James 2:21

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

The essential error in the usual interpretation of this verse was succinctly stated by Lenski, thus: "James is not speaking of the first verdict which God pronounced upon Abraham when Abraham was first brought to faith."[43] By such a device as this, the solifidians attempt to make that first occasion the true salvation of Abraham (by faith only), thus making James' statement that Abraham was "justified by works" refer to a confirmation only of that first justification. However, as Roberts clearly stated it:

This hardly does justice to James' argument. James is talking about faith saving a man (James 2:14). It is not contemplated merely that one already just or acquitted is proved or declared righteous; but the action of God in declaring him righteous is referred to.[44]

But did not Paul say that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3), the same being a verbatim quotation from Genesis 15:67 Let it be noted, however, that neither the Genesis record nor Paul's use of it carries any hint whatever to the effect that Abraham's faith only was the basis of God's reckoning unto him righteousness. It is deplorable that the KJV rendition of this verse was changed (presumably with a view to clouding its meaning). The KJV has: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac, etc." That this is indeed what the Scriptures teach is evident from the following considerations:

The statements in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3 must be understood, as Tasker pointed out, "as being in a sense prophetic of that event (the sacrifice of Isaac)."[45] Neither Genesis nor Paul in Romans affirmed that God at the instant of Abraham's having faith then and there declared Abraham justified.

Upon the occasion of Abraham's offering Isaac, God interposed, saying:

Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son (Genesis 22:12).

When God said, "now" I know, that was equivalent to saying that until then God had not known (except prophetically). Non-biblical writers saw this and understood it. "Sirach wrote: "Abraham was a great father of many nations who.., when he was proved was found faithful'; and 1 Maccabees 2:52 has, `Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.?'"[46]

James in this passage gives the occasion when Abraham was justified, and it was not that of his first believing but that of his meeting the divine test of his faith. If God had already justified Abraham on the basis of his "faith only" there could have been no reason whatever for God's testing his faith.

Never did any man pass a sterner test of faith than did Abraham; and, if Abraham was not justified until he passed it, how could it be supposed that any man could be saved merely upon an alleged trust/faith, and that without his meeting any test whatever? What is the test? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

Special attention should be paid to the kind of works which James alleged as the basis of Abraham's justification. The usual scholarly bias that "works of ethical behavior" are in view here should be challenged. What was ethical about Abraham's offering Isaac as a burnt sacrifice to God? In this is seen the fact that the works that justified Abraham were precisely and only those works performed in obedience to God's specific command.

"Was not Abraham our father justified ..." The device of making the word "justified" here to be something other than the meaning in Paul's use of the word should be noted. As Roberts declared, "It rest be admitted that Paul and James use the word `justify' in the same sense."[47] The one word from both James' and Paul's writings which is positively used in two different senses is "works," Paul using the term as a reference to the works of the Law of Moses, and James using it of works of obedience to the commands of God, as in the case of Abraham here given. An understanding of this is vital to understanding what either James or Paul taught.

[43] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 589.

[44] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 93.

[45] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 69.

[46] Quoted by J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 92.

[47] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 94.