James, Paul, Justification, and Luther

It's no secret that the church has wrestled enormously with the issue of 'justification' in James and Paul. Whereas Paul seems clear that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Gal. 2 & 3; Rom. 3.28, 5.1; Acts 13.39), James seems equally clear that justification involves works as well as faith (James 2.14-26). This issue has been so significant that many theologians have felt obligated to take sides and either interpret one through the prism of the other, or flat out elevate the teachings of one and demote the teachings of the other. Martin Luther unfortunately took the latter approach. Luther famously referred to the epistle of James as an 'epistle of straw' because he believed that not only did it not present the Gospel, but actually contradicted it by allegedly contradicting Paul's teaching on justification. I would humbly submit that Luther was in error for a number of reasons. While the below is hardly a comprehensive examination of the perennial problem of James vs Paul on justification, the following is at least a start:

1) James and Paul are addressing different problems. While Paul (particularly in Galatians) is fighting against a return to lawkeeping and circumcision as salvifically additive to faith, the problem James is addressing is a glib faith that gives scant evidence of supernatural transformation through good works. James likely wrote his epistle before Paul's writings, so he was not attempting to forge some synthesis with Pauline theology (I would argue that a synthesis of James and Paul comes later in 2 Peter). Because the timing and respective contexts are different, one cannot simply put forth a surface level comparison and assume continuity between the authors' respective purposes in order to arrive at a conclusion of conflict or contradiction between the two.

2) What is often missed in this debate is the fact that James does indeed stress monergistic grace in his epistle (1.18-21). In addition, he certainly seems to regard faith as the assumed foundation of the Christian life. In 2.1, faith is assumed, with no mention of works. So James is hardly opposed to the Pauline emphasis of faith alone and God's primary and initiatory activity in salvation.

3) What is also often missed is the significance of the Jerusalem Council reported in Acts 15. Here, 15.1 makes clear that the notion of salvation through works was an issue very early on in the church and prompted the Council meeting. Beginning in 15.13, it is none other than James who makes a speech siding with Paul, Barnabas and Peter against the circumcision party.

4) So what then of James 2? Because of both #2 and #3 above, it is unlikely that James believes in justification through works in a salvific sense. It would run afoul of what he's already said in the epistle, not to mention his actions at the Jerusalem Council. For Paul, 'justification' is a technical term to describe God's activity of declaring someone righteous through faith, which then proves to be the basis of a person's salvation. This makes sense in light of the Judaizing errors he is combatting. Because the Judaizers believed in meritorious works leading to salvation (sorry NP people, you still haven't made your case to the contrary), Paul is emphasizing God's sovereignty in salvation and the primacy of faith alone. But for James, he is confronting a very different problem of glib faith with no accompanying transformation. So when James uses 'justification', he's not using it as a technical salvific term the way Paul does, but as a way of stressing the necessity of good works as a manifestation of authentic and salvific faith. James is using justification to stress the mark of a true Christian - good works that are the inevitable result of a changed life that comes with authentic saving faith.

I would argue that Paul and James are succinctly synthesized in Eph 2.9 - we are not saved by works, but we are saved for works.