James versus Paul on Faith

This began as an online conversation with two or three brothers in 2002. If it were to happen today, my responses might be different. Since it touches on recurring issues in the church, I include it here as an interesting discussion starter.

1.) What do you think the historical situation with "James" was? Who was he writing to, and what was going on there?

It’s apparent that James was writing to Jewish Christians in several places who had been scattered (see verse 1), probably from the persecution in Jerusalem at the hands of Saul (Acts 8:1, 11:19). He seems to address specific problems encountered by them like suffering (chp. 1), favoritism (2), hurtful speech (3), moral laxity (4), and so on. You can just read the letter to see what they were up against.

As for when he wrote it, that depends. I’m inclined to think he wrote it in the early 40's, before Paul’s ministry had become very notable. James mentions nothing about the controversies that developed in the late 40's and early 50's. No mention is made of the big meeting in Jerusalem with Paul around 49/50 (Acts 15). I think this letter was written at a time when the only Christians to speak of were Jews (with a few exceptions, mostly converts to Judaism). His letter presupposes “elders” (5:14) and “teachers” (3:1) that seemed to be understood positions of authority, like the ones found among the Jews. I think these were carry-overs from the old covenant that lingered (along with a general sense of hierarchy) for years among Jewish Christians. It seems that the readers of James’ letter were even still meeting in synagogues (2:2- the word for “meeting” there should probably be translated “synagogue”). Contra Gene, that would make this “the first piece of Christian literature ever penned.”

The other possibility is that he wrote it around or just after that Jerusalem meeting in 49/50. If that is true, then his words about Abraham, faith, and works (2:14-26) would be James’ RESPONSE to Paul’s ministry. It is not unthinkable to me that James felt the need to counter Paul’s emphasis on faith alone for justification by talking about how those who have faith are righteous in practice as well as in principle.

Either way, I don’t think James was anywhere near as technical as Paul in his usage or definition of words like “justified” or “faith.” I think we’re comparing apples to oranges here. To James, being “declared righteous” doesn’t signify the same other-worldly thing that Paul sees. I definitely think James is defining “faith” in terms of intellectual assent without necessary moral or spiritual involvement. That’s so clear from that passage (2:14 ff.). Just substitute “intellectual assent” wherever he uses the word “faith” and you see what I mean. He wanted to make clear that such ‘faith” is not sufficient for regeneration. It is possible that James heard those influenced by Paul’s ministry talking about “faith” divorced from works (in the interest of making the same distinction which later made Luther so famous), and he felt the need to counter that with the argument that faith is always followed by a “faithful” heart and life. Given the legalistic tendency of Judaism, Paul then felt it necessary to press the issue by going right to the crux of James’ argument: Abraham. Here is your typical example of two guys using the same passage of scripture to make opposite points. First in Galatians 3:6-25, then later more definitively in Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham to explain that faith (by his more “theological” usage of the term) is indeed all that is necessary for justification.

Whether before or after Paul’s rise to fame (or infamy), I think James’ letter portrays a man who generally defines the Christian faith in terms of Jewish culture and tradition. I suspect James went to the grave that way, and Paul had to grin and bear it, hoping to outplant these stiff traditional Jewish churches with an abundance of loose, free-wheeling, dynamic Gentile ones that would care more about Christ than they would about Moses. It’s apparent in the story of Galatians 2 that Peter clung to his Judaism long after God made it clear that that wasn’t right (Acts 11). If you believe (contra Gene again) that the story of Galatians 2 chronologically follows the story in Galatians 1 (also assuming Gal.1 is the Jerusalem meeting of Acts 15), then Peter’s blatant Judaistic discrimination survived even a proclamation FROM JAMES that such Jewish requirements shouldn’t be put on Gentiles (Acts 15). More significant to me is the fact that James felt the need to write such a letter to state such a thing in the first place. My point is that religious tradition dies hard (as you know), and even the apostles are not immune to this problem. Paul takes the gospel further than James or Peter, passing along a clearer vision of Christ than anyone else.

And how could teachers be under a "stricter judgment"? Are blood-bought Christians under judgment?

I’ll try to take a whack at that in question two.

2.) In John (1-2-3 and Revelation), the Christian life seems to be a.) much more tied to obedience, and b.) judgment seems to apply to believers, some even entering into heaven "as though badly burned," like, just barely. He seems to depict c.) levels in heaven, crowns of glory, etc... But if its grace and mercy all the way, then how can any of this be so? There seems to be a difference in perspective here between John and Paul.

It may very well be that JAMES had a concept of final judgment that was different from John’s or Paul’s. I have to believe that there is room in the New Testament, and in the church today, for a difference of opinion even among the leadership. That being said, I don’t see a difference between Paul and John on the issue of judgment. If I see a difference between them, it is because Paul’s ministry so centered on Faith (seeing the other realm) while John’s ministry focused on Love (acting according to the other realm). Incidentally, I think Peter’s major theme was Hope- the hope of the Day of the Lord.

When I read 1 John, I hear him say things like “these things I have written to you who believe the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). He means to encourage us in saying “we will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things” (3:19-20). That was the intention of 1Jn 1:9: You have confessed the existence of sin in yourself, so be assured that God is faithful and righteous enough to cleanse you from it all. Assurance of salvation is in fact the major note sounded in the whole book.

But he is also fighting on two fronts, as the content of the letter makes apparent. John was writing to churches (probably in Asia Minor) dealing with two sides of a growing tradition that would later become Gnosticism. On one side, there were those teaching that self denial was the way to go because the things of the body are lowly and dirty. Paul may have been countering something like that in the letter to the Colossians (2:20- Don’t touch, don’t taste, etc.). These folks may have been under a burden of unnecessary guilt, and John was writing to assure them that they were forgiven and born from above. The other side to Gnosticism, however, denies the significance of things done in the flesh completely. They had begun to even deny that Jesus had come and died in a physical body at all (1 John 4:2) They were not willing to confess that God’s work has any relation to the physical world. Consequently, they were denying that there was any need to confess the existence of sin (ergo 1 Jn 1:9, especially verse 10). Such a belief often led to moral license (and still does) so that the church gets divided into two clear camps: A brash and blatantly immoral group, and the believers whose real relationship with Christ makes a real difference in their lives.

In fact, it seems that a whole group had split off from the churches in Asia Minor because they were not willing to acknowledge these things:

He then defines what an “antichrist” is: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son” (1 Jn 2:22). So I think that John keeps talking in this letter (and elsewhere) about how sinful people are not saved, while righteous people are saved. But you don’t have to see the former trait in each phrase as the CAUSE for the latter consequence. Are righteous people saved because they’re righteous, or are they righteous because they’re saved? You see what I mean? John sees two camps and he’s trying to clarify that a tree can indeed be known by its fruit. And as for those places where John says that those born of God do not sin (3:8-10), I think the Greek should/could legitimately be translated that they do not “continually sin.” He means that if you look and see someone with a lifestyle of sin, then you may conclude that they have not been born of God.

As for those of us who really are born of God, it’s good to hear that we are not sinners, at least not by nature. But then before declaring that, John even acknowledges that we DO sin from time to time: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1:8) “But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (2:1).

It is interesting to me that you cited the phrase “entering into heaven ‘as though badly burned,’ like, just barely” in reference to JOHN when it was actually PAUL who used that phrase (1 Cor. 3:12-15). Come to think of it, when I put together the 11 or so passages in the New Testament which seem to suggest the possibility for Christians being judged according to our works, 9 out of the 11 are Paul’s, and none come from John (the other two come from Matthew). I’ll address them in a second, but first let me mention Revelation 20:11-15: I see in that judgment that people are judged according to two standards—those judged by the books (plural) with everyone’s deeds in them are thrown into the lake of fire. But those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life are saved, as if that one trumps the other ones. In fact, it says that “the dead” are judged by those other books, which might not even mean those of us who have already been raised from the grave. Either way, it seems to me that we are ultimately judged by that Book of Life in the story, not the other books.

You mention “levels in heaven, crowns of glory,” which are dispensational favorites. I don’t buy their whole scheme, as you know, but I understand their need to reconcile seemingly contrary things. They have their own resolution for the existence of the contradictory statements about judgment and mercy—they posit two or three different judgment events, including one just for Christians immediately following the rapture. This is a judgment in which Christians are judged according to their works, but not sent to hell for them. In this judgment they are rewarded in different ways, crowns, etc. I can come up with an explanation for most of the passages I find, but not every one (one in particular messes up my entire theological system).

I’ve taken 18 verses (the pertinent 11 plus another 7 related ones) touching this subject and broken them up into 3 categories:

I. The ones that say you must continue in the faith to be saved (7 passages)
II. The ones that say sinners don’t inherit the kingdom of heaven (6 passages)
III. The ones that say Christians will be judged somehow by works (5 passages)

First I’ll take the easy ones:

I. The ones that say you must continue in the faith to be saved (7 passages)

Colossians 1:22-23 - Says you are holy and blameless only if you continue in the faith. This does not bother me. Paul is simply acknowledging the fact that people do fall away from following the Lord. Just because someone professes faith now doesn’t guarantee that they will always profess faith. This doesn’t raise any real question of cause and effect in terms of justification. It just says that some won’t continue in the faith. He’s right.

Hebrews 2:1 - The writer of Hebrews is famous for this topic. He admits the possibility that we could “drift away.” Yep. We could. But wait three more passages.

Hebrews 3:6 - We are his house . . . IF we hold fast to our confidence. Again, not everyone will keep that confidence. Especially those who feel they must DO STUFF to augment the cross—stuff like getting circumcised, etc. Set your hope entirely on the Lord, not on what you do for Him. Sure, you could give up on the Lord, but wait two more passages.

Hebrews 3:14 - We are partakers of Christ, if we hold on to our assurance (there’s that trust issue again). Perhaps your assurance could vanish. But wait until the next passage.

Hebrews 6:4-9 - Some will come into the church and experience the other realm. They will taste the fruit of that Tree and drink from that River, but somehow it does not take root inside them. Verse 7 compares them to a field that receives the blessing of rain, yet yields no fruit of its own. Jesus warned that some would receive the word of God with joy, but that time would reveal that somehow it “didn’t take”. Sometimes there is even initial growth. But no real fruit. Just give it time and watch for the fruit. Trees don’t lie. BUT in verse 9 the writer of Hebrews assures his readers that “we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation” because they had evidenced that fruit.

John 15:2,6 - Here’s John’s only questionable statement. But read it. Jesus says that any branch that doesn’t bear fruit will be cut off and tossed into the fire. To whom was he speaking? He was speaking to 11 Jews. The moment was coming, in about 24 hours, when a major turning point in history would see the cutting off of the people of Israel. The only exceptions to this would be those who believe in the Son. He was predicting that great pruning of God’s vine. It started with Judas, then spread to the rest of the nation of Israel, excepting only believers. I don’t think we are to see this verse as spoken to us in 2002, that we Gentile believers may be in the Vine now, but if we act up enough we’ll get cut off. Consider the historical context.

Romans 11:22 - This one is a little harder. It appears that Paul is saying that those of us Gentiles who have now been grafted into the Vine (post-cross) could still be cut off. But if you read vv.17-24, Paul’s purpose is to highlight the grace of God in grafting us into the Vine. At no point should we get cocky about the fact that we believe, while God’s original people don’t. Verse 21 says “He didn’t spare them, he won’t spare you either.” He obviously wasn’t saying that God wasn’t going to save Jews or Gentiles. He was saying that we are not exempt from the need of God’s grace. We need the grace and mercy of God no less than the Jews. “It is of Him that we are in Christ” (1 Cor. 1:30).

The next 6 are pretty easy, too:

II. The ones that say sinners don’t inherit the kingdom of heaven (6 passages)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - The unrighteous do not inherit the Kingdom of God. Then Paul lists sins that you may have even done at some point (e.g. you may covet from time to time), although these sins do not characterize your whole life. Paul goes on to say in verse 11 that his readers don’t fit this classification. You were washed of all of this. He’s making a point about unbelievers, and how we are not like them, so we should act consistently with that fact.

Galatians 5:21 - Those who PRACTICE the list of the deeds of the flesh in this passage will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But you don’t practice them. They are not your lifestyle. That’s the point here as well.

Ephesians 5:5 - No immoral man has an inheritance . . . same point. Verses 3 and 4 are arguing that these things don’t characterize us.

Romans 2:5-6 - God will render to each person according to his deeds. Yes. That is the judgment coming on the whole human race. If you will just keep all of God’s laws, you will pass this big test. The only thing is that the curve is REALLY steep, with Christ up at 100 and everyone else down in the single digits. Paul is building to the point in his letter where he presents salvation by grace as the alternative to passing this test.

Matthew 12:36-37 - Everyone will give an account on the day of judgment for every word spoken. Jesus was speaking before the cross had happened. He was addressing a group of Pharisees that didn’t realize how steep that “curve” really was. The solution to this problem hasn’t been given yet. You have to turn to Galatians or Romans to figure that out.

Matthew 16:27 - God will repay every man according to his deeds. I put this under the same category. It all adds up to the verdict in Romans, that no one deserves this by their works.

Thus far every verse has said something in reference to either unbelievers or “false” believers. That brings us to:

III. The ones that say Christians will be judged somehow by works (5 passages)

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 - Here’s your verse about being saved, yet barely through the flames. But read around it and you’ll see that he is referring to the eternal combustibility of men’s work. Did Apollos build with Christ or with lesser materials? How about Peter or Paul? The Day of the Lord will reveal the quality of their work. I don’t think this has to do with personal standing before the Lord, etc. It just says that some works will last and others won’t. What effect that will have on “the hereafter” is beyond me because I don’t think we’ve been told very much about that. Most of what folks quote to describe “heaven” or the hereafter realy should be understood as something present in some form or another in the church—Streets of gold, crystal sea, etc. Since Revelation was describing a vision in symbolic terms, I don’t see how anyone could reliably translate each thing into something understandable for us right now.

2 Corinthians 9:6 - He who sows sparingly will reap sparingly; He who sows bountifully wil reap bountifully. Well, in context this is discussing giving to the relief fund for the famine in Jerusalem. It’s unclear to me whether the reaping should be understood in terms of this life or “the afterlife” (I really don’t like these terms because they are so full of certain connotations). Maybe the reaping is in terms of stronger bonds between the Jewish Christians of Palestine and the Gentile Christians elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Certainly there is present spiritual benefit from sacrificial material giving.

Galatians 6:7-8 - If you sow to the flesh you reap from the flesh; If you sow to the spirit you reap from the spirit. Again, I see present results. Your spirit needs nurturing. Your flesh doesn’t.

Romans 14:10-12 - Why do you judge your brother? We will all stand before the judgment seat of God . . . each one of us will give an account of himself of God. Okay, this one gets a little closer to home, because it’s clearly talking about US. But a case could be made that Paul’s point here is to argue that we are all on equal footing with the Lord (like in Romans 11:22 above). We have no grounds for considering ourselves better than our brother, since we are all under the same standard—the same “curve”, if you will (mentioned in Romans 2 and Matthew 12 above).

The kicker:
2 Corinthians 5:10 - This one blows my entire argument.

I honestly don’t have a good response for this one. Gene Edwards is fond of saying, “You cannot construct a theology but what at least two verses will contradict it.” Ain’t it the truth! All I know to do with this passage is to appeal to the larger context of Paul’s teaching, which elsewhere seems clear that Christ’s death covers everything, while our personal merit amounts to nothing. If there is any sense in which Christians are judged like this, it must be within the context of the salvation of God.

Are there different levels of rewards for believers beyond this life? There certainly are verses in the New Testament which state that there will be rewards. But given that Christ is the center and circumference of the eternal realm, what meaning would a reward have other than for Christ himself to be exalted? Revelation 4:10 portrays crowns being laid at Jesus’ feet. This to me summarizes the issue. Will believers rewarded for things done? Well, several verses say we will (Matt.6:4, Matt.16:27, Luke 6:23, Ephesians 6:8, 2 Jn 1:8, Rev. 22:12). But any reward we receive will not be ours at all, because Christ is our only Possession. All rewards are pieces of Him. All things are for Him. He will be our only thought and care.

I just can’t go along with the folks who dangle rewards (or punishments) before Christians as the motivators to do what’s right. I think there is a higher way. And definitely don’t buy the whole “crown” thing. If you’ll read the references to crowns in the NT, they all sound like the same thing to me, and they sound like all believers receive the same thing (2Tim.4:8, James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4, Rev.2:10). Paul also mentions crowns that he gets for being a worker, but he says that the churches are the crown (Php.4:1, 1 Thess.2:19). Keep in mind that parable (Mt.20)where Jesus asserted that the Father can give out remuneration however he pleases—it’s not our business.