What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 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. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
(James 2:14-26, ESV)

For many of those who reject the historic Protestant doctrine of Justification through faith alone (such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Churches of Christ, and Latter-Day Sains, among others), James 2:14-26 is generally brought out the most commonly cited passage against Sola Fide in favour of a doctrine of Justification that includes meritorious works in addition to faith. Now, this verse (or at least the works-based interpretation of it) would appear to contradict other parts of scripture, such as Romans 3:28, which states that “a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” This has even led some to conclude that James was actually trying to contradict Paul (ignoring the fact that James and Paul were addressing two different audiences with two very different problems at hand). Thus, the apparent contradiction between James 2 with other passages such as Romans 3:28 should be resolved by careful exegesis and looking at the entirety of scripture in its proper context. Perhaps this would be a good time to take a look at James 2 and how this relates to justification.

It must be remembered that words can take on different meanings when used in different contexts, and that it is fallacious to simply take what a word means in a certain passage and assume that it means the exact same thing in every other instance that it is used. This is based upon an exegetical fallacy known as false assumptions about technical meaning. “In this fallacy,” as D.A. Carson explains, “an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning—a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology.”[1] This is the case with the word for “justify” (δικαιόω). A contradiction would definitely arise if we were to suppose that Paul and James are using the word “justify” in the exact same sense in their respective epistles. However, context should indicate that they are using the word in different senses.

At this point, it is helpful to refer to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which is one of the most important works written regarding the meaning of words in the Greek New Testament as they appear in various contexts. First off, it is interesting to note here that it mentions here that the use of the word δικαιόω is forensic in the Septuagint, mostly used in the positive sense “to pronounce righteous” or “to vindicate,” and this can refer to divine or human vindication.[2] This helps to explain how the word is used by Paul and by James. When Paul uses “justify,” he uses it to refer to a declarative act of God in which the sinner is acquitted in His sight. This is the sense it is used in throughout Romans, and especially in Romans 4:2,4, 5:1,9. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary explains,

In Paul we first find… a legal use. The wicked are justified on the basis of God’s gracious action in Christ. This justifying is a saving acquittal which takes place in the present…. The sense in Gal. 2:16-17 is that of being righteous in God’s eyes. The idea of judgment is always present, but dikaioun is a present act of grace through Christ. Yet Paul’s use of the term… also makes a contribution to the question of experience (cf. Gal. 3:8, 11; Rom. 3:24). Once-for-all justification at the cross and personal justification in faith go together. Justification is a finished work of grace, yet the term “by faith” (cf. Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 11) shows that it is also a continuing present, so that we cannot sever the objective act and the subjective apprehension…[3]

So, justification in Paul’s letters is 1) a forensic/legal term, which deserves to be understood as such, and 2) a once-for-all event, but has continuing effects in the present. It is interesting as well to note that Matthew and Luke use the word in the same way (cf. Matthew 12:37 and Luke 18:3).[4] Contrasted with this is how James uses the term:

James speaks three times about being justified by works. The reference is to present justification. Abraham is a righteous man whose works are recognized. This is not said in polemic against Paulinism but in order to stress that true faith is not idle but active (Jas. 2:21 ff.).[5]

When James uses “justify,” he is using the term in the sense of vindicating or proving one’s justification. Our Lord Himself uses the word in this sense when He says, “Yet wisdom is justified [ἐδικαιώθη] by her deeds/children.” (Matthew 11:19, ESV and Luke 7:35). Obviously, this does not mean that wisdom becomes wisdom by virtue of her producing deeds, but that her producing deeds becomes evidence of her authenticity. In fact, if you looked at this verse in the New American Standard Bible, you will find that ἐδικαιώθη is translated therein as “vindicated.” This shows that the word “justify” can have some very nuanced meanings, and it is this meaning “justify” takes on in James’ writings.

To put it in simpler terms: look at the sentence, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, NASB), and think of it the same way you would think of the sentence, “You see that the sky is blue because you looked up at it.” Does your looking up at the sky cause it to become blue ? Of course not! The sky’s colour is not dependent upon our looking up at it, but it is by looking up at it that we recognize that it is blue. It is the same case with faith and works.

At  this point, it may be asked, “Well who was there to see Abraham’s good work being performed aside from God? Wasn’t he alone when he offered up Isaac?” There are two fairly simple answers to this question. First of all, there is Isaac, who would have undoubtedly remembered his father’s faith and would also most likely have passed on this story to his progeny. Second, remember who James is addressing when he says “You see…”. Abraham’s faith is shown to be genuine to those to whom James is writing to, who would probably have known about the story in Genesis firsthand.

That being said, we may safely say that although our justification is not grounded upon whether we perform works or not, the works that faith produces becomes the evidence that vindicates our claim to having been justified by the blood of Christ. This is the gist of James’ answer to the “someone” he responds to in James 2:18 when he says, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” The note on the New English Translation helps explain this, stating that “James’ reply is [intended to mean] that faith cannot exist or be seen without works.”[6]

It also helps to remember that James is writing verse 24 in the context of an argument that begins in verse 14 and concludes with verse 26: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?… As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead” (James 2:14, 26). Although the second phrase in verse 14 literally reads “can the faith save him?,” it is perfectly legitimate to translate the definite article in this instance as “that faith” (as in the NASB and ESV) or “such faith” (as in the NIV). The reason for this is that James is referring to a specific kind of faith, which is the faith that produces no works which he introduces at the beginning of his argument. The entirety of James 2:14-26 (and, one could argue, the rest of the epistle of James as well) is dedicated to making a distinction between genuine saving faith (which produces works as evidence of its being genuine) with dead faith (which produces no works). Ironically, even Roman Catholic scholars have recognized that this is the case. As Jesuit biblical scholar Thomas Leahy states in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,

James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but merely the making of such a claim… As is clear from context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine.[7]

Further on, Leahy refutes the idea that the apostles James and Paul are teaching two divergent views on justification. He goes on to write,

The most satisfactory hypothesis is that James seeks to correct a current perverted understanding of Pauline teaching on justification, one that would, unlike genuine Pauline doctrine, make no moral demands on the believer.[8]

Thus, we see that James 2 has nothing to do with how one can be declared righteous before God. Rather, it has to do with how one can demonstrate the authenticity of one’s claim to be declared righteous. This is the same argument that the Lord Jesus made in the sermon on the Mount when He was warning against false prophets:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
(Matthew 7:15-23)

If we were to take the works-based interpretation of James 2 and apply it to Jesus’ statement here, then we would be forced to conclude that a tree must produce good fruit in order for it to become a good tree. But that is obviously not what Christ intended to convey here. Rather, one must be a good tree in order to be able to bear good fruit. It is the nature of the tree which determines the nature of the fruit, not the other way around. The same applies to relationship between faith and works. In other words, saving faith produces good works to demonstrate that it is genuine, but good works are not what make saving faith genuine.

Not only that, but James 2 has historically been interpreted in ways that do not at all conflict with the doctrine of Justification through faith alone. For example, the sixth century church writer Oecumenius who wrote commentaries on Acts, the epistles, and on Revelation, writes this in his commentary on James 2:23:

Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone [ἐκ μόνης πίστεως], since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars.[9]

There seems to be that one little caveat where he says “But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar,” though this can quite easily be explained by the proceeding sentence which explain that his works are the result of his faith.

Needless to say, James 2 is not really a problem for those who affirm justification through faith alone. Thoughtful exegetes have grappled with the text plenty of times before[10] and have worked out what the proper understanding of it is. It is important to be properly informed about the context of this passage and how to refute the misuse of it as it is vital to defending the biblical Gospel against those who seek to overthrow it in favour of works-based systems of meriting salvation.

End Notes

  1. Carson, Donald Arthur. Exegetical Fallacies (Second Edition). Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 1996. p. 45
  2. Friedrich, Gerhard and Gerhard Kittel (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged in One Volume). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1985. p. 175.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid., p. 176
  6. James 2. NET Bible. <http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Jam&chapter=2#n29>.
  7. Leahy, Thomas W., S.J. “The Epistle of James.” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Raymond E. Brown, S.J., et. al., eds.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. pp. 912-913.
  8. Ibid., p. 913.
  9. Bray, Gerald. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. p. 33. (Emphasis added)
  10. A good book on justification that deals with James 2 and other relevant passages would be Dr. James R. White’s The God Who Justifies. Minneapolis, MI: Bethany House, 2007. See also James Buchanan’s The Doctrine of Justification. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books.

Other related Aristophrenium articles: