Parent: JesusWordsOnly
James Likewise Sees Paul s Error on Abraham s Justification
James, in his exposition of the very same verse, (Gen. 15:6), still has the traditional interpretation of the Greek Septuagint in mind. God had made a new hard-to-believe promise to Abraham about offspring in his old age. (Gen. 15:5). Yet Abraham trusted God's promise. At that point, this trust was simply just another good characteristic of Abraham. It merely added to the status of justification that Abraham already enjoyed. Because James assumed justification can be lost, to know how Abraham was justified in the sense of final salvation, James must look ahead. That issue depends crucially on the final test where Abraham offered up Isaac in (Gen. 22). Thus, James understood the faith of Genesis 15:6 as part of the justification process. However, if you want to know how God measured Abraham's final justification, then James implies that you look at how he did on the last test, not at the test of his faith alone. ((Jas. 2:21), 23.)
-
God said Abraham's Covenant is an "eternal covenant" for all generations (Gen. 17:7). God said He "will" create such a covenant only if Abraham would first "walk before me blamelessly." (Gen. 17:1)
-
After Abraham was dead, God declared Abraham had been obedient to all His "law, commandments and statutes," and then affirmed He was about to institute His end of the covenant with Isaac. (Gen. 26:4-5.)
James starts by quoting (Gen. 15:6) from the Septuagint. Then James explains (Gen. 15:6) opposite of what Paul sees there. James says "see that by works a man is justified and not faith alone." ((Jas. 2:23-24).) Those commentators influenced by Paul, and those who attempt to translate Genesis 15:6 to match Paul's thoughts, are left mystified. They gasp: 'How can James say this in light of what is contained in Genesis 15:6?'
However, James' understanding lines up precisely with the pre-Christian interpretation of (Gen. 15:6), in particular the quote from Maccabees referenced above. To repeat, the non-canonical book of 1 Maccabees written in 135 B.C. says at 2:52: "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?" This verse is precisely what James alludes to in (Jas. 2:21). James even phrased it almost identically: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?"
Now combine the parallel between Maccabees and James to see what you find: 'was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, i.e., justified by works, and that faithfulness, i. e ., offering up Isaac on the altar, was imputed to Abraham as righteousness?' Maccabees and James thus both say (Gen. 15:6) is not the final verdict. It was an earlier step. If Abraham had failed the test of (Gen. 22), and not offered up Isaac, James is saying that then Abraham would be lost. But Abraham passed the test, and it is this later obedience which justifies Abraham. The earlier faith, taken alone, could not have saved Abraham. If he had failed in Genesis 22, then faith alone would have failed him as a means of final justification. Cf. Ezek. 33:12 et seq.
-
James' epistle reads similar to the Septuagint. This Septuagint translation became the accepted version by most, and James apparently elects not to debate the translation.
-
J. W. Roberts, The Letter of James (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1977) at 92.
How could James reach this conclusion based on (Gen. 15:6)? He saw, like 1 Maccabees saw, that Genesis 15:6 is not actually about faith, but about faithfulness. It is not about believing, but justification by faithful obedience. This is because James was using the Hebrew concept of faith to construe the Greek word for faith. In Hebrew, faithfulness cannot ever be separated from faith, contrary to what faith could mean in Greek. Thus, James knew the underlying Hebrew had to mean no less than that Abraham was faithful to God, and it was reckoned as righteousness.
Therefore, because Moses in writing (Gen. 15:6) could not separate faith and faithfulness, a Jewish mind would understand it from a Hebrew perspective. Justification for Abraham would crucially depend on how Abraham's life finished, not how it started.
Thus, James saw the faith in (Gen. 15:6) as a small step on a long road. He thus was exposing the error of how Paul was reading Genesis 15:6. James in (Jas. 2:21-24) saw faith as faithfulness in Genesis 15:6. James, like the Maccabees' interpretation, saw that the act of faith in Genesis 15:6 was good, but more important was Abraham's later faithful action of offering up Isaac in Genesis chapter 22.
Some Paulunists try to claim James is not talking about the topic of salvific justification, in order to avoid James' criticism of Paul's ideas. However, James is using/H.stified in the way Paul was trying to spin (Gen. 15:6). James uses the identical Greek word for "justified" that Paul used.
23.Later, at page 270, we discuss that in Hebrew, unlike Greek, faith could not be distinct from faithfulness.
He is thereby responding to Paul's interpretation of (Gen. 15:6). James is saying that if you address the issue of justification that counts eternally, then Genesis 15:6 is not sufficient. Faith alone will not suffice. Nor was Abraham justified for the first time as a person in Genesis 15:6 by adopting a mental belief (which James derides). Abraham already had a long period of faithful obedience to God up to that point. The faith of Genesis 15:6 was just another step in what justified Abraham. However, if you want to find the moment of final justification that counts, it must come after faith. For Abraham, his continuing faithful obedience culminates in Genesis 22. Such faithful obedience-both before and at the moment of the offering of Isaac-is what keeps on justifying the man, not faith alone. Accordingly, James concludes that "man is justified by works and not by faith alone" [/.£., a faith that is alone]. ((Jas. 2:24).) 24
James on Paul's Idea of Faith Alone
Just as Paul's misreading of (Gen. 15:6) led to a faith alone salvation ((Rom. 4:4-6)), James' correction of how to read Genesis 15:6 led to a correction of Paul's faith alone doctrine. James says in the same context that a faith without deeds does not justify and cannot save. James says this precisely in (Jas. 2:14), at direct odds with Paul's teachings.
24.James links the lack of justification with the concept of incomplete works. (Jesus did likewise in the Parable of the Sower and his letter to the church of Sardis in Revelation chapter 2.) James does so by saying in (Jas. 2:20-24) first that Abraham's "faith was working with his works" ( synergei tois ergois ). Then James says Abraham's faith was made complete by works. "The verb eteletiothe means 'perfected' (or 'brought to maturity')." (Stulac, James, supra, at 115.) Stulac confesses that the Scriptural promise of justification that Paul ascribes to faith, James says is "to be fulfilled by works." Id. Thus, James says, like Jesus says, that there is no justification without faith completed by works.
Stulac explains this verse in his commentary entitled James (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993). James makes his point plain in (Jas. 2:14) by means of the rhetorical question "can such faith [without works] save?" The question calls for a negative answer. Stulac says James means that faith without works is useless for "salvation itself." (Id., at 108.) Peter Davids, another specialist on James, agrees. He says James means the "use [-lessness of faith without works] takes on serious consequences, for it is salvation which is at stake."
Stulac explains that while James is not saying works alone without faith saves, James rejects the idea that "faith by itself, without the accompanying actions" can save. (Id. at 109.) Stulac (like others who admire James) tries to find ways to make Paul consistent with James. However, mincing words cannot work. Stulac concedes James "uses the same terms for deeds (ergo) as Paul." (Id., at 111.) The words are identical between Paul and James. However, the thoughts are at odds. There is no question that James means faith plus works justifies; faith alone does not.
Luther was blunt about there being a conflict between James and Paul. He said James contradicts Paul. Luther was right. This is what further proves the Epistle of James was likely a document used to try Paul. As a matter of Biblical interpretation, the erroneous Septuagint misled Paul. As Hamilton's expert knowledge of Hebrew tells us, it was Abraham who was reckoning to God the promise of (Gen. 15:5) as an act of righteousness. However, even if the Septuagint were correct, (Ps. 106:30-31) likewise shows James (not Paul) was correct about (Gen. 15:6). The Bible never taught justification by faith alone without deeds. Paul's misinterpretation of Genesis 15:6 is a serious mistake.
-
Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: New International Greek Commentary (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982) at 120.
-
Paulunists try to spin James as saying works prove justification rather than works justify. This is a distortion of James. He explicitly says works justify. For discussion, see Richard Lusk in his Future Justification for Doers of the Law (2003).
262