The second passage which uses the verb, to justify, in a way similar to Matthew 12:37, with a different connotation than it has in Romans 3 and 4, and a way which is quite relevant to the idea of a future justification in the day of judgment is James 2:21-26.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
While the passage is clearly not speaking of the believer’s initial justification by faith alone, the context makes clear that the time period of the justification in view is not specifically the day of judgment. This difference between Matthew 12:37 and the present passage must be freely admitted at the outset. There is, however, a clear similarity between James and Matthew. In both the verb, to justify, seems to have meaning of show or demonstrate to be righteous. Abraham did not become righteous when he offered up Isaac. That had already happened by Genesis 15:6. Yet this act demonstrated that he was truly righteous. In other words it showed that he had a genuine faith and was a genuine believer.
The key assertion of which James is clearly thinking is Genesis 22:12: “He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”” Even granting anthropopathism in these words, the idea cannot be evaded that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac at God’s command vindicated Abraham’s faith as genuine not only in the court of his own conscience and in the court of human opinion, but in some sense in the court of God. This vindication of Abraham’s faith is said to justify. Thus, Abraham is said to be justified by his works.
Similarly Rahab’s works demonstrated or showed that she was righteous. They were not, of course, the basis on which she passed from a state of wrath to a state of grace. They were, however, the way in which her faith was shown to be a genuine faith—the kind of faith that saves. In the previous context the emphasis is on showing that one is righteous not becoming righteous, verse 18. Only the kind of faith that shows itself as righteous by good works can save a person, verse 14.
James 2:14-18 14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? …. 18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
Thus, the meaning of “to justify” here is quite similar and even identical to that found in Matthew 12:37. Even the point at which there is a difference is not such a contrast as might at first be thought. Though the venue of the justification in view is not the day of judgment, yet the reference to Genesis 22:12 does suggest the court of divine judgment and anticipate the justification of faith by works which will take place at that time.
Several objections might be and have been made to this understanding of the justification in view in James 2.
(1) Someone could argue as follows: God does not rely on our works to determine if we have saving faith. If He did how could we ever be justified apart from and before doing any good works? This objection is, of course, true, but, as I said above, while God is not dependent on our works to know if we have true faith, He does know that our works do evidence the genuineness of our faith. Thus, God can say to Abraham Now I know that you fear me on the basis of His works. If God can say this on the basis of Abraham’s works, then God also say to the world that our works vindicate that we are true believers.
(2) Someone could also argue as follows: If we grant that James 2 refers to being justified (in the way proposed) in God’s court room, and we grant that the “future” justification is not in view, and we grant that “initial” justification is not in view, then we must grant that there are more than just 2 justifications. There are at least three, and in reality, an indefinite number of justifications. My response to this is simply: So be it. The believer’s works do time after time “justify” his faith as genuine in this life and in the next. Nevertheless, there are only two kinds of justification in the sense in which I intend. There is, first, the justification of the sinner by faith alone at the outset of the Christian life. There is, second, the justification of the believer by his works both during this life and in the life to come.
And here something bears repeating that I said in a previous blog. While the connotation of justify in Matthew 12:37 and James 2 is different than its connotation in Romans 3 and 4 , the denotation is the same. It means to declare or account righteous. Even in James 2 justify does not mean in the Roman Catholic sense to infuse the moral quality of righteousness into the sinner. In Romans 3 and 4 the sinner is accounted righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone. James 2 and Matthew 12 the believer is accounted a genuine believer (and righteous in that sense) on the basis of his works.
(3) Someone might also argue as follows: James is not saying Abraham was justified (however we want to understand that word) at the point in time he offered up Isaac. Here I must simply affirm that this is simply wrong and an evasion of what James 2:21 says: Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? What is the implied answer? Yes, that was when he was justified in the sense of which James 2:21 is speaking. It cannot be the same justification because the justification of Genesis 15:6 was by faith, and this justification was by works. Of course, this justification did fulfill in some sense the justification of Genesis 15:6, but it is not the same justification or the same kind of justification.
Comments
Tom Hicks on Mar 15, 2010 2:10pm
Thanks for the post! I agree with it. You may be planning to deal with this at a later point, but I’ll go ahead and ask here. Would you say that there is any legal necessity attached to the verdict(s) that are subsequent to the initial verdict? If Christ has fully satisfied divine justice, perfectly fulfilling the requirement of God’s law, is there any law-necessity for subsequent verdicts? If not, then why are they needed? If so, then how do you reconcile that with Christ’s finished work? Thanks again for your labors!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
