The two justifications

[Eleanor]

Agreed. I never meant to suggest a solution to the seemingly contradictory statements by Paul and James would be the basis to not have James as part of the canon.
Sample of The statements that seem contradictory
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Paul - “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4–5).
I think I hear what you're saying.
Definition of Wisdom Literature (leastwise, the one I've read - Wisdom - This genre’s texts, like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, contain short sayings of generalized approaches to life, story in generality. They often are not designed to be understood as true in every particular moment.

James is wisdom literature???

That's a big much.

... seems very convenient definition to make if you need an excuse to not understand something the way it is literally read.
There's a lot of Hermeneutic rules out there. They sort of make some sense, but they are man-made and thus suspect to some degree. I personally like the Hermeneutic rule that the dispensationalists stress of literal interpretation, When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
Agreed. Yet, confirmation bias can lead one astray.
Just as I cannot prove a point using my Greek skills, so too my knowledge of how people derived hermeneutical rules has no foundation.
NOTE: I agree with your doctrinal conclusions. I just question to a small degree man-made hermeneutical rules.
I prefer the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid giggle )

 

[fastfredy0]

In Reformed theology it means literal according to the type of genre it is, and taking all the other hermeneutic rules into consideration along with it.
learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ultimately-with-rc-sproul/how-to-interpret-the-bible-literally

I think hermeneutic rules are worth considering but not infallible.

 

[fastfredy0]

James is wisdom literature???

That's a big much.

Maybe. @Arial said James was "wisdom literature" and my source agreed with her. Perhaps you can source your opinion and confront @Arial with you divergent opinion. I'm not well versed on the subject.

 

[Arial]

I think hermeneutic rules are worth considering but not infallible.

Of course they are not infallible, but they are also necessary. And we are using the laws of hermeneutics all the time in everything we read and hear and say. It is just that a great many people treat the Bible as though those rules do not apply. As though it were some mystical book. We never read a novel about time travel as though we were reading a historical account of actual events. We never read poetry as though we were reading a textbook on geology. We never read the ten commandments as though we were reading poetry, and we don't read Bible poetry as though we are reading law. We don't read apocalyptic poetry that uses symbols and representatives, literalisticly (not the same thing as literal). We don't read and interpret wisdom literature as though we were reading commandments or doctrine.

 

[makesends]

It may be of interest that non-dispensationalist (at least in the Reformed camp) also have the hermeneutic rule of interpreting according to the plain sense of the words and interpret literally. The difference falls into the definition of literal. Literal in dispensationalism has come to mean what you stated above. Though I am not sure that was the intent, it certainly is in practice.

I agree. In fact, it is, in part, this, that drew me to what I found Reformed thinking to be like; they are eminently practical while giving priority to respect for Scriptures as the Word of God. They do not treat Scriptures as though they are some separate holy text to be deciphered and dealt with at a distance, figured out and used for conjuring or otherwise approached at the will and purpose of the user.

"These are not just words for you—they are your life!" is what Moses told the Israelites concerning The Law; how much more, then, the whole of Scriptures, and the New Testament!

Eisegesis is a superstitious use of Scriptures, as though it is not meant to be read as a book, but rather a series of texts to be understood according to the will and presumptions of the user.

 

[Josheb]

James 2:24
“You see that a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

It was not just this verse that got Martin Luther upset. Basically, he didn’t like the whole epistle of James (the half-brother of our Lord). In his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, Luther called the epistle of James an “epistola straminea.” I don’t know an ounce of German, but I do know how most translate this expression: an “epistle of straw.” (I guess this means that some liberal wolf could easily blow this verse over. )

To Luther, this verse (and the epistle itself) had to go. It had no place in the Bible. Now Romans was the greatest of books according to Luther, and as far as he was concerned, the apostle Paul took precedence over this imposter, James.

Well, James is no imposter. And I chose this verse to give us a glimpse into the theological point that James was making in this section, and may I add... brilliantly.

I’d like to draw our attention to the very last word in the verse above: ALONE. For those who remember their English grammar, “alone” can be either an adjective or an adverb. Rather than fuss over the English translation, let’s go behind the scenes to the source, namely, the Greek.

The last two words that appear here in the Greek New Testament of this verse look like this: PISTEWS MONON. My point in transliterating these words is simply to comment on the endings of them. Note that their endings are different. The first word, PISTEWS, is the word for “faith.” This word ends with -EWS. The second word, MONON, is “alone, only.” This word ends with -ON.

What this means is that MONON (translated into English as “only” or “alone”) does not modify the noun, “faith.” And to really clear things up a bit, let me add that MONON is an adverb here. And like most adverbs, they “add to a verb” (hence, add-verb) additional meaning. Or, as we learn in grammar, adverbs modify verbs.

Unfortunately, there is no verb in the final phrase of this verse. But that is not at all uncommon in Greek. All one has to do is supply one. And not just anyone; the context will always supply it. And the verb we need to supply is right there in the same sentence, “is justified.” Now, watch what happens when we clear up this English translation to reflect the Greek... with precision:

“You see that a person is justified by works, and not only (justified) by faith.”

All I’ve done so far is clear up the translation. We still need an accurate interpretation. That is, we need to see how this fits into the overall presentation of James. And rather than providing a commentary of James chapter two, let me just make a few simple observations.

What James is demonstrating in this section of Scripture is that there is more than one kind of justification. (Note that I did NOT say that James is presenting more than one kind of SALVATION. Do not equate justification with salvation, something that Martin Luther should have known better than to do.)

James is reminding his readers that there is a justification by faith. And, there is ALSO a justification by works. The two should not be merged, as they are in some Calvinistic camps.

In a verse or two before 2:24, note this comment by James:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?”

(Note that James does not say, “Was not Abraham our descendant SAVED by works...)

Here, we see a justification BY WORKS. James is not talking about salvation. In fact, Abraham had turned to God for salvation many years before this event with his promised son. You will recall that Abraham was a man of God long before Isaac was born, and this event James is illustrating took place long after Abraham became a saved man.

The justification by works that James refers to is more or less a demonstration (a public expression, if you will) of one’s faith. To put it another way, justification BY WORKS is seen or made evident BEFORE MAN, whereas justification BY FAITH is “seen” only by Members of the Godhead.

In other words, you can claim to have faith and not have it, but you
can not claim to have works and not have them. Works we can see; faith can not be seen by people.
In fact, James illustrates this justification BY WORKS in the very next verse in this manner:

“And similarly, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another way?”

Quite naturally, Rahab was already a saved person long before she “hid” the messengers. What James is simply saying here is that Rahab’s faith can be "SEEN" or made PUBLIC... by her actions/works.

James is well aware of both justifications. His conclusion in this section is simply that (justification by) faith is what we exercise TOWARD God. But that kind of faith can not help a brother or sister in need unless we also have (a justification by) works, which is exercised TOWARD man. To James, faith toward God can not feed a hungry brother or sister. Unless one is moved to action (justification/vindication by works), brothers and sisters might go hungry.

I note also that James identifies those in need as “brothers” and “sisters,” indicating that James is talking about how saved people should act toward fellow Christians. He is NOT writing on HOW TO BECOME a believer, but HOW TO BEHAVE as a believer. Really, Martin Luther should have known better.

I prefer the translation Vindicated over Justification. Works can vindicate a man’s faith. Our faith vindicates our relationship with Christ, Godward. Could it be related to our sanctification (growing toward Christlikeness, this is vindication toward God) which occurs via faith. First vindication is toward mankind, whereas the second vindication is toward God.

All of which is to say, James knows nothing of a Faith AND Works Justification (singular).

Paul and James were writing about justification from two different perspectives, addressing to different concerns relevant to justification, and two different streams of thought and conduct in the early Church. Paul was writing about a person's (a Christian's) ability to stand before God (soteriologically) and plead his/her case relevant to the Law. James was writing about those claiming to (soteriologically) know God while behaving hypocritically (either through inaction or through class-based favoritism.

Luther, on the other hand, is best understood as a Protestant actively seeking to reform Catholicism, distancing sound doctrine (and himself) from the works-based justification that was considered synonymous with salvation (the RCC stance).