GHANA JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY Z NEW SERIES Volume 7.1 (2017) GHANA JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY NEW SERIES Volume 7.1 (2017) Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology New Series Volume 7.1 (2017) The Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology (GJRT), formerly Ghana Bulletin of Theology (GBT), is an interdisciplinary and ecu- menical refereed journal that seeks to serve as a forum for religious studies and to promote the encounter between people of different faith commitments and different perspectives on religion. Articles in the GJRT represent neither the views of the editorial board nor the Department for the Study of Religions, the University of Ghana. No part of this written publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without written permission from the publisher. Publisher: Department for the Study of Religions, University of Ghana, P.O. Box LG 66, Legon, Accra Ghana (gjrt@ug.edu.gh). Profile: Scholarly articles Research Reports Reviews of current books Issues: Twice a Year (July and December) Editor: Dr. George Ossom-Batsa Editorial Board: Dr. Rabiatu Ammah Dr. Nicoletta Gatti Dr. Abamfo Atiemo Dr. Lawrence Boakye International Advisory Board: Prof. Mercy Oduyoye (Ghana) Prof. Detlev Dormeyer (Germany) Prof. Andreas Heuser (Switzerland) Prof. PierLuigi Bossi (Madagascar/Italy) Inland subscription: GhC 15.00 Oversees Annual Subscription: US$18.00 (including postage) Single copy purchase: US$ 9.00 (including postage) EDITOR’S NOTE Welcome to the seventh edition of your preferred African Religious Studies journal. As always, the articles in this edition have been care- fully selected to reflect our mission of presenting thought provoking discussions on aspects of the humanities. In the first article, Dovlo discusses the issue of distinguishing between which race qualifies to be called God’s people. He shows how the Bible is sometimes deployed by some interpreters to perpetuate or construct negative identities about the African race. Through a comprehensive analysis, the writer reveals how African Christians in the Diaspora and Ghana reconstruct their identities as ‘people of God.’ Kissi, in his article describes the similarities in some of the strategies the author of the letter to the Hebrews and the Akans of Ghana adopt in redirecting the pain they feel in their suffering situation, to reflect pos- itively energized perspectives. This provides a refreshing new way of viewing the Epistle to the Hebrews. The next article by Quayesi-Amakye decodes the ethical issues embed- ded in the book of Esther. Often, the story is read uncritically so the social, political and ethical implications have not been applied for ho- listic benefit of the people of God. Attention is drawn to several ignored spots in the narrative that are necessary for sociopolitical considera- tions. Amevenku and Boaheng in their article explore the superficial contra- diction between the teachings of Paul and James on justification in Ro- mans 3:28 and James 2:24. Whereas Paul believes that people are jus- tified by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28), James is of the view that people are justified by their deeds and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24). This article analyses the Greek terminologies employed by James and Paul in communicating their views, and contends that the concept of justification expressed by the two authors are complementary rather than contradictory. The fifth article discusses a different indicator for development as en- shrined in the Populorum Progressio written by Pope Paul VI. Alt- hough much emphasis is placed on economic growth as an indicator for 3  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 development worldwide, Antwi argues that favourable economic indi- cators do not necessarily reflect the Christian vision of development which corresponds to the well-being of all aspects of every citizen’s life. Adubofour and Nso-Yine’s article focuses on the establishment of mono-ethnic churches in southern Ghana for migrants from the north. The study portrays the principal role the Frafra Christian Fellowship played in the planting of Frafra churches by assisting the mainline churches. It also shed light on the cardinal importance of mother-tongue in indigenous mission work. White investigates pastoral transfer in Classical Pentecostal Churches in Ghana and its implication on church life and the pastoral family. The author recommends that pastoral transfers should be carried out in an impartial manner, without compromising on the missional agenda of God and the holistic development of the pastoral family. In the last article, Majeed examines Gyekye’s critique of selected au- thors; whilst revealing the flaws in Gyekye’s arguments. Based on re- cent scientific studies of genetic influences, Majeed argues that Gyekye’s interpretations of the related concepts of ntorↄ and sunsum are unclear. From Majeed’s analysis, it has become significant for phi- losophers to engage with the necessary resources in an effort to better understand and inform the masses on how, from the indigenous per- spective, Akan thinkers construe human personality. Evidently, the writers have challenged themselves with in-depth analy- sis of their selected topics and I dare say they have outdone themselves! May I take this opportunity to congratulate them and urge them on in their academic pursuit. It is equally appropriate to thank all our avid readers for joining us on this journey of producing quality research into contemporary religious issues which is practicalized in day-to-day life. Thank you and enjoy this edition! George Ossom-Batsa 4  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 GHANA JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY (GJRT) (NEW SERIES) INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 1. The language of publication is English and French 2. Scholarly articles are welcome on any subject within the scope of the Journal. 3. We only accept articles that have not been previously published, or submitted for publication elsewhere. 4. All rights of accepted contribution will be reserved to the Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology. 5. Author Identification: For purposes of blind reviews only the title should appear on the first page of each article. Submitted articles must come with a cover sheet which indicates the author’s name, institutional affiliation and current status (e.g. Lecturer, Senior Lec- turer, Professor, etc.) 6. An article should not exceed 25 pages (c. 5,000 words). Submit article in word windows format as an e-mail and sent to (gjrt@ug.edu.gh or gobatsa@ug.edu.gh). Quotations in excess of four lines must be indented. 7. Abstract: An abstract not exceeding 150 words should accompany each article. 8. References: The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 16th edition (note system - footnote). Copyright © Department for the Study of Religions, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana ISSN 08555-7942 This issue was produced with financial support from the Carnegie Cor- poration of New York through the University of Ghana Building the Next Generation of Academics in Africa (BANGA-Africa) Project. Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law RECONCILING SAVING FAITH AND WORKS OF THE LAW IN PAUL AND JAMES Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng Abstract: The purpose of this study is to investigate the seeming con- tradiction between the teachings of Paul and of James on justifica- tion, particularly in Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. James’ idea that people are justified by their deeds and not by faith alone (James 2:24) seems antithetical to Paul’s teaching that people are justified by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28). This paper anal- yses the Greek terminologies employed by James and Paul in com- municating their views, and contends that the concepts of justifica- tion, expressed by the two authors are complementary rather than contradictory. Key Words: Justification; works of the law; faith; antinomian; Sec- ond Temple; Judaism. Introduction Scholars have made several attempts to resolve the ostensible conflict between Paul and James on the doctrine of justification. An example of this seeming contradiction can be seen in comparing Romans 3:28 with James 2:24. While some scholars are of the view that the con- cepts as expressed by the two authors is irreconcilable, others hold the opposite view. Martin Luther, struggling with this concern many years ago, considered James’ epistle as non-canonical.1 J.T. Sanders sets Paul and James in such direct opposition that his readers are vir- tually left with no option than to choose one over the other.2 J.C. Beker contends that the writer of James ignores Paul’s gospel of grace apart from the law and, instead, “understands the gospel to be a Chris- tian interpretation of the Torah.”3 For S. Laws, “Attempts to harmo- nize James and Paul and thus produce an apostolic consensus are 1 Martin Luther, Luther's Works: American Edition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 35: 362. 2 J.T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 115-127. 3 J.C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 251. 63  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng probably fruitless…”4 In Rudolf Bultmann’s view Paul’s concept of faith is “…utterly misunderstood. … Paul would certainly have agreed with the proposition that a faith without works is dead (2:17, 26) [Gal. 5:6] but never in the world with the thesis that faith works along with works (2:22).”5 Scholars on the other side included John Calvin, who was convinced that Paul and James were in complete agreement.6 G. E. Ladd sees no contradiction between them either. Ladd noted that the two writers used similar words to teach different concepts.7 Douglas Moo ob- serves that, “Understood in their own contexts, and with careful atten- tion to the way each is using certain key words, it can be seen that James and Paul are making complementary, not contradictory, points.”8 Recent scholarship in Pauline Theology has revived the de- bate profoundly. This prompted the current study, which seeks to maintain that there is no genuine contradiction between James and Paul on justification. Background to the Epistle of James The epistle of James addresses Jewish believers of the Diaspora— Jews living outside of Palestine (James 1:1). The epistle has obvious affinities with the OT and Jewish Hellenistic literature. Jewish terms such as ‘law’ and ‘synagogue,’ as well as OT and Jewish metaphors are common in the epistle9 as well as Jewish Shema (see Deut. 6:4 and James 2:19). The epistle also betrays vocabulary and concepts similar to early Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, including Tes- 4 S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980), 132- 133. 5 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1955), 2:163. 6 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 276. 7 George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of The New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 639. For other scholars who support this view see R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 160-71; James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 34-36. 8 Douglas J. Moo, James (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 45-46. 9 D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 415. 64  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law taments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Sirach, Philo and Wisdom of Solo- mon. James’ dealings with his themes also reflects the Wisdom liter- ature of OT times and the intertestamental period. It is most likely that this epistle was composed before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), at which James presided in AD 48 or 49.10 This view finds support from the fact that James does not make any reference to the Council in his letter, even though the epistle and the conference had some similar concerns. There is a sense in which this hypothesis could be disputed, however. For one thing, the view has no direct biblical support and the fact that the name James was common in first century Palestine makes it pos- sible to argue for another James, say son of Zebedee, whose elder brother John, is always mentioned together with him in the synoptic gospels. We know that James, the son of Zebedee suffered early mar- tyrdom in the hands of Herod (Acts 12:1), perhaps around AD 44.11 If this is correct and if he wrote the epistle then a date before 44 is required. This makes the debate over authorship and date of James quite inconclusive. Our proposal therefore remains hypothetical. The epistle among others addressed antinomians, who took undue ad- vantage of the law of liberty in the Gospel to behave as if true religion was all about inward faith which produces no good works. Their false understanding of the relationship between ‘faith’ and ‘works’ made them think that salvation by ‘faith’ meant the law was annihilated. With this (mis)understanding, they professed faith in Christ without external evidence. To combat such antinomian interpretation of Chris- tian liberty, the epistle stressed the importance of works, which stem from faith and which must validate one’s profession of faith by a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit (2:14-26). The epistle sought by this, also to help its persecuted audience to overcome the tempta- tions they would encounter in times of testing. It is for this reason that the author begins (1:2-4, 12) and ends (5:7-11) with the theme of test- ing. 10 Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 414. 11 See Donald A. Hagner, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 672. 65  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng Background to the Epistle to the Romans Pauline authorship of the letter to the Romans is hardly disputed. Paul was not the founder of the church in Rome, though he knew many leaders there. He had also not been to the church, hence he expressed his desire to preach the gospel to them (1:15). It is likely that Paul wrote this letter in Corinth between 56 and 57 AD during his third missionary journey.12 Rather than one large church, the Romans church was made up of some household churches (see 16:5, 10, 11, 14, 15). The letter deals both with Jewish (cf. 1:18-4:25) and Gentile (see 1:5; 11:3) concerns.13 Paul’s audience are therefore both Jewish and Gen- tile Christians. There seems to be tension between the Jewish and non- Jewish Christians, concerning the exact meaning of the Gospel and how to practice it, especially in religious customs and holy days. Paul addresses a Jewish legalism that tries to equate “works of the law” with saving faith and “highlights faith as the sole instrument of justi- fication.”14 He makes a case against Judaizers, who believed salvation depended on doing the works of the law in order that the Gentiles could understand the roots of their faith. The letter, therefore, pur- poses to address certain “intellectual” questions-especially concern- ing the place of a universal religion over Jewish nationalism-which the saints in Rome are concerned about, which perhaps he learned about through Aquila and Priscilla. By so doing, Paul hoped to resolve disunity in the Roman church between Jews seeking special status and Gentiles who want total freedom from Judaism. Terminological Analysis Both Paul and James use the term justification in their epistles and theology. Do they mean the same thing? We examine common termi- nologies associated with their explanation of the term by comparing two passages, one from each author to determine this. 12 D. Moo, “Romans 1-8,” in Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Ev- erett F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 3. 13 W.G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1975), 309. 14 Moo, James, 46. 66  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law James 2:24: ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον. Romans 3:28: λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. Translation You notice that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2: 24). We affirm then that a person is justified by faith and not by works of the law (Rom. 3: 28). Admittedly, if Paul and James used all these words – works (or “works of law” as Paul puts it), faith, justification – in the same manner, we would be faced with a real contradiction. However, a close inspection of the terms shows otherwise. James has given evidence in his pre- ceding verses that a person is justified by faith but not by faith stand- ing alone, because works always accompany saving faith. Thus, there is a sense in which faith and works are related. James 2:24 concludes the long train of evidence he has given. Similarly, Paul offers his au- dience reasons why righteousness which apart from works of the law as has been revealed, operates on faith from start to finish. He con- cludes that, it is faith that justifies and not works of the law, without saying that saving faith stands alone, separate from faith. Works (ἔργων) and works of law (ἔργων νόμου) Both authors use “works”, though Paul’s uses it in the expression “works of law”. However, in Romans 3:28, Paul qualifies works (ἔργων) with νόμου. For Paul, works are unnecessary for justification because it is justification that produces good works. For James, works are an essential component of saving faith therefore they cannot be separated from justification by faith. Understanding the phrase “works of law” is crucial in the current study. Paul uses the phrase “works of law” eight times in his letters (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16 [three times]; 3:2, 5, 10). We have no evidence that the term is used in the Hebrew Bible, but the NT uses it several 67  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng times apart from claims by some scholars that some non-canonical Jewish writings also use the phrase.15 Interpreters are divided over the meaning of this phrase. We outline the major views as follows.16 First, there are scholars who consider “law” as a subjective genitive in the phrase and so translate it as “the law’s work.” In this case, Paul would mean the works produced by the law. This interpretation considers works produced by law as evil, claiming support from Romans 7, where sin takes the law hostage and generates more sin. This position is unlikely because even though Paul argues that a person cannot be justified by works of the law, he does not in any way describe these works as evil. Another interpretation is that “works of law” amounts to legalism. In this case “works of law” refers to human effort in keeping the law as a means of meriting God’s favour. This has been the popular Protestant understanding of the phrase and it seems to find support in Romans 4:4-5, where the “works” in view (v. 2) is understood as deeds done for reward as opposed to believing God for righteousness without evidence of deeds. However, recent scholarship on the new perspective on Paul has challenged this idea by arguing that the as- sumption that Judaism teaches righteousness that comes by law-keep- ing is flawed.17 There are those who oppose this refutation by main- taining that, to conceive Second Temple Judaism as a religion of grace is unsupported by available data. J.D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, key proponents of the New Perspective on Paul, equate “works of law” to boundary markers (such as circum- cision, Sabbath, food laws etc.) that differenciete Jews from Gen- tiles.18 If that is accepted then Paul is confronting the Jewish separa- tism and exclusivism of his day and not people’s failure to obey the law. This position is supported by Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Antioch 15 Thomas Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids, MI: Kre- gel Academic and Professional, 2010), 41. 16 We have gleaned what follows from Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, 41-42. 17 See J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006). 18 Schreiner, 40 Questions, 42. See also Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 358. 68  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law due to Peter’s separatist attitude towards the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-14). Dunn also claims support from 4QMMT, a document which contains various regulations about sacrifices and purity, which he terms as “works of the law.” We find in this document purity regulations re- lated to the temple, as well as language use associated with segrega- tion relating to moral issues, such as fornication. The blessing and curses of Deut. 26―28 and David’s adultery with Bathsheba are also accounted for. Based on the diversity of issues which this document covers, it is a strong conclusion that the document refers to the whole law and not just portions of it. The fourth view considers “works of law” as referring to the entire law and its required deeds. Support for this position can be claimed as follows. First, “works of law” most naturally refers to the deeds de- manded by the law. We find no support that it refers to a part of the law or “evil works” or legalism. Secondly, the idea that “works of law” refers to the whole law finds support from Galatians and Ro- mans.19 Further, Hebrew texts of Second Temple Jewish literature give support to this position. “Works of law” is also used in 4QFlor 1:7 to refer to the works demanded by the entire law.20 The expression “his works in the Torah” is found in 1QS 5:21; 6:18. Reading this text together with 1QS V-VII reveals that the author’s concern is with “general obedience to the law.”21 Second Temple Jews, by this inter- pretation, were not focused merely on ethnic identity and strict adher- ence to covenant markers but also with concrete, rigorous obedience to the Mosaic Law in its entirety.22 The “works of Law” in 3:27-28 cannot, then, be limited to those as- pects of the Law that serve as boundary markers for the Jews. If the term refers to the works demanded by the law, as argued, then the subjective genitive use of “law” proposed by some scholars as men- tioned earlier cannot be acceptable because “the works demanded by 19 Schreiner gives the following examples as passages where Paul refers to the whole law rather than a part, or legalism or laws that divide Jews from Gentiles: Gal. 2:19, 21; 3:11, 13, 17, 18; 5:3, 54; 6:13 cf. Rom. 8:7; Rom. 3:20-22; 4:13, 14; 7:4. Cf. Schreiner, 40 Questions, 43. 20 Schreiner, 40 Questions, 43. 21 Schreiner, 40 Questions, 43. 22 A. Andrew Das, “Paul and Works of Obedience in Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 as a ‘New Perspective’ Case Study,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71, no. 4 (2009), 797. 69  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng the law are good, not evil.”23 Also, if “works of the law” refers to the whole law, then it cannot refer, only to boundary markers as proposed by some scholars. In the context of Romans 3:28, Paul’s concern is not on exclusivism but on the role of the Mosaic Law and Covenant in the salvation of the sinner. What does James mean by “work (s)” in the context of his letter? James uses “works” frequently in the positive sense. He uses the plu- ral erga rather than the singular “work” ergon to signify his expecta- tion that the Christian’s work must be continual. For James, “works” refers to loving mercy, kindness, and obedience to God. These works or anything done in obedience to God are a necessary facet of saving faith, such that works and faith become inseparable. Therefore, James’ “works” refers to Christian ethical behaviour, a system of con- duct springing from and accompanying a new life in Christ. Paul uses the same term in a different sense to denote ethical demands of the Jewish law, an old and abandoned stipulation, impotent to se- cure one’s salvation because it is different from the promise itself. In effect, those who argue that the gospel annuls the law along with the contra opinion that the law invalidates the gospel cannot find support in either James or Paul because the works in Paul subsequently follow faith in Christ, while James notes that the works give evidence of faith in Christ. While this distinction shows that James is not controverting Paul, it does not mean complete agreement between them. Paul would have admitted the inadequacy of a faith which does not show itself in works but he would never have admitted that justification comes from works.24 James employs the term differently from Paul's theological usage, whether we speak about faith or works of the Law.25 People are justified by faith but the faith that justifies is seen only on the ev- idence of good works. “Works of the law” (Paul) and “works” (James) refer to two different realities, even though both authors are address- ing justification. 23 Schreiner, 40 Questions, 42. 24 James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (Ed- inburg: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 205. 25 Ropes, James, 205. 70  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law Faith (πίστις) Paul considers faith as total trust in God, so that salvation can be re- ceived as a gracious gift apart from any meritorious works because of the Christ Event. Ladd says what Paul meant by faith is the “ac- ceptance of the gospel and personal commitment to the one pro- claimed.”26 Faith is not any kind of belief whatever but a trust, which brings peace with God under all circumstances (Rom. 5:1-5). For James, “faith” may be used in two senses. In one sense, it is the intellectual acceptance of theological assertions, particularly the mon- otheistic creed. This kind of faith, which James was probably con- demning, is not evident in good works and it does not justify. This is not true Christian faith. In 2:14b James asks, “Can that faith save someone?” What is “that faith” which James opposes? This is the false faith that possesses no good works (2:14a, 18b), cannot save (2:14b), which is dead (2:17) and is distinct and separate from good works (2:18a). Like demonic faith, it leads mere lip service (2:19). It is useless (2:20). It is contrasted with the other sense, which points to a faith whose evidence is good works (2:18c, 22a). The sense in which James uses “faith” in this verse is different from how Paul employs it. “Faith for Paul is personal, cordial trust; for James, it is orthodox opin- ion.”27 Like Paul, James uses “faith”, in another sense to refer to that which brings justification apart from works of the law. This is true saving faith. The conclusion is that for James, faith and works are two sides of the same coin for the justified person. They are inseparable in a true Christian life (James 2: 18).28 This is Abrahamic faith (2:21-22). From the foregoing, we distinguish between faith according to James (true, saving faith) and faith according to James’ real or imaginary opponent (false faith). James is not arguing that works are a necessary help to faith if the latter must be saved. Rather, he is arguing that gen- uine faith inevitably is followed by good works which both the law and the gospel recommend as love for God and neighbour (cf. Deut. 6:4-5; Lev. 19:18; Jer. 31:31-34; Matt. 5:43-46; 12:30; John 13:34). 26 Ladd, A Theology of The New Testament, 639. 27 Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 639. 28 Ropes, James, 35. 71  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng James means that any “faith” that does not lead to works is dead. It is probable that James is refuting perversions of Pauline teaching, whether the Pauline epistles were known or not. Justify (δικαιόω) Some have interpreted Paul’s use of justify, to mean declaring some- one righteous, because Jesus has satisfied all the requirements of the law on his or her behalf. For them, James uses it in the sense of some- one proving or showing her/his righteousness before people.29 How- ever, recent scholarship has argued that both Paul and James use the term in the same declarative-forensic-judicial sense to point to God’s legal declaration that someone is righteous. There is no human meri- torious achievement in this. Compton suggests that, when Paul and James cite Genesis 15:6 to explain Abraham’s justification in Romans 4:3 and James 2:23 respectively, they do not mean righteousness based on Abrahamic achievement or merit. They mean imputed right- eousness, given because of his faith.30 Therefore, “justification means for James what it means for Paul: God’s declaring someone right- eous.”31 Paul’s forensic use of the term “justify,” is supported by his addition of such phrases as “before God” (Rom. 2:13) as well as by his contrast between “justify” and “condemn” in Romans 8:33–34. Like his contemporary Jews, Paul was of the view that the new cove- nant for the post-exilic Jews according to the prophets pointed to a glorious future for Israel: In the day when all the promises (e.g., Isa. 40―55) are fulfilled, Israel will be vindicated (justified) before the world and Abraham’s promised blessing to all nations would be ful- filled. In the “last day” (Isa. 54:13), “justified” people will, “in right- eousness” be established (Isa. 54:14). A declarative use of dikaioō32 is by far the most common meaning for this verb, as used in the Septuagint, the Pseudepigrapha, and often in 29 See for example, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Louisville, KY: Westmin- ster John Knox Press, 2006), 3: 12. 30 R. Bruce Compton, “James 2:21-24 and the Justification of Abraham,” Detroit Baptist Semi- nary Journal 2, no.1 (1997): 28. 31 Compton. “James 2:21-24”, 28. 32 In the Hebrew Bible, dikaioo generally comes from the piel or hiphil stems of the Hebrew root צדק, which usually means, “to declare righteous, justify,” or “to justify the cause of, save.” 72  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law the NT.33 Since James exemplifies declarative justification in Genesis 15:6, he probably intended declarative justification in the remainder of 2:20-24. Within the immediate and larger OT contexts, Genesis 15:6 appears to describe Abraham’s justification as a forensic act of God. Abraham’s justification was not earned; it was based on his faith. He was justified because he trusted in the Lord. It is clear from James 2:14, that the focus of the pericope (2:14-26) is not on demonstration of faith but the bestowal of the gift of salvation. James uses “justify” where Paul speaks of judgment.34 Why is it that in James 2:21 justification is predicated, not on Abra- ham’s faith, as in Paul, but on Abraham’s works? James’ reference to Abraham’s sacrifice in 2:21-24 should not be interpreted as opposing Pauline analyses in Romans 4:2-12 about Abraham’s justification by faith (cf. Gal 3:6). Rabbinic tradition regards the love-your-neighbour rhetoric (Lev. 19:18) as the foundational principle of the entire Torah. James, employing this tradition, contends that the proclaimed belief in one God must be demonstrated in the fulfilment of the Torah’s pre- cepts hence obedience to the commandments and loving one’s neigh- bour as oneself are two sides of the same coin (2:18-19). Second Temple and early rabbinic sources show that Abraham ful- filled the Torah perfectly. For example, Ben Sirach 44:19-21 notes that Abraham kept the law and was found faithful (cf Gen. 26:5),35 when he was tested.36 Therefore, rather than use it as a polemic against Paul, James employs Abraham’s deeds-centred righteousness (rabbinic exegetical tradition of the Second Temple period) to push forward the love-your-neighbour rhetoric as the foundational princi- ple of the entire Torah. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles August Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver- Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 776. 33 Robert V. Rakestraw, James 2:14-26: Does James Contradict The Pauline Soteriology?,” Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 1 (1986), 40. 34 Moo, James, 109. 35 Gary Anderson, Ruth Clements and David Satran, eds., New Approaches to the Study of Bib- lical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple and in Early Christianity (Brill: Hotei Publishing, 2013), 98. 36 See Jubilees 17:15-18 (cf. Jubilee 16:18; see also 1 Macc. 2: 52; 4QPseudo-Jubilees [4Q226] 7:1). Anderson, Clements and Satran, New Approaches, 98. 73  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng Unlike Paul, James does not apply the reasoning from Abraham's ex- ample to Christology or to the gentile conundrum.37 Rather, he em- ploys it in the general sense of Jewish exegetic discourse. For this reason, “circumcision does not feature in the description of Abra- ham’s righteous behaviour (‘deeds’), being substituted –as the ‘seal of righteousness’ – by the offering of Isaac.”38 The foregoing discus- sions make it unlikely that James cited Abraham as a polemic against Paul.39 After the discussion in 2: 21-23, the author calls for acceptance of his conclusion in 2: 24. Had he not included the modifier “alone,” he un- doubtedly would have contradicted Paul (Rom. 3:28) as well as his own previous verse (v. 23). The meaning of the text depends on how one conceives the term ‘alone’. If it functions as an adjective modify- ing ‘faith’, James will be referring to a faith that is alone, isolated, or unaccompanied by good works and hence unable to impact reality. This is the type of faith he describes in v. 17 as dead, imaginary and unrealistic. His understanding of OT prophetic oracles about ‘cult’ and ‘social justice’ comes to play here. The idea of social justice must be understood in the light of covenant relationship between God and his people, and how the people relate among themselves. Justice itself is almost synonymous with righteousness. The “righteousness ex- pressed in justice is the indispensable qualification for worship—no justice, no acceptable public religion.”40 Thus, James’ statement in 2:24, means that a faith that has not fruit of good works cannot justify. If ‘alone’ is “modifying an implied verb ‘justified,’ supplied by ellip- sis from the first part of the verse,”41 then James is saying that a per- son is justified by works and not only by faith.42 Put differently, “a person is justified not only by faith but also by works” or that “a per- son is justified by faith that produces good works.”43 Such a position 37 Anderson, Clements and Satran, New Approaches, 98. 38 Anderson, Clements and Satran, New Approaches, 97. 39 Anderson, Clements and Satran, New Approaches, 97. 40 Mays, as quoted in Christopher J.H Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of Israel, (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 267. 41 Compton, “James 2:21-24,” 43. 42 Compton, “James 2:21-24,” 43. 43 Compton, “James 2:21-24,” 43. 74  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law does not in any way deny justification by faith, but requires that faith justifies initially and subsequently produces good works.44 If the sec- ond option is the correct reading, then the subject of the debate now shifts to the exact timing of this subsequent evidence of faith in works. Rakestraw argues that James had in view a subsequent justification in this life,45 but Moo thinks James had in mind an eschatological justi- fication.46 Moo’s opinion is unlikely because from James 2:14-24, Abraham was justified there and then during his earthly life (James 2:21). 47 If no works exist on which subsequent justification is founded, we still cannot speak of failure of the initial justification. Rather, it shows that the subject was initially not justified to begin with, because he or she had no saving faith to exercise.48 Cranfield puts it poignantly by arguing, “Had there been no works, Abraham would not have been justified; but that would have been because the absence of works would have meant that he had no real faith.”49 In such a case, there will be no initial justification, since there is no true saving faith to pave the way for the imputation of righteousness. It is evident that James is not referring to the initial declarations of right- eousness at the conversion of Abraham but rather God’s approval of Abraham’s righteousness, which he (Abraham) received during his lifetime and not (merely) that which looks up to the final judgment. Conclusion There is no disagreement between Paul and James on the subject of justification; only a difference in perspective for the same basic teach- ing. To both writers, faith is good and necessary for salvation, but James emphasizes the intellectual-objective aspect of faith, by refut- ing any thinking that assumes justification results from mere intel- 44 Compton, “James 2:21-24,” 43. 45 Rakestraw, “James 2:14-26,” 40–42. 46 Moo, James,109–111. 47 Rakestraw, “James 2:14-26,” 41. 48 Compton, “James 2:21-24,” 44. 49 C.E.B. Cranfield, “The Message of James,” as quoted by Rakestraw, “James 2:14-26,” 46. 75  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Frederick M. Amevenku - Isaac Boaheng lectual affirmation, while Paul stresses the volitional, subjective di- mension of faith, which embodies and even follows intellectual faith.50 James and Paul regard works and faith as separate entities, even though they are intimately tied together. Paul contrasts faith and works while James distinguishes false faith from works and speaks of true faith as working together with good works. James does not iden- tify true faith as works. Faith is belief; works are actions. Faith stands behind works; the two do not mean the same thing51 but the two are closely linked in a justified life. The reason for these differences is not far-fetched. James and Paul were handling two different situations. Paul deals with the question, “How can a sinner be justified before a holy God?” He answers, “By faith alone.” James, on the other hand, deals with the question, “What kind of faith justifies or what kind of faith saves?” He answers, “The faith that produces good works.” When Paul speaks of Abraham’s jus- tification by faith, he is referring to Abraham’s initial justification rec- orded in Genesis 15:6. From the Pauline perspective, therefore, all pre-salvation works are necessarily excluded in justification, because it is the sinner who is justified and not the righteous. On the other hand, when James speaks of Abraham’s justification by works, he is referring to Abraham’s subsequent justification, which validates or confirms Abraham’s faith and his initial justification. Since such a validation must be based on the evidence, Abraham’s post-conversion works are essential follow ups to his justification by faith. “Paul was rooting out ‘work’ that excluded and destroyed sav- ing faith; James was stimulating a sluggish faith that minimized the results of saving faith in daily life.”52 Their common ground is that although good works contribute nothing to justification, they serve as litmus test for the genuineness of a person’s faith. So, those who are saved will, without doubt produce good works in keeping with their 50 Rakestraw, “James 2:14-26,” 31. 51 John A. Battle, “‘Justified by Faith’ . . . ‘Justified by Works’; Abraham’s Justification, as Viewed by Paul and by James,” The WRS Journal 13, no. 1 (2006), 10. 52 D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 175. 76  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017 Reconciling Saving Faith and Works of the Law justified and those whose faith is so intellectual that it has nothing to do with good works have no benefit of justification, imputed to them. Frederick Mawusi Amevenku Trinity Theological Seminary, Legon (yaomawusi13@gmail.com) Isaac Boaheng Bible Society of Ghana (reisaacboaheng@gmail.com) 77  Ghana Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 7 (1) 2017