Introduction

My allegory based on Psalm 2 continues. But now, Spaul has joined Thames in frowning on Shepsema, who is still smarting from Thames’ rebuke. “Shepsema,” Spaul says, “you’ll be vexed…yes…vexed! You didn’t hear the decree, did you?”

Shepsema, bewildered, asks, “Decree? What decree?”

“God’s decree! God has set his king on his holy hill of Zion! Do you understand? By decree Jesus is king, and his people are given to him by that decree. Oh, Shepsema,” as they walk away, “beware…it’s kindled!”

Shepsema, upset by the decree, wonders what is kindled.

I continue my analysis of Norman Shepherd’s book The Way of Righteousness,¹ having shown previously that from his dubious references Shepherd has attempted and failed to prove that James has the last judgment in view. However, Shepherd needs the hypothesis that James has the last judgment in view because Shepherd intends to plug his (false) notion of James’ forensic justification into his (disproved) final judgment. That is Shepherd’s next stop. Having botched James 2:14–26 and misunderstood James’ illustrations, nonetheless, Shepherd will plow ahead to ask, how will a person be judged then at the last judgment?

Shepherd’s Faith That Works

I forecast that justification in the last judgment will be by a combination of faith and works because that’s where Shepherd’s whole fabrication is leading. He will say, based on James 2:14–26 and the broad context of James, that those forensically justified in the last judgment will be justified by a faith that works. However, in this exercise the parts won’t come together because the parts don’t exist.

I have already adequately demonstrated that James never said a word about forensic justification and that James’ so-called references to the final judgment don’t exist. Rather, those references suited James’ exhortations; they were not pointing beyond them to the last judgment, as Shepherd supposes. So far, then, I have demonstrated that no idea of forensic justification comes from James; that James’ scattered references to judging were only intended to add urgency to his exhortations; and that James has consistently kept in view the trying of his brethren’s faith, to vindicate the true believers in the Lord’s church over against the many false brethren.² Having seen that there is absolutely nothing in James’ epistle to support Norman Shepherd’s (false) view so far, I strongly doubt that Shepherd can pull off an ex nihilo creation of a final justification that involves faith and a person’s works, when nothing in scripture teaches it.

We consider now the final section of Shepherd’s analysis of James, “The Meaning of Justification by Works” (26–32). Here Shepherd enters into some final observations of James 2:14–26, beginning with this statement: “The first and most important observation we must make is simply that James is not denying that justification is by faith. He is not saying that justification is by works alone” (26). Shepherd does not say it specifically, but he sows the seed: according to Shepherd, James has some special combination of faith and works up his sleeve. Shepherd needs this insinuation because, after anchoring in the reader’s mind the idea that James is teaching justification by faith, Shepherd will build a bridge from that faith to works in such a way that he “satisfies” James’ statements yet does not directly contradict Paul in Romans 3:10–28 and in Galatians 2:16. Clever, but we’ve seen this confounding of scripture before. At this point, faith and works are courting each other; soon the two shall be one!

The green light for that comes in these words: “Verses 14–26 [of James 2] are designed to establish justification by faith in a pointed and precise way” (26; emphasis added). Notice carefully those words! Shepherd is able to see the “pointed and precise way” in verses 14–26, but he could not see the pointed and precise way in which James speaks of that kind of faith in verse 14. No matter; we follow Shepherd now as he introduces James’ new and precise way of not denying justification by faith, even though Shepherd says that James adds works.

How will it be done?

Shepherd next states that James’ brethren are “believers whose faith is being tested by various trials,” with which we would agree. We would agree also when Shepherd writes, “James urges perseverance in faith.” We would also agree that “James offers both encouragement and assurance to that end” (26). Shepherd then offers the conclusion that James “urges faith not as a meritorious human virtue making a person worthy of being saved, but as total dependence on Jesus Christ” (27). Sounds good, but I suspect that total-dependence faith combined with James’ new and precise way of defining justification will involve some kind of human activity. But we will follow along, our antennae extended. Having laid out his path that James is establishing justification by faith in a new, precise way and having given a suspicious definition of faith, Shepherd moves on.

Step one of this procedure: Shepherd’s misunderstanding of James 2:14–26 is now patched into the above thesis about faith. The admixture begins, and at the end of the paragraph Shepherd concludes that Paul and James “both teach justification by faith” and that “both writers have soteric faith and soteric justification in view” (27). James does not, but we go along for the ride. Significantly, Shepherd leaves out important details in these statements. Paul teaches justification by faith without works (that is, A – B), and (according to Shepherd) James teaches justification by faith with works (A + B). Therefore, Shepherd’s statement, “James and Paul cannot be set over against one another,” is not true; it’s a half-truth. James (according to Shepherd) adds works, while Paul subtracts works—a major (conflicting) difference—so that James and Paul must be set over against one another. In fact, if Shepherd’s half-truth were the whole truth, Paul’s whole argument in Romans 3 would be contradicted. For example, he would be wrong when he says, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified” (v. 20), because James (according to Shepherd’s interpretation of James) would say, “Oh yes, it’s by works, not by faith only!” That is conflict, which means that James and Paul are definitely against one another, at least until Shepherd can do something about their differences.

How shall Shepherd’s magic work? How will the two (faith and works) become one? Here are James’ words: “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (2:24). Here are Paul’s words: “Justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28). One says, faith with works; the other says, faith without works. Faith with works (A + B) and faith without works (A – B) are not the same. “Both teach justification by faith” (27). That’s false. It’s a half-truth. Only when their vital qualifications are omitted can one say, “Both [James and Paul] teach justification by faith.” So far, then, in building his bridge from faith to faith and works, Shepherd begins with a half-truth and misleading statements. But somehow Shepherd will make A + B = A – B. However, we are already aware of this word game. We have seen it before.

Next, then, we are told to believe that James 2:24 “does not teach salvation or justification by works apart from faith or even justification by works in addition to faith” (27; the emphasis is Shepherd’s). “Not…by works apart from faith”—that is a clue and also a loaded sentence. The action word Shepherd chose is apart. Not apart from faith. However, a problem arises with Shepherd’s choice of the words not apart from. The Greek word used in James 2:24 is µόνον, and apart from is not its basic meaning. Shepherd chooses it because the English suits his purpose of conjoining faith and works, but it is not what µόνον means in this verse. Apart from in English is conceptually loaded; that is, a-part suggests the idea of parts, from which the idea of fitting the parts back together is a small step. The King James Version is correct in using only (forty times with the negative) because µόνον when used with a noun (faith) is used “to separate one person or thing from others”³—that is, this and that, A and B, but definitely not AB. For example, Paul says, ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐ µόνον δεθῆναι ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴµ ἑτοίµως ἔχω ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόµατος τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. “I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13). Paul distinguishes two things with οὐ µόνον: “to be bound” and “to die.” He does not speak of one being set apart from the other but of one in addition to the other. Also, when µόνον is used with the conjunction καὶ (and, present in James 2:24), the second word does not include the first (Bauer, 529). Therefore, in James 2:24 faith and works are being distinguished, not set apart, and spoken of additionally, as in faith and works, not faith alone.

Shepherd’s other phrase, “not…even justification by works in addition to faith,” adds more action words, “not…in addition.” Here is a statement, according to Shepherd, that eliminates all combinations of faith and works that amount to simple addition of the two. With that we have Shepherd’s magic marriage. He is saying faith cannot be separated from works, and it cannot be in addition to works. What’s left? Why, “faith-works,” of course. Shepherd has just conducted a faith and works marriage. The new couple is “working faith.” He has done it! A + B equals A – B. They are the same. The two are one.

We have followed Shepherd’s line of reasoning for display purposes only. None of it is true. It is built on a half-truth, twisted and misinterpreted scriptures, fabricated translations, and deceptive language.

Consider, according to James himself, a man is justified “by works…and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Mark his words carefully! Be alert to word games being played. James himself says, “By works…and not by faith only.” For James the action word is and. A simple glance at verse 24 in the Greek verifies this. Here is what James says: ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως µόνον. Notice the highlighted word καὶ, which means and. That makes it quite simple. James is thinking of works and faith, two separate and distinct things; not two things conjoined into one, as Shepherd would like us to believe. Also, as stated, καὶ with µόνον, when used with a noun (faith), is used “to separate one person or thing from others” (Bauer, 529). It is reasonable to conclude, contrary to Shepherd, that James has been considering two things all throughout verses 14–26. He has been exhorting his brethren that they must have both faith and works to be vindicated. His two examples, Abraham and Rahab the harlot, both had faith and works, and that is why they were vindicated. That was James’ question in verse 14. It was about the necessity of two things, but the individual had neither; can that faith without works save him? In verse 18 the exchange is about two things: one man has faith but not works. Supposedly, in verse 19 the devils have one but not the other. Abraham’s faith, thirty years later, was vindicated by his works (v. 21). The difference here is important. James is speaking of two distinct things throughout his exhortation, while Shepherd makes James speak of two things conjoined into one (in verse 24), so that the works are coming out of the faith rather than in addition to it (as fruit). His whole theory requires this conjoining of the two because without it he is stuck with justification by faith and works—a most vulnerable position—and that is not where he wants to be. In fact, if he doesn’t have this conjoining, he is in grave trouble because he has proved (falsely) that James is writing about faith and works for forensic justification, a most un-Reformed theology. Whereas the language indicates clearly that James is referring to two things, namely, “Ye see that by works a man is vindicated, and not by faith only.” Correctly understood, James 2:24 corroborates James’ teaching of the entire section; the verse says what the antinomian brethren need to hear rather than presents some new (novel) and precise (unknown) understanding of faith.

That “precise way” of James now shows itself. Shepherd says that both James and Paul are talking about the same justifying faith. Shepherd says, “James is talking about…the same faith that Paul talks about when he says that justification is by faith and not by observing the law” (27). Again, we consider this misleading talk because this is a hypothetical, incomplete statement. Shepherd supposes that they are the same—the same “justifying faith”—but if one justifies with works and the other doesn’t, they are entirely different in character. Only one faith will justify, and the other will not justify; therefore, it may not be called “justifying faith.” Therefore, they are not the same. But Shepherd needs us to believe that both James and Paul have the same faith and justification in view. Then, all Shepherd needs to do is harmonize with works and without works. Interesting development. Follow it carefully because now Shepherd says that James has “more” in his words “about this faith” in James 2:24 (27). James’ words, Shepherd says, “focus our attention on the kind of faith that justifies and saves” (27; emphasis added). Did I hear that right? “Kind of faith”? Funny that Shepherd couldn’t see the exact same thing in James 2:14, as a previous article pointed out. But now the kind of faith is needed; previously, it destroyed Shepherd’s whole theory.

Now, while we have our attention focused on the kind of faith that justifies and saves, the whole thing comes out practically in one breath:

Justification is by faith, but not by a faith that stands all alone devoid of action and unproductive of good works. Saving faith in Jesus Christ is a faith that works. It is a living and active faith. Only a living and active faith justifies and saves. That is the point James is making in verses 14–26. (27)

Here is Shepherd’s whole position in a few sentences. The rest of his comments on James seek to bolster this. It is quite a mouthful, but we will examine it minutely before ever swallowing any of it. I have successfully disproved all of it so far by proving that James did not have soteric justification by faith in mind, and neither did he have a future, forensic judgment in mind. Now we will examine carefully and prove that James does not have Shepherd’s conjoined faith in mind, that is, a faith that works.

Going back over the James 2 passage, Shepherd returns to verse 14 and states that James’ question “whether a faith that has no deeds—faith without obedience—can save” implies a negative answer and that the following verses illustrate that (27). A poor person receives only words, not necessities, from a so-called brother. Shepherd says that James’ illustration allows this comment: “The wish without the deed accomplishes nothing. It does not serve to clothe or to feed the needy person. In the same way, faith without deeds accomplishes nothing. It does not save and it does not justify” (27). We agree with every word of that statement except the last. If James were allowed to speak for himself, he would say, “It does not save, and it does not vindicate.” As I have demonstrated, Shepherd misses the precision of James’ words in verse 14 and in so doing assumes that James is speaking of faith in general, while he is actually speaking of faith specifically, namely that kind of faith (without works). James then asks, “Can that kind of faith save him?” A rhetorical question implying a negative answer but with no answer immediately given. The answer is given as James elaborates in verses 15–26, advancing his theme: faith being tried to see if it is genuine and therefore vindicated. Verse 14 sets up the test. This has been covered in my previous articles. But we notice the absence on Shepherd’s part of any elaboration of the text in terms of James’ stated purpose of trying (proving) faith to produce patience, leading to faith’s completion. Nothing except the unjustified intrusion of “justify,” based on his mistaken notion that James intends to teach forensic justification.

Next, referring to verses 15–16, where the destitute brother receives nothing, Shepherd says, “The illustration brings us once again into the sphere of Matthew 25:31–46” (28). In explaining this text, Shepherd writes, “The thought is not simply that righteous people show themselves to be truly righteous people by the help they give to those in need. Jesus is saying in Matthew 25 that only the righteous—those whose faith is wrought out in deeds—enter into eternal life” (28).

I consider those remarks shallow and duplicitous, for they distort our Lord’s words and actions in Matthew 25:31–46. By lifting out of context only that which appears to support his view, Shepherd has passed over the whole text, which rejects his view. I now give a more serious examination of those verses because in Matthew 25:31–46 our Lord’s final judgment and its vindication are the main features of the text. And possibly, James patterned his epistle after its teaching. 

Shepherd’s Final Judgment

Matthew 25:31–33 present Jesus’ coming in glory to judge the nations. Sitting upon the royal throne of his glory, he separates his sheep from the goats, setting the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. This fulfills Romans 14:10. It is the beginning of his royal judgment: choosing who shall stand at his right hand (Ps. 16:11; 17:7; 20:6; 45:9; 110:1; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 12:2). Setting apart is the basic meaning of the Greek word for judgment.⁴ That final separation is the first feature of the judgment explained in Matthew 25. It is already “a judging-process” (Vos, 261). Jesus exercises his sovereign authority, claiming his sheep. The elect are immediately brought to Christ’s right hand, the position of salvation. They at last possess final salvation. I note in passing—because Jesus here issues divine, royal verdicts—that the righteousness of those verdicts will also be demonstrated.

Next, Jesus proclaims that “the sheep” are the “blessed” of his Father (vv. 33–34). The perfect participle indicates completed action before the main verb: they were 

blessed…with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace. (Eph. 1:3–6; emphasis added) 

These verses explain Matthew 25:34. In love the Father blessed the elect before creation, giving them to Christ to be saved by him in the covenant of grace. Now, they are standing before him “holy and without blame.” That also is a feature of their final judgment (Ps. 33:12; 135:4; Prov. 16:4; John 6:37, 39; 15:16; 17:2, 6, 9; Rom. 8:29–30; Eph. 1:4–5; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9).

Next, Jesus from his royal throne graciously and authoritatively pronounces his royal judgment upon those who have been predestinated to the adoption of children and stand blameless before him. He commands the blessed children to receive their inheritance, the kingdom prepared for them from before the foundation of the world. Matthew 25:34 is Jesus’ verdict and their final judgment (Isa. 8:18; Matt. 13:43; Gal. 4:6–7; Heb. 2:10–13; 1 John 3:1).

I call special attention to the fact that Matthew 25 presents the elect at Christ’s right hand, already “blessed” of God the Father and righteous in Christ by faith when they appear. All their sin is already covered in the blood of Christ (John 5:24; Rom. 8:1). None of their sin is ever mentioned (Ps. 103:12; Isa. 44:22; Jer. 31:34). Then, in fulfillment of their predestination to sonship by the Father, Jesus issues his royal command to them to take possession of their kingdom inheritance! (κληρονοµήσατε τὴν ἡτοιµασµένην ὑµῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου, Matt. 25:34). The word κληρονοµήσατε means “to inherit,” “to acquire,” “to take possession” (Bauer, 435). Its form is aorist imperative, indicating that Jesus as judge gives his royal judgment, commanding his sheep to take immediate possession of the kingdom at that moment. The aorist tense being punctiliar signifies completed action.⁵ That is Jesus’ verdict and their judgment! The judge has spoken. His judgment is now finished. It is a gracious verdict concerning his sheep. Nothing further is said to them. Their judgment being over and finalized, they immediately go into the heavenly kingdom at Jesus’ command. Only after his judgment of them is completed and after going into their Father’s kingdom are their works then publicly proclaimed (Matt. 25:35–36). Jesus speaks of his people, stating in a personal way what they did. The purpose of Jesus’ stating their works after his judgment verdict is to vindicate his verdict as well as to vindicate them as being righteous in him “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Vos, 277).

If someone (Shepherd?) is looking for a forensic judgment based on faith and works, he will be disappointed in Matthew 25, because no works are cited before Jesus’ final verdict is given on which to base his judgment (see the procedure in Acts 24:1–22; 25:9, 17–27; 26:31–32). Jesus’ final verdict is given first, and then the elect’s works are cited, as already mentioned, for the purpose of demonstrating the righteousness of Jesus’ verdict. The simplest works are mentioned, but the elect don’t remember doing them. They did not do those things for merit, to be justified; they did them naturally from the heart, proof that they were righteous and living by faith in gratitude for their salvation.

It is vital to recognize that the elect’s works are proclaimed by Jesus after his final command to take possession of the kingdom. I repeat that because it is a most important element for rightly understanding Matthew 25:31–46. The text is a God-centered and Christ-vindicating judgment scene. It vindicates Jesus as the righteous one! Jesus, sitting on the throne of judgment, commands, “Inherit the kingdom!” The king commands his elect: “Take possession of your kingdom!” The elect respond to his voice and go into the final kingdom. Then their works, given after his verdict, must be publicly proclaimed to vindicate the king’s verdict, to demonstrate that it was just and based on valid evidence. The reverse would not be true, that is, that their works were brought forth as evidence that should produce a verdict, because the verdict has already been given. It was pronounced in verse 34. Therefore, justification or condemnation based on faith and works, as Shepherd and many others envision, is not what this text teaches. This text teaches the vindication of Jesus the righteous judge and of his righteous judgment of the elect and the reprobate. 

However, a question remains concerning the three parables told by Jesus in Matthew 24:45–25:30, which follow his admonitions that no one knows the day or the hour of his return (24:36) and that we must be ready because the Lord will come when we don’t expect it (24:44). First is the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves. The faithful servant was ready because when the Lord returned, he found the servant faithfully serving his Lord. The servant was then pronounced “blessed.” The other servant’s thinking was, “My lord delayeth his coming.” So the servant beat his fellow servants and got drunk (24:48–49). Similar is the parable of the ten virgins. The wise prepared for the return of the groom, and the foolish did not prepare (25:10–11). That was serious because the Lord said to the foolish, “I know you not.” The third parable is similar: the distribution of the talents, their use and nonuse, and the rewards of those who received the talents. That parable ends with the mention of hell and weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus’ purpose with these parables was obviously to warn his disciples of unfaithfulness because they did not know the day or hour of his return. When he spoke, they had time to be faithful and serve their Lord before his return. That is why in all three parables the pattern is different from that of Matthew 25:31–46. The pattern Jesus established in the three parables was works done, works examined, verdict given, then reward or punishment. These parables illustrate how important the responsibility of faithfulness is, as well as the result of unfaithfulness. In all three parables the Lord returned and settled with each individual according to how each had lived and served. But the parables particularly trace the whole time for preparing and serving, allowing his disciples to see the faithful and the unfaithful, as well as the final end of each when the time for preparing is over. But then, in Matthew 25:31–46, the pattern is different. Not in parables but in plain language Jesus clearly stated what will happen when he does finally return. Jesus taught his disciples that when the judgment day comes, the time of warning and preparation is past. There is no more warning, no more preparation, no time for anything—just the king’s judgment—so those steps of the former pattern are omitted. The former pattern cannot be the pattern followed at the last judgment because at the last judgment men appear as they truly are, elect or reprobate; either given to Christ to be saved by him or passed over by God in his sovereign will; their earthly lives now over and how they lived completed.

What is left, then, is for the last judgment to reveal the final separation of elect and reprobate and the righteousness of God’s predestination of each, vindicated by the works of each publicly proclaimed. The elect loved and served Christ by the faith given them. The reprobate lived wicked and sinful lives and rejected Christ and were justly condemned. Note that their condemnation is also proclaimed before their works are cited (Matt. 25:41). 

Finally, I call attention to the fact that the concluding verse of this judgment scene, after all the confirming evidence has been presented, is not a verdict nor the judge’s giving his final verdict, but is merely a factual statement, which confirms that Jesus’ judgments infallibly take effect (v. 46). There is no command or verdict in verse 46; it is a descriptive statement of fact. I conclude that there is nothing in Matthew 25:31–46 that supports Shepherd’s theory; rather, the text, when allowed to speak for itself, conclusively disproves it.

The same is true of 2 Corinthians 5:10, which speaks of the last judgment but says nothing of justification by faith and works. It says that we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, which Matthew 25:31–46 has demonstrated; and that we all shall receive according to what we did, which Matthew 25:31–46 demonstrated also. The Greek is ἵνα κοµίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώµατος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον. Note well: the verse speaks of receiving (κοµίσηται—“to get,” “to receive,” “to obtain” [Bauer, 443]; πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν—“to do,” “to accomplish” [Bauer, 705]; John 5:29; Rom. 7:15; 1 Thess. 4:11). Each sheep and goat received his final reward according to what he did, not because of what he did. The verb contains no forensic element (κοµίσηται is not a synonym for or equal to κρίµa—Heb. 10:36; 11:39; 1 Pet. 1:9; 5:4). The elect did good and received good; the reprobate did evil and received evil. Exactly as they did, they received. As stated with both, their works were cited after their judgment to vindicate the Lord’s verdict about them. Vindicating Christ’s judgment, that each received justly according to what they did, is what Matthew 25:31–46 is all about; vindicating the righteousness of God (Acts 17:31). Again, nothing for Shepherd.

Finally, I have finished with Shepherd’s abuse of James, having sufficiently demonstrated that the doctrine of “working faith” based on James 2:14–26 is a fraud. I have proved that there is nothing in James of a final, forensic justification justifying believers on the basis of their faith and works. It has been a long and winding road, but I have reached my goal. I have successfully defended the truth of God’s word against a noted adversary. In doing so hard words have been spoken. They were necessary. Just as Jesus said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan!” I have spoken in that same manner, believing The Way of Righteousness, written by Norman Shepherd, deserves sharp criticism. However, my words were not intended to judge the heart or faith of my former (beloved) professor but only his words, which are deserving of condemnation.

Now it is appropriate to address Professor Shepherd’s acolytes. How long will you halt between two opinions? You cannot hide behind the disproved theory of “working faith” anymore. The truth has been placed before you. “Working faith” is another gospel. Will you believe that you can be saved by an impure grace, alloyed with the smell of man’s (filthy rags) works? 

Read Malachi:

If ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?…ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick…cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing” (1:8, 13–14).

Therefore, choose this day! If Jehovah is God, follow him! And if your idol is god, go after him. But you cannot halt between the two! You have seen that on these pages with your own eyes. The only acceptable offering for sin is the pure and spotless Lamb of God, who laid down his life for his elect! I counsel you to follow wisdom; she will be vindicated by her children. Shepherd’s acolytes will not. “The Lord shall have them in derision…Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.”