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)
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)