explicit. Eph.1:13 is parallel, and just as explicit. 2Cor.6:7 seems far from any parallel, and it isn't explicit; I have no predisposition to think Paul must mean exclusively "gospel" there.

Therefore, only 50% of Paul's uses are unquestionably an exclusive gospel-reference, because Paul is then explicit. This is beside the fact that I did say James probably had a "gospel" emphasis in mind when he uses the expression, 1:18.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Thanks, well said. I appreciate your patient engagement as always.