Can you explain Romans 4 and James 2?
Introduction. Usually when Romans 4 and James 2 are compared the comparison is regarding Paul's statement that justification is not by works and James' statement that justification is by works (Rom. 4: 1-5, Jas. 2: 14-26). Is there a contradiction between Paul and James?
Paul is considering justification from the Jewish perspective. Romans is correctly said to be a treatise on the subject of justification by faith in Christ as opposed to justification by deeds of the law (or of law, 3, 4, 7, 11). Observe, Paul is focusing on Abraham "pertaining to the flesh" (Rom. 4: 1). The Jew believed he could earn salvation. In fact, if the Jew were justified by the law, he would have to merit salvation, perfect keeping of law. Hence, if Abraham "were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory...," Paul argues (vs. 2). If one could acquire salvation simply by law keeping, God would owe such a one justification, Paul reasons in verse four (see 11: 5, 6).
James is addressing the justification of the Christian. James freely acknowledged God's grace (1: 17, 4: 6). James' prompting question was, "What doeth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, ;and have not works? can faith save him?" (Jas. 2: 14). "Faith" here is faith only, no actions. James then began to answer his question by a series of illustrations (vss. 15-23). He concludes, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (vss. 24, 26). James is not considering earning salvation (Paul's subject), but how faith must be active - even under God's grace.
Thus, Paul and James are not contradicting each other. They are simply writing on justification from different perspectives. Since God's word is inspired, there are no contradictions (2 Tim. 3: 16, 17).
Paul is considering justification from the Jewish perspective. Romans is correctly said to be a treatise on the subject of justification by faith in Christ as opposed to justification by deeds of the law (or of law, 3, 4, 7, 11). Observe, Paul is focusing on Abraham "pertaining to the flesh" (Rom. 4: 1). The Jew believed he could earn salvation. In fact, if the Jew were justified by the law, he would have to merit salvation, perfect keeping of law. Hence, if Abraham "were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory...," Paul argues (vs. 2). If one could acquire salvation simply by law keeping, God would owe such a one justification, Paul reasons in verse four (see 11: 5, 6).
James is addressing the justification of the Christian. James freely acknowledged God's grace (1: 17, 4: 6). James' prompting question was, "What doeth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, ;and have not works? can faith save him?" (Jas. 2: 14). "Faith" here is faith only, no actions. James then began to answer his question by a series of illustrations (vss. 15-23). He concludes, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (vss. 24, 26). James is not considering earning salvation (Paul's subject), but how faith must be active - even under God's grace.
Thus, Paul and James are not contradicting each other. They are simply writing on justification from different perspectives. Since God's word is inspired, there are no contradictions (2 Tim. 3: 16, 17).