The Theological Relationship between James and Paul
by danny on Jul.29, 2009, under Pastor's Thoughts
In our study of James, we have been looking at the need for a faith that is living. A living faith results from God’s soveriegn grace in our lives and it produces fruit for the world to see. Thus James is able to speak of demonstrating his faith by his works rather than merely speaking of faith alone. The following outline is by Daniel Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary, and it will help bridge the theological relationship between James and Paul.
Daniel Wallace: Introduction, Argument, Outline
(i) James does not deny the necessity of faith, only its adequacy.
(ii) James is addressing the fruit of salvation, while Paul is addressing the root of salvation.
(iii) In keeping with other biblical writers, James does not use “works” as a criterion for judging others, but as a criterion for judging oneself.
(iv) For James, the faith which does not save is intellectual assent; for Paul, the faith which does save is a heart-response to God’s call—it is trust in, not just belief that. Thus, they are not talking about the same thing.
(v) For James, “justified” means either “vindicated” or “eschatologically justified”; for Paul, it means “declared righteous.” Thus, they are not talking about the same thing.
(vi) For James, “works” means good deeds—charity, Christian love, etc; for Paul, it means works of the Law which some see as necessary for salvation, rendering the cross-work of Christ as less than adequate. Thus, once again, they are not talking about the same thing.
(vii) James seems to look at how our spiritual status is seen and approved/disapproved by others, while Paul looks at how it is seen and initiated by God.
(viii) Both James and Paul would agree with the statement that genuine, saving faith results in works. Or that sola fide, properly understood, means that we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.
In conclusion, as Davids aptly points out, “James uses every significant term pivsti”, e[rga, dikaiosuvnh, with a differing and more ‘primitive’ meaning than Paul.”41 Consequently, “to argue that James directly attacks Paul is to argue that James is a consummate blunderer, for he fails to meet Paul’s arguments at all and instead produces a work with which Paul would have agreed!”42 It is our conclusions, therefore, that James argued against a perverted Paulinism before the canonical Pauline letters had been composed.43 And this of course points to James the Just as the author—and at an early period.
