The Epistle of James (specifically chapter 2) has always been somewhat of a thorn in the side of Protestant theology; its emphasis on works in justification clash with the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, or faith alone. Martin Luther called it an epistle of straw, and he tried to take it out of the canon altogether. While Martin Luther could not reconcile the Epistle of James with sola fide, modern Protestant apologists have come up with various ways of trying to do this. In this essay, I will show how the various Protestant interpretations fail and how the epistle supports the Catholic position.
� Some Protestants say that James was talking about how we are justified before men, not before God. They appeal to James 2:22 ("You see that his faith was active along with his works�") for proof that James talking about how men can see that others are justified.
� They say that James was talking about vindication, not salvation. By using Abraham as an example, James was showing how he vindicated his salvation, not how he was justified.
� They say that James is speaking of sanctification and not justification.
� They say that James is talking about the KIND of faith that justifies; faith that produces good works justifies (but the works themselves don't justify), but faith that doesn't produce good works doesn't justify.
1) James uses the phrase "you see" (in 2:22) in reference to Abraham being justified by offering Isaac on the altar, and Protestants say this implies that Abraham's works were for men to see (to be justified before men). However, James meant and could have easily said "you understand" or "you recognize." In everyday speech we say "you see" when we really mean "you understand" rather than "you physically see with your eyes." The phrase "you see" in no way implies that Abraham's works were just for men to see. Secondly, Protestants refer to James 2:18, where James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my good works will show you my faith." By saying "show me your faith apart from your works," James isn't referring to justification before men; all he means is that there can be no "saving faith" without works. When he says, "and I by my works will show you my faith," he doesn't mean that works are just to show our justification; he means that they are intrinsically linked. Yes, our works do show our faith, but works do not function SOLELY to show our faith. He goes on in verse 20 to say, "Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?" Here, James clarifies verse 18; he doesn't mean to show that he has faith. Rather, he means to show that faith and works are linked! Thirdly, they use James 3:13 ("Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom") to back up this interpretation. However, they take this verse out of context; James isn't even talking about faith or justification; he is talking about wisdom!
2) To say that James was talking about something other than salvation (whether it be sanctification, vindication, or whatever else Protestants may come up with) flies right in the face of the text. First of all, why would James use the word justification if he wasn't referring to salvation? Only three times does the New Testament use the Greek word "dikiaoo" (the word used for justified) outside of salvation (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35 and Romans 3:4). The first two passages refer to wisdom (which, as something other than a being, cannot be saved), and the second one refers to God (who, as God, cannot be saved). This is the same word that Paul uses in his epistles. Secondly, James SPECIFICALLY states that he's talking about salvation: "Can faith save you?" (James 2:14).
3) One verse that Protestants use to support their interpretation that James is addressing the kind of faith that saves is James 2:14 ("Can faith save you"?). Some translations read "Can that faith save you?", implying that a different kind of faith can save you. To quote from Evangelical apologist Jason Engwer:
Some translations of James 2:14 use "that faith" (New American Standard), "such faith" (New International), "faith like that" (New Century), or a similar term. It's a plausible translation.
To respond to this, I will quote from Robert Sungenis in his book Not By Faith Alone:
The Greek of James 2:14 literally translates "Is the faith able to save him?"
Neither the RSV, KJV, or Douay-Rheims translations (some of the more literal translations) translate the article "the" as "that." So, James 2:14 cannot be used to support the fourth Protestant interpretation.
Another verse protestants use to support this interpretation is James 2:19, where James says, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder." They say that here James shows that a certain kind of faith (mere intellectual consent) doesn't save. This is true; however, there's no reason to say that James means that faith with works will save rather than that both faith and works save. Actually, the evidence points towards the Catholic position. If James was merely talking about the KIND of faith that saves, then why would he even used the word "justified" (James 2:24)?
In James 2:21-26, James uses two examples to show how people are justified: Abraham and Rahab the prostitute.
Here is the text of the passage:
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
23 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.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
In verse 23, when James quotes from Genesis 15:6, he says that the Scripture was fulfilled when Abraham offered Isaac up to God. Usually when the bible says that a certain Scripture passage was fulfilled, it is talking about a prophecy; however, Genesis 15:6 does not prophesize anything. What could James have meant? To find out, we must go back to Genesis and examine Abraham's life. In his book Not By Faith Alone, Robert Sungenis gives a great summary of Abraham's life that shows how Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled in Genesis 22, but I will give only a brief overview of some of the more important points in Abraham's life. For a complete understanding, I suggest you read Mr. Sungenis's book or go to the bible itself. I will use the names Abraham and Sarah throughout, even for events before their names were changed (from Abram and Sarai).
� God first calls Abraham and tells him to go to a land He will show him (Genesis 12:1-4). Here, Abraham shows faith and obedience - signs of saving faith; the author of Hebrews even says that Abraham went out BY FAITH (Hebrews 11:8). It seems logical that Abraham would be justified here, but Paul said that he was justified in Genesis 15:6. This fits in with the Catholic teaching that justification is a lifelong process. In addition, it seems strange that Abraham would just pick up everything and leave because a strange God, out of the blue, one day told him to, so Abraham probably believed in God before this event.
� God afflicted the Egyptians with plagues when the pharaoh took Sarah because she was very beautiful (Genesis 12:10-20). We see that since Abraham had a very good relationship with God, God helped him out.
� God promises to give Abraham many descendants from his own offspring (Genesis 15:1-6); verse 6 is the verse that is fulfilled in Geneses 22. This is where Scripture said Abraham was credited with righteousness.
� Abraham is given the sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:7-14); again, we see that he continued in his relationship with God.
� Isaac is born (Genesis 21:1-7).
� Abraham is given the command to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:1-3). Here we read that God tests Abraham (verse 1). Why would God want to test Abraham? Let's read on to find out.
� Finally, in Genesis 22:9-19, Abraham goes to sacrifice Isaac. Just as he is about to sacrifice his son, an angel stops him, and says, "For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" (verse 13). We can see that the test was not for Abraham to be justified before men, but for Abraham to be justified before God. In verses 16-18, God swears that He will make Abraham the father of many nations. This is the fulfillment of God's promise in Genesis 15; God finally SWEARS to Abraham not because of his faith (God could've looked in Abraham's heart and seen the faith), but because of his WORK. What's important to notice is that James said that ABraham's JUSTIFICATION, not God's promise, was fulfilled, indicating that Abraham's justification continued into Genesis 22 and would have have been void had Abraham not offered up Isaac. By obeying and offering up Isaac, Abraham was justified for a third time.
In 24 James wraps it all up by saying, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." By saying "not by faith ALONE," James implies that faith CAN save; however, we also need works. James' example of Abraham contradicts the two major Protestant interpretations and supports the Catholic interpretation. Now let's look at the other example he uses, Rahab the prostitute.
James starts off his second example by saying, "Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works�" By saying likewise, he is saying that Rahab was justified IN THE SAME WAY as Abraham, whose justification was an actual justification by both faith and works. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, I will summarize it (from Joshua 2). Joshua sent two spies into Jericho, and Rahab the prostitute welcomed them in her house. Because the king of Jericho had told her to bring them to him, she told the spies to go another way so they wouldn't be found. Because of this, her family was saved when Jericho was destroyed. By saying that she was justified by her works, James could ONLY have meant that she was ACTUALLY, SALVIFICALLY justified; here is the text of Joshua 2:9-11:
"And said to the men: 'I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that dread of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear before you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. As soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no courage left in any of us because of you. The LORD your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below."
We can clearly see that Rahab's faith was just fear; this hardly qualifies as saving faith. Plus, other people ("and that dread of you has fallen on US�OUR hearts melted�and there was no courage left in US") in Jericho had this fear (her words actually imply that everyone was afraid), but they were all destroyed (except, of course, for her family). For two reasons - faith from fear hardly qualifies as saving faith and everybody who was destroyed also had this faith - James CANNOT be talking about either being justified before men or the kind of faith that justifies; he had to have been talking about her actual justification before God. If everyone in the city had that kind of faith (and it was saving faith), then it's hard to see why God wouldn't change His mind and spare them; however, He didn't. Only when Rahab's works bring her faith to completion (sending the spies out by a different road) does James consider her justified. This is a prime example of how faith alone cannot justify us; we also need works.
