How James Fits In

Last week I quoted a bit of the answer to the question “Does the Pauline teaching on justification contradict Jesus’ message?” from 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, by Thomas R. Schreiner. This time I’m quoting from his concluding statement on what some scholars see as more contradictory teaching on justification in the New Testament—the supposed contradictory views of Paul and James on justification by works.

James and Paul do not actually contradict each other on the role of faith and works in justification. James affirms with Paul that faith is the root and works are the fruit. James addresses a different situation from Paul, for the latter denies that works can function as the basis of a right relation with God. A right relation with God is obtained by faith alone. Paul responds to those who tried to establish a right relation with God on the basis of works. Paul argues that God declares those to be in the right who lack any righteousness, if they put their faith in Christ for salvation. James counters those who think that a right relation with God is genuine if there is faith without any subsequent works. James looks at God’s pronouncement of righteousness from another angle, not as the fundamental basis of one’s relation to God but as the result of faith. James responds to antinomianism, whereas Paul reacts to legalism. 

Both Paul and James, according to Schreiner, 

affirm the priority of faith in justification, and both also affirm that good works are the fruit of faith but not the basis of justification. What James teaches, then, fits with Paul and what we have seen elsewhere in the New Testament.

You’ll probably recognize this the standard Protestant answer to the question of a contradiction between Paul and James on justification by faith. Schreiner doesn’t get to this conclusion, however, because he thinks Paul and James define the word justify differently. “[T]he common view,” says he, “that [justify] in James means ‘proved to be righteous’ or ‘shown to be righteous’ is unpersuasive.” 

Nope, it’s a little more complicated than just using a word differently. I can’t reproduce Schreiner’s argument here, but I will say it makes for an interesting chapter.