Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. II, 213-214, s. v.
dikaioo).
This interpretation appears to have an inescapable implication, if we give
credence to an additional commentator, and to warrant a specific conclusion,
if we are to believe a further commentator. The inescapable implication is
this. “James uses the concepts of righteousness and justification in the sense
of actual, measurable, perceived goodness, just as Jesus used it in the Sermon
of the Mount. James did not have in mind the ‘imputed righteousness’ that
Paul taught Rom. 3-4; Gal. 3). It is doubtful whether this doctrinal concept
ever entered his mind when he appealed to Genesis 15:6. James had a practical,
not theological application in mind.” He was “not discussing the question
of how Abraham was set right with God or how faith was reckoned as righteousness.
Paul seized on that aspect of things. James was concerned with it as
proof that Abraham, when put to the test, lived up to his faith” (Phillips, 82).
In other words, Paul extrapolates from Genesis 15 that through his faith in the
God-given promise an alien righteousness was credited to Abraham’s account.
James extrapolates from Genesis 22 that through his godliness in the
God-directed ordeal Abraham exhibited his faith. In short, both Paul and
James quote Genesis 15:6, but from a different perspective, for a different
purpose, and with a different result.
Furthermore, the specific conclusion, drawn by a further commentator, is
this. “Justified in this verse means in effect ‘shown to be justified’” (Tasker,
68). In other words, Abraham’s justification in Genesis 15:6 was shown to be
the “real thing” by his deeds. His deeds turned it unmistakably into a visible
reality. However, it must be observed that the way this conclusion is formulated
is “awkward.” It appears to be bipolar. At first sight it appears to opt for
the demonstrative view (“shown to be justified”). By the same token it incorporates
the declarative view (“shown to be justified). I return to this questionable
formulation below en route to my own conclusions. 260 Nevertheless it
fairly indicates that the demonstrative view does not go away in whole or in
part, even if in the history of the interpretation of James it is usually a minority
report.
(b) The second option is the declarative (“forensic”) interpretation. This
is the majority view and presents us with four theoretically possible explanations
of the text under consideration.
(i) The phraseology of Abraham’s justification can lexicographically
convey that his “foundational” acceptance by God was based upon his own
260 While I deal with the way Tasker phrases his conclusion below, let me say for now that it
is a curious phrase that leaves more than something to be desired.
543