Paul vs James who is right?

[Kenneth Roberson]

Okay so here's a question I've been wondering for a while. In several places in the bible (Romans 4:5) (Titus 6) (Ephesians 2)...etc Paul has fought for the case that we are ultimately saved by our faith and not by our works. Yet in James 2 James seems to be stating the opposite while quoting Paul. Now I've heard this explained several different ways. One way was that James was talking about our justification by men is by works and that our justification from God is by faith. Another explanation that I've heard is that James was saying that a true faith would have works and those who have faith but don't have works aren't saved. But this explanation was refuted by Jesus himself when he said that not a single believer would be lost in John 6:37-40. And the entire bible teaches that those who have faith in Jesus are eternally secure (John 10). The last explanation that I've heard was that James was saying exactly what he seemed to be saying. That we are justified by works and not by faith. To me this seems to be what James was saying so... Who is right? Paul or James? Or am I missing something here?

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Okay so here's a question I've been wondering for a while. In several places in the bible (Romans 4:5) (Titus 6) (Ephesians 2)...etc Paul has fought for the case that we are ultimately saved by our faith and not by our works. Yet in James 2 James seems to be stating the opposite while quoting Paul. Now I've heard this explained several different ways. One way was that James was talking about our justification by men is by works and that our justification from God is by faith. Another explanation that I've heard is that James was saying that a true faith would have works and those who have faith but don't have works aren't saved. But this explanation was refuted by Jesus himself when he said that not a single believer would be lost in John 6:37-40. And the entire bible teaches that those who have faith in Jesus are eternally secure (John 10). The last explanation that I've heard was that James was saying exactly what he seemed to be saying. That we are justified by works and not by faith. To me this seems to be what James was saying so... Who is right? Paul or James? Or am I missing something here?

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Okay so here's a question I've been wondering for a while. In several places in the bible (Romans 4:5) (Titus 6) (Ephesians 2)...etc Paul has fought for the case that we are ultimately saved by our faith and not by our works. Yet in James 2 James seems to be stating the opposite while quoting Paul. Now I've heard this explained several different ways. One way was that James was talking about our justification by men is by works and that our justification from God is by faith. Another explanation that I've heard is that James was saying that a true faith would have works and those who have faith but don't have works aren't saved. But this explanation was refuted by Jesus himself when he said that not a single believer would be lost in John 6:37-40. And the entire bible teaches that those who have faith in Jesus are eternally secure (John 10). The last explanation that I've heard was that James was saying exactly what he seemed to be saying. That we are justified by works and not by faith. To me this seems to be what James was saying so... Who is right? Paul or James? Or am I missing something here?

Hi Neostar--

The way this is frequently resolved is to say something like, "the faith that Paul is talking about, James says does works."

I have written an essay on the topic and the below summarizes it.

James wrote to the "twelves tribes" (Jas. 1:1), i.e., to the Jews, some of whom were Christians, and some of whom were not. (Like some Old Testament writings to the Jews, some of whom believed in God and some of whom did not). James's epistle teaches that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul wrote to a Christian church(es) or to individual Christians. He teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three—James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

I am discussing this issue in the thread "Paul and James Reconciled" in the "Controversial Christian Theology" forum.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay so here's a question I've been wondering for a while. In several places in the bible (Romans 4:5) (Titus 6) (Ephesians 2)...etc Paul has fought for the case that we are ultimately saved by our faith and not by our works. Yet in James 2 James seems to be stating the opposite while quoting Paul. Now I've heard this explained several different ways. One way was that James was talking about our justification by men is by works and that our justification from God is by faith. Another explanation that I've heard is that James was saying that a true faith would have works and those who have faith but don't have works aren't saved. But this explanation was refuted by Jesus himself when he said that not a single believer would be lost in John 6:37-40. And the entire bible teaches that those who have faith in Jesus are eternally secure (John 10). The last explanation that I've heard was that James was saying exactly what he seemed to be saying. That we are justified by works and not by faith. To me this seems to be what James was saying so... Who is right? Paul or James? Or am I missing something here?

Paul in Romans 2:13 says the same thing as James says in James 2

Rom 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.

James 2
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was our father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Neither of them is proposing error.

But as James 2 points out (and as Christ points out in Matthew 7) the person that is born again - reveals it - by their fruits. And so then "by their fruits you shall know them". The results of the new birth experience is seen in a life of obedience rather than a life of rebellion

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Paul in Romans 2:13 says the same thing as James says in James 2

Rom 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.

James 2
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was our father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Neither of them is proposing error.

But as James 2 points out (and as Christ points out in Matthew 7) the person that is born again - reveals it - by their fruits. And so then "by their fruits you shall know them". The results of the new birth experience is seen in a life of obedience rather than a life of rebellion

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Hi BobRyan--

Some interesting comments! I have a question, however. Your quotation of Jas. 2:18-24, coupled with your later sentence citing James 2 and referring to a person who is “born again,” suggest you view Jas. 2:18-24 as referring to a person who is born again. And your earlier quotation of Rom. 2:13, coupled with your comment that Paul in Rom. 2:13 is saying the same thing as Jas. 2, in turn suggest that you view the phrase “the doers of the law who will be justified” in Rom. 2:13 as referring to people who are born again (i.e., to Christians).

I think something different is happening. Paul wrote at Rom. 2:13 that “the doers of the law shall be justified,” but I respectfully submit that he was not teaching there that Christians who were “doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13 in context is part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers, Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God. He says at Rom. 2:6, for example, that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (italics added), and the verse does not refer to “faith.” Paul later declares that, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (Rom. 2:7, italics added) and “glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (Rom. 2:10, italics added).

But this is hypothetical only, for Paul declares at Rom. 3:9-11 concerning unbelievers: “9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” (Italics added.) He also says at verse 12, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (italics added) and at verse 19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” (Italics added.) If there are “none that doeth good” (italics added), then there are (1) none who “by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7, italics added) and (2) none who “worketh good” and thus receive “glory, honour, and peace.” (Rom. 2:10, italics added.) Rom. 2:13, says that “doers of the law shall be justified,” but the context is a discussion pertaining to unbelievers and showing that (1) their efforts to be justified this way will be unsuccessful and (2) such justification is only hypothetical. Note that Paul teaches at Rom. 3:19 that whatever the law says, it says “to them who are under the law.” (Italics added.) But Paul proclaims concerning Christians, “you are not under the Law but under grace.” (Italics added.) Paul does not in Rom. 1:18 through 3:20 refer to “faith,” or to Christians being “doers of the law.” However, after Rom. 3:20, the good news for Christians begins at Rom. 3:21!]

My question is: in light of the above, what are your thoughts concerning whether the phrase “the doers of the law who will be justified” is referring to people who are born again? God bless you.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi BobRyan--
Some interesting comments! I have a question, however. Your quotation of Jas. 2:18-24, coupled with your later sentence citing James 2 and referring to a person who is “born again,” suggest you view Jas. 2:18-24 as referring to a person who is born again. And your earlier quotation of Rom. 2:13, coupled with your comment that Paul in Rom. 2:13 is saying the same thing as Jas. 2, in turn suggest that you view the phrase “the doers of the law who will be justified” in Rom. 2:13 as referring to people who are born again (i.e., to Christians).

Yes that is true.

"Justifcation" is a purely "Gospel" concept.

So in Rom 2 for example
“the doers of the law who will be justified... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge" Rom 2:13-16

I think something different is happening. Paul wrote at Rom. 2:13 that “the doers of the law shall be justified,” but I respectfully submit that he was not teaching there that Christians who were “doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13 in context is part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers, Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God.

Both are true.

The unsaved are guilty --
But as Christ said in Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them".

The fruit of the born again life is not rebellion - it is obedience as 1 John 2:4-10 points out.

He says at Rom. 2:6, for example, that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (italics added), and the verse does not refer to “faith.”

In Rom 2:1-16 Paul describes both the success cases and the failing cases.. not just failures.

4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will repay each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; 8 but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

================ more of Romans 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.


=================

It is in that context of the "Kindness of God" and the "Gospel that Paul preaches" -- that some end up lost and some are saved.

====================

The lost vs the saved contrasted again in Romans 8

4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

 

[fhansen]

To understand the bible's message to man, especially possible in light of the whole context of the New Testament with its warnings, admonitions, instructions, etc to believers, along with the sometimes seeming conflicts between statements of Jesus, Paul, James, and others that some attempt to reconcile in various ways, we must recognize that to be “under grace” does not mean that we’re no longer obligated to be righteous, to be obedient, to fulfill the law which cannot, of itself, justify us. Rather, grace now gives us the means, the right means, to finally attain those things, by communion with God rather than on our own (being “under the law”) as if we possessed any ability to be righteous apart from Him. This is a relationship established by faith, a relationship that man was made for and that itself constitutes the primary right and just order of things for man. Adam had thought otherwise and God’s been patiently preparing and appealing to man ever since to change his mind so that like prodigals who’ve become jaded by life in exile, apart from their father, we return home, still impossible without grace because in the case of fallen man we’re totally lost, unable to even find our way back home. Anyway, “under grace”, properly understood, brings these verses into full light and into alignment with God’s ultimate, New Covenant, purpose and will for man:

“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:20

“If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Rom 2:7

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.“ Rom 5:1-2

"...just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom 5:21

“For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.” Rom 6:6

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Hi BobRyan. Thank you for your comments and your citations to Scripture. I have replied to them with comments and questions below. They are in two parts, i.e., this reply and the additional separate reply that follows. My citations are to the KJV unless otherwise noted.

1. “The Doers of the Law Shall Be Justified.”

As indicated in my previous posts, my essay maintains that (1) Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law of Moses (the law), (2) Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences, and (3) when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

In other words, there is no problem with Christians being “doers of the law.” The issue is whether Christians are required to be “doers of the law.” Your position appears to be that Rom. 2:13 (“the doers of the law shall be justified”) applies to Christians, i.e., Christians are required to be doers of the law and “the doers of the law shall be justified.” There are a number of problems with this.

First, Paul teaches at Gal. 2:19, “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God” (italics added) and “I died to the law, so that I might live to God” (NASB) (italics added). Paul does not say that he died to the law so that he might live to God and so that “the doers of the law shall be justified.” At Rom. 7:4-6 (NASB) he proclaimed:

“you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”​

Paul does not say in these verses that Christians are dead to the law to be joined to another to bear fruit so that the doers of the law shall be justified. Nor does he say that Christians have been “released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound” (italics added), so that we might serve in newness of the Spirit so that the doers of the law shall be justified.

But if Christians are dead to the law, they are not subject, or under obligation, to the law of Moses or its commandments, whether ceremonial, judicial, or moral. Therefore, Paul proclaims at Rom. 6:14 (NASB), “for you are not under law but under grace.” (Italics added.)

Christians sometimes sin and offend God. However, since Christians are dead to, and not under, the law, their sins do not break that law, i.e., Christians’ sins are not transgressions. This is consistent with Paul’s statement that “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). The law has no hold on the dead; as a practical matter, to the dead there is no such law. And because Christians cannot transgress the law, they cannot be found guilty of violating it. Consequently, Paul writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:1, NASB.) Paul teaches that Christians are dead to the law, not that they are dead to it for some purposes and alive to it for others. If Christians are dead to the law, there is no need for them to be “doers of the law” to be justified, saved, or anything else. Under grace, Christians pursue a Scriptural way of life with repentance from sin, and with faith, love, and good works. But these things do not require compliance with the law of Moses as such, and Christians are free to do these things without complying with the law for any purpose.

Second, Paul tells Christians at Ephesians 2:13 and 15 that Christ died and thereby “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (KJV); “setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations” (NIV); and “abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” (NASB). (Italics added.) He did not write in these verses that the law of commandments was abolished so that the doers of the law shall be justified.

Third, Paul views law and faith as mutually exclusive and obligatory systems, including mutually exclusive and obligatory systems of life and justification. At Gal. 3:11-12, he writes: “11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Italics added.) Paul contrasts living by faith and living by doing deeds required by the law. And Paul never combines these two obligatory systems, saying something like “the just live by faith and the doers of the law shall be justified.”

Fourth, at Gal. 3:23-25, Paul declares:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”​

(Italics added.) Note that Paul does not say, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith and by being doers of the law.” Also note that Paul says, “after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” and Paul does not there express any further role for the law. In particular, he does not there say that “the doers of the law shall be justified.”

Fifth, Christians are righteous. Thus Paul said at Rom. 4:5 that “faith is counted for righteousness.” At Rom. 3:22, Paul spoke of “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe[.]” At Rom. 9:30, Paul declared that the Gentiles “have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.” Paul taught at Rom. 5:19 that by the obedience of Jesus Christ, “shall many be made righteous.”

But the law is not made for the righteous. Paul clearly said at 1 Tim. 1:9-10:

“the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine[.]”​

(Italics added.) If Paul is teaching here that the law is not made for the righteous, is he also teaching at Rom. 2:13 that Christians, as obligatory “doers of the law,” “shall be justified”?

Sixth, Romans 13:8-10, Paul instructs,

“8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”​

(Italics added.) Paul teaches that “love” has fulfilled the law. “Love” is part of the fruit of the Spirit. (Gal. 5:22.)

Paul says that love “hath fulfilled” the law. The phrase “hath fulfilled” here is a translation of the Greek word “pepleroken,” which is a word in the Greek perfect tense. (Barbara and Timothy Friberg, Analytical Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), p. 502.) Basically, the Greek perfect tense conveys the idea that previous on-going action has culminated in an abiding state. (Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 126; Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn. Broadman Press, 1950), p. 103). Paul is teaching that, by love, the law has been fulfilled, and stands fulfilled. And, if the law stands fulfilled by love, nothing but love is necessary, or sufficient, to fulfill the law.

Paul begins Rom. 13:9 with the word “For,” signaling an explanation to come. Paul then lists five commandments based on the law of Moses. Sometimes people distinguish between the “moral,” “judicial,” and “ceremonial” commandments of the law, and teach that the ceremonial ones (such as those requiring animal sacrifice) are transitional but the moral commandments are binding on the Christian. It is important, then, to note that, at Rom. 13:9, Paul lists five “moral” commandments. Four of them, those involving adultery, killing (murder), stealing, and bearing false witness, are prohibitions involving outward conduct. One, involving coveting, is a prohibition involving inward desire.

Paul teaches that these five moral commandments, and any other commandment of the law of Moses, is summed up by another commandment of the law. That commandment is “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” found at Lev. 19:18.

Thus, Paul has shifted focus from several moral commandments of the law to a single moral commandment of the law: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Moreover, Paul has shifted from moral commandments, several of which prohibit outward conduct, to a single commandment that requires an inner virtue.

But Paul did not tell the Roman Christians to comply with the moral commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” That is, Paul did not tell the Roman Christians to comply with the commandment of the law of Moses found at Lev. 19:18. Paul’s reference to Lev. 19:18 is part of his explanation concerning why Paul has himself commanded Christians to “love one another.” The Roman Christians are subject to a commandment based, not on the law of Moses, but on Paul’s independent and personal authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The commandment based on the law is “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Lev. 19:18.) The commandment from Paul the apostle to the Roman Christians is “love one another.” (Rom. 13:8.)

Indeed, John 13:34 records that Jesus Himself said to His disciples, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (Italics added.) Why did He give a new commandment if the old one (“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18)) applied to Christians? Lev. 19:18, referred to in Rom. 13:9, commanded love of one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. The new commandment commanded love of one another as Christ loved His disciples.

At Rom. 13:10, Paul teaches that love “worketh no ill to his neighbor.” That is, a person motivated by love would never commit adultery, kill (murder), steal, bear false witness, or covet, whether or not these things were specified in the law. Therefore, love itself, an inner virtue produced by the indwelling Spirit of God in the Christian, is the fulfillment of the law. Paul is not saying that we fulfil the law when we use love to comply with the commandments of the law. Instead, Paul is teaching that, if we simply have love, we no longer need be concerned about the moral commandments of the law, including the Ten Commandments or “any other commandment” (Rom. 13:9) of the law of Moses.

Thus, Paul has again shifted focus, this time from a single commandment of the law pertaining to love, to love itself, without the commandment of the law. And importantly, Paul invests the word “love” with a technical meaning; it is part of the “fruit of the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:22.)

Paul says at Rom. 13:10 that “love is the fulfilling of the law.” What does he mean by “fulfilling?” The “-ing” suffix could suggest continuing activity. This in turn could suggest continuing outward conduct. But the Greek word translated “fulfilling” at Rom. 13:10 in the KJV means neither continuing activity nor continuing outward conduct. That Greek word is “pleroma.” (George V. Wigram and Ralph D. Winter, The Word Study Concordance (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1978), pp. 630-631.) “Pleroma” is a noun, not a verb. (Vine’s New Testament Expository Dictionary. Fulfill, Fulfilling, Fulfillment – Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words - Bible Dictionary; italics added.) It is used 13 times by Paul and, each time in the KJV, except here at Rom. 13:10, “pleroma” is translated “fulness.” (Wigram, pp. 630-631.) The other 12 times are found at Rom. 11:12, 25; 15:29; 1 Cor. 10:26, 28; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10, 23; 3:19; 4:13; Col. 1:19; 2:9. (Ibid.) Although the phrase “love is the fulfilling of the law” (italics added) is found at Rom. 13:10 in the KJV, there is no reason that that phrase cannot be rendered, “love is the fulness of the law.”

Accordingly, one Greek-English interlinear translates this phrase in Rom. 13:10 as “love [is] fulness therefore of [the] law.” (George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear KJV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1897), p. 429.) One commentator observes, “Vs. 10, literally translated, reads ‘The fullness of the law, therefore, is love.” (Gerald R. Cragg, “The Epistle to the Romans,” The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), IX, p. 607 (italics added).)

Thus, Paul commands the Roman Christians to “love one another.” (Rom. 3:8.) He does so knowing that love itself is the fulness of the law of Moses. Paul does not command that we comply with any commandment of the law of Moses. He does not command that we keep the “moral” commandments of the law of Moses. He does not command that we comply with the commandment of the law found at Lev. 19:18, i.e., “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” He does not command that we comply with or keep the Ten Commandments. Instead, the law of Moses has been fulfilled, and stands fulfilled, by love, produced by the Spirit of God in the Christian.

To say that we are free from any obligation to comply with the Ten Commandments is not to say that we are free to sin. Christian are still, of course, taught not to sin. (1 Jn. 2:1.) But as Christians, our motivation for not sinning is no longer a fear of condemnation for transgressing a law, but a desire not to grieve and hurt God (Eph. 4:30) and instead to glorify Him (1 Cor. 6:20). God teaches Christians to love Him (Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 2:9) and to love one another (Rom. 13:8, 1 Th. 4:9), but not as commandments of the law.

The account of the discreet scribe at Mark 12:28-34 reveals that the scribe knew that “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” were the greatest commandments of the law but, even then, Jesus taught that the scribe had not yet made it into the kingdom of God, though he was “not far” from it. The scribe had yet to learn that the law would be “fulfilled in” (Rom. 8:4) us, not kept, through the love of the One with Whom the scribe was speaking, and from Whom the scribe was “not far” physically or spiritually.

Accordingly, Jesus taught at Mt. 5:17, “. . . I [the person of Christ] am . . . come . . . to fulfil [the law].” The Greek word translated “has fulfilled” at Rom. 13:8 is a form of the Greek word translated “fulfil” at Mt. 5:17. (Wigram, p. 630.) The Greek word is “pleroo.” (Ibid.).) Christ came to fulfill the law. He did not say that His audience or Christians were to fulfill it. Luke 24:36 and 24:44 record that after Christ’s resurrection, He appeared to His disciples and said, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Emphasis added.) And again, the word “fulfilled” in this verse is a translation of a form of “pleroo.” (Wigram, p. 630.)

(And let’s assume for sake of argument that Mt. 5:17 is teaching that Christians must fulfill the law; wouldn’t that mean that Mt. 5:17 is also teaching that Christians are to fulfil the prophets?)

Christ in fact fulfilled the law, He now dwells in the Christian by faith (Eph. 3:17), and now love, part of the fruit of the Spirit, has fulfilled the law. If the law has been fulfilled by love, then Christians are not required to be “doers of the law” and, in particular, Rom. 2:13 is not teaching that Christians are required to be doers of the law and “the doers of the law shall be justified.”

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Yes that is true.

"Justifcation" is a purely "Gospel" concept.

So in Rom 2 for example
“the doers of the law who will be justified... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge" Rom 2:13-16





Both are true.

The unsaved are guilty --
But as Christ said in Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them".

The fruit of the born again life is not rebellion - it is obedience as 1 John 2:4-10 points out.




In Rom 2:1-16 Paul describes both the success cases and the failing cases.. not just failures.

4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will repay each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; 8 but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

================ more of Romans 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.


=================

It is in that context of the "Kindness of God" and the "Gospel that Paul preaches" -- that some end up lost and some are saved.

====================

The lost vs the saved contrasted again in Romans 8

4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

What Paul teaches at Rom. 13, he teaches more briefly at Gal. 5:13-14. Those verses read:

“13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

(Italics added.) The Galatian Christians were being wrongly taught by unbelieving Judaizers that the Galatian Christians had to comply with the law. Here, at Gal. 5:13, Paul commands the Galatian Christians to do works of service motivated “by love.” Paul begins Gal. 5:14 using the word “For,” again, signaling an explanation to come. Paul’s explanation is that the law is fulfilled by “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” i.e., by Lev. 19:18.

But Paul has not commanded the Galatian Christians to comply with the commandment of the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” According to Paul, if persons, including Christians, could hypothetically comply with that Mosaic commandment, and all the other commandments of the law of Moses, perfectly throughout their lives, then, and only then, would their compliance with that verse satisfy the law. For “cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Gal. 3:10; italics added.)

The commandment which the apostle Paul gives to the Galatian Christians is to serve one another “by love.” He knows that the love motivating that service has fulfilled the law.

The phrase “is fulfilled” at Gal. 5:14 is a translation of the Greek word “peplerotai,” which is a word in the Greek perfect tense. (Friberg, p. 585.) “Peplerotai” here and “pepleroken” at Rom. 13:8 are different forms of the same Greek word (“pleroo”). (Wigram, p. 630.) Paul is teaching that the law has been fulfilled by the commandment of the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” But this is Paul’s explanation concerning why Paul, in the exercise of his apostolic authority, commands the Galatian Christians to serve by “love.” If the law has been fulfilled by love, then Rom. 2:13 is not teaching that Christians are required to be doers of the law and “the doers of the law shall be justified.”

Seventh, I mentioned earlier that “Paul wrote at Rom. 2:13 that ‘the doers of the law shall be justified,’ but I respectfully submit that he was not teaching there that Christians who were ‘doers of the law shall be justified.’ Rom. 2:13 in context is part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers, Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God.”

You replied, among other things, “Both are true.” In other words, it appears that your position is that (1) at Rom. 2:13, Paul is teaching that Christians who were “doers of the law shall be justified,” and (2) Rom. 2:13 in context is part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God. There are a number of difficulties with that position.

Again, focusing on context, it is important to note when Paul says that the “doers of the law shall be justified.” Paul writes at Rom. 2:5-11:

“5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.”​

(Italics added.)

I have already noted that Paul, referring to unbelievers, says at Rom. 3:12, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one”; therefore, he is teaching at Rom. 2:5-11 that (1) unbelievers will not be rewarded for “well doing” (Rom. 2:7) or for “work[ing] good” (Rom. 2:10) and (2) such rewards are hypothetical only. But your view is that these verses are also teaching that Christians will be rewarded for “well doing” and for “work[ing]” good.”

The problem is that that view does not focus on the particular period of time when these rewards would be given. For Paul says at Rom. 2:5 that “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath[.]” (Italics added.) He says that God “will”—in the future—render to every man according to his deeds.

Zephaniah 1:14-15 record:

14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. 15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness[.]”​

(Italics added.) Accordingly, Isaiah prophesied, “the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger[.]” (Italics added.)

But at Rom. 5:9, Paul taught Christians, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Italics added.) At 1 Thess. 1:10, Paul emphasized concerning Christians that Jesus “delivered us from the wrath to come.” (Italics added.) At 1 Thess. 5:9, Paul, referring to Christians, stated, “For God hath not appointed us [NASB: “destined us”] to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ[.]” (Italics added.) And at 2 Thess. 2:2, Paul taught Christians not to believe that “the day of the Lord” (NASB and NIV) has come. In other words, as long as Christians are here, the “day of the Lord,” the “day of wrath” is not here.

Thus, one, the verses in the above paragraph are teaching not only that God’s wrath is not for Christians but that Christians will not be in the time period of the “day of wrath.” But according to Rom. 2:5-11, it is in the “day of wrath” that God would give rewards for “well doing” (Rom. 2:7) and “work[ing] good” (Rom. 2:10). The problem is that your view has Christians receiving rewards during the “day of wrath,” and Scriptures teach that Christians will not be in the “day of wrath.”

Two, as previously mentioned, Rom. 2:7 does not say, “to them who by patient continuance in well doing with faith seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.” Nor does Rom. 2:10 say, “glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good with faith, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” Wouldn’t your position be stronger if these verses said this?

Eighth, Paul repeatedly teaches in his epistles that Christians are “justified by faith.” But if Rom. 2:13 applies to Christians, i.e., if Christians are required to be doers of the law and “the doers of the law shall be justified,” wouldn’t we expect Paul to teach this important concept of justification elsewhere? In other words, what is the significance of the fact that Paul nowhere says that “the doers of the law shall be justified” except here at Rom. 2:13?

Ninth, more specifically, Paul shifts at Rom. 3:21-31 and is talking about Christians and justification. At verse 21 he says,

“21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus[.]”​

(Italics added.) He later says at verse 28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Italics added.)

If Paul were teaching that Christians are required to be doers of the law and “the doers of the law shall be justified,” couldn’t he have said at verse 22, “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe while being doers of the law” or at verse 24, “Being justified freely by his grace while being doers of the law”?

Similarly, couldn’t he also have said at verse 28, “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law while being a doer of the law”? Or would he refrain from saying this because (1) it is inherently inconsistent and erroneous, and (2) Christians will not be justified by being “doers of the law”?

Accordingly, you comment that “ ‘Justification’ is a purely ‘Gospel’ concept” (italics added), but I would respectfully submit that the issue is whether Rom. 2:13 is teaching that (1) Christians must be “doers of the law” and (2) “doers of the law” shall be justified.

2. After saying, “Both are true,” you add,

“ ‘The unsaved are guilty--But as Christ said in Matt 7 ‘by their fruits you shall know them’. [¶] The fruit of the born again life is not rebellion – it is obedience as 1 Jn. 2:4-10 points out.’ ”​

Mt. 7:20 says, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” But Mt. 7 does not state that for the Christian the fruits are (1) being “doers of the law” or (2) that “the doers of the law shall be justified.”

3. You also observe that, “The fruit of the born again life is not rebellion - it is obedience as 1 John 2:4-10 points out.” However, first, 1 Jn. 2:4-10 nowhere say that “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Second, although in those verses John refers to the “commandment” and to “commandments,” he nowhere in those verses uses the phrase “commandment of the law” or “commandments of the law.”

In fact, 1 Jn. 2:4 says, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” And the very next verse says, “But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.” (Italics added.) John thus treats “commandments” and “word” as comparable.

Finally, nowhere in the Book of John, 1, 2, or 3 John, or the Book of Revelations does John ever use the phrase “commandment(s) of the law.”

4. Your emphasis of various parts of Rom. 2:15-16, suggests that you maintain that the “defending” referred to in verse 15 is occurring on “the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus” referred to in verse 16. It therefore appears that you are further suggesting that these verses show that “doers of the law” will be “defend[ed],” i.e., justified, on that future “day.” But the “defending” of verse 15 is occurring at the time that the Gentiles currently “perform” as indicated at verse 14, not at the time of the future “day” of verse 16. See for example the KJV and the NIV, which put verses 14 and 15 in parentheses, separating both from the reference to the “day” in verse 16. I would respectfully submit that Paul is not teaching in these verses that Christians will be justified on that future day as doers of the law.

5. You note, “It is in that context of the ‘Kindness of God’ and the ‘Gospel that Paul preaches’ -- that some end up lost and some are saved.” But it is respectfully submitted that the issue is whether Paul is teaching at Rom. 2:13 that Christians are required to be doers of the law and “doers of the law shall be justified.”

6. Finally, you point out that Rom. 8:4 contains the phrase “the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us” (e.g., NASB; KJV: “the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us”). It is the position of the essay and the thrust of my above comments that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us by the “faith” that is in us and counted for righteousness. Paul teaches that “faith” is on the inside. (E.g., 2 Tim. 1:5: “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also”; italics added.)

I appreciate your comments and look forward to any additional comments. I have tried to review your faithful comments carefully because they courageously raise important issues warranting thorough examination and discussion. May God continue to bless you.

Your brother,

Kenneth Roberson

 

[1213]

...That we are justified by works and not by faith. To me this seems to be what James was saying so... Who is right? Paul or James? Or am I missing something here?

I have understood faith means faithfulness that means loyalty. If we are truly loyal/faithful to God, it will come visible in our works also. It and James doesn’t mean we are saved because of our works. Works are only like fruits that tell is the tree good or bad. If the tree is good, it will not be thrown to fire.

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

The essay I have been referring to is entitled, “PAUL AND JAMES RECONCILED: THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP” and is subtitled, “How Paul Led James To Abandon James’s Transitional Doctrine Of Justification By Works And To Accept Paul’s Revelation Of Justification By Faith (Or Why It Is Error To Teach Christians Today That “Faith Without Works Is Dead”).” The essay is available at christianitywithoutcompromise.com under the “Essay” section of the website. Summaries of the essay are available under the website’s “Summaries” section.

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

I have understood faith means faithfulness that means loyalty. If we are truly loyal/faithful to God, it will come visible in our works also. It and James doesn’t mean we are saved because of our works. Works are only like fruits that tell is the tree good or bad. If the tree is good, it will not be thrown to fire.

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

Hi 1213. Thank you for your comment. My essay discusses the following.

When Paul says we are “justified by faith,” his essential meaning of “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit which is the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true. I say this because Paul says that “faith” is: (1) part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); belief (Rom. 4:3, 9); inside a person (2 Tim. 1:5); that of a Christian (“your” faith; Rom. 1:8; 2 Th. 1:3); and “with the heart” (Rom. 10:10); that what God says is true (Gen. 15:5-6; Rom. 4:3). In this sense, “faith” is a spiritual, technical term for Paul. (Also note that because, for Paul, "faith" is inside a person (2 Tim. 1:5: "the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also") "faith" is not "work" if by "work" we refer to outward conduct (although "work" can be motivated by "faith").

Like Paul, for James, in Jas. 2:14-26, “faith” involves belief that what God says is true. But a major key to understanding what “faith” is for James is to recognize that he teaches that just as a body without a spirit is dead, so “faith without works” is dead. (Jas. 2:26.) But James’s body metaphor implies that just as a body with a spirit is living, so “faith with works” (my shorthand for “faith . . . wrought with . . . works” (Jas. 2:22)) is living; otherwise “faith with works” is dead too and there is no point in James distinguishing between “faith without works” and “faith with works.” That means that, for James, just as a body can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of bodies—a dead body and a living body—“faith” can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of “faith” for James—dead “faith” and living “faith.” I will refer to James’s “faith without works” as his first kind of “faith” and his “faith with works” as his second kind of “faith.”

In fact, duality concerning “faith” is implicit throughout Jas. 2:14-26. James’s first kind of “faith”—“faith without works”—does not save (Jas. 2:14), and it is profitless (2:14), dead (2:17), alone (2:17), unshown (2:18), the kind that a demon has (2:19), and the “faith” of a vain or foolish man (2:20). Further, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s first kind of “faith” does not work with “works” (2:22), is not perfected by works (2:22), does not fulfill Gen. 15:6 and is not counted for righteousness (2:23), is not the “faith” of a friend of God (2:23), and therefore is not the “faith” of a Christian. On the other hand, James’s second kind of “faith”—“faith with works”—saves and is profitable, living, not alone, and shown, and it is not the kind that a demon has and is not the “faith” of a vain or foolish man. Moreover, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s second kind of “faith” works with “works,” is perfected, fulfills Gen. 15:6 and is counted for righteousness, and is the “faith” of a friend of God and therefore the “faith” of a Christian. (Nonetheless, James never says that this second kind of “faith” is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or “belief with the heart.”)

James thus leaves us to deduce his essential meaning of “faith” from his two kinds. His essential meaning of “faith” (in the context of humans, not demons) is: belief inside a person that what God says is true. (And unlike Paul, James never teaches that “faith” in its essential meaning is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or belief “with the heart.”) The essential meaning of “faith” for James is spiritually neutral and there are only two possibilities for such “faith”; it is either (1) the first kind and not the “faith” of a Christian or (2) the second kind, the “faith” of a Christian. “Faith” in its essential meaning for James does not tell you which kind it is. Which kind it is depends on an additional fact: whether the “faith” is without “works” or whether the “faith” is with “works.” When “faith” is without “works,” that “faith” is James’s first kind. When “faith” is with “works,” that “faith” is his second kind. In the context of justification, “faith” in its essential meaning for James is thus not the technical term that “faith” is in its essential meaning for Paul.

It is important to remember that sometimes the same words have different meanings in the New Testament. Sometimes they have an ordinary meaning and other times a spiritual or technical meaning. For example, Luke 18:18-19 record that a ruler once asked Jesus, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Italics added.) Jesus replied, “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.” (Italics added.) The ruler was using the word “good” with its ordinary meaning among the Jews; Jesus was using it with a technical meaning making “good” an exclusive attribute of Deity. Jesus was trying to teach the ruler not to call Him good unless he acknowledged, correctly, that He was God. When James refers to “faith” with its essential meaning, he is using the term with its ordinary meaning among the Jews, while Paul invests the term with a spiritual, technical meaning.

 

[Quasiblogo]

“Created in Jesus for good works” (Ephesians 2:10). We should be too busy glorying in the “new creatures” that God has made of us, and steeped in the good works we are commissioned to do, than to be focused on a “what if I stumble, what if I fall?” question.

 

[pescador]

I don't think it's such a mystery. The concept is that if you're saved you'll be internally motivated to help others. There's no justification by works implied in James' writing.

 

[Kenneth Roberson]

I don't think it's such a mystery. The concept is that if you're saved you'll be internally motivated to help others. There's no justification by works implied in James' writing.

Hi Pescador! Thanks for your interesting reply, and I understand what you have written. However, I would respectfully submit that justification by works is implied in James’s writing.

Indeed, James expressly indicates that people are “justified by works” and that “by works a man is justified.” At Jas. 2:21, James writes: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (Italics added.) The question in context calls for a yes answer. At Jas. 2:24, James concludes: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (Italics added.) James inquires at Jas. 2:25, “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (Italics added.) Thus, justification by works is clearly taught in James’s writing.

Paul too uses the phrase “justified by works.” He does so at Rom. 4:2, where he says, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.” (Italics added.)

So James clearly teaches in his epistle that Abraham was “justified by works” and Paul clearly teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works.”

I would respectfully submit, then, that the issue is not whether justification by works is implied in James’s writing, but whether James means what Paul means by justification by works, i.e., whether James and Paul use the phrase “justified by works” with the same meaning. The essay (see my post yesterday at 9:27 p.m. for a copy) demonstrates that they do not.

As discussed in my essay and my 11-13-20 post to Neostarwcc, for Paul, the phrase “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) refers to two processes that a person engages in pursuant to a contract: (1) a person engages in “works” and (2) in return God “pays” that person with righteousness as a debt God owes for the “works.” (Rom. 4:4.) For Paul, “works” in this context means outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him. And Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” as Paul uses that phrase (Rom. 4:2). (Paul clearly teaches that Christians are to do “works”—“good works” (Eph. 2:10, 2 Tim. 3:17)—but they too have no place in Paul’s concept of justification by “faith,” which is simply “faith counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).)

On the other hand, when James uses the phrase “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21), James is referring to four processes. According to Jas. 2:22-23, those processes are (1) “faith” works with “works,” (2) by “works” “faith” is perfected, (3) the person’s “faith” is counted for righteousness, and (4) the person is called the friend of God. (This does not involve a contract “obligating” God.) And this “faith” is James’s second kind. “Works” in this context consists of outward conduct that shows “faith.” Finally, James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” as James uses that phrase. (Jas. 2:21.) Indeed, James, writing to Jews (Jas. 1:1) teaches that even Gentiles are “justified by works,” because he teaches that Rahab was “likewise” (2:25) “justified by works.”

So, although Paul and James use the term “justified by works,” they have different meanings for that term, although both apostles were writing inspired Scripture.

The fact that, e.g., Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” and James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” is not contradictory. Those teachings would be contradictory only if they were taught concurrently and the two apostles meant the same thing by the phrase “justified by works.” But the apostles do not mean the same thing by that phrase.

However, if the doctrines of Paul and James on justification must be taught today, the contradiction is more fundamental. Paul has one meaning for “justified by works,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. However, Paul, maintaining that “justified by works” means his two contract processes, would deny that that phrase means James’s four processes. James, maintaining that “justified by works” means his four processes, would deny that that phrase means Paul’s two contract processes. If the doctrines of Paul and James on justification must be taught today to Christians, the resulting purported Biblical teaching is contradictory.

The essay I have written discusses the following. James wrote to the "twelves tribes" (Jas. 1:1), i.e., to the Jews, some of whom were Christians, and some of whom were not. (Like some Old Testament writings to the Jews, some of whom believed in God and some of whom did not). And James's epistle teaches that Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25). On the other hand, Paul wrote to a Christian church(es) or to individual Christians. He teaches that Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms).

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings that Christians are not “justified by works” but are “justified by faith” as Paul uses those phrases. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three—James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

“God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). There is no conflict in the doctrines of justification reflected in the epistles of Paul and James because when Paul introduced his “revelation” to James, James, giving the right hand of fellowship, accepted Paul’s revelation, agreed James would teach it in the future, and abandoned James’s previous teachings on, e.g., justification and the meaning of “justified by works.” In other words, the reconciliation is to view James’s doctrines on justification as transitional. It should be no surprise, then, that Paul’s doctrines on justification are taught in various New Testament books, but the only New Testament book containing James’s doctrine on justification is the Epistle of James. (As the essay discusses, James wrote his Epistle of James before, and Paul wrote his Galatian letter after, the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9)).

 

[1213]

...Jesus was using it with a technical meaning making “good” an exclusive attribute of Deity. Jesus was trying to teach the ruler not to call Him good unless he acknowledged, correctly, that He was God. When James refers to “faith” with its essential meaning, he is using the term with its ordinary meaning among the Jews, while Paul invests the term with a spiritual, technical meaning.

Interesting ideas, but sorry, I think that is those ideas are not well supported by the Bible. I think these scriptures show well the meaning of faith in the Bible:

But the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
Heb. 10:38

Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him. By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith, Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out to the place which he was to receive for an inheritance. He went out, not knowing where he went. By faith, he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked for the city which has the foundations, whose builder and maker is God. By faith, even Sarah herself received power to conceive, and she bore a child when she was past age, since she counted him faithful who had promised.
Heb. 11:6-11

Those show that faith means faithfulness, loyalty to God. For example, Noah believed what God told and was loyal to Him and built the Ark. That way faith came visible in actions.

I don’t think Paul is in contradiction with James. Faith is the important thing, but it comes visible in actions. It is not possible to separate works and faith, because works are the result of faith. If you are faithful, you live accordingly. But, works are only like fruits that tell is the tree good or bad.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Pescador! Thanks for your interesting reply, and I understand what you have written. However, I would respectfully submit that justification by works is implied in James’s writing.

Indeed, James expressly indicates that people are “justified by works” and that “by works a man is justified.” At Jas. 2:21, James writes: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (Italics added.) The question in context calls for a yes answer. At Jas. 2:24, James concludes: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (Italics added.) James inquires at Jas. 2:25, “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (Italics added.) Thus, justification by works is clearly taught in James’s writing.

Paul too uses the phrase “justified by works.” He does so at Rom. 4:2, where he says, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.” (Italics added.)

So James clearly teaches in his epistle that Abraham was “justified by works” and Paul clearly teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works.”

I would respectfully submit, then, that the issue is not whether justification by works is implied in James’s writing, but whether James means what Paul means by justification by works, i.e., whether James and Paul use the phrase “justified by works” with the same meaning. The essay (see my post yesterday at 9:27 p.m. for a copy) demonstrates that they do not.

As discussed in my essay and my 11-13-20 post to Neostarwcc, for Paul, the phrase “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) refers to two processes that a person engages in pursuant to a contract: (1) a person engages in “works” and (2) in return God “pays” that person with righteousness as a debt God owes for the “works.” (Rom. 4:4.) For Paul, “works” in this context means outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him. And Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” as Paul uses that phrase (Rom. 4:2). (Paul clearly teaches that Christians are to do “works”—“good works” (Eph. 2:10, 2 Tim. 3:17)—but they too have no place in Paul’s concept of justification by “faith,” which is simply “faith counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).)

On the other hand, when James uses the phrase “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21), James is referring to four processes. According to Jas. 2:22-23, those processes are (1) “faith” works with “works,” (2) by “works” “faith” is perfected, (3) the person’s “faith” is counted for righteousness, and (4) the person is called the friend of God. (This does not involve a contract “obligating” God.) And this “faith” is James’s second kind. “Works” in this context consists of outward conduct that shows “faith.” Finally, James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” as James uses that phrase. (Jas. 2:21.) Indeed, James, writing to Jews (Jas. 1:1) teaches that even Gentiles are “justified by works,” because he teaches that Rahab was “likewise” (2:25) “justified by works.”

So, although Paul and James use the term “justified by works,” they have different meanings for that term, although both apostles were writing inspired Scripture.

The fact that, e.g., Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” and James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” is not contradictory. Those teachings would be contradictory only if they were taught concurrently and the two apostles meant the same thing by the phrase “justified by works.” But the apostles do not mean the same thing by that phrase.

However, if the doctrines of Paul and James on justification must be taught today, the contradiction is more fundamental. Paul has one meaning for “justified by works,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. However, Paul, maintaining that “justified by works” means his two contract processes, would deny that that phrase means James’s four processes. James, maintaining that “justified by works” means his four processes, would deny that that phrase means Paul’s two contract processes. If the doctrines of Paul and James on justification must be taught today to Christians, the resulting purported Biblical teaching is contradictory.

The essay I have written discusses the following. James wrote to the "twelves tribes" (Jas. 1:1), i.e., to the Jews, some of whom were Christians, and some of whom were not. (Like some Old Testament writings to the Jews, some of whom believed in God and some of whom did not). And James's epistle teaches that Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25). On the other hand, Paul wrote to a Christian church(es) or to individual Christians. He teaches that Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms).

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings that Christians are not “justified by works” but are “justified by faith” as Paul uses those phrases. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three—James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

“God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). There is no conflict in the doctrines of justification reflected in the epistles of Paul and James because when Paul introduced his “revelation” to James, James, giving the right hand of fellowship, accepted Paul’s revelation, agreed James would teach it in the future, and abandoned James’s previous teachings on, e.g., justification and the meaning of “justified by works.” In other words, the reconciliation is to view James’s doctrines on justification as transitional. It should be no surprise, then, that Paul’s doctrines on justification are taught in various New Testament books, but the only New Testament book containing James’s doctrine on justification is the Epistle of James. (As the essay discusses, James wrote his Epistle of James before, and Paul wrote his Galatian letter after, the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9)).

Agreed.

A simpler way to put it - that I have used in the past.

Rom 2:13 and James 2:18-25 and Christ's teaching in Matt 7:17-21 are all using the same meaning and context.

Rom 2: 13-16 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified(13)... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge(16).

Matt 7
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

They refer to the outward judgment of the works (fruits) that demonstrate that the tree is already a good tree, that the new birth has already taken place, that this is one of the saints.

For as Romans 8:4-11 says the wicked "do not submit to the law of God - neither indeed can they" by contrast to the spirit-filled, born-again, new-creation, new-heart ...saved saints.

===============

One context for "Justification" is that outcome in a court of law where the Judge of all the earth shows that in the life of the person the "good tree produced good fruits" and is in fact a good tree. The Romans 2:13-16 form of justification does not change the person at all. The saint, the good tree, is seen to have already been justified-by-faith and so were already that good tree even before their case came up to be reviewed in Rom 2:16 judgment.

The other context is the Romans 5:1-2 form where "having been justified by faith we have peace with God" ... so then a lost person places their faith in Christ and God justifies them without their having any sort of life of good fruits to present at all. The Romans 5 contexts for justification "changes the person" changes the lost - to be the saint.

 

[tdidymas]

(truncated)

I started reading your essay, and I have a problem with the statement that James' teaching on "faith without works" (in your words) "do not apply today to Christians."

I think there is an essential misunderstanding of James that most Christians have had throughout the centuries. It is unfortunate that some of the NT was not written more clearly, but I take it that these people just didn't have the time or the theological foresight to anticipate all the problems and controversies that would arise from their epistles.

The way I read James is that he is talking about a different aspect of justification than Paul was. Paul was using the term with a view to the beginning and foundation of relationship with God, whereas James was using the term with a view to the result of that relationship. So, to make it clear, Paul was instructing people with a legal mindset that justification by faith alone is how we begin relationship with God. But James is instructing people with an antinomian mindset that works of love is how one proves that one is indeed justified. James is a show-me person: "I will show you my faith by my works." The example of Abraham he uses happened 15 years after Abraham was declared righteous, so this is clear evidence that James is talking about proof. If a person is antinomian, he has no proof, and therefore has no basis for thinking his faith is genuine. Thus "faith without works is dead" - that is, it's faith of the wrong kind. Therefore, the Reformed adage "justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

And such definitely applies to Christians today, because this is how we enter assurance of salvation. All the apostles exhort believers to live rightly, and John states it clearly that the things he wrote (to live right) is how we know we have eternal life. Therefore, the acts of love we do for each other bolsters our faith that we are justified in God's sight, and we obtain assurance. Not to mention that our works also prove it to others as well. Peter concurs in 2 Pet. 1 where he exhorts believers to make sure their calling and election (I read it "to make sure of it").

I don't know if I've misunderstood you, so I'll continue reading your essay. I certainly agree with you that James speaks of different kinds of faith.
TD