Is being Righteous different from being justified? James and Paul

[iLearn]

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

If the book of James was meant to the Jews only then what about John's statement "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did" - which clearly is a command to do works like Jesus did, also was only meant for Jews only?

 

[hedrick]

There's no reason different NT writers can't use the same term in different ways. There's also no reason other than conservative Protestant ideology that they can't disagree.

James probably means "justify" to mean "show to be righteous," and he probably means "righteous" to have the usual Biblical meaning of living a life that God approves.

When Paul uses justification and righteousness he's talking about what makes someone a Christian, not how they live as a Christian. He agrees with James that to live as a Christian you have to live right. N T Wright believes that justify for Paul means "show to be righteous," but it's righteous in the sense of being a proper member of the covenant people. I think justify sometimes refers to how God puts someone into that proper status, but that's probably not relevant to this thread.

So technically James 1:21 ff doesn't contradict Paul. Indeed Paul agrees that proper behavior is necessary, largely in other books such as 1 Cor.

But more broadly, we know that Paul and James disagree, because Paul says so. What's unusual in Paul's theology is that he treats our status as righteous before God as based on our faith, and our lives as Christians as a consequence of that.

Even 1 Cor 6:9, which is typically quoted to support a kind of Protestant version of mortal sin, retains this distinction. He says that the Corinthians have already been washed and justified. They are now required to live up to that.

There's no sign of that distinction in James, and based on his disagreement with Paul it's very unlikely that he actually would agree with it. This doesn't mean that James is useless, just that he's not the first place to look to see the theological implications of grace.

 

[def]

There's no reason different NT writers can't use the same term in different ways. There's also no reason other than conservative Protestant ideology that they can't disagree.

James probably means "justify" to mean "show to be righteous," and he probably means "righteous" to have the usual Biblical meaning of living a life that God approves.

When Paul uses justification and righteousness he's talking about what makes someone a Christian, not how they live as a Christian. He agrees with James that to live as a Christian you have to live right. N T Wright believes that justify for Paul means "show to be righteous," but it's righteous in the sense of being a proper member of the covenant people. I think justify sometimes refers to how God puts someone into that proper status, but that's probably not relevant to this thread.

For three reasons, I don't think that NT writers use the same term in different ways.

1) The Bible is inspired by God and God is not the author of confusion.
2) OT uses those terms. When Paul and James used those terms, they were fully aware of their meanings and usages in OT.
3) Paul and James used Abraham as an example and, in both cases, the term justified was used, indicating to me that they both hold similar idea of justification.

So technically James 1:21 ff doesn't contradict Paul. Indeed Paul agrees that proper behavior is necessary, largely in other books such as 1 Cor.

But more broadly, we know that Paul and James disagree, because Paul says so. What's unusual in Paul's theology is that he treats our status as righteous before God as based on our faith, and our lives as Christians as a consequence of that.

Even 1 Cor 6:9, which is typically quoted to support a kind of Protestant version of mortal sin, retains this distinction. He says that the Corinthians have already been washed and justified. They are now required to live up to that.

There's no sign of that distinction in James, and based on his disagreement with Paul it's very unlikely that he actually would agree with it. This doesn't mean that James is useless, just that he's not the first place to look to see the theological implications of grace.

My understanding of 1 Cor 6:9-11 differs. Paul is talking about inheriting the kingdom of God (v 9), which is the context. Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that the Meek inherits the kingdom of God, and the meek are those who wait upon the Lord (Psalms). Paul is laying out the criteria (v 9-10) for waiting upon the Lord (serving Christ).

Washed, sanctified, and justified in verse 11 refer to people who have just accepted the gospel: they are justified by faith to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, they are washed by the Holy Spirit, and sanctified (set aside) to serve the living God. At this stage, they await the works of God that come by faith, but God will not use idolaters (for our God is a jealous God) and will not use etc, etc (v 9-10).

 

[Guojing]

If the book of James was meant to the Jews only then what about John's statement "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did" - which clearly is a command to do works like Jesus did, also was only meant for Jews only?

Yes, John, as all the other Gospels, were written primarily to the Jews. John himself concluded in John 20:31 that he wrote John, so that people can believe that Jesus is the Son of God. For the Jews, under the Gospel of the Kingdom then, they had to believe in that, the identity of Jesus, to be saved then.

But for us, we believe in the death burial resurrection of Jesus, as Paul stated in 1 Cor 15, that is what saves us now, believing in the finished works of Jesus.

Another way to view John's letters is to remember the events of the Jerusalem Council recorded for us in Galatians 2, where John, together with Peter and James, agreed to confine their ministry strictly to the Jews, Galatians 2:9

 

[~Zao~]

For three reasons,
3) Paul and James used Abraham as an example and, in both cases, the term justified was used, indicating to me that they both hold similar idea of justification.....

I didn’t read the whole post but was intrigued by the reference to Abraham. Abraham had many children and all of those children are justified by faith. BUT grace is only found thru Sarah.

 

[Guojing]

There's no reason different NT writers can't use the same term in different ways. There's also no reason other than conservative Protestant ideology that they can't disagree.

James probably means "justify" to mean "show to be righteous," and he probably means "righteous" to have the usual Biblical meaning of living a life that God approves.

When Paul uses justification and righteousness he's talking about what makes someone a Christian, not how they live as a Christian. He agrees with James that to live as a Christian you have to live right. N T Wright believes that justify for Paul means "show to be righteous," but it's righteous in the sense of being a proper member of the covenant people. I think justify sometimes refers to how God puts someone into that proper status, but that's probably not relevant to this thread.

So technically James 1:21 ff doesn't contradict Paul. Indeed Paul agrees that proper behavior is necessary, largely in other books such as 1 Cor.

But more broadly, we know that Paul and James disagree, because Paul says so. What's unusual in Paul's theology is that he treats our status as righteous before God as based on our faith, and our lives as Christians as a consequence of that.

Even 1 Cor 6:9, which is typically quoted to support a kind of Protestant version of mortal sin, retains this distinction. He says that the Corinthians have already been washed and justified. They are now required to live up to that.

There's no sign of that distinction in James, and based on his disagreement with Paul it's very unlikely that he actually would agree with it. This doesn't mean that James is useless, just that he's not the first place to look to see the theological implications of grace.

You can imagine the uproar I got from another forum when I proposed that James disagreed with Paul. They kept insisting that since the Holy Spirit inspired James and Paul to write their letters, they must be talking about the same thing =)

 

[hedrick]

3) Paul and James used Abraham as an example and, in both cases, the term justified was used, indicating to me that they both hold similar idea of justification.

The problem is that they said he was justified for different reasons. Paul said he was justified by faith:

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”"

James says he was justified by works. Faith was there, but he was justified because the faith was completed by works.

"Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

To avoid a direct contradiction we have to assume that they were talking about somewhat different things. But even if we avoid direct contradiction, Paul does make a distinction that James doesn't.

 

[hedrick]

Look at 1 Cor 6 again. Paul puts their washing and justification in the past.

In 6:15 he makes a similar distinction. Our bodies are members of Christ, therefore don't use prostitutes. He doesn't say that we're only in Christ if we do the right thing, but *because* we are in Christ, we need to do the right thing.

You were bought with a price. *therefore* do right.

As to inheriting the Kingdom, that's complex. The problem is that for Paul union with Christ, and membership in the Kingdom is a present reality. If you check a concordance of Bible search you'll see that his references to the Kingdom are almost all present. In the various parables about the Kingdom we look for it now.

Obviously the Kingdom isn't fully embodied until the End. But it's our business to live in it now. Paul normally uses it the same way. So Paul is warning people that they are doing things not consistent with the Kingdom. Inheriting, I point out, is something live people do. Jesus commonly speaks of inheriting eternal life. He probably means eternal life to be at least in part future. But we inherit is now, and a foretaste of eternal life is already present.

 

[~Zao~]

The problem is that they said he was justified for different reasons. Paul said he was justified by faith:

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”"

James says he was justified by works. Faith was there, but he was justified because the faith was completed by works.

"Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

To avoid a direct contradiction we have to assume that they were talking about somewhat different things. But even if we avoid direct contradiction, Paul does make a distinction that James doesn't.

Where does Grace come into that?

 

[hedrick]

When I first became active in Internet discussions on Christianity (which I'm afraid is like 40 years ago), Protestants always said that we are justified by faith alone, but that we could trust God to work with us on our lives.

I very rarely hear real justification by faith any more. Everyone seems to have adopted justification by faith + works. My theory is that Protestant theology is a casualty of the culture wars. People are so intent on making certain things mortal sins that they've abandoned Paul, and Luther's major insight.

 

[hedrick]

Where does Grace come into that?

Grace is unmerited favor from God, which we accept in faith.

For Paul we are justified though Christ's death, in which we have faith. That's grace, because it depends entirely upon Christ, not us. We are then responsible for reflecting that in our actions.

Paul's main exposition of this is in Romans and Galatians, but even in 1 Cor he is clear that we are already set right with God through faith in Christ, and we are now expected to show it in our lives. The being set right is justification for Paul. James doesn't make the distinction.

 

[~Zao~]

When I first became active in Internet discussions on Christianity (which I'm afraid is like 40 years ago), Protestants always said that we are justified by faith alone, but that we could trust God to work with us on our lives.

I very rarely hear real justification by faith any more. Everyone seems to have adopted justification by faith + works. My theory is that Protestant theology is a casualty of the culture wars. People are so intent on making certain things mortal sins that they've abandoned Paul, and Luther's major insight.

I think inner work and outer work are distinct from each other.

 

[hedrick]

By the way, I am not denying that we will in some way be held responsible for how we live. However this thread was about justification, so I'm looking at that and not judgement.

 

[def]

Look at 1 Cor 6 again. Paul puts their washing and justification in the past.

In 6:15 he makes a similar distinction. Our bodies are members of Christ, therefore don't use prostitutes. He doesn't say that we're only in Christ if we do the right thing, but *because* we are in Christ, we need to do the right thing.

You were bought with a price. *therefore* do right.

As to inheriting the Kingdom, that's complex. The problem is that for Paul union with Christ, and membership in the Kingdom is a present reality. If you check a concordance of Bible search you'll see that his references to the Kingdom are almost all present. In the various parables about the Kingdom we look for it now.

Obviously the Kingdom isn't fully embodied until the End. But it's our business to live in it now. Paul normally uses it the same way. So Paul is warning people that they are doing things not consistent with the Kingdom. Inheriting, I point out, is something live people do. Jesus commonly speaks of inheriting eternal life. He probably means eternal life to be at least in part future. But we inherit is now, and a foretaste of eternal life is already present.

Agree that washing and justification are in the past since Paul was addressing believers. In that verse, Paul also has sanctified. What were the people sanctified for? They were sanctified (set aside) to serve the living God and therefore they have to 'live right' to receive the works that come from God.

Paul also teaches that the kingdom of God is about serving Christ in righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14:17-18). Believers have peace when set their minds to the desires of the Spirit, which would exclude all extreme and unnatural desires of the flesh, which Paul lists out in 1 Cor 6.

 

[~Zao~]

Grace is unmerited favor from God, which we accept in faith.

For Paul we are justified though Christ's death, in which we have faith. That's grace, because it depends entirely upon Christ, not us. We are then responsible for reflecting that in our actions.

Paul's main exposition of this is in Romans and Galatians, but even in 1 Cor he is clear that we are already set right with God through faith in Christ, and we are now expected to show it in our lives.

For Paul you are justified thru Christ’s death? How can you be justified for Paul? I don’t understand that.

 

[hedrick]

Agree that washing and justification are in the past since Paul was addressing believers. In that verse, Paul also has sanctified. What were the people sanctified for? They were sanctified (set aside) to serve the living God and therefore they have to 'live right' to receive the works that come from God.

I agree. But this thread is about justification.

Incidentally, Paul uses sanctification in its usual Biblical sense, being set apart for service to God. That's really the same thing as being justified, or at least is an immediate implication.

It's unfortunate the much of Protestant theology uses sanctification for our ongoing Christian life. The theology is fine, but using the term "sanctification" for it is misleading, since as far as I can see it's not used that way in the NT by anyone.

 

[hedrick]

For Paul you are justified thru Christ’s death? How can you be justified for Paul? I don’t understand that.

I mean in Paul's theology you are justified through Christ's death, appropriated by faith. (At least this is true for Christians. How he handles Abraham and other non-Christians is its own topic, which I don't advise talking about in this thread.)

 

[~Zao~]

I agree. But this thread is about justification.

Incidentally, Paul uses sanctification in its usual Biblical sense, being set apart for service to God. That's really the same thing as being justified, or at least is an immediate implication.

It's unfortunate the much of Protestant theology uses sanctification for our ongoing Christian life. The theology is fine, but using the term "sanctification" for it is misleading, since as far as I can see it's not used that way in the NT by anyone.

If it’s not sanctification then what is it? You also don’t need to understand the term to make it so.

 

[~Zao~]

I agree. But this thread is about justification.

Incidentally, Paul uses sanctification in its usual Biblical sense, being set apart for service to God. That's really the same thing as being justified, or at least is an immediate implication.

It's unfortunate the much of Protestant theology uses sanctification for our ongoing Christian life. The theology is fine, but using the term "sanctification" for it is misleading, since as far as I can see it's not used that way in the NT by anyone.

Being set apart for service is anointed. Maybe it’s termed consecration? Not sure.

 

[hedrick]

Being set apart for service is anointed. Maybe it’s termed consecration? Not sure.

The Greek term for sanctify is literally "to make holy." But I was concerned that this would be misleading, because it might imply that someone who is justified is automatically made morally perfect. Obviously that's not the case. In the OT things that are holy are things that are set apart for God. Hence my paraphrase that sanctify means to be set apart for God.

You're right that anointed is a related concept. But anointed implies a specific action. Literally kings were anointed with oil as part of their installation. Figuratively the NT sometimes talks about being anointed by the Holy Spirit for a responsibility.