Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

works. He was declared righteous for the simple reason that he was a righteous
man. In this scenario James would teach “the justification of the righteous.”
Although a perfect and necessary fit in the area of public justice (Ex.
23:7; Prov. 17:15), in the soteriological context this explanation clearly flies
in the face of Scripture, which includes the teaching of Paul. While only the
clues in the text can determine the interpretation of that text, nevertheless the
analogy of faith can and must be a guide and a guard. It can direct the interpreter
in the proper direction, and can protect him against grievous errors.
Paul emphatically insists on “the justification of the ungodly (sic!)” (Rom.
4:5). To him justification that results in man’s acceptance by God is based
upon deeds fully alien to man, namely the work of Christ in both the shedding
of his blood and the provision of perfect righteousness. “Foundational justification,”
then, is judicial and forensic in nature. It consists of a “courtroom”
procedure in which God imputatively and constitutively declares the ungodly
forgiven and righteous through the appropriation of Christ in the exercise of
faith, and consequently treats them as such. This, of course, is the dominant
meaning of justification in the NT (Lk. 18:14).
In short, in the present scenario James would opt for a declarative justification
on the basis of human works apart from faith, Paul for a declarative
justification on the basis of Christ’s righteousness by means of faith. This interpretive
construction would pit James and Paul against each other, and teach
two mutually exclusive views. This is manifestly unacceptable. I will not wait
until the evaluation and assessment of the various views to make short shrift
of this interpretation. It not only introduces a glaring and unacceptable contradiction
into the Bible. It is also the result of bad hermeneutics that commits
a crucial exegetical error. It does not recognize that in James’ view the message
of Genesis 22 is the necessary entailment of Genesis 15, and not the sum
and substance of the interpretation of Genesis 15. In other words, Genesis 22
does constitute the “fulfillment” of Genesis 15, and not its “meaning.” I return
to this in the exposition of James 2:23.
(ii) By resorting to the concept of justification James can in the abstract
imply Abraham’s “eschatological” acceptance before God in the final judgment
(Mt. 12:37), his ultimate stamp of approval contingent upon the evidence
of an active faith (Phil. 3:10-12). What comes into view, then, is his
“final eschatological approbation” (Cargal, 133). In the “foundational (initial)
justification” works are totally removed from all consideration. After all, it is
by sheer grace that one is justified (Rom. 3:24). But in the “final justification”
deeds come into full view (Mt. 12:37; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10). One commentator
calls this “probably” the best explanation (Moo, 1985, 109; as well as
110-111, and his “Additional Note” on Justification in the Old Testament and
Judaism). In the abstract this interpretation is, indeed, possible, and has in its
544