St. James and Justification by the Law
For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
James 2:10
The passage quoted above is often used by Protestants as the starting point from which they present their understanding of “the gospel.” They will reason that, because even minuscule violations of divine Law are no different from serious violations, such that a white lie has the same gravity as murder in God’s eyes, this is why Christ had to vicariously fulfill the Law on our behalf. Protestants allege that Jesus “lived the perfect life we couldn’t,” so that His alien righteousness could be imputed to us through faith alone, i.e. counted as if it was really ours even though it’s not. Effectively, Protestants use James 2:10 to show that keeping the Law of God is impossible, and the reality that we become guilty of the whole Law by violating even part of it serves only to show us our sinfulness and push us towards their “gospel of grace.”
What’s always struck me about this interpretation of James 2:10 is that it’s literally the exact opposite conclusion that the Apostle James himself derives from his own teaching. You would think that, if our Lord’s brother truly had a Lutheran or Reformed soteriology, he would, like they often do, capitalize on his teaching that, “whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it,” in order to give a gospel presentation. That is, this statement would serve as a foundation from which James would begin a discussion about justification by faith alone through the imputed alien righteousness of Christ. However, not only does James not do this, but in a twist of irony he actually does end his teaching with the phrase, “faith alone,” only with a completely counter-Reformational meaning:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:24
This verse has sent generations of Lutheran and Reformed theologians spinning in circles, and for good reason. Let’s consider the broader context that led up to this notorious teaching, which includes our passage about violating even one point of the Law:
My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory… If you really fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the Law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the Law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
James 2:1, 8-13
The overarching context is St. James condemning the sin of “partiality.” That is, the sin of doing good in one area but doing evil in another. The chief example of this he cites is honoring a rich man while dishonoring a poor man (Js 2:2-7). The Apostle teaches that any Christians who do this are “committing sin” and “are convicted by the Law as transgressors.” This is because honoring one man does no good if you’re dishonoring another, just as, “if you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have [still] become a transgressor of the Law” (Js 2:11). This is the sense in which James teaches, “whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (Js 2:10). It’s not an attempt to say that all sins equally damage our relationship with God, such an interpretation is completely removed from the context. Rather, it’s saying something quite simple: you can’t justify your sin by pointing to those areas in your life where you don’t sin. You can’t say, “yeah I murdered someone, but it’s okay since I didn’t commit adultery!” No! Committing even one mortal sin corrupts the virtue of charity, without which faith is dead. That’s James’ point.
What’s perhaps more significant, and problematic for classical Protestantism, is the conclusion St. James derives from this discussion of partiality and God’s Law. Recall the contrast James drew between the righteous and the wicked: “If you really fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as transgressors” (Js 2:8-9). According to the Apostle, there are only two kinds of people: those who “are doing well” by “fulfill[ing] the royal Law,” and those who are “convicted by the Law as transgressors.” You’re either one or the other, a righteous Law-keeper or a wicked Law-breaker. Rather than using this to argue that no one is righteous and that’s why Jesus must keep the Law on our behalf, James instead encourages his fellow Christians to be righteous Law-keepers, which is why he concludes this paragraph with a warning:
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the Law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
James 2:12-13
Whereas Protestant commentators often conclude from James 2:10 that it’s impossible to “fulfill the royal Law,” St. James himself concludes that God’s impartial judgment is precisely why you must keep the whole Law! It’s precisely because failing “in one point” of the Law is akin to becoming “guilty of all of it,” that one must “fulfill the royal Law,” and behave as one who will “be judged under the Law of liberty.” The Apostle teaches that “judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy,” meaning that those who neglect “the royal Law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’” will be “shown no mercy” at the Final Judgment, since this is when “He will render to each one according to his works… For God shows no partiality” (Rom 2:6, 11). Given this context, it makes perfect sense why St. James immediately goes on to ask, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Js 2:14).
Before we even get into what James meant by “faith” and “works” in this passage, let’s just pause for a moment on the big picture. Consider, if the Apostle James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, truly believed what Protestants do about justification and the Law, would we ever expect him to take this discussion here? Would we ever expect a Protestant to take a teaching like, “whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (Js 2:10), and, rather than using this to explain why one is justified by faith alone, instead use it to explain why one is “justified by works and not by faith alone” (Js 2:24)? Would that ever be expected? Obviously not! This is the context we must keep in mind when considering what St. James meant by terms like “justification,” “faith,” and “works.” We must remember that the immediate context of this hotly debated section of Scripture is James teaching his fellow Christians to obey God’s Law so they don’t end up on the wrong side of the Final Judgment. If your interpretation of James 2:14-26 cannot fully account for that context, then it cannot be taken seriously as exegesis. With that in mind, let’s get into the debated texts.
For many Protestants, the solution to the “Paul vs James dilemma” is quite simple. Whereas, according to them, St. Paul taught that a man is justified by faith alone before God (Rom 4:3-5), St. James taught that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone before men (Js 2:18-24). That is, while Paul explained how one is actually justified in the heavenly court, James explained how one can prove that he’s been justified in the court of men. After all, Protestants agree that good works are a necessary part of the Christian life, some would even say “necessary for salvation,” they just hold that these works always flow from justification rather than serving as the ground of justification, which they locate in the righteousness of Christ alone. Protestants will take James 2:18, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works,” and conclude that all this talk about “justification by works” is really how you can prove to men (yourself included) that you have been saved by faith alone, not how you’re actually justified in the eyes of God. This, they maintain, is sufficient for explaining away St. James’ teaching that obedience to the Law is necessary for salvation at the Final Judgment.
However, there’s a medieval theologian who wasn’t quite persuaded by this reasoning. None other than the father of the Reformation himself, Martin Luther, pointed out why this attempted reconciliation between Paul and James ultimately fails:
[James] says that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4[:2-22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15[:6]. Now although this epistle [James] might be helped by an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle [James] is not the work of any apostle.
Martin Luther, Word and Sacrament I, p. 396.
Luther noticed something about James 2:18-26 that many Protestants today overlook. When speaking about “justification by works,” James cites the exact same verse that St. Paul did in Romans, Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” According to the Lutheran interpretation of Romans 4:3-5, Moses’ teaching in Genesis 15:6 cannot involve works in any way whatsoever, since Paul clearly says that this passage is about “the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly,” and how “his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:5). In Luther’s mind, when St. Paul looks at Genesis 15:6, he sees Abraham being counted as righteous in the eyes of God solely because of his faith, and completely detached from anything else he’s done. When Abraham is declared righteous, he’s “the one who does not work,” and this lack of works is precisely why his faith must be “counted” or “reckoned” as righteousness in the first place.
However, when St. James looks at Genesis 15:6, he clearly sees “that faith was active along with [Abraham’s] works, and faith was completed by his works,” for which reason his faith was “counted… as righteousness” (Js 2:23), something the Apostle equates with “justification by works” (Js 2:24). For James, faith apart from works cannot be counted as righteousness, it cannot justify, “the one who does not work” does not have a righteous faith. Rather, it’s only when faith is “completed by works” that James believes it can be “counted… as righteousness” (Js 2:22-23), for “faith apart from works is dead” (Js 2:26). This is why James says that Genesis 15:6 was “fulfilled,” not merely proven, in Genesis 22, and that it was Abraham’s obedience to God that allowed him to be “called the friend of God” (Js 2:23). These works weren’t merely proof that Abraham was already declared righteous, rather, in this context, they were the very basis upon which the declaration of “righteousness” was “fulfilled,” meaning that works are truly causal and not evidentiary in James.
Thus, if Luther’s interpretation of Paul is correct, then we truly do have a contradiction with James. Paul sees Abraham’s righteousness as completely detached from his works, while James sees Abraham’s righteousness as intimately connected to his works. Since both Paul and James associate being “counted as righteous” with “justification,” there can be no doubt that they were operating with the same definition of that term: justification before God, not before men. If St. Paul believes that this justification happens “apart from works,” St. James believes that this justification happens “by works,” and they both meant the same thing by “works,” then this is an irreconcilable contradiction. Thus, once again, there’s no squaring the standard Protestant interpretation of Paul with the epistle of James. Luther understood this, which is why he denounced God’s inspired Word as an “epistle of straw” and “not the work of any apostle.”
Further, that James spoke of justification before God, and not merely before men, can be known from reading the examples of “justification by works” he cites in their original contexts. We can simply ask, who was Abraham trying to prove his faith to by sacrificing Isaac (Js 2:21)? Was it to men? Certainly not! Genesis 22:1 directly tells us that “God tested Abraham,” and so it was before God that Abraham was justifying his faith, not before men. Or consider the example of Rahab (Js 2:25), were her works merely proof that she had already received God’s mercy in faith? On the contrary, the Israelite spies told Rahab, “If you do not tell this business of ours, then when the Lord gives us the land we will deal kindly and faithfully with you” (Josh 2:14). Rahab’s works weren’t merely proof that she had already been spared from God’s judgment on Canaan, rather they were the means by which she obtained this mercy. In other words, because Rahab was merciful to the Israelite spies, this is why Yahweh was merciful to her. This is exactly what St. James taught just a few passages earlier, “judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment” (Js 2:13). Showing mercy isn’t just “proof before men” that you’ve already been shown mercy, rather it’s the condition for receiving God’s mercy at the Judgment. That is why, “Rahab the prostitute [was] justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way” (Js 2:25). Justification by works is before God, not men.
As should be clear, unlike the Protestant interpretation of justification by works, all of this perfectly coheres with the above exegesis of James 2:1-13. Since we “are to be judged under the Law of liberty” (Js 2:12), i.e. since we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (Js 2:24), this is why we must “speak” and “act” accordingly. The criteria of our judgment will not be our profession of faith alone, it will not be the righteousness of Christ, rather it will be whether or not we have “really fulfill[ed] the royal Law” (Js 2:8). If we have, then we “do well,” but if we haven’t, then we will be “convicted by the Law as transgressors” (Js 2:9), for which we will be “shown no mercy” at the Judgment (Js 2:13). As St. Paul teaches, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor 5:10). Remember, the entire reason why Protestants insist on having Christ’s imputed alien righteousness as the sole ground of our justification is so that we don’t have to rely on our own obedience to the Law for salvation. If St. James really believed this, then why would he emphatically teach that we must fulfill the whole Law or else be condemned (Js 2:9-11), that it’s truly possible to fulfill the whole Law (Js 2:8), and that the Law will be our ultimate judge (Js 2:12)? Wouldn’t we expect that, if James was a Protestant, he would go out of his way to deny all of this when discussing justification by works? I certainly would, and so the fact that this is the very context in which he chooses to highlight these realities is conclusive evidence that the standard Protestant reading of James is wrong.
At this point, it’s been shown that the classical Protestant understanding of justification is incompatible with the Apostle James’ soteriology. However, it hasn’t yet been (positively) shown that this teaching is compatible with Catholic soteriology, and so this is the matter to which we now turn. Towards the end of James 2, the brother of our Lord actually does seem to get into some of the “metaphysics of salvation.” We already saw James’ teaching that faith is “completed by works” (Js 2:22), and this is what causes faith to make a person “righteous” (Js 2:23). This already gives us a slight window into what James believes justification actually is, i.e. what constitutes its formal cause (the actual form it takes in the soul), which is the main contention between Catholics and Protestants. A few verses later, the Apostle gives an analogy that opens this window even further:
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
James 2:26
For many Protestant soteriologies, the formal cause of justification is solely the imputed alien righteousness of Christ, from which good works naturally flow over time. Thus works are not the animating principle of saving faith, they’re not what make faith efficacious for salvation, rather they’re the necessary result or fruit of faith. This is in contrast to Catholic soteriology, wherein the formal cause of justification is the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “With justification, [the virtues of] faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us” (CCC 1991). Hence Catholics see “works,” i.e. other virtues that belong properly to the soul and order it to God, not simply as the result of faith, but rather as the animating principle of faith, that which gives life to faith. This comports perfectly with St. James’ teaching that, “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” A living body doesn’t “produce” or “result in” a spirit, rather the spirit, the soul, is what gives life to the body. In fact, a living body cannot, even in principle, be conceived of apart from a spirit. So too, according to God’s Word, a “living faith” is not one that “produces” works per se, rather works are the very means by which faith is made alive. A living faith cannot, even in principle, be conceived of apart from the virtues of hope and charity. This is why St. Paul could truly say, “if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).
When considered in itself, faith is indeed virtuous. It’s the heroic assent of the intellect and will to God’s revelation, “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). However, this is the very faith that James says is “dead” when separated from works. After all, a body that is separated from its spirit is a real body, not a fake body, it’s just a body that doesn’t do anything. Likewise, faith separated from works is real faith, just faith that doesn’t avail for salvation. This is, once again, how James can say that faith is “completed” or “perfected” by works, that works are what give life to faith and make it efficacious for salvation. Just as the spirit enables the body to live, so too do works enable faith to live. This is why James cites the very verse that Paul does, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and says this is an example of a person being “justified by works and not by faith alone.” It is living faith itself that God counts as righteousness, because this faith is animated by obedience to God’s Law. Faith alone cannot justify precisely because “whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (Js 2:10). The Law commands faith (cf. 1 Jn 3:23), and so you do well by having faith, however, it also commands charity, and so just as a man cannot justify murder by pleading that he’s innocent of adultery (Js 2:11), so too can a man not consider himself justified if he has faith but no charity.
This is why the traditional reconciliation between St. Paul and St. James is not to say that they understood the term “justification” differently, but rather to say that they understood the terms “faith” and “works” differently. Whereas James understood “faith alone” as the virtue of faith divorced from the other theological virtues, which he considered “works,” Paul understood “faith” as “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6), i.e. faith formed by the virtues of charity and hope, and “works” as works “according to the flesh” (Rom 4:1), i.e. done apart from God’s grace. This is why, without contradicting himself, St. Paul can say with St. James, “the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit… if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom 8:4, 13). The righteous requirement of the Law, “the royal Law” as James calls it (Js 2:8), commands us to have faith, hope, and charity, and these are the virtues by which we obtain “sanctification and its end, eternal life” (Rom 6:22). These are “works” in the sense that James uses that term, since they are virtues of the soul that order it in accordance with God’s Law, however, these are not “works” in the sense that Paul uses that term, since all virtues, including faith, are “the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). It’s not our own effort that creates the theological virtues, rather it’s the purely gratuitous infusion of God’s grace into our souls.
In conclusion, it’s been demonstrated above that not only does the Apostle James’ teaching on justification contradict most (if not all) traditional Protestant soteriologies, but it does so in a way that directly confirms Catholic soteriology. Whereas Protestants generally believe that keeping God’s Law is impossible, and this is why we need to be justified by Christ’s alien righteousness received through faith alone, Catholicism follows the teaching of St. James and St. Paul that “the righteous requirement of the Law,” “the royal Law” (Js 2:8), may truly be “fulfilled” by those “walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4). The righteous will truly be “judged under the Law of liberty” (Js 2:12), and, for this very reason, faith alone is not enough for salvation. Instead, the righteous need “works,” the virtues, to animate their faith, to give life to their faith as the spirit gives life to the body, in order that they might be among those “who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,” to whom God “will give eternal life” (Rom 2:7). For truly, “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Js 2:24).