LETTER TO MARTIN LUTHER
Why James Belongs in the New Testament Canon
Introduction
Dear Doctor Luther, I hope this letter finds you in good spirits and that you are currently enjoying the peace and rest that come from Christ alone, as I know you have been steadily engaged in a worthwhile battle for the purity and simplicity of the gospel, which has undoubtedly won you more enemies than friends. As one of your friends, although a friend from the future, I wanted to both encourage you in your important work and engage you on the topic of the epistle of James. I am aware that you are not fond of this epistle, and that you believe it contradicts the declaration that salvation comes by way of grace alone, and because of this its place in the NT canon should be reconsidered. My goal is to present what I believe to be sound arguments for how we might understand James in a way that respects his original intent and his appeal to good works, while still allowing for him to be understood in a way that compliments the fact that salvation is by grace alone, and therefore recognizing his epistle ought not be disregarded on grounds that it teaches a works-based salvation.
Recognizing the Tension
First off, let me begin by recognizing the tension you rightly observe. It is not easy to simply brush off the weight of James’ argument when he states so forcefully and clearly that “…a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (Ja. 2:24).” I recognize how this choice of words and line of argumentations seems to go directly against what you have been working for, namely a recovery of the gospel message so clearly taught as the consistent NT message: that sinners are saved by grace through faith, and not according to works. This is seen explicitly in Paul’s writings over and over again just to name one of the clearest lines of teaching in the NT on the topic where Paul says in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, for example, that it is God’s grace through the work of Christ which saves sinners, and it is this grace which is received as a gift by faith, were works play no part in justification (Rom. 3:24-25, 5:8-11; Gal. 2:15-16; Eph. 2:8-9).
A Friendly Challenge
I wanted to offer a friendly challenge. The work you are doing is incredibly important and as a friend from the future, I can tell you that it will bear much fruit to the glory of God. That said, perhaps it is worth considering how focused you are currently on opposing any idea that justification comes by way of works rather than grace through faith and how this focus may potentially be a blind spot in your hermeneutical sensitivity towards anything which might suggest works are any part of God’s salvific work in our lives. Perhaps there is room to recognize a distinction between an active faith which includes works, and a dead faith, which is ultimately not genuine if it does not produce the fruit of grace, which is obedience to the heart of the law through Christ. It seems there is room for such a distinction upon exegetical grounds looking at James 2:14-26.
Exegetical Observations
When looking at this passage in James, as mentioned above, there is a recognizable tension present. However, there are exegetical observations worth noting in understanding what James was communicating and how his message is consistent with the overarching message of the NT that justification is by grace through faith. The following observations will include looking to grammatical and word meaning clues, as they are important exegetical keys to understanding how James is likely not arguing for a justification that comes through works rather than faith alone as the justifying mechanism.
To begin these observations, I submit to you that in my estimation, the strongest line of argumentation that supports the conclusion that James is not actually saying that justification comes by works rather than faith alone is the argument that the kind of faith James is describing and rejecting is not genuine faith. Therefore, if he is not exchanging genuine faith for works as the basis of justification, then it follows that one must deal with exactly what kind of faith James is dismissing as grounds for justification. This is not to say that he is not pushing on the concept of what ought to be understood as genuine eschatological and saving faith, but that he is pushing back on what can be understood as an underdeveloped view of such saving faith, a view that would allow for genuine faith to be present and have no impact on the believer which in James’ view would be a dead faith and unfruitful faith.
It is helpful to consider the words James uses and how he uses them here in making what I believe to be his point: that such a lonely faith cannot be understood as genuine faith. I agree with those who might believe that James was taking issue not with faith alone, but with a faith that was alone. However, there is a way in which it could be said that James was also arguing against faith in faith. This is something a scholar of my time recognizes, namely that the sense of the passage is more likely a problem with faith that is “in itself” rather than simply “by itself” where such faith is not merely outwardly inoperative, but inwardly dead.[1] In this way James can be understood as pushing back on a person who would put their hope in their faith to save them when such a faith is dead and far from what would rightly be called genuine faith that is both inwardly and outwardly alive and bearing fruit.
And for this reason, the Greek word James employs is νεκρός or nekrós to describe this kind of faith which fails to bear fruit where it is both by itself and in itself, and is ultimately dead, useless, and ineffective.[2] This faith has not died because it failed to produce good works, but rather it is inherently dead and therefore does not either bear fruit of good works or serve as a legitimate example of genuine saving faith, and therefore is a poor object of one’s hope. So, the point ought to be made that James is not contrasting a living faith that has works and a living faith that does not have works, but rather he is definitively declaring that a faith that does not have works is not living faith, but a dead faith and therefore we can deduce it is also not genuine faith.
This observation follows from the grammatical structure of James’ line of argumentation as he labors to show how the faith which he is describing is dead as he provides multiple examples of what this dead faith looks like in the Christian community where known needs willingly go unmet as well as provides examples of active faith of those who obeyed God in genuine faith. But seeing the issue is dead faith rather than living faith void of works helps protect against the false formulation of (faith + works = salvation), which I believe you rightly reject! A helpful analogy might be that faith is like a seed and when a living seed is planted it produces living things, but a dead seed produces nothing.[3] This conclusion finds agreement with a French theologian of whom you may have heard, John Calvin, who makes the point that James is arguing that faith cannot be separated from love and that James intends to refute the one who imagines they have faith, for James does not begin by saying “if a person has faith”, but rather “if a person says he has faith”, so as to make the point that there is no such thing as this dead image of faith and therefore it is no wonder James would deny that salvation could be connected with such a supposed faith.[4]
Recognized Theological Symmetry
To conclude, I think it is helpful to consider how this interpretation of James is consistent with the rest of the NT’s teaching on the effects of genuine saving faith, which is that genuine saving faith produces a change in a person, including love for others and obedience to God. As I mentioned above, it is clear that the NT message is that salvation is not by works, but by grace through faith. And having established that James was not refuting a genuine faith which simply lacked works but was refuting imagined faith which lacked love and action because it was dead, it is necessary to show that what James then was saying is consistent with what Paul and others have also said.
It is also worth pointing out that James appears to be using “justification” in the sense of proving one’s faith when he uses Abraham as an example because proving one’s faith is genuine for James is in light of not discriminating against the poor. On the other hand, Paul uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith because his “justification” came before the law and so Paul is pushing back on those who would discriminate against gentiles who had not been circumcised as a poor test of genuine faith. Therefore, both Paul and James are concerned with genuine faith, and both are pushing back on different concepts of justification as well while ultimately arguing salvation must be accompanied by true saving faith.
Paul makes it clear in his writings that the good works in which we walk are a result of our having been saved by grace. The key passage is Eph. 2:8-10 where Paul states the good works were prepared for us in advance to walk in, following our having been made alive in Christ by grace through faith, and the verb he uses to describe this walking in good works is περιπατέω or peripatéō, which describes the intended way of life of the believer as “walking” represents the new life as a whole rather than a simple single good work. Likewise, Paul heavily emphasizes in Galatians that the fruit of the Spirit, which includes love for one another, and is a mark of one who is led by the Spirit (5:14-25) having been saved by grace and now lives this life in the flesh by faith in Christ (2:20). 1 John says that practicing unrighteousness and a lack of love for one’s brother is evidence that one is not of God, but rather a child of the devil (1 John 3:8-24).
All of this to say: the message of James is not that salvation is the product of faith plus works, but rather that genuine saving faith is neither empty faith in itself, nor dead faith which, like a dead seed, produces nothing. The message of James says that genuine faith produces action, not least of which is love for thy brother, and this message is consistent with the NT message of salvation by grace through faith which clearly produces Spirit-filled love for God and fellow man. While much more could be said, I hope this is sufficient to persuade you to consider the message of James to be consistent with the gospel message of salvation being by grace alone through faith alone, and therefore the epistle of James rightly belongs in the NT canon.
- Safe in Christ, your friend from the future, Rob Lewis
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of James. Vol. XXII, in Calvin's Commentaries 23 Vol. Set: Hebrews, I Peter, I John, James, II Peter, Jude, 276-362. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2009.
Louw, Johnannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, . GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. Vol. II. II vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.
Moo, Douglas J. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.
Plummer, Robert L. James. Vol. 12, in Expository Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation, 219-286. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018.
[1] Moo, Douglas J. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. 126.
[2] Louw, Johnannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, . GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. Vol. II. II vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. 167.
[3] Plummer, Robert L. James. Vol. 12, in Expository Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation, 219-286. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. 251.
[4] Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of James. Vol. XXII, in Calvin's Commentaries 23 Vol. Set: Hebrews, I Peter, I John, James, II Peter, Jude, 276-362. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2009. 310-311