#7. The scriptural relationship of the epistles of Paul
and the epistle of James considered
in preparation for the study of James ii.,
and its bearing upon justification by faith.


When quoting the Apostle in the preceding article, there were almost as many occurrences of the words “justified” or “righteousness” as there were of the word we were examining, namely “works”. Had we attempted any notice of this at the time, it would have confused the issues, but now we turn to the matter of justification, for that also is a Truth in the Balance.

It is well known that Paul, when he uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith, goes to Gen. xv., where Abraham is said to have believed God, and where his faith had been counted for righteousness. Paul rightly stresses the fact that, there, in Gen. xv., “works” were inadmissible. But there is another side to this truth, and one, alas, which some of the best have misinterpreted. This other side is found in the epistle of James. It is false to teach that James propounded one way of justification and Paul another. Unless we maintain that the fruit on a tree “contradicts” the root in the soil, we cannot contend that the teaching of James contradicts the teaching of Paul. James stress the “fruit” aspect, the “good works”, whereas in Rom. i.-v. Paul emphasizes the “root” aspect and leaves the fruit for subsequent teaching.

The reader is probably aware that there are two very divergent points of view regarding the epistle of James. Luther’s designation of it as “an epistle of straw” on account of its alleged contradiction of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, is probably known to all readers, but few cite the famous dictum in its context, or remind the reader of the atmosphere of conflict in which the words were uttered. Here it is:

“St. John’s Gospel and first Epistle, the Epistles of St. Paul, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, these are the books which set Christ before you, and teach you every necessary thing for you to believe, though you never hear of any other book or doctrine. Therefore the Epistle of James is quite an epistle of straw by the side of these, for it has no true Evangelical character.”

Seen in its context, this reference to James as an epistle of straw can be apprized at its true worth. The expression is not used positively, but in comparison with those books of the N.T. which are “Evangelical” in purpose and which “set Christ before” the reader. We must remember that when Luther uttered these words he was engaged in his fight for justification by faith without works, and knew that the epistle of James had been perverted from its original intention, and had become the main prop of those who combated Luther’s distinctive doctrine. In such an atmosphere, the best of men are liable to exaggeration, if only to counterbalance the exaggeration of their opponents.

While we must remember that James write to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad”, he wrote to them not as Jews, but as believers. He does not “emphasize his physical kinship with Christ” (as one writer—whose name we withhold—says) but, like Paul, calls himself, “A servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James i. 1) and speaks of Christ as “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (James ii. 1). That James addressed Christian Jews is manifest, for they had been “begotten by the word of truth” (Jas. i. 18), and had been called by “that worthy name” (James ii. 7). The same writer who falsely accused James of “emphasizing his physical kinship with Christ” also says that James “drags the nation down into the sphere of the flesh, thus preparing the way for their repudiation by God”. We wonder if there is extant a worse example of the effect of prejudice than this, written, not in ignorance, but as a preparatory note to an examination or translation of the epistle of James from the original. One would conclude that Paul had never written such words as: “Faith which worketh by love”, or “the obedience of faith”. James says that those who have “respect of persons”, who are “partial in themselves”, blaspheme the worthy name by which they are called. Is that a doctrine that “drags down into the sphere of the flesh”? Does not Paul urge obedience to a master that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed? (I Tim. vi. 1). Does he not speak against “partiality”? Does he not speak scathingly of “respect of persons”?

James says:

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well” (ii. 8).
“So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (ii. 12).

Paul says:

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

Can anyone detect the slightest divergence here? Does one lead up and the other drag down?

James supports his argument by saying:

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James ii. 10-13).

Paul adopts the same method:

“Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 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. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. xiii. 8-10).

The argument that would deduce from James ii. 10-12 that James taught justification by the works of law, must deduce the same from Rom. xiii. 8-10 which, as Euclid says, “is absurd”. Further, it has been repeatedly observed by students, that the teaching of the epistle of James is an application of the Sermon on the Mount. Shall we say that anyone, writing to the dispersion during the Pentecostal dispensation, was “thus preparing the way for their repudiation by God”? The question seems too fantastic for consideration, yet this is accepted by some as the last word on the subject!



These parallels lie on the surface: doubtless, the earnest student could double their number.

Rightly understood, the Sermon on the Mount is, to believers of the Kingdom, what Philippians is to the dispensation of the Mystery, Hebrews, to the “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”, and James, to the dispersion during the Pentecostal administration.

We have found that there is a correspondence between the Sermon on the Mount and James; let us once more put truth into the balance, and see the correspondence that exists between Philippians and the Sermon on the Mount.



The key that unlocks the Sermon on the Mount, the epistle to the Philippians, and the epistle of James, together with the epistle to the Hebrews, and the central teaching of the epistle to the Colossians, is the word “perfect”. No one who has comprehended the distinctive teaching of this word could confuse James’ teaching with Paul’s basic teaching of justification by faith, and whoever approaches James not thus equipped, will fumble on the threshold and mislead all who follow.

Let us not mistake the issue. It is not that James and Paul do not minister to entirely different companies, under different dispensational terms. This is acknowledged as self-evident truth. James wrote to the dispersion, the twelve tribes scattered abroad, who still worshipped in the synagogue (James ii. 2).

James, whose attitude towards ritual was as far removed from that of Paul as the poles are asunder, nevertheless administers a rebuke worthy of him who spoke of those who had “the form of godliness, but denied the power thereof”. The word translated “religion” in James i. 27, is threskeia and refers to external religions observances, or, as we call it, “ritual”, but not in a corrupt sense. James, however, says that “pure and undefiled religious service” (or ritual) does not consist in external rites and ceremonies, the products of a dead faith, but that it will manifest the hidden grace of the renewed heart. This is parallel with Paul’s repudiation of external circumcision, but retention and application of its inner meaning.

We commenced with the intention of putting Rom. iv. and James ii. into the balance of truth, but so many features and items had to be discussed in order to clear the mind of bias and provide a key, that our space is already exhausted. As a result, however, we shall be able to pick up the threads and pursue the theme the better in our next article.

-------------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 34, page 232).

--------------------------------