Introduction

I begin with an allegory based on Psalm 2. Thames overhears Shepsema and scolds him: “Are you plotting against the Most High? Yea, will you really cast away his cords? That can never happen, Shepsema! He who sits in the heavens shall laugh. Why do you imagine such a vain thing? He will have you in derision. Doing…? You speak of doing? If God wills! That’s doing! No one can do anything unless God wills it. ‘If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this or that.’ Shepsema, be wise. Goodbye.”

13. Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

14. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

15. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

16. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. (James 4:13–16)

In this article I continue to refute Norman Shepherd’s argument that James has soteric justification in mind when he writes, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (2:24). Shepherd alleges, “The passage [vv. 14–26] contemplates a Day of Judgment to come when all people will appear before the Lord Jesus Christ to be judged.” Shepherd postulates, “James says in verse 24 that they will be justified and saved by what they do and not by faith alone.” And Shepherd adds, “The broader context in James confirms the fact that the author has in view the final judgment and a soteric justification on that day.”¹

My first two articles have exegetically demonstrated that, contrary to Shepherd, James had no such thing in mind; that he wrote of demonstrative justification (vindication) in order to promote the decree of the Jerusalem Council; and that by enduring trials and “doing well,” by living according to the royal law, the true believers would be vindicated in the church at a time of much confusion and many false brethren. That has been demonstrated by exegetical argument to be “the flow” of James’ line of reasoning in James 2:14–26, contradicting Shepherd.²

I begin now by calling attention to the fact that James wrote his epistle having the vindication of true faith in mind from the beginning and that he developed that thought throughout his epistle and demonstrated it with various arguments in order to make abundantly clear to his scattered brethren what true Christian faith is—a vital necessity at that time. He began by writing, “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience” (1:2–3). Notice especially that in verse 3 James has the trying or proving of faith on earth in mind, which is a totally different concept than final justification in heaven.

In those beginning words, James announced the theme of his epistle: faith being tried (tested) by trials and temptations to prove its genuineness. This theme is then worked out in the succeeding exhortations to his scattered brethren—a very mixed group needing their faith to be tried to vindicate the genuine believers and to expose the false ones. James will teach them how faith is tried (proved) regarding trials (1:1–18), the true hearing of the word (vv. 19–27), respect of persons (2:1–13), faith and works (vv. 14–26), control of the tongue (3:1–12), and so on throughout the rest of his epistle.

Going back to James 1:3, I call attention to the fact that James used the word trying (δοκίµιον), which means “to test something, to prove its genuineness.”³ For example, Luke 14:19 uses the same word. In the parable of the great supper, one of those making an excuse says, “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove (δοκιµάσαι) them.” The meaning is that the oxen will be taken into the field to test their ability to plow. Their genuineness will be demonstrated (tried, proved) in the field by their sample plowing; that is, by their works they will be either vindicated as valuable farm animals able to plow well or exposed as useless beasts that can’t plow. In that way the oxen will be proved. If they plow well, they will be vindicated as good workers; and if they don’t plow well, they will be exposed as bad ones for not working (that is, having no works). That is basically James’ method and concern throughout his various exhortations: that the genuine believers be proved.

Applying that formula, we may expect the faith of the scattered brethren to be variously tried to prove its genuineness and so be validated in the congregation (the field). Like the oxen, faith will be taken into the field to examine and demonstrate its genuineness by its works. Thus “the trying of your faith,” which “worketh patience” (1:3), is expected. The reason? To prove its genuineness in the congregation, which truth James develops throughout his epistle, but particularly in James 2:14–26. James recognizes the necessity of vindicating the true believers in the church at a time of much confusion and many false brethren (as developed in “Debating with the Devil (1)”).

By tracing in my first article Satan’s method, I have shown that “every tree” became “not every tree.” “In the day you eat” became “if you eat.” God’s fellowship with Adam became the covenant of works. In addition, God’s providence became common grace. The gospel became the free offer. Now add to those deceptions what was done to James 2:14–26: “vindication” became “forensic justification.” Using that deception, Satan is now confounding the debate about faith by using the word faith when he really means Shepherd’s “working faith.” The purpose of that, which will be demonstrated, is because “working faith” implies man’s doing.

Notice this example from Andrew Sandlin’s foreword of Shepherd’s book: “Shepherd stands squarely in the broad stream of this tradition [Luther and Calvin]” on justification by affirming “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” and the instrumentality of “faith alone” for justification (xiii–xiv). However, Sandlin is not talking about the faith of Lord’s Day 7, which he denies but doesn’t mention. He has Shepherd’s “working faith” in mind—not Luther’s or Calvin’s—when Sandlin says, “Faith alone.” We see this when he describes the nature of Shepherd’s “Faith and faith alone…that justifies” as “a submissive, penitent, obedient faith,” that is, a working faith (xiv). 

Be warned: these are word games for the unwary.

Shepherd’s Book

Continuing, then, I return to the beginning of James’ epistle. Recall that James wrote in 1:4, “Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” The word “perfect” (τέλειοι) means “to complete, to bring to an end, to finish” (Bauer, 817). As we shall see, the words completing, finishing, and bringing to an end when referring to the test of faith are clearly referring to sanctification on earth rather than to Shepherd’s future judgment day in heaven. I carefully note that the goal James has in mind here for the trying of faith is its completing, the perfecting, of that life of faith on earth. That will become the central part of James’ argument in chapter 2:14–26. James will write that Abraham’s faith, by works, was made “perfect” (v. 22)—perfect in the sense of completed, brought to fulfillment, and therefore vindicated before men. That was exactly James’ purpose in writing his epistle and, as we shall see, the repeated formula of James’ exhortations in his epistle.

With that background I continue the review of Norman Shepherd’s book The Way of Righteousness. I left off with Shepherd’s attempt to disprove the demonstrative sense of the word justify. He speculated, “It would run counter to the argument of James to insist that a faith without works, a faith that cannot save, can nevertheless justify in the forensic-soteric sense” (25). Exactly, because James has no intention of teaching forensic justification, no intention of teaching that that kind of dead faith can justify in any sense of the word. The formula Shepherd offers would run counter to anyone’s argument. It’s a straw man. No one would insist that dead faith can justify! Neither would anyone insist that temporary faith or historical faith or miracle faith can justify in the forensic-soteric sense. 

Against Shepherd’s speculation, I have convincingly demonstrated that James never had any intention of writing anything about forensic-soteric justification. James’ argument (in 2:14–26), given with two irrefutable examples (Abraham and Rahab the harlot), demonstrated that that kind of faith—faith without works—is a dead faith, a faith that cannot save and will not vindicate in the church either. That is why James concluded in verse 24, “Ye see [understand] then how that by works a man is justified [vindicated], and not by faith only.” That is precisely his object: to make the confused brethren see (understand) that their antinomian “faith” (without works) is not the same as Abraham’s faith. Their faith will not vindicate them as true Christians in the church.

Shepherd’s straw man does him no good.

Neither does his next speculation: “Only if ‘justify’ in verse 24 carries the forensic-soteric sense does the verse answer the question posed in verse 14” (25). In this also he is wrong. As shown, James’ question (v. 14) and answer (v. 24) need not be conclusive but successive: as dead faith doesn’t save, neither will it vindicate. James’ statement in verse 24, understanding justify as vindication, makes good sense in the context: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified [vindicated], and not by faith only.” As a conclusion, after three witnesses, it meets the trying-of-faith test according to James’ introductory purpose (1:3), namely testing it (δοκίµιον) according to its works to determine if it is genuine. By testing three examples, dead faith failed because it had no works to demonstrate anything; it was like oxen that can’t plow, whereas Abraham’s faith was “made perfect” by works (v. 22), and Rahab was “justified by works” in assisting the spies (v. 25). These examples amount to three witnesses to establish a testimony—one negative (dead faith) and two positive (Abraham’s and Rahab’s faith)—proving that “as the body without the spirit is dead, so [that] faith without works is dead also” (v. 26). James’ conclusion of the testing (trying) of (that) faith without works is stated in verse 26. According to James’ stated purpose in chapter 1:3–4, that “faith without works” (which is the faith he is testing) is like a body without the spirit: it is obviously dead. In addition, having been tested and proved, that faith has failed. The conclusion: it will never vindicate anyone in the church.

The comparison in James’ argument between that kind of dead faith and an example of true faith comes in chapter 2:22, where James contrasts dead faith with Abraham’s faith (which no Jew would deny was justifying faith), saying that with his works “was faith made perfect.” Notice: “made perfect.” I draw attention to that because James previously wrote in 1:4, “Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” “Be perfect” (that is, completed) is what James was looking for in this test. The thought is, Abraham’s justifying faith—when patiently tried through waiting (thirty years) for Isaac and almost sacrificing him—was made complete (reached its goal). 

How did Abraham’s faith reach its goal? That is explained by James’ adding, “The scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God” (2:23). The scripture (Gen. 15:1–5) was fulfilled in this way: Abraham had believed God’s promise that Isaac would be Abraham’s heir and that his descendants through Isaac would be as the stars in multitude. Abraham believed that, and it was counted as righteousness; he was forensically justified (v. 6). Yet through faith (thirty years later) Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, resulting in no descendants. His previous justifying faith was being perfected by his call to offer Isaac and was thus made perfect; it reached its goal (τέλειοι) by his attempted sacrifice of Isaac. 

In that way the scripture was fulfilled; that is, God substituted a lamb instead of Isaac, so that Abraham actually did receive all those promised descendants (vv. 1–6; Heb. 11:17–19). By the substitute lamb that God provided, both the promise to Abraham and the scripture referring to his innumerable descendants were fulfilled. James added that statement in James 2:23 to demonstrate how Abraham’s faith was made perfect (τέλειοι), its purpose being completed by the substitute lamb being introduced for the salvation of the covenant people.

This particular trying of faith, as to works or no works, being completed, James moves on to another test, the trying of the tongue (3:1–12). He has proved his point: “Ye see [understand] then how that by works a man is justified [vindicated], and not by faith only” (2:24). That especially the scattered brethren, confused and rejecting the law, needed to understand! So explained, James’ exhortation concerning how a man without works is tried and found wanting is a unified, instructive, conclusive lesson for the immediate need of his scattered brethren.

Shepherd’s Final Judgment

Continuing his argument, Shepherd next claims, “The broader context in James confirms the fact that the author has in view the final judgment and a soteric justification on that day” (25).

Three things are cobbled together in this statement. Shepherd claims that he sees “the broader context” and that “the author has in view the final judgment” and “a soteric justification on that day.” That speculation is based upon the following dubious reasoning: Shepherd says that because James refers to the Lord’s coming, James must refer to the Lord’s second coming, so judgment is in view. And Shepherd interprets James 5:9 this way: 

Don’t grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door! When James says that those who grumble against each other will be judged he means that they will be condemned in the judgment. (25)

Adding up these broken pieces, Shepherd concludes, “Salvation and destruction are the only two possible outcomes in the final judgment” (25–26).

Still more texts Shepherd takes out of context: “Verse 1:21 teaches us to get rid of all moral filth and to ‘accept the word planted in you, which can save you.’” “Verse 5:20 tells us that if we turn a sinner from the error of his way, we will save him from death” (26). 

Putting all those disparate references together, we have Shepherd’s summary:

The salvation referred to in both of these verses would have to be salvation from condemnation in the judgment of God on the last day. The last day is the day when we will all stand before the Lord God to be judged. Either we will be condemned for our sin or we will be justified and saved.

To summarize, the justification in view in James 2:24 is soteric justification. It is the salvation in view in verse 14. The passage contemplates a Day of Judgment to come when all people will appear before the Lord Jesus Christ to be judged. Will they escape from a judgment that is unto condemnation and death? James says in verse 24 that they will be justified and saved by what they do and not by faith alone. This brings us to the second question. What does James mean when he says that this forensic-soteric justification is “by works and not by faith alone?” (26)

Here we have Shepherd’s theory almost in one breath. Brave as Don Quixote, he rides after his windmill but never gets there, being wrong from the start. His essential foundation and pivotal argument, on which everything stands, is that “the justification in view in James 2:24 is soteric justification” (26).

Contrary to this false notion and conclusively contradicting it, my previous articles clearly demonstrated that James would not write that, he could not write that, and he did not write that. My threefold proof has established a clear and definitive testimony. Shepherd has nothing from James 2:14–26. There is no soteric justification in James 2:14–26! James has the perfecting of faith in view and its vindication in the church. He is following his stated theme of chapter 1:1–3, rather than contemplating heaven and the final judgment. I have previously demonstrated that Shepherd has no foundation for his soteric theory.

The next part of Shepherd’s argument is that James has in mind the final judgment, when all appear to be justified and saved or condemned and lost according to what they have done, that is, works. 

Before refuting this, I call attention to the fact that for Norman Shepherd, final justification and salvation are by the righteousness of Christ and the works of man. Fine Roman Catholic doctrine, which he will deny, but certainly not Reformation truth. However, it does demonstrate the absolute necessity for Shepherd and his followers to have James teach forensic justification, because if James does not say that, all is lost. Shepherd and his followers will not find a shred of evidence for their view anywhere else in scripture!

I now consider Shepherd’s second assumption: “The author [James] has in view the final judgment” (25). This statement is based on several indirect and debatable statements in James’ epistle, which Shepherd summarily explains and then assumes his point has been established. 

I would respond by asking, how could such a vital assumption on Shepherd’s part actually be legitimate, when out of 108 verses that James writes, not one specifically refers to the last judgment, and only eight indirectly relate to that (proposed) subject? For his proposed major theme—which Shepherd calls “the broader context in James” and says it “confirms the author has in view the final judgment”—he has no exegetical proof. The eight questionable statements from James that Shepherd claims establish “the broader context” and confirm that “James has in view the final judgment” are in James 1:21; 3:1; 4:12; and 5:7–9, 12, 20.

First, considering the epistle as a whole, James makes no explicit reference to the final judgment; and in the first fifty-three verses (chapters 1–2) of James’ message, Shepherd can find only one verse. If we add the next two chapters, in which James makes two debatable references to the final judgment, then in the first eighty-eight verses of his epistle, only three debatable references appear to support Shepherd’s theory. Considering that there is only one chapter left, three oblique references to the (supposed) final judgment in eighty-eight verses is hardly the “broader context” of James’ message! And when those other supposedly supporting verses are examined, the result is hardly convincing.

Consider, in James 5:7, one of Shepherd’s chief references, the author exhorts his brethren to “be patient…unto the coming of the Lord.” (Μακροθυµήσατε οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου.) By this statement does James suggest that he is thinking of the final judgment? I think not. The Greek informs us that James is looking at the time before the Lord’s coming. James’ words should literally be read as “be patient…until [up to] the coming of the Lord.” How do we know? The Greek particle ἕως is a temporal conjunction denoting the end of a period of time; therefore until or up to is correct (Bauer, 334; see also John 21:22; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 1:13). James’ meaning is this: the brethren are to be patient until this present period of testing is ended by the Lord’s coming. James’ emphasis is therefore on the period before the Lord comes, the trying-patience period—not after it at the final judgment. Recall that James wrote, “Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect, and entire, wanting nothing” (1:4). His main emphasis in chapter 5:7 is patience and the perfecting of his brethren’s faith.

We saw this with the example of Abraham, about whose faith James says, “By works was faith made perfect” (2:22). Faith being made perfect by patience is the single emphasis of the text. James’ reference then to “the coming of the Lord” connects with that purpose of being patient, being made perfect (“let patience…work”). He supports that purpose with two witnesses: “Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh” (5:7–8). “Be ye also patient” instructs the brethren to be like the husbandman who waits it out until the rain comes. Likewise, the introduction of the Lord’s coming is similar to the coming of the rain; that is, wait it out until the Lord comes. The phrase is intended as an encouragement to continue patiently waiting like the husbandman’s waiting for the rain. “Be ye also patient” connects the two verses. James says, “Be patient like the husbandman—wait long.” Same idea: “The Lord is coming—wait for him!” The mention of the Lord’s coming is intended to give encouragement and to bolster patience in the brethren, who must wait long. They may be encouraged by the fact that the Lord’s coming is near, rather than far away; also, because that coming being far away would be discouraging for the brethren struggling to maintain their patience.

Summarizing, then, it is warranted to understand the text as teaching that James is thinking of the period before the Lord’s coming, and James’ reference to it is adduced to promote his subject: the brethren’s patience in that period. So understood, there is no suggestion that James has in view the final judgment, as Shepherd imagines.

Additionally, to interpret that verse as if James is telling the brethren to be patient because their judgment is near makes no sense. If their judgment were near, they would have no incentive (or time) to be patient, nor any need for it. They would soon be snatched away to the judgment hall. Interpreting the verse as suggesting the final judgment disregards, contradicts, and is not supportive of the context because the call to “long patience” would be soon interrupted by that near judgment. Therefore, I may conclude that the author does not adduce the Lord’s coming with a view to the judgment and soteric justification, as Shepherd claims, but rather adduces the Lord’s coming as an incentive for the brethren to hold out in their patience. That interpretation satisfies the context, satisfies the purpose of James in chapter 5:7–8, and satisfies the “broad context” of James’ epistle: “The trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing” (1:3–4). Shepherd’s view ignores and contradicts the context and James’ purpose.

Another verse that Shepherd claims to support his view that James has the final judgment in view is James 5:9: “Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” (µὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί, κατ’ ἀλλήλων, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε: ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν.) The verb στενάζετε means “to groan against someone, to complain of someone” (Bauer, 773).

The brethren should be patient, but instead they continue to complain against each other. James commands them to stop their grumbling and complaining so that they are not judged, because the judge is near and might come through the door and find them grumbling, in which case they would surely be judged and found guilty. This is another instance of James’ using a figure to support his exhortation, as he does throughout the epistle: wave of the sea (1:6), sun withers the grass (v. 11), beholding in a glass (v. 23), bits in the horses’ mouths (3:3), ships (v. 4), fountain (v. 11), fig tree (v. 12), the husbandman (5:7), and the judge before the door (v. 9). Naturally, a judge who hears the brethren complaining will find them guilty.

However, that figure does not specifically identify this judge as the Lord Jesus Christ, neither would the brethren be forensically condemned for complaining. Rather, James has in view the activity before him and applies a suitable figure to bolster his exhortation. The judge is placed at the door, an ideal location to overhear the brethren’s complaining. Also, the use of the figure of a door implies that the person is about to enter (Kittel, TWNT, 3:173), and he will then witness their complaining firsthand and certainly find them guilty. Again, no final judgment in view; no support for Shepherd. 

Perhaps he was misled by the English Bible translators, who capitalized the word judge but neglected to do that with the word husbandman (see NKJV, RSV, TEV, NIV); although both figures have the definite article, so that capitalizing the word judge is inconsistent (Nestle-Aland, ad.loc. James 5:7, 9). The King James Version does not capitalize the word judge.

Another incidental statement of James draws Shepherd’s attention: “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation” (5:12). 

The immediate context is James’ commanding the brethren to stop swearing. He may have had our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5:34–37 in view. James says, “Above all things,” meaning before the other exhortations, you must do this, lest you fall under condemnation (ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε). The word “condemnation” is the Greek word κρίµα, which has a wide variety of meanings (Bauer, 451ff.). Lydia, in Acts 16:15, uses it to say, “If ye have judged me to be faithful…” I doubt she has the final judgment in mind in that text. Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 11:31–32: to say, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord.” It seems that our being judged of the Lord is his present chastening in this life. In addition, the Greek word to fall (πέσητε) in James 5:12 is an aorist subjunctive, which in Greek is timeless; it suggests no time (“aorist represents action in the simplest form, presented as a point—timeless”).⁴ James’ words in verse 12 envision no future time. Given these exegetical considerations, it would be forcing this brief phrase to suggest a final judgment where believers might be condemned for using oaths. I conclude that there is no support for Shepherd’s view in this text either.

Another example of Shepherd’s alleged support is James 3:1: “My brethren, be not many masters [teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” “Be not many teachers” (Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι) takes us into the early church, which was much like the synagogue, where anyone was allowed to stand up and teach; hence “many teachers.” With many teachers there were many abuses, so this admonition was needed (1 Cor. 14:26–33). The admonition cautions all the brethren because those teaching will receive greater judgment (κρίµα) than those who don’t teach; James is thereby encouraging fewer teachers. Since James includes himself in this group (“knowing that we shall receive”), being a teacher himself and teaching the brethren by this epistle, the condemnation he has in view cannot be a forensic judgment unto the condemnation of hell. Why should teachers be condemned? James will not be condemned for writing his epistle. If Shepherd is correct, we must imagine that James has the final judgment in view here, and then James will also be condemned, which is ludicrous; even worse, he will be condemned for writing the scripture!

As stated, the Greek word κρίµα has a wide variety of meanings (Bauer, 451ff.). It is used for “lawsuits” in 1 Corinthians 6:7; judgment beginning at the church, that is, not unto condemnation, in 1 Peter 4:17; James uses it to say, “My sentence is…” (Acts 15:19); and Lydia says, “If you have judged me to be faithful” (16:15). I may conclude—knowing that James will not “receive greater condemnation” for his teaching and that the word used has a broad meaning, possibly “greater consideration” or “greater examination”—and be quite certain that it is not the condemnation of the last judgment, which Shepherd imagines, but a cautionary warning regarding the many teachers’ causing confusion in the church.

The same is true with James 1:21, which contains a phrase that Shepherd latches onto: “able to save your souls” (σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑµῶν, where σῶσαι may mean “to preserve, to rescue, to heal, to save from death, to free from disease, to save” [Bauer, 805ff.]). 

In the gospels and Acts, σῶσαι is used forty times in a non-saving sense and twenty-five times referring to salvation. The Greek word is less frequently used in the non-saving sense in the rest of the New Testament, although James 5:15 may refer to healing. 

The context of James 1:21 is hearing and doing the word (vv. 19–27). In that context verse 21 is an admonition to James’ brethren, those who already have the word implanted in them (v. 18), to continue in meekness receiving that word. Why? Why continue receiving the word? Because they must be “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (v. 19). Swift to listen is to believe the word; slow to speak is slow to react to things and people with anger. That is the only way they will lay apart their filthiness and the abundance of evil around and in them. Only the engrafted word (and Spirit) can perform this purifying, not their reacting with wrath. Rather, by listening and being sanctified instead of reacting with wrath, the word will “save [their] souls.” James may have purifying (they are filthy in sin) in mind and, if so, σῶσαι may be translated as “preserve,” “rescue,” or “heal” their souls. James’ instruction is: there is no other way to be purified, to have your faith completed, other than receiving the word. Again, James is not looking at some future judgment, but rather he is teaching his brethren, desperately needing purification, what the implanted word is able to do to them. It can save (rescue) them from their filthiness and sinful excess and the wickedness around them. Again, nothing here for Shepherd’s scheme.

Finally, we consider chapter 4:12, another of Shepherd’s proofs that James is thinking of the last judgment: “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy; who art thou that judgest another?” 

The context of verse 12 is James’ command to the brethren to stop their evil speaking and judging of each other. By speaking evil and judging, he says, they are speaking evil of the law and therefore making themselves judges of the law. By setting themselves above the law, they are assuming the authority of God. James corrects their making themselves judges (gods) of the law by reminding them that God is the one and only lawgiver, who is able to save and destroy. James’ point is that they may assume God’s authority, but they do not have God’s power—power “to save and to destroy”—especially power to “destroy” false gods. They know this quite well but need to hear it again. James needs that illustration of almighty God for these self-made gods to see their folly. The need in this situation warrants James’ introducing God as the one lawgiver and stating his absolute power to save or destroy over against the false judges (gods) that have no power. As we have seen, James introduces illustrations and figures that meet the need of his argument, not as hidden references to the final judgment, as Shepherd wrongly alleges.

What we have seen from Shepherd’s misuse of these verses is a determined effort to impose his mistaken view on the text of scripture.

I have refuted him concerning James 2:14–26, and now by Shepherd’s disregard of the contexts of these other verses, lifting phrases out of context to suit his purpose and neglecting the first principle of biblical interpretation, that clearer texts interpret more difficult ones, he has been refuted again.

From his dubious references Shepherd has attempted and failed to prove that James has the last judgment in view. However, he needs that hypothesis because he intends to plug his (false) notion of James’ forensic justification into his (disproved) final judgement. That is his next stop. Having botched James 2:14–26 and misunderstood James’ illustrations, nonetheless, he will plow ahead to ask, how will a person be judged at the last judgment? “Will they escape from a judgment that is unto condemnation and death?” (26).

I will come back to this next month, the Lord willing.