James Introduction

BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK

A CHAIN OF JEWELS FROM JAMES AND JUDE

Donald Fream
College Press, Joplin, Missouri

Second Printing, 1977
Third Printing, 1981
Fourth Printing, 1987
Printed and Bound in the
United States of America

All Rights Reserved
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 1965:71-1073
International Standard Book Number: 0-89900-045-2

PREFACE

Although the book of James has had as few commentaries as perhaps any book within the New Testament, the writer freely admits the factual information contained in this volume has been gleaned from numerous other writings and commentaries on the book (See Bibliography). The purpose of this book, however, is not to simply add to the list of commentaries already written on James, though they be relatively few. This work is not, and was not intended to be, a highly critical, technical and linguistical contribution. Rather, this book (it is hoped), in following the original format of the Bible Study Series, will form a useful contribution to the fresh approach of these Bible studies.

The author has endeavored to be fair in presenting various views of controversial interpretations. He requests the reader, however, to expect that the author's preferences will be made clear. In the various paraphrases used, more than one view is sometimes expressed. That view preferred by the author will always be listed first. In the Comment sections, the author attempts to clearly set forth his reasons for his preferred views.

It is expected that this volume will serve as a study text to enable Bible students, whether teacher, preacher, or pupil, to better make his own study of the book of James. The format is in keeping with this intended purpose. Questions regarding the text are offered in each section before the comments, and the paraphrases. The purpose in this is that the reader will attempt to answer the questions regarding the text from the text itself, using no commentary other than the Bible. The author admits his conviction that the Bible is its own best commentary; the questions are given with this thought in mind. It is often suggested other scripture texts that may be used in conjunction with the question at hand.

Since the epistle has within the text its own introduction, introductory material concerning the writer, date, etc. will be included at the appropriate point in the text. Every effort has been made to keep this work a Bible study, rather than a study about the Bible.

MEMORY

The writer would like to encourage the serious student to make an honest effort to memorize the entire text of the book of James. At first suggestion, this might seem like a task of such a proportion as to be entirely impossible. The average reader, however, will be able to memorize the text with ease if he will follow the suggestions made.

It is not suggested that the reader be able to memorize the entire epistle at one effort. Although some who have developed a keen memory will find this the easiest way, the majority will find this mass approach discouraging and all but impossible. The study is divided into sections of the text; and most of these sections are short in length, being between one and four verses each in most cases. If the reader will be steadfast in memorizing each section before going on to the next section, there will be no formidable memory task. As he memorizes each section, he should be sure to repeat by memory the former sections already learned. This review is fully as important as the original memorizing if the student wishes to retain what he has learned. Do not be content to repeat the memorized material only once. Repeat it often, especially after first committing to memory. It is not difficult to repeat that which is already committed to memory, but it is easily forgotten if it is not repeated.

One housewife in Arkansas clipped the first verse of the epistle to the window of her kitchen sink. She determined to learn that verse in one day. To her amazement she found that by the time she had finished the breakfast dishes, she knew the first verse perfectly. As she went about her household affairs that morning, she repeated the verse every time the thought came to her mind. At noon, she decided to put the second verse of the epistle over the kitchen sink under the first. It came as easily as the first: while she was doing the dishes. On that first day, she memorized the first three verses. At this rate, she committed the entire epistle to memory in five weeks. So thrilled was she with this accomplishment she told her friends at Bible School. They, too, at first thought it was an impossible task. Those who tried, however, memorized the book as well. You can too. Will you try? Make an honest effort.

FORMAT

Text: The American Standard Version is used throughout. Since this text is admitted by most scholars to be the best translation available, we make no apology for its use here. However, we do think the student would profit by having other translations available for his study. It is suggested that the student choose a translation he prefers for his memory work, and use that one translation in his memorizing of the text. Comparing all available versions will often clarify the meaning, so several should be used.

Queries: These questions immediately follow the text, and are designed to excite the interest and understanding of the student. This interest and comprehension will give the student initial motivation, and there is no real learning without both this comprehension and motivation, It is expected that the student will endeavor to answer the queries before reading the paraphrases and the comments to follow. He may wish to adjust some of his thinking after reading further, but first he has done some original thinking on the text.

Paraphrases: This is an endeavor to render the sense of the text in the framework of the author's intended meaning. Even though many may disagree as to the original author's intended concepts, we insist that this intended meaning is the only way to correctly read the text. At least two paraphrases are given for each text. The first being that of the author; and the last, marked with an *, being from the Living Letters. The Paraphrased Epistles, edited by Ken Taylor and used by permission of the Tyndale House Publishers. Often there will be another paraphrase given between the first and the last. This middle paraphrase will indicate a second possible concept intended by James. The first paraphrase given will be that preferred by the author of this book.

Summary: The heart of the text is here intended. This is the main thought in summary form, minus the descriptions, adjectives and illustrations. Thus several verses will be reduced to one or two sentences.

Comment: This is intended to help in understanding the text. Problems in comparing the correct meanings of the original text to the commonly accepted meaning of words used in the translation will be discussed. It is intended that these comments will more than clarify the text. We should like to apply the text and motivate the pupil to make personal adjustment to his own thinking and living when necessary. We hope these comments will be stimulating, applicable, and even personal at times.

Additional Features: Several special studies are offered, where it is thought that additional material is especially useful or applicable at that point. In addition, sermons in outline form are given throughout the book at the end of each chapter. This is hoped to be an asset to teachers and preachers who intend to teach and preach from the book of James.

Acknowledgments ana Gratitude: To my mother-in-law, Pansy Reed Click, who spent many hours correcting the rough draft, the author wishes to express sincere appreciation. Appreciation is also extended to the copyrighters of the Living Letters, the Paraphrased Epistles by Kenneth N. Taylor, who permitted the portion of that text used in this book.

It is with sober understanding of the responsibility assumed by anyone who teaches from the Word of God that this work is offered. With prayer and humility the author reads again James 3:1 ff. He is further humbled by a consideration of the dozen commentaries consulted in compiling this work. This is submitted with a prayerful hope that some will be stimulated to a more accurate study of God's Word.

Donald Fream
April, 1965

SPECIAL STUDY

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

I. B. Grubbs

Fundamental Idea In Justification.

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies; who is he that shall condemn? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea, rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Romans 8:33-34.

In the form of interrogation it is emphatically denied that any one can successfully bring a charge against the elect of God, can pronounce sentence of condemnation upon them, since it is God himself who justifies them on the ground that Christ by his death, his resurrection and intercession, secures their justification. To be justified, therefore, is to stand without accusation before God and thus be recognized and treated as righteous or just. In whatever conceivable way that state may be reached in which the voice of legal condemnation, which is the direct opposite of justification, cannot be heard, the result is justification in its fundamental import. He who, as an angel, could stand before God without accusation on the ground of sinless conformity to his law, would be justified or recognized as righteous on a ground vastly different from that on which one stands without charge as accepted in Christ and through the redemption provided in him. Accordingly there are two ways conceivable in which this righteousness may be sought. Only one of these is open to sinful or imperfect beings, while the other alone is applicable to the sinless or morally perfect. It has been many centuries since Job significantly asked, How should man be just with God? and all these intervening ages have not disclosed the possibility of his standing without accusation in the presence of his Maker on the ground of personal worth, inherent goodness, legalistic morality. On the contrary, we know what the law saith it saith to those that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world be convicted of guilt before God. Therefore by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:19-20. If the discovery of sin thus precludes the possibility of legal justification, the only ground of this method of appearing before God without accusation is absolute moral perfection, sinless conformity to all the requirements of God's moral law. Instead of extending the blessing of justification to the morally imperfect, the law thunders its cruse in the dreadful sentence: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things that are written in the law to do them. Embodying thus its essence and its spirit in this discouraging formula, it offers no hope to the penitent ungodly, presents no prospect of peace with God to the awakened sinner. Hence says Paul of himself, I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came sin lived and I died. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. What a fatal mistake, then, for any human being to seek justification by the works of the law! For the law knows no works as a fulfillment of its high demands, save the elements of a life morally perfect. This was precisely the mistake of Paul's legalistic opponents as brought to view in Romans and Galatians, who, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, had not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

BEARINGS OF LEGAL JUSTIFICATION

The whole remedial system, the economy of the New Covenant, is at once set aside as an impertinence if man could appear before God without accusation on the ground of his personal goodness, the moral excellence of developed manhood. If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Galatians 3:21. And what then would logically follow? If righteousness come by the law, then Christ has died in vain. Galatians 2:21. Hence the doctrine of the Jewish legalist, which is essentially that also of the modern Unitarian, Socinian and moralist, renders needless the death of Christ and frustrates the grace of God. Is it any wonder that Paul should combat it with all the energy of his ardent nature? Never did any one believe more implicitly in the absolute necessity of our Savior's death for the redemption of mankind, and of our imperative need of the rich provisions of grace in him, than did this noble apostle. Hear his own sublime description of his deep and abiding trust in this sustaining source of his peace and joy: I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless I live. Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. We see no leaning here upon spiritualized manhood, to say nothing of a suppositious merit of moral excellence or personal goodness. Christ liveth in me, says this earnest apostle, but Christ as one who loved me and gave himself for me. It is a crucified and risen Christ on which his faith lays hold, and not merely a beautiful life set before him for pious imitation. The formation of a Christ-like character is all important, but it can never constitute a meritorious ground of human hope. We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto the called, whether Jews or Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Christ, therefore, and Christ, not as the embodiment of moral beauty, but as an atoning sufferer and a risen Redeemer, was with Paul the sole power of God for the justification and eternal life of erring men.

Now there is no room for this power of God for man's salvation in the legal method of justification. It involves a complete repudiation of the Messiah and his redemptive work. For if righteousness can come by the law, then Christ has died in vain. If man can be justified on the ground of legalistic morality and excellence of personal goodness, then all Messianic services and claims may with safety be ignored. It is thus perfectly clear that the erroneous theory of justification which Paul so vigorously and so successfully assailed was by no means superficial, but vitally touched the very foundations of the Christian religion and would overturn the whole remedial economy. It was not a mistake as to the mere conditionality of justification, but a radical error touching the very ground itself on which is made possible the justification of men. Instead of finding this ground in Christ it would lead us to seek for it in man himself. Under its baleful guidance men undertake to establish their own righteousness and thus utterly fail to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God.

THE METHOD OF FAITH

Over against the tremendously false system just described the apostle Paul sets forth in bold and striking contrast the true method of justification, the only possible way in which man can stand without accusation before God and thus be accepted and recognized as righteous. Hear him: By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God by faith unto all those who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified as a gift[2] by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness because of the passing over of the Sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God: to declare at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. With great propriety, indeed, did Olshausen pronounce this wonderful passage the citadel of the Christian faith. It sets forth the real ground, the only foundation of the spiritual hopes of humanity. It contains the apostle's positive and formal exposition of that righteousness of God which he had previously emphasized as the reason why the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes. How much is embraced in the believing here referred to remains as yet to be seen. We notice at present two important features in this righteousness of God, which is asserted to be unto all who believe, namely, the universality as to its offer of grace, and the conditionality as to its actual bestowment. The reason given why the offer is unto all is that there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. In other words all stand in need of divine mercy as all are involved in the guilt of individual transgression. Hence the only way to justification is the one immediately pointed out by the apostle: Being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Thus justification comes as a gift, and not as a debt due to moral and legalistic claims; it comes by grace, and not by meritorious works of the law; it comes through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and not through the moral excellence of man himself.

[2] The best rendering of dorean.

BEARINGS OF THIS METHOD

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. On what principle? of works? Nay, but on the principle of faith. If men must rely, not on their personal goodness, but on the grace of God in Christ, must trustingly look to the redemptive work of the Son of God as the sole ground of justification, all occasion for boasting is at once swept away in the expulsion of all spiritual pride and all sense of self-righteousness. This trusting reliance on the redemption that is in Christ Jesus is the faith of which the apostle speaks as in contrast with the delusive dependence of legalistic moralists on their own supposed personal fitness for divine approbation. The faith method of justification, therefore, shows the ground of this blessing to be altogether objective, as in Christ, and in no measure subjective, as in man himself. Faith itself, being an act or state of the human soul, cannot be regarded as entering into the ground of a righteous acceptance with God, but as belonging only to the conditionality of this blessing. That external acts of faith truly manifesting reliance on the grace of God in Christ, trustful acts in which men submit themselves unto the righteousness of God, may likewise enter into the conditionality of gospel blessings and form elements of the faith method of justification, will be clearly shown hereafter. On this point we merely advert at present to the erroneous supposition of many that man's inner religious states possess a value in the sight of God quite superior to outward spiritual activity. The latter, indeed, is of necessity but a reflex of all that is found in the former. What we would now emphasize, however, is the thought that in neither of these departments of religious experience is the ground of justification to be sought, for our inner spiritual states are just as much ours, just as human in their nature, as our outward acts of real obedience.

No, it is not toward man at all, whether his inner or his outer religious life be considered, but to Jesus the Christ, that the eye must be directed when seeking the ground of our hope. Hence the important conclusion to which Paul was led (Romans 8:1-2) by his own irresistible logic: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. It is clear from the connection of the two verses that the freedom or deliverance here referred to, is not the internal or subjective deliverance from the dominion of sin, the importance of which in its own place cannot well be over-estimated, but the objective, judicial deliverance from the curse of the law, deliverance from the legal condemnation to which all who are not in Christ stand constantly exposed. And the spiritual law of life, Hebraistically called the law of the Spirit of life, by which this deliverance is secured, and which is here located in Christ had previously been described by the apostle (Romans 3:24) as the redemption that is in Christ Jesusthe redemptive source of life which is found alone in him. Now as the redemption which is in Christ is twice identified with the remission of sins (Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14) and as we are justified by grace through the redemption which is in Christ, it is clear that justification of believers is through the forgiveness of sins. Hence Paul quotes David (Romans 4:7-8) as describing the blessing of justification in the following language: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. To enter into Christ, therefore, is to become justified, and this through the remission of sins. How vastly different is this Pauline conception from the Augustinian conceit which has so largely influenced the Christian world, that justification by faith is an infusion of righteousness into the human soul by the power of irresistible grace!

THE TWO METHODS IN CONTRAST

From the development of our subject thus far in the light of Paul's great argument, the utter impossibility of combining the method of justification which he combats with that which he upholds is perfectly obvious. The two stand over against each other in mutual exclusiveness; as thoroughly inharmonious and absolutely irreconcilable. As one cannot be sinless and sinful at the same time, morally perfect and yet ungodly; so one cannot be justified on legal grounds and yet through faith in Jesus Christ. Compliance with the laws of grace, with the precepts of the gospel, may stand connected with the gracious system of justification through Christ, but a justification on the basis of law, bringing a merited reward as due to moral or legal claims, excludes, of necessity, all dependence on Christ and the need of redemption through him. Nor can any blessing come to us as the gift of God, and yet be the payment of a debt due to meritorious service or deserving works. A mere glance at the following tabular view of striking antitheses, brought out in Paul's discussion of this subject, will show us the perfect contrast between the two systems, while a thoughtful and patient study of all the antithetical points presented will bring to light and expose the many mistakes made by disputants in their applications of the apostle's expressions and sentiments. As the argument is found mainly in the epistle to the Romans, reference to that book will be indicated only by chapter and verse, while reference to other epistles will be fully made:

JUSTIFICATION

By Works of Law is

versus

By Faith in Christ, is

Meritorious (Romans 4:4) as of

versus

Gratuitous (Romans 3:24) as of

The sinless (Galatians 3:10) Hence is

versus

The sinful (Romans 4:5). Hence is

Without pardon (Romans 3:20).

versus

Through pardon (Romans 4:6-8).

Without grace (Romans 4:4).

versus

By grace (Romans 3:24).

Without Christ (Galatians 3:21).

versus

Through Christ (Romans 3:24).

Without faith (Romans 4:14).

versus

By faith (Romans 3:28).

Without the obedience of faith (Romans 4:14).

versus

Through the obedience of faith (Romans 4:12).

Resulting in

Resulting in

Occasion for boasting (Romans 4:2). (Romans 3:27).

versus

Exclusion of boasting

Reward as a debt (Romans 4:4).

versus

Reward as a gift (Ephesians 2:8).

With the eye resting upon this collection of antitheses, by which the true nature and comprehensiveness of the gospel system of justification can be clearly seen in the thorough contrast with the opposite scheme, we may easily detect and render apparent the erroneous conceptions to which allusion has been made. It will be seen at once that it is not by the acquisition of power through the gospel to reach perfection of personal holiness, and thus satisfy the demands of the divine law as holy, just and good that we are justified by faith. He who imagines that through the aids of grace he has reached this state, may find himself rebuked by the apostle John in the following passage: If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We may not hope to attain personal perfection under the gospel any more than under the law. And if this could be done, and should be the basis on which men are justified, it would appear at last that the ground of justification is not in Christ but in he believer himself. How very far, therefore, from the true conception of justification by faith are the following statements of Olshausen, who represents herein quite a large class of theologians:

That which is new in the gospel does not consist in a more excellent system of morality, but in this, that the gospel opens a new source of strength by means of which true morality is attainable. No, that which is new in the gospel is neither a more excellent system of morality, nor yet the opening of a new source of strength for attaining true morality, but the redemption which is in Christ Jesus for the cancellation of transgressions and sins. Once more from Olshausen: The realization of absolute perfection is the highest end of man's existence; the law could not effect this any further than the bringing forth of an outward legality, but by regeneration an inward condition is through grace, produced in believers, -the righteousness of God,-' which answers the highest requirements. That work which was objectively accomplished on the cross, is thus subjectively applied to the individual believer, that germ of the new man which exists in Christ is grafted into and born in the old man. This act of transfer is, therefore, a mysterious occurrence in the depths of the soul, a new creation, which none can effect by his own powers, a pure gift of the Spirit who breatheth where he listeth.
How utterly foreign all this is to the conception of Paul is perfectly obvious from the tabular view presented above. He never dreamed of resolving justification by faith into a mysterious occurrence in the depths of the soul, grounded on an inward condition produced in believers through grace and consisting of an incomprehensible transfer of a moral or spiritual germ from Christ to the believer for an impossible realization of absolute perfection! How different the language and the ideas of the apostle, Being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Yes, in Christ himself in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
With equal clearness our tabulated antithetical points, as gathered from the apostle's grand argument on justification evince the folly of representing any act of obedience springing from faith in Christ as belonging to the legalistic system, Nothing but sheer thoughtlessness or inexcusable ignorance touching the simple elements of the subject so clearly developed by the apostle, could lead to such an error. Grace has its laws to be obeyed, the gospel requires submission to its commandments, yet these are not only compatible with faith in Christ Jesus, but manifest, indeed, the believer's confiding trust in him; whereas, if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise of no effect. The law-system and the faith-system cannot be made to mingle their elements. In the thoroughness of the absolute and inextinguishable contrast between them, their irreconcilable antagonism appears. It is not possible for God himself to justify any one without pardon, without grace, without Christ, without faith in Christ, without the obedience of faith, and at the same time justify him through pardon, by grace, through Christ, by faith, through the obedience of faith. And here let it be carefully noted, that in the great epistle whose object is to prove that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law the apostle twice emphasizes the importance of the obedience of faith as the object of the gospel, for which there can be no room whatever in any system that makes faith itself void. Hear him in the following beautiful passage with which he concludes the epistle: Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest and by the Scriptures of the prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith; to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever.

Now that this obedience of faith, this obedient surrender to the requirements of the gospel as springing from faith in Jesus Christ, was contemplated by the apostle as entering into the faith-method of justification, is evident from his statement in Romans 4:9-12: We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of those who believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be reckoned to them also: and the father of the circumcised in the case of those who are not only of the circumcision, but also walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, while in uncircumcision. Paul therefore teaches that the blessing of justification comes upon those who walk by faith in a loving, trustful submission to the divine will, after the example of Abraham. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham, Abraham, lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything to him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thy only son, that in blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thee as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice. So, also: By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, prepared an ark to the Saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. And so likewise, By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying upon (epi) his gifts.

And thus we see that a blessing which is conditioned on the obedience which springs from faith is Scripturally represented as conditioned on faith itself, and this from the necessity of the case, for whatever is suspended on an outward manifestation of faith, is thereby suspended on the faith thus manifested. And why should not faith in the form of visible action into which it carries its spiritual qualities, whatever they may be, faith as bodying forth the believer's implicit trust in the saving mercy of God, and, by consequence a complete renunciation of all self-righteousness, be, at least, of equal value with itself, as a principle hidden in the depths of the soul? Why should the inner sense of dependence on God be in his sight of more value than the impressive embodiment of this reliance on him, in a practical submission to his will? Behold that flower in the bud! What is it? A rose. See it now again, it is full-blown. What is it now? A rose still; nay, rather a rose in its perfection. Even so, faith, when budding in the heart, is surely faith; and when blossoming in the life, and bringing forth the fruit of obedience to Jesus, is it not faith still? Yes, as James would assure us, it is faith made perfect in its fruitful manifestations.
In the further development of this interesting and important part of the subject, the writer may perhaps be excused for transcribing what he has elsewhere said, with as great clearness as he could now possibly exhibit. I quote as follows:
The spiritual value of faith itself, be this what it may, attaches of necessity, to all actions springing from faith. The stream is, in quality, as the fountain whence it issues; the branches, leaves and fruit, as the tree on which they grow. Paul was never so unwise as to suppose any incompatibility between faith and what he calls the obedience of faith. For in every act produced by faith in Christ, the believer is really looking to him and reposing upon him as the ground of all hope and the source of all life, It is in this and this only, that either faith or the obedience of faith has any real worth as constantly fixing the eye of the soul upon Jesus. But he who relies on legalistic morality for justification looks not toward Calvary, but in another direction, and thus practically repudiates Christ himself, and, of course, all personal need of faith and of grace. Hence, the apostle says: If they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise of no effect. Not so, however, does he reason respecting obedience to Christ as springing from faith in him. He who in obeying the truth is leaning on Jesus for blessing, does not declare faith needless, nor turn away from its great object, but rather from every system of self-righteousness and delusive reliance on human goodness.

So thought Paul, or he would not have represented in this argument righteousness as imputed to those who walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had while in uncircumcision. While, therefore, neither faith nor deeds of faith can constitute the ground of justification, any more than legal works, yet the blessing of God may be conditioned as much on obedient acts produced by faith as on the act of believing itself without any detriment whatever to the remedial system. The public confession of Christ's name (Matthew 10:32) and the baptism of repentance for remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16) are not legalistic pretensions to merit but simple elements of the economy of grace divinely approved. Surely, the need of forgiveness is the need of grace, and he who seeks it by being baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27) is not looking to himself, but to Jesus, not going about to establish his own righteousness, but looking for salvation on the feasible condition of trust in his Redeemer.

PAUL AND JAMES

In the light of the thorough-going contrast between legal justification and justification by faith, as exhibited in our tabular view of the antitheses involved in Paul's discussion of this subject, we may not only see the perfect harmony of this apostle's teaching with that of James, but are prepared to rightly estimate the following statement of Baur who, with the dogmatic confidence characteristic of German critics, asserts an irreconcilable discrepancy between the two apostles:

The main doctrinal position of the epistle of James, -By works a man is justified and not by faith only,-' James 2:14, is the direct opposite of the Pauline doctrine as it is stated in Romans 3:28, in the proposition, -a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.-' It cannot be denied that between these two doctrines there exists an essential difference, a direct contradiction. It may be urged that James says no more than -not by faith only,-' that he refers justification not exclusively to works, but partly, at least, to faith also. But the Pauline proposition, on the other hand, distinctly excludes works and refers justification to that very faith of which James says that without works it is nothing, forms no element of the religious life at all. Those works, then, which Paul altogether repudiates, are with James the ground of justification; and that faith which with James has no religious value whatever apart from works, is with Paul the principle of justification.

Now, nothing but an inexcusable disregard of what each apostle has said as descriptive of the works of which he speaks, can account for the grossly false assertion that those works which Paul altogether repudiates are with James the ground of justification! And we do not wonder that a critic who is capable of such misrepresentation should dogmatically declare on the basis of his own perversion of apostolic teaching, that it cannot be denied that between these two doctrines there exists an essential difference, a direct contradiction! What he here positively says cannot be denied, cannot only be denied but demonstrably shown to be false. What does Paul say of the works which he repudiates, while showing that by legal works shall no one be justified? Listen: If they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise of no effect. What does James say of the works which he inculcates while contending that a man is justified by works and not by faith only? Listen: Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac, his son, upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. Whenever, therefore, it can be shown that the works by which faith is made void, are identical with those by which faith is made perfect, then, and not till then, can an apology be found for Baur's reckless statement that those works which Paul altogether repudiates, are with James the ground of justification. The apostle James never dreamed of legal works as constituting the ground of justification which would frustrate the grace of God and render abortive the death of his Son. Galatians 2:21. And the apostle Paul never claimed justification for one who believes apart from the work of faith, but for such as would walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham. Romans 4:12. When James said: He that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing, he had in view a system in which there is no room whatever for legal works as the ground of justification, with its impossible requisite of sinless perfection in the personal excellence of the justified. And when Paul repudiated the legal basis of justification, he had in mind a system in which there is no room whatever for faith in Christ or obedience to him, or for Christ himself, as any ground of our hope! It is thus as clear as sunlight that those works which Paul altogether repudiates, and the works which James demands belong respectively to two incompatible systems whose elements cannot by any means be associated.

But Baur, whose attention was directed by certain observations of Neander to the kind of works referred to by James as actions connected with faith, endeavors to justify his criticism as follows: If we are to regard these remarks as actually shedding light on the subject, the chief point in them must be this, that the works of James are different from those of Paul, that he means such works as proceed from faith, and are the fruits of faith. Exactly so. James does mean just such works as proceed from faith and are the fruits of faith. But Paul does not distinguish two kinds of works, continues Baur, he says broadly that it is impossible to be justified by them. This must apply to those that proceed from faith as well as others; for if they proceed from faith then faith is there already, and with faith justification; so that they cannot have been the means of justification. Kern was thus perfectly justified in asserting that the difference between Paul and James is one of principle and cannot be got rid of.
This only shows how far this critic falls short of grasping the true import of Paul's argument on justification. The apostle does distinguish two kinds of works which differ from each other so radically that they cannot belong to the same systemdiffer, indeed, so essentially as to mutually exclude each other. He so describes the works which he repudiates as to distinguish them from the whole economy of faith, from the entire system of grace, and, by consequence, from all working required by this system. If it be true, as the apostle teaches, that faith is made void through justification by the works which he repudiates, then, of necessity, is the work of faith for which he commends the Thessalonians equally made void by that method, and for that very reason, among others, he uncompromisingly opposes the legalistic system. Thus the work of faith is not only distinguished by him from works of law, but shown to be so radically different that they cannot co-exist, cannot possibly enter into the same method of justification. As by the legal system faith in Christ is absolutely set aside, it follows that all religious action springing from faith in him, is thereby also excluded. There may be, and there must be an observance of God's moral law as to the main tenor of life in order even to justification by faith through grace, for grace will not bestow justification upon those who persist in immorality. Yet this relative keeping of the law, which is both positive and imperative, can only be regarded as a condition and by no means as the ground of our justification, Were the law itself to justify, it could only do so, not on the condition of a mere relative observance of its requirement, but on the ground of a faultless fulfillment. Its maxim is, Cursed is every one that continues not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Such a keeping of the divine law, were it possible to man, would truly be the ground, and not a mere condition of justification, and as such would, as we have seen, frustrate the grace of God, and render needless the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.
Clearly, then, when James asserts that a man is justified by works and not by faith only, he is not to be construed as insisting that any works, even those that spring from faith, can be regarded as the meritorious ground of justification, but merely that this blessing is graciously conditioned on the work of faith as well as on faith itself, on the former, indeed, as the manifestation of faith's perfection. And when Paul insists that by faith a man is justified apart from works of law, he makes no opposition to the obedience of faith, which he regards as belonging to the gracious system of justification, since he holds that in order to receive this blessing one must walk in the steps of the faith which Abraham had. With neither apostle does either faith or the work of faith enter into the ground of justification, while with each of them, both faith and the work of faith stand on an equal footing as the gracious condition of this blessing. Neither of them ascribes to faith a virtue or efficacy which is denied to the obedience of faith. There is no ground whatever in the teaching of either for the following position of Baur: When James puts justification by works in the place of Pauline justification by faith, he ascribes to works that absolute value which faith has with Paul. The reason why Paul denied justification to works was that there was nothing absolute about them, and that they could only stand in an inadequate relation to justification. Now, what does James do but vindicate for works that absolute character which, according to Paul, they cannot possibly have? They could not have this absolute character except in virtue of their unity with faith, and thus the absoluteness of works would not belong to works, but to faith.
Now to suppose that Paul conditioned justification on faith and denied it to works because of an alleged absolute value possessed by the former and not by the latter, and to say that James sought to vindicate for works that absolute character which, according to Paul, they cannot possibly have, is to show again an utter failure to enter into the meaning of either apostle. Has any one ever been able to show that the act of believing possesses an absolute value that does not belong to other human acts? Can faith sustain an adequate relation to justification any more than those acts of obedience which are produced by faith and by which, as James informs us, faith itself is made perfect? It is this very conceit of a special virtue or efficacy inherent in faith itself and supposed to be foreign to the practical manifestations of faith that has beclouded this whole subject in the speculations of men. No, the reason why Paul denied justification to works and insisted on a coming to Christ through faith was not because of any absolute value either in this faith in Christ or this coming to him, but because of man's imperfection and the consequent impossibility of his justification on a legal basis which demands nothing less than absolute moral perfection. He must come to Christ for the redemption that is in him, and not rely on any supposed absolute value in any act of his own, whether inward or outward. Can any one find perfection in our inner religious states any more than in our external acts of obedience? Faith is emphasized by the Scriptures, not because of standing in opposition to outward religious action, but because it leads through submission to the righteousness of God to the only fountain of salvation for men. And neither with James nor with any other sacred writer are those works which Paul altogether repudiates, nor any other works whatever, the ground of justification. Christ and Christ only is that ground, and all that we can do in believing on his name and in submitting to his will is but the gracious condition of our acceptance.

Let us conclude with devout and profound thanksgiving that beings so sinful and weak as we are can find a way through the exceeding riches of grace in Christ Jesus to stand without accusation in the presence of God.

BibliaPlus

College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Old Testament

New Testament