Is being Righteous different from being justified? James and Paul

[Guojing]

I have recently heard one way to reconcile James with Paul, is that James made a distinction between righteousness and justification.

From this perspective, Abraham was declared righteous when he believed that God will make him a father of many. But he was only justified after he was willing to sacrifice Issac on the altar. That is what a literal reading of James 2 would imply

Thus, the view is that, before Jesus, these 2 take place at different times, one thru faith, the other thru a corresponding work.

But now, after the cross, righteousness and justification for us take place simultaneously when we accept Jesus's Death Burial Resurrection.

What do all of you think of this perspective? I know the Bible defined justified as "As if you have never sinned". What do you think righteousness means and how different is it from justification?

 

[Not David]

I have recently heard one way to reconcile James with Paul, is that James made a distinction between righteousness and justification.

From this perspective, Abraham was declared righteous when he believed that God will make him a father of many. But he was only justified after he was willing to sacrifice Issac on the altar. That is what a literal reading of James 2 would imply

Thus, the view is that, before Jesus, these 2 take place at different times, one thru faith, the other thru a corresponding work.

But now, after the cross, righteousness and justification for us take place simultaneously when we accept Jesus's Death Burial Resurrection.

What do all of you think of this perspective? I know the Bible defined justified as "As if you have never sinned". What do you think righteousness means and how different is it from justification?

Justification is a continuous process because you don't have faith in just one moment.

 

[St_Worm2]

Justification is a continuous process because you don't have faith in just one moment.

Hi David, as I'm sure you remember from your former years as a Protestant, we Protestants use two words, "justification" and "sanctification", to describe what RC's and EO's use the single word "justification" for.

From our perspective, we are "justified" (declared righteous) by God at a moment in time (the moment that we first come to saving faith in Christ/the moment that we first "believe" .. e.g. John 5:24). From that moment (of justification), God begins to fulfill His promise to us to sanctify us/make us more and more Christlike during the remainder of our days on this side of eternity .. e.g. Philippians 1:6, 2:12-13.

We consider justification to be monergistic because it can only be accomplished by God (even the saving faith that we exercise when we believe is itself a "gift" from God (Ephesians 2:8-9) to those of us who will be His by adoption .. e.g. Ephesians 1:4-6.

On the other hand, we believe that sanctification is a synergistic work of God (because He includes us in it when He can). IOW, He allows us to come alongside of Him and participate in our own sanctification (as we are able to) while He sees that His promise to us is fulfilled (to see us sanctified, and to preserve us in the faith & see us safely through this life to be with Him in Glory .. e.g. John 10:27-28; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; Hebrews 7:25).

These are some of the reasons that we Protestants use two separate terms, rather than just the one

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

I have recently heard one way to reconcile James with Paul, is that James made a distinction between righteousness and justification.

From this perspective, Abraham was declared righteous when he believed that God will make him a father of many. But he was only justified after he was willing to sacrifice Issac on the altar. That is what a literal reading of James 2 would imply

Thus, the view is that, before Jesus, these 2 take place at different times, one thru faith, the other thru a corresponding work.

But now, after the cross, righteousness and justification for us take place simultaneously when we accept Jesus's Death Burial Resurrection.

What do all of you think of this perspective? I know the Bible defined justified as "As if you have never sinned". What do you think righteousness means and how different is it from justification?

Hi Guojing, righteousness is what occurs when we do the right thing/do the will of God. Jesus was innocent because He never did anything wrong/~never~ did anything against His Father's will, and He was righteous because He only did the right thing/~always~ did His Father's will .. unlike us.

As for your thought about differentiating righteousness and justification to solve the seeming problem that we find in St. James' Epistle, Chpt 2, I'm not sure that distinction actually exists. To be "justified" is to be declared righteous by God. Abram was justified by faith before God in Genesis 15:6, and his belief/trust in God was reckoned/credited to Him as righteousness at that moment. I'd like to consider this idea a bit more (as it seems an interesting thought), so I'll get back to you when I have.

That said, I have a question for you. If God knows our hearts, as well the future (and He does), why does He need us to prove anything to Him, especially by waiting to see what He already knows we will do? He is, after all, the very One who justifies/saves us, is He not, so if anyone knows whether or not we are justified, He would, yes

Proof, on the other hand, is something that 'we' absolutely need .. cf 2 Corinthians 13:5, and I believe that it's the very thing that St. James speaks of when he uses the word justified in His Epistle.

There are two "kinds" of faith being discussed here, one saving and lively (because it produces fruit), and one that is dead (because it produces nothing). One kind of faith, saving faith, "results" in good works and holy living, etc., while the other kind of faith does not (it results in nothing). And the only way that any of this can be demonstrated/proven/seen/justified by men, is by what we do (or by what we fail to do) as a result of the "kind" of faith that we have come to possess. As St. James says in v18,

"...show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works"
​

God gives us a new heart and a new spirit, and He causes us to be quickened/born again .. Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-5. He also gives us the gift of faith (and then justifies/saves us when we believe because of it). And He makes us "His workmanship" (as wholly "new creatures" in Christ .. 2 Corinthians 5:17), created in Christ Jesus FOR/UNTO good works, NOT because of them .. Ephesians 2:10.

--David

 

[Guojing]

Hi Guojing, righteousness is what occurs when we do the right thing/do the will of God. Jesus was innocent because He never did anything wrong/~never~ did anything against His Father's will, and He was righteous because He only did the right thing/~always~ did His Father's will .. unlike us.

As for your thought about differentiating righteousness and justification to solve the seeming problem that we find in St. James' Epistle, Chpt 2, I'm not sure that distinction actually exists. To be "justified" is to be declared righteous by God. Abram was justified by faith before God in Genesis 15:6, and his belief/trust in God was reckoned/credited to Him as righteousness at that moment. I'd like to consider this idea a bit more (as it seems an interesting thought), so I'll get back to you when I have.

That said, I have a question for you. If God knows our hearts, as well the future (and He does), why does He need us to prove anything to Him, especially by waiting to see what He already knows we will do? He is, after all, the very One who justifies/saves us, is He not, so if anyone knows whether or not we are justified, He would, yes

Proof, on the other hand, is something that 'we' absolutely need .. cf 2 Corinthians 13:5, and I believe that it's the very thing that St. James speaks of when he uses the word justified in His Epistle.

There are two "kinds" of faith being discussed here, one saving and lively (because it produces fruit), and one that is dead (because it produces nothing). One kind of faith, saving faith, "results" in good works and holy living, etc., while the other kind of faith does not (it results in nothing). And the only way that any of this can be demonstrated/proven/seen/justified by men, is by what we do (or by what we fail to do) as a result of the "kind" of faith that we have come to possess. As St. James says in v18,

"...show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works"
​

God gives us a new heart and a new spirit, and He causes us to be quickened/born again .. Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-5. He also gives us the gift of faith (and then justifies/saves us when we believe because of it). And He makes us "His workmanship" (as wholly "new creatures" in Christ .. 2 Corinthians 5:17), created in Christ Jesus FOR/UNTO good works, NOT because of them .. Ephesians 2:10.

--David

If there is one key aspect of dispensationalists, its that we try to use a literal interpretation of the scripture as much as we can, taking context into account.

Let me quote James 2 here

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?

So when I adopt a literal reading of this passage. It seems that James was talking about justification by works, even as he states that it was Abraham belief in God that caused him to be righteous. Yet in v24, he immediately change it back to justified, by works.

That made me entertain the thought that, "Unless James is deliberately contradicting himself, he appears to be making a distinction between being righteous and being justified."

Of course, I agree with you that, once you don't accept there is such a distinction, that this entire argument collapse.

 

[def]

I have recently heard one way to reconcile James with Paul, is that James made a distinction between righteousness and justification.

From this perspective, Abraham was declared righteous when he believed that God will make him a father of many. But he was only justified after he was willing to sacrifice Issac on the altar. That is what a literal reading of James 2 would imply

Thus, the view is that, before Jesus, these 2 take place at different times, one thru faith, the other thru a corresponding work.

But now, after the cross, righteousness and justification for us take place simultaneously when we accept Jesus's Death Burial Resurrection.

What do all of you think of this perspective? I know the Bible defined justified as "As if you have never sinned". What do you think righteousness means and how different is it from justification?

I am not aware that the Bible has a definition for justified, please quote the Bible passage.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi again @Guojing, if we say that we are "justified" ~before God~ by our works, then we cause a contradiction to occur between St. James and St. Paul (as well between St. James and Jesus .. cf John 5:24).

However, if the justification that St. James speaks of is the evidence/proof/demonstration/justification of our claim ~before men~ instead, which I believe is the case here (see again v18, "show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works"), then there is no contradiction established between St. James and Jesus/St. Paul.

Like I said, I want to consider your thoughts a bit more, and if you have the time, take a look at my thoughts again too & see if you think they might not be the better way to exegete this portion of James 2, especially when you take what St. Paul has to say into account .. e.g. Romans 3:20, 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5.

How can we be justified/saved by God's mercy and grace through faith, ~apart~ from our works (on the one hand), and also be justified/saved ~by~ our works (on the other)

Definitely some things for both of us to consider

Blessings to you in Christ!

--David

Romans 11
6 If it is by grace, then it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
​

 

[Guojing]

Hi again @Guojing, if we say that we are "justified" ~before God~ by our works, then we cause a contradiction to occur between St. James and St. Paul (as well between St. James and Jesus .. cf John 5:24).

However, if the justification that St. James speaks of is the evidence/proof/demonstration/justification of our claim ~before men~ instead, which I believe is the case here (see again v18, "show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works"), then there is no contradiction established between St. James and Jesus/St. Paul.

Like I said, I want to consider your thoughts a bit more, and if you have the time, take a look at my thoughts again too & see if you think they might not be the better way to exegete this portion of James 2, especially when you take what St. Paul has to say into account .. e.g. Romans 3:20, 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5.

How can we be justified/saved by God's mercy and grace through faith, ~apart~ from our works (on the one hand), and also be justified/saved ~by~ our works (on the other)

Definitely some things for both of us to consider

Blessings to you in Christ!

--David

Romans 11
6 If it is by grace, then it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
​

This is a very popular way churches who believe that you are saved by grace through faith only will use, that Paul is talking about justification before God, while James is referring to justification before man.

I used to also agree with this. But problems with this view is that we are assuming a lot of things and reading into the Bible. This way basically relies on the assumption that, James has read everything that Paul has written and wants to write to Jews, in a way that doesn't contradict what Paul is writing to the Gentiles. It also assumes that James is not a good communicator such that he needs us in the 21st century to explain to others what he actually wants to say.

When I realized that the book of James was probably the first NT book ever written, very likely before Acts 15, and definitely before Acts 21, then I realize this way of reconciling does not make sense.

The Jews have never known of justification before God based on faith alone apart from works. In Acts 21, it was clear that James disagree with Paul about how Jews are to be justified. He talks about

“You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law...

25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

So to me, it is unlikely that James was saying Jews can be justified before God thru faith alone, but need works to be justified before Man.

So my conclusion is this, instead of trying to reconcile James with Paul, why is it so difficult for us to agree that James never did agree with Paul, at least until Acts 21, that Jews can be justified before God by faith alone. He did accept that the Gentiles may be different.

So when you realized that the book of James was written primarily to the Jews, it all becomes so much clearer to me.

 

[hedrick]

I think Paul and James used terms with slightly different meanings. For Paul, faith was a broad term, including trust and even shading into faithfulness (which is a possible meaning for the Greek term). Works for him always seems to mean works of the Law, i.e. specific practices intended to set Jews apart from Gentiles.

James seems to criticize faith in the sense of belief only, and works for him includes things we do as a response to our faith.

However it's also clear from Paul's letters that Paul and James disagreed, so I don't think there's a need to make their letters completely agree.

 

[~Zao~]

Romans 3:22 God’s righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith in him. There’s no distinction. 23 All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory,​

Righteousness comes thru faith in Christ. It’s His faith, in us, that has become the faith by which we believe in Him.
Romans 22:26, Galatians 2:2:16,20, Galatians 3:22, Ephesians 3:12, Phillipians 3:9

Faith has an object ~Jesus Christ~ He is the faith and becomes the faith within us. He is God’s righteousness and God has given Him as righteousness to those who are indwell by Him. Jeremiah 23:6 which comes from faith that is in Him and of Him Hebrews 12:2

James 2:1
My brothers and sisters, when you show favoritism you deny the faithfulness of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been resurrected in glory.​

Therefore righteousness is a product of faith. We are justified by faith to receive the divine life Romans 5:18

Justification by works is carried out thru the divine life, only. Only that can be seen as righteousness. The tree of life must bring forth fruit. The first is the cause and the second the effect, therefore the outcome and proof of of the other. It’s the expression of the life of faith.

 

[~Zao~]

I think Paul and James used terms with slightly different meanings. For Paul, faith was a broad term, including trust and even shading into faithfulness (which is a possible meaning for the Greek term). Works for him always seems to mean works of the Law, i.e. specific practices intended to set Jews apart from Gentiles.

James seems to criticize faith in the sense of belief only, and works for him includes things we do as a response to our faith.

However it's also clear from Paul's letters that Paul and James disagreed, so I don't think there's a need to make their letters completely agree.

The term justification is in the accomplished work of Christ, while to be justified to carry on His work is within His righteousness. Sanctification as an ongoing process is for our Christian living and is seen in His righteousness when we act from that place. Which can also be very revealing to others concerning their faith.

 

[~Zao~]

To clarify further with more food for thought for those who think that the gospels have nothing to do with the epistles:
Righteousness, justification, and faith are a product (of saving grace) while sanctification is a process (of grace upon grace) John 1:16 or faith upon faith, or glory upon glory. Romans 1:17, 2 Corinthians 3:16-18

 

[def]

This is a very popular way churches who believe that you are saved by grace through faith only will use, that Paul is talking about justification before God, while James is referring to justification before man.

I used to also agree with this. But problems with this view is that we are assuming a lot of things and reading into the Bible. This way basically relies on the assumption that, James has read everything that Paul has written and wants to write to Jews, in a way that doesn't contradict what Paul is writing to the Gentiles. It also assumes that James is not a good communicator such that he needs us in the 21st century to explain to others what he actually wants to say.

When I realized that the book of James was probably the first NT book ever written, very likely before Acts 15, and definitely before Acts 21, then I realize this way of reconciling does not make sense.

The Jews have never known of justification before God based on faith alone apart from works. In Acts 21, it was clear that James disagree with Paul about how Jews are to be justified. He talks about

“You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law...

25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

So to me, it is unlikely that James was saying Jews can be justified before God thru faith alone, but need works to be justified before Man.

So my conclusion is this, instead of trying to reconcile James with Paul, why is it so difficult for us to agree that James never did agree with Paul, at least until Acts 21, that Jews can be justified before God by faith alone. He did accept that the Gentiles may be different.

So when you realized that the book of James was written primarily to the Jews, it all becomes so much clearer to me.

By dismissing the Book of James, you are making the Bible fit into your theology.

 

[Guojing]

By dismissing the Book of James, you are making the Bible fit into your theology.

I am not, just like I don’t dismiss the Old Testament. But I try to understand who was James writing to. And with acts 21, it was pretty clear that James is not instructing Gentiles.

 

[~Zao~]

I am not, just like I don’t dismiss the Old Testament. But I try to understand who was James writing to. And with acts 21, it was pretty clear that James is not instructing Gentiles.

The first half of that chapter has the HS telling him not to go. So obeying the church is right no matter what human voice it comes from, rather than the Holy Spirit? Is that what this is about?

 

[def]

I am not, just like I don’t dismiss the Old Testament. But I try to understand who was James writing to. And with acts 21, it was pretty clear that James is not instructing Gentiles.

James' focus is on faith with works (not the same as faith and works). Paul teaches it under the term 'obedience of faith', the faith that drives obedience. Paul distinguishes this 'driving' faith as the faith of Christ, that is, faith in the capability or power of Christ. 'Trusting' would be a better word that driving.

Applying this concept to James 2:21-25 that you have used in this thread.

V21 - Abraham was justified by works because sacrificing Isaac requires effort, i.e. works, hence justified by works.

But what drove Abraham to obey God? Abraham believed that God would return Isaac alive to him.

But the angels stopped Abraham, meaning, Abraham never completed the task. But God imputed unto him righteousness (v23). Imputed means Abraham had a credit to his account though he did not complete the task.

In verse 24, James is not ruling out justification by faith, in fact, verse 24 confirms justification by faith (faith that accepts the gospel is true). Verse 24 implies that justification by works comes after justification by faith.

Verse 25 is to cement the concept where Rahab was justified by works and completed the task. James could have said that Rahab was credited with righteousness, but he did not because the credit was obvious, but not the imputation.

 

[def]

I think Paul and James used terms with slightly different meanings. For Paul, faith was a broad term, including trust and even shading into faithfulness (which is a possible meaning for the Greek term). Works for him always seems to mean works of the Law, i.e. specific practices intended to set Jews apart from Gentiles.

James seems to criticize faith in the sense of belief only, and works for him includes things we do as a response to our faith.

However it's also clear from Paul's letters that Paul and James disagreed, so I don't think there's a need to make their letters completely agree.

When justification is considered as a single 'event' then it is either faith or works, and one has to decide whether Paul or James is right. But if justification is viewed as multiple events then one has to work out how the teachings of Paul and James are related and connected.

 

[~Zao~]

When justification is considered as a single 'event' then it is either faith or works, and one has to decide whether Paul or James is right. But if justification is viewed as multiple events then one has to work out how the teachings of Paul and James are related and connected.

And if it is a onetime event then that is also the repentance of unnamed author of Heb 6. imho But ... John the B’s baptism of repentance needed to be repeated or so some say ...

 

[Guojing]

James' focus is on faith with works (not the same as faith and works). Paul teaches it under the term 'obedience of faith', the faith that drives obedience. Paul distinguishes this 'driving' faith as the faith of Christ, that is, faith in the capability or power of Christ. 'Trusting' would be a better word that driving.

Applying this concept to James 2:21-25 that you have used in this thread.

V21 - Abraham was justified by works because sacrificing Isaac requires effort, i.e. works, hence justified by works.

But what drove Abraham to obey God? Abraham believed that God would return Isaac alive to him.

But the angels stopped Abraham, meaning, Abraham never completed the task. But God imputed unto him righteousness (v23). Imputed means Abraham had a credit to his account though he did not complete the task.

In verse 24, James is not ruling out justification by faith, in fact, verse 24 confirms justification by faith (faith that accepts the gospel is true). Verse 24 implies that justification by works comes after justification by faith.

Verse 25 is to cement the concept where Rahab was justified by works and completed the task. James could have said that Rahab was credited with righteousness, but he did not because the credit was obvious, but not the imputation.

To avoid ending up with circular arguments, I suggest we always keep faith separated from works. Faith is believing in God. Works refer to actions done by either man or God.

Abraham believed God that he would be a father of many years before Issac was born, so you should not be linking verse 23 to the events of Issac sacrifice.

As for Rahab, I think it is clear to me that she believed God but she also had to hide the spies, at the risk of her life, before she was justified. That is what James is saying and Hebrews 11 also corroborate that.

But ultimately, the point is still that James, if you read Acts 21 properly, never meant the Gentiles to be under those kind of instructions. Did you miss out reading Acts of the Apostles 21:25?

 

[Guojing]

The first half of that chapter has the HS telling him not to go. So obeying the church is right no matter what human voice it comes from, rather than the Holy Spirit? Is that what this is about?

Hmm, that is a separate discussion topic, which is "was Paul disobeying the HS by insisting on heading to Jerusalem?"

This discussion is on the latter half of Acts 21, what James and the elders wanted Paul to do.