How This Debate Began in Genesis

A brief allegory introduces the characters that appear in this article. It begins with the devil’s walking to and fro in the earth and running into Mr. Shephood. Having a keen interest in what Shephood wrote, Satan asked, “Yea, hath God said, A man is justified by faith only?” Struggling, Shephood said, “Yes, we are justified only by faith, but God has said that we must also keep his commandments.” Satan quickly responded, “So God has said there is something a man must do to be justified by faith? Why not call that justification by faith and works?”

End of allegory; go to Genesis, another garden scene. Repeating the same procedure, Satan approached Eve and said, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Gen. 3:1).

Lesson 1

At the very outset it should be asked, how did Satan know what God had said to Adam? How could he question Eve about that unless he had been listening to God?

Already in Genesis 3 we learn that a dialogue with the devil is always begun by Satan’s creating a diabolical debate that tests the church’s confession of God’s word. Satan’s debate is always a solemn test. Did Eve have God’s word in her heart, and would she hold to it above all? We know the answer. What I want to observe carefully is Satan’s method because I intend to show that the father of lies is using that method today in the debate about faith and doing. Therefore, I will scrutinize the devil’s question to Eve very carefully. “Yea, hath God said…?” Note every word.

The particle “Yea” expresses emphasis. It can be translated as “Has God indeed said…?” That emphasis is designed to create interest in what he said: “Did God really say that you may not eat of every tree in the garden?”

The faithful answer is, No, God never said that! “Not eat of every tree” was the devil’s diabolical perversion of what God really had said! Satan’s questions are always lies.

God had said, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” (Gen. 2:16). Note very carefully that God had said, “Every tree.” “Freely eat.” No negative! That pinpoints the evil. What God had said was positive: “freely eat”; what the devil said was negative: “not eat.”

Lesson 2

Expect much interest to be created around the devil’s questions; expect also that each one will be the opposite of what God had said!

Therefore, at that very first moment, Eve should have rebuked Satan for corrupting God’s word. But she didn’t. She entered into the devil’s debate! From that moment Eve was sinning against the first commandment. She did not love the Lord her God with all her heart. She forsook him by forsaking his word. That is the great evil not recognized.

Lesson 3

Because there is no truth in him, Satan’s questions are always lies, and that is the reason they cannot be debated! Because a person is always debating the wrong question, the debate will always end in disaster. Those holding to God’s word and their confessions will recognize immediately Satan’s falsehoods and offer not one word of attempted debate; but by rebuke they will avoid defection of heart, as Jesus rebuked Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10), the unclean spirit (Mark 1:25; 5:8; 9:25), and a dumb spirit (Luke 11:14). He said, “Silence!”

I note also how the devil created his lies. Just a simple change from positive to negative, from yes to no, and it was no longer what God had said. We will meet that subtlety again when considering faith and works.

“You may freely eat of all the trees” is what God had said. God: “Eat from all.” Satan: “Eat from none.”

We note particularly that “Eat from all” is covenant fellowship. God had fully and generously opened his whole creation and particularly the garden of his intimate presence to be fully enjoyed, understood, and treasured by his people.

Lesson 4

God’s second statement was this: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” (v. 17). There was no negative qualification pertaining to all the trees. The second statement was an exceptive command pertaining to only one of the trees because there was a special circumstance about it.

But the devil, abusing that exceptive statement with demonic intent, corrupted both statements of God. “Eat of every tree” became “Not eat of every tree.” Not a simple deception but a complex one designed to corrupt all God had said and also sufficient to overcome Eve.

Lesson 5

The devil’s lie will not be simple but complex. Many will be enthusiastic about it, and many will be overcome by it; but most critical of all, it will be designed to deny all that God has said, not merely a part of it.

Consider this current example: “There is something a man must do if he is to be saved: he must repent and believe!” Sounds like Satan’s reply to Shephood. Yes, scripture says, “Repent and believe the gospel.” Satan needed to add only one word to corrupt it: do! “Something a man must do.” Sounds good, but it’s no longer the gospel. It implies that a man can repent and believe the gospel. If so, the gospel is lost. The gospel demands repentance, faith, and trust in Christ, things that a man cannot do. There’s the perversity: man’s depravity being changed into man’s implied ability.

4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works [that is, without doing!]. (Rom. 4:4–6)

Lesson 6

Satan’s twisting of God’s word (yes to no) should have been understood by Eve and rejected, but it wasn’t. Her sin started right there, and her compound failure was thus inevitable: a conversation that should never have begun, followed by debating what was never said, leading to a blasphemous confession that denied God’s word. God never said, “You shall not touch it” (Gen. 3:3).

Is the church today debating the devil’s question? Consider this example: “In the way of obedience, man enjoys fellowship with God.” A simple statement or an insidious debate starter designed to overthrow salvation by grace alone?

I ask this question specifically because the theme of Norman Shepherd’s book is similar: “In the way of righteousness there is life; along that path is immortality. Proverbs 12:28 (NIV).”¹

According to Norman Shepherd’s book, the epistle of James teaches justification by faith and works. However, by subtly joining faith and works, as in faith that works, Shepherd believes he has avoided an obvious clash with Romans and Galatians. I will show that Shepherd’s “adjusting” of James’ words is very much like Satan’s “adjusting” of God’s words in Genesis 2:16–17. In both cases it is no longer what God and James said.

For Shepherd faith involves doing. But according to the church’s confession, faith is not doing. Faith is knowledge of and trust in Christ (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 21).

That faith is not doing can be seen if one considers our Lord’s examples in the gospels. Almost all of his instruction about faith is connected to his miracles of healing (Matt. 8:1–4; 9:1–8, 20–22, 27–31; Mark 1:23–26). Accidental? No. Deliberate because the need for healing reveals the true nature of man and faith and the sovereign power of Christ to save. All those needing healing—the blind, the lame, the dumb, the demon-possessed—could not heal themselves. There was nothing they could do! That’s why Jesus said, “Thy faith hath made thee whole.” It was the opposite of doing. Their faith did nothing but believe that the Lord Jesus Christ could heal them. Jesus’ healing pictured salvation by sovereign grace. Man’s helplessness in sin is the perfect condition for God to demonstrate his sovereign grace and covenant love for his people.²

Forgotten also today by the “sons” of the Reformation is that God’s commands do not imply ability (doing). Therefore, no faithful servant of the word would make them imply ability. God’s commands are meant to reveal inability, hostility, and depravity! In that way the totally gracious character of salvation in Christ is revealed for God’s glory. But those “sons” of the Reformation, just as Eve, have abandoned their confessions by debating man’s obedience to commands.³

I now quickly examine God’s fellowship with Adam—it shines a bright light on this present debate—before I examine Mr. Shepherd’s adjustment of James.

God set Adam in the garden of “paradise” (LXX translation). How rich: “The tree of life” is there. How beautiful: “Every tree that is pleasant to the sight” (Gen. 2:9). But there was far more than earthly beauty. God walked with Adam and talked with him. Adam was created as God’s covenant friend, having fellowship with the Lord. That was how he was created. Adam didn’t do anything to gain or to enjoy God’s fellowship. He was “born” in it. Since the beginning of creation, God creates and sustains the fellowship his people enjoy with him; they don’t.

Lesson 7

This is true for all Christians. We are born again in fellowship with God (1 Cor. 1:9) by the renewing work of the Spirit (John 3:5–8). Born of the Spirit, we “are having access unto the Father” (Eph. 2:18; present tense denotes continuing action), and the love of God “is being shed abroad” (same present tense) in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). The believer, as Adam, is born into continuing fellowship with God by grace alone. But as demonstrated, caution is warranted. Satan has overheard this theology and is determined, by his one-word-switch pattern, to corrupt it! “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished” (Prov. 22:3).

While Adam enjoyed his fellowship with God, God said to his friend, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” Note well: God gave full permission! “Every tree.” “Freely eat.” What encouragement. That was God’s first statement. God encouraged and advanced their fellowship: “You may eat freely of all my trees.”

We note this particularly: there were no conditions attached to that fellowship in God’s first statement. God said, “All…freely eat!” Neither was there any required behavior or obedience stipulated to enter into or to continue in that fellowship. “Freely eat of all the trees of my garden” was God’s first declaration. It was God’s sovereign guide for the enjoyment of the covenant fellowship in progress. It was unconditional. “Freely eat of all!”

Lesson 8

There should be no questioning of, or qualifications placed on, God’s sovereign, freely given, ongoing fellowship. However, if debate arises that there are conditions for fellowship, God’s people should know immediately who would be promoting that issue of conditionality!

In God’s second declaration in Genesis 2:17, that issue appeared. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” This statement must also be carefully understood, because many have gone astray at this point. The wording of this second declaration was a solemn warning about something. Plainly stated, God warned his friend-servant of the very severe consequences of eating from a certain tree. The statement was a warning.

Carefully note God’s words because we have to defend them against Satan. It was a strong statement, expressing both solemn warning and dire consequences. As stated by God, the consequences were the reason not to eat of that tree: “In the day you eat, you will die.” That truth cannot be overstated. The consequences were the reason not to eat. The wages of sin is death. That was a dire warning, not a condition.

Therefore, it must be stated clearly that the reason given by God in his second statement was consequential, not conditional! God stated a certain definite result of a specific action. He did not state nor establish any conditions for Adam to obey to remain in the garden or to remain in his fellowship. God only warned of consequences because of his righteousness. God did not say, “If you do that, you will not have fellowship with me anymore.” We find no conditional construction—no if—in those declarations; neither may we turn God’s dire warning about death into a condition for fellowship or to continue that fellowship. Satan would do that; he has done that; but Christ’s church should not!

We know the devil did effectively twist those two declarations into a condition for fellowship. After much debating with the devil, men made Genesis 2–3 a covenant of works! Again, another example of a simple twist, changing “in the day you eat” to “if you eat.” That began the long history of the covenant-of-works debate, finally ending in the Westminster Confession!⁴ However, as I will demonstrate in what followed, Satan’s highest priority was not a separate covenant of works but that he labored mightily to smuggle conditions into the covenant of grace. Conditionality was Satan’s first priority because it mocked everything that God had said is of grace.

God’s declaration to Adam was not conditional and not a covenant of works. His speaking with Adam was covenant fellowship. God explained that the knowledge (experience) of good and evil was dangerous because Adam could not experience (commit) sin without experiencing death. God’s warning was an expression of his goodness and his righteousness. He loved his friend-servant, but the wages of sin is death. That is all that may be deduced: fellowship with God is graciously given and maintained by God but overshadowed by sin.

However, in the history of the church—which I trace because it bears on my subject—there were those who added conditions: they made obedience to the law of Moses the way to justification and fellowship with God.

The Pharisees demanded that the new Gentile Christians had to submit to the law of Moses to be fully saved. For the Pharisees, salvation was by faith and works. As we shall see, they invented that heresy.

Because the same controversy has reappeared in Norman Shepherd’s book The Way of Righteousness, I will consider how the Pharisees’ invention was resolved by the church.

How This Debate Continues in the Church

The position of this article is that Norman Shepherd is completely wrong about James, Paul, and Jesus; that there is no such thing as working faith; that Shepherd’s work is basically an invitation to debate with the devil; and that those who follow him are guilty, as Eve, of forsaking God and his word.

Because Norman Shepherd in his book is almost completely dependent upon his faulty interpretation of James 2:14–26 (20–32), I will examine James’ writing in detail and demonstrate, first, that James would not write that a man is justified by faith and works; second, that James could not write that a man is justified by faith and works; and third, that James did not write that a man is justified by faith and works.

To begin we must go to Acts 15, which records the council at Jerusalem, where the apostles and elders met to decide the Pharisees’ issue of faith and works. Peter and Paul spoke. Then James, as president of the council, summarized and offered a motion, which the council unanimously approved and sent to the churches (vv. 13–21).

Paul had first declared “the conversion of the Gentiles” and “all things that God had done with them” (vv. 3–4). They were converted. But at that point “there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (v. 5).

That was the problem for the council (v. 6). The Gentiles had been converted to Christ. They had believed on the Lord Jesus. Now, inspired by the devil, the Pharisees said, “We must command them to keep the law of Moses.” We must keep that in mind. The Pharisees’ doctrine is specifically justification by faith and works. For them it was necessary to believe and to obey the law to be justified and saved. That was the debate—the devil’s debate—that was treated at the council of Acts 15, which reappears in the devil’s debate today.

At that point James presented his motion. It was no to the Pharisees’ doctrine. James said, “My sentence is, that we trouble not them” (v. 19). That’s what he called the Pharisees’ doctrine of faith and works: “trouble.” Their doctrine troubles—kills—the soul! James concluded that the church must not go in that soul-troubling direction.

Peter called it something worse. He asked, “Why tempt ye God”? (v. 10). Why tempt God with that doctrine? Tempting God is blasphemy! Justification by faith and works is blasphemy, according to Peter.

Peter said that God had given those believers the Holy Spirit and had purified their hearts by faith (vv. 8–9). We may not put that heavy burden (the law) “upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (v. 10). Peter argued in favor of justification by faith alone: “God purified their hearts by faith” without works. Therefore, the church cannot put that unbearable burden of the law on their necks!

The Pharisees’ doctrine of justification by faith and works was seen as a blasphemous burden and rightly rejected by the Jerusalem Council. Note well: James himself authored the motion that forcefully rejected it (vv. 13–21)!—a motion that was inspired by the Holy Spirit and agreed upon by the whole council at Jerusalem (v. 28). That fact must be remembered when considering James 2:14–26.

Regarding the Pharisees’ demand of justification by faith and works for salvation, James, the apostles, the elders, and Paul stated in their letter to the brethren, “We gave no such commandment” for that soul-killing doctrine (Acts 15:24). Again, notice carefully: “We gave.” That was the authoritative verdict of James, Peter, Paul, the apostles, and the elders! James’ judgment was negative on the Pharisees’ doctrine of justification by faith and works.

That is the reason I say, first, that James would not write justification by faith and works in his epistle (2:14–26). If he and the Jerusalem Council had been led by the Spirit to reject justification by faith and works, realizing it was a blasphemous, soul-killing doctrine, why would James write that in his epistle? He would not.

Next I explain why James could not write that. To understand what James meant by the words “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (v. 24), we go back to the council. From the council’s decision I may conclude that when James wrote, “by works a man is justified,” if he meant by those words that he was agreeing with the Pharisees’ doctrine of faith and works, he would be reversing his own decision and backtracking on the council’s decree, just as Peter did at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–13). Remember, James had said, “We gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24).

From those momentous words of James and the council, I may reasonably conclude that James had something else in mind when he wrote about justification in his epistle. That is a fair assumption considering what took place after the council of Acts 15.

The Pharisees’ view did not die with the Jerusalem Council’s decision. Those teaching justification by faith and works continued to upset the faith of believers in Galatia. However, by that time there was greater authority than James and the Jerusalem Council. Paul’s gospel, given him “by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12), resolved the issue by condemning the pharisaic view as another gospel and publicly stating that anyone promoting it should “be accursed” (vv. 7–8). Would James, then, promote it?

It should be remembered that Paul had previously revealed this same gospel, which he had received by direct revelation from the Lord, to James, Peter, and John (vv. 18–19; 2:2, 9). Having heard Paul’s gospel, James, Peter, and John fully agreed with his teaching (2:9). We would not expect James, then, when he wrote his epistle, to suddenly disagree with Paul’s divinely inspired gospel and his own agreement with the Jerusalem Council. Confirming this assumption is the matter of Peter’s dissimulation (hypocrisy) when certain persons “came from James” to Antioch (v. 12).

These men were not of the opposing Pharisee party. They were James’ associates in the church at Jerusalem, and the proclamation of the Jerusalem Council would have been known to them as well as to Peter. But Peter, “fearing them which were of the circumcision,” hypocritically denied the council’s decision and his own experience (Acts 11) by withdrawing from eating with the Gentiles (Gal. 2:12).

Why did Peter fear James’ associates? They had all agreed with the council’s decision. The Mosaic dietary regulations were optional then. It was a matter of Christian liberty to eat or not to eat kosher or with Gentiles (Acts 11:1–18). What, then, was Peter afraid of? It wasn’t merely his personal uncertainty either, because all the Jews “dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation” (Gal. 2:13).

We may not go too far in answering this question, but this much is certain: at the time of this event, there was still considerable fear and confusion regarding the status of the Mosaic law among the Jewish leaders (Peter and Barnabas) and Jewish believers in the church.

It would be conjecture to include James in this uncertainty. However, this much is certain: if James had “dissembled” as Peter had done (v. 13), James would certainly have been included in Paul’s public rebuke. Having not been included in Paul’s rebuke, it may be assumed that James, the author of the council’s decision in Acts 15, was aware of but not involved in or responsible for Peter’s failure.

However, knowing of this remaining post-council confusion, James could very well have decided to do something about it. That would have been a good reason for his epistle. Hearing of the ongoing confusion from his delegates to Antioch, and having previously proposed the circular letter of the Jerusalem Council’s resolution—which brought joy to the churches (Acts 15:31)—James took it in hand to follow that regional letter with another, broader, circular letter of his own. Then, as president of the Jerusalem consistory, to clarify the confusion about the law, James addressed all the Jewish believers who had been scattered from Jerusalem after the persecution of Stephen (Acts 8:1).

It would be startling—even betrayal—for James to then publicly change his mind when he wrote James 2:14–26. If he had, he would certainly have been rebuked by Paul, as was Peter, for betraying the council’s decree (Gal. 2:11–14). But no such rebuke appeared. James did not change his mind.

Therefore, prior to writing his epistle, these were the facts:

1. James’ doctrine of justification was no different than Paul’s; it was by faith alone.

2. James had added the scriptures supporting the position of Peter and Paul against the Pharisees’ doctrine at the council (Acts 15:15–17).

3. James joined in that decision to condemn the Pharisees’ faith and works doctrine; namely, “We gave no such commandment.”

4. When he wrote his epistle, James still believed the Jerusalem decree, would have supported it, was aware of the confusion about it, and wrote to remove that confusion.

5. James had not been rebuked by Paul for changing his mind about the council’s decree.

For these reasons, I may say, second, that James could not write that justification before God was by faith and works (the Pharisees’ view) because, up to the time he wrote, he did not believe that. Neither was it his purpose to teach that. Neither was there any need to write that; there was already division in the church over it (Acts 15:24), and if he had written that, it would have only added to the confusion.

There must, then, be some other explanation of what James wrote in James 2:14–26. That explanation is this: First, when James wrote his epistle, he was seeking to advance the council’s decree, given the confusion of Peter and the others. Second, if so, we should expect some clarification of that issue in his epistle, which clarification we do find in James 2:14–26. Third, James’ clarification, we may assume, is in agreement with the Jerusalem Council’s decision and Paul’s gospel received by direct revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12), which James had agreed to (Gal. 2:9).

To see that total agreement of James, we go back to the Jerusalem Council. At the council the only works required of the Gentile brethren were to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication” (Acts 15:29). That abstaining was not considered a condition or required obedience for their salvation! Rather, the council’s instructions were “if ye keep yourselves [from such things], ye shall do well” (v. 29). The council’s instructions were given to Gentile Christians to “do well”—not as works to be justified. They were practical guidelines given to Gentile Christians because there was urgent need of such guidance in the church. For that reason the council advised that Gentile believers should abstain from certain things in order to live “well” with their Jewish brethren’s scruples. In other words, the council’s guidelines were for fellowship with each other—to love their neighbors—not for justification, salvation, or fellowship with God.

For that reason the double response of the Jerusalem Council—decree and advice—must not be misunderstood as adding conditions or works to faith in Christ for justification, salvation, or fellowship with God. That doctrine had been rightly rejected because it was “subverting [the] souls” of believers at Antioch (v. 24). These guidelines were simply intended to bring peace in the church between Jew and Gentile at the time many Gentiles were joining the Jewish congregations.

We see that the church from the beginning understood that saving faith must always be separated from works; that there are no conditions to be met for justification or any part of salvation; that all the salvation of the covenant is by grace and is unconditional. This, the council, including James, guided by the Holy Spirit, labored to preserve (v. 28).

That is exactly what we find when we consider the structure of James’ epistle. First, his writing is all concerned with authentic Christian living, not doctrine. Luther at first rejected James’ epistle because it contained no doctrine. Second, none of James’ exhortations speak explicitly of obeying any requirements for justification or salvation. For example, earlier in his epistle, when correcting his readers’ partiality, James had exhorted them to fulfill the “royal law.” Notice, it is not the Mosaic law but the royal law: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” James’ epistle is promoting love to the neighbor in the church. To which he added, “If ye fulfil the royal law…ye do well” (2:8). Those are the exact words the Jerusalem Council advised the brethren at Antioch: “Ye shall do well” (Acts 15:29). So here we find an echo of the Jerusalem Council’s advice in James’ epistle. James taught that doing well will end partiality in the church. The council taught that doing well will end division at Antioch. It’s the same admonition: love thy neighbor.

We should also notice James’ words for what they do not say. Not: “You will be justified.” Neither: “If you do not obey the royal law, you cannot be saved.” Never said!

It would be contradictory at that point in his epistle (2:8) for James to change his mind and write, “In addition to your faith, you must obey the law of Moses.” That would be equally contradictory in verses 14–26, where James wrote about faith and works. To write that would have been a very radical, council-rejecting, revelation-
denying change of mind for James.

So I must ask, did James have something else in mind when he wrote verses 14–26? I answer, most definitely, yes!

At this point, it helps to remember that James was probably the earliest New Testament writer; and, therefore, he mainly had the words of the Lord’s earthly ministry and the events of the gospels for his understanding of the faith. No gospel truth had been given to him by revelation, nor had anything been written at the time by Paul. Also, notice the similarity of James’ introduction and the council’s letter. James greeted with the salutation, “χαίρειν” (greeting) (James 1:1), the earliest form of greeting, which was used also in the Jerusalem Council’s letter in Acts 15:23.

Given that fact, we look in the gospel narratives and in the words of Jesus for James’ understanding of the faith. Also, it should be kept in mind that the Greek verb James used—to justify—is used only six times in the gospels (Matt. 11:19, 12:37; Luke 7:29, 10:29, 16:15, 18:14). For example, after Jesus had finished speaking of John the Baptist, “all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John” (7:29). “Justified God”? God does not need to be declared innocent of sin (that is, forensic justification) by men. The Greek word used for “justified” in this passage means to vindicate, to treat as just. Also, “The tax collectors acknowledged God’s justice.”⁵ The people rejoiced in Jesus’ vindication of the ministry of John the Baptist. They had believed it was of God and submitted to it. Jesus’ testimony affirmed that John’s baptism was of God, not of men. So God (who had sent John) was justified (vindicated) by the people and the publicans.

Another example is Luke 7:35. Jesus said, “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” In this passage also, wisdom was not declared innocent of sin by her children. Rather, she was vindicated by her offspring. They followed her counsel, and it proved to be great wisdom in them. In that way wisdom was vindicated. She was recognized as the “mother” of her disciples’ wise actions.

From these examples James’ use of the word to justify in James 2:14–26 can be understood. He used a Greek Old Testament (LXX) sense of the word to justify, meaning to vindicate, to establish as right, to validate, which was still prevalent during our Lord’s earthly ministry. (See Gottlieb G. Schrenk, TWNT, 2:212.) Professor Schrenk cites Job 33:32: “I will vindicate thee” (212). He also states that the usage “to vindicate God…is found in Matt., Luke, and Paul,” citing Luke 7:29 and Matthew 11:19 and saying, “In both these passages [to justify] should be rendered ‘acknowledged to be righteous’” (214). Again, in 1 Timothy 3:16, “Jesus was justified in the sphere of the Spirit, i.e. that His claim to be Christ was demonstrated and validated by the resurrection” (215). Additionally, Professor Schrenk says, “It must be admitted that the statement [by James] that Abraham was justified on the basis of demonstrable works associated with his faith represents a view which Paul could hardly have advanced” (201).

However, there is another passage of even greater importance: Luke 18:14. In the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, Jesus clearly taught that forensic justification with God is by faith alone, apart from works. Notice, in the temple the Pharisee prayed, listing all his good works. Jesus said that the Pharisee prayed to himself (v. 11), indicating that his prayer was not heard of God. Then the publican prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (v. 13). No works are mentioned. His plea was literally, “God be propitiated toward me.” (The Greek verb is “ἱλάσθητί,” to be propitious, not merciful.) The idea of propitiation is to cover sin by the blood of the temple sacrifices. The publican begged God for the blood of the temple sacrifice (which was a type of Christ’s sacrifice) to cover and blot out his sin, as the Old Testament had taught God’s people to believe. The publican’s only hope and plea was the free mercy of God (in Christ) apart from any works, as pictured by the sacrifice on the altar in the temple, namely faith in the substitutionary atonement and full satisfaction of Christ alone.

To this plea—faith without works—Jesus said that the publican went down to his house “justified” (v. 14). The perfect participle indicates completed action before the main verb. Jesus taught that the publican was forensically justified before God by faith alone, without works, prior to leaving the temple. James would not contradict his Lord when later writing about justification. James could not. His words were inspired of the Spirit.

To this we may add Paul’s confirmation in Romans 3:10–28, particularly verse 25: “Whom [Christ] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” The whole section seems to be written to support and clarify—not to correct—James 2:14–26. Consider that when Paul wrote, “None righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10), he, as James, was mainly addressing converted Jews, who were the majority in the Roman church at that time. Particularly to them he wrote verse 19: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped.” Why “stopped”? Because at that time the Jews would be the ones to be “boasting” (v. 27) in their deeds of the law (Luke 18:9–12) and of having Abraham as their father (Matt. 3:9). The Gentile believers had nothing to boast about but were equally sinful: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified” (Rom. 3:20). The Gentiles were included: “All have sinned…being justified freely by his grace through…Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood” (vv. 23–25). Exactly how the publican had been justified: through faith in the blood of the lamb (Luke 18:13). To his believing Jewish readers, Paul alluded to the same temple ritual and blood sacrifice alone for propitiation of sin and forgiveness, which they, rather than the Gentiles, would have been familiar with: “Where is boasting then?” (Rom. 3:27). Having excluded works, Paul gave the inspired conclusion: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (v. 28). Romans 4, then, using the same example James used, explains in detail Abraham’s forensic justification: while in uncircumcision (without works), facts no Jew would have disputed. Then, Paul clarified James’ justification (vindication) of Abraham by faith and works by making clear that Abraham’s soteric justification was by faith alone apart from works, before Isaac was born; being vindicated later by offering Isaac (vv. 18–22).

Therefore, I conclude that James was explaining the council’s decision concerning faith and works by teaching his Jewish brethren that their faith in Christ and their works according to the royal law will vindicate (justify) them in the church as the true Christians, because there were many “false brethren” at that time (Gal. 2:4). Over against the many false, antinomian Christians, who have no works, they will be vindicated (justified) as the genuine believers in Christ by their faith and their works, just as Abraham, their father, was. That is what James was teaching concerning justification in James 2:14–26.

It is clear. He was promoting the message of the Jerusalem Council. To those saved by faith, James said, “You do well to fulfill the royal law.” In what way? Faith in Christ and doing well will vindicate (justify) you as the true believers and promote peace in the church.

James did not revert to the Pharisees’ doctrine but emphasized his Lord’s instructions to his disciples: “Ye are the light of the world…Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14–16).

That was James’ intention: Let men see your good works! Let your faith shine before men; then they can see your good works! Why? To be justified by faith and works? Absolutely not. James didn’t believe that! Rather, to “do well,” to glorify your Father in heaven! Remember, James had voted against justification by faith and works at the council. He would not teach that, but he did need to correct the confusion in the churches. James’ purpose eluded Luther, and many others, who have misunderstood James’ words in 2:14–26.

We may conclude: There is no basis whatever in James for any difference between James and Paul concerning forensic justification. It has been demonstrated sufficiently that what James believed about forensic justification was clear, authentic, authoritative, and identical to the teaching of Paul in Romans 3:21–28 and of Jesus in Luke 18:14 and John 8:11, which James affirmed at the council and never denied.

His example confirmed that. Abraham was “justified” (vindicated) when he offered up Isaac (James 2:21). You could see his faith by his action (v. 22).

However, this is conclusive: Abraham was forensically justified by God long before he offered up Isaac. Abraham was forensically justified without works when he believed the word of God’s promise in Genesis 15:6, long before Isaac was born, which Paul made abundantly clear in Romans 4:18–22.

James’ point in calling attention to Abraham’s offering Isaac was that it was an exceptionally clear example of faith being authenticated by works for his intended readers, who were all Jews, and they would immediately recognize that event in the history of Abraham and not confuse it with his justification in Genesis 15:6.

Hence James’ example confirms the thesis of this article. James chose that example because it would be well known to his Jewish brethren, suited his purpose of vindicating true faith to them, and would instantly be distinguished by them from Abraham’s earlier forensic justification by faith alone in Genesis 15:6; which was fully in accord with James’ purpose in writing to his scattered Jerusalem brethren.

Unfortunately, many readers of James’ epistle have misunderstood his use of the Greek verb to justify as to vindicate. Perhaps the foremost of those who have misunderstood is Prof. Norman Shepherd, who in his book The Way of Righteousness has wrongly based his whole theory of working faith on his misinterpretation of James 2:14–26 (20–32).

Once the truth of James’ epistle is understood—that there is not a word in it about forensic justification—Norman Shepherd’s conception of working faith should be rejected as a malevolent scheme imposed on scripture, denying, contradicting, and rejecting what the Lord Jesus himself said in Luke 18:13–14; and through his Spirit, what Paul wrote in Romans and Galatians.