JAMES 2:24: RETRANSLATION REQUIRED (Part 1 of 3)

by John Niemelä

Introduction: Sola Fide Requires Sola Scriptura

How easy it is to assume sola fide as axiomatic to Christi- anity without comprehending the tremendous battles Martin Lu- ther and other Reformers fought. Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of the Church at Wittenburg marked an auspi- cious beginning on October 31, 1517. One of Luther’s greatest contributions to the Reformation was his translation of the Bible into a language accessible to the common man. However translating from Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts into German was a massive task. Did Luther have lexicons of today’s caliber? Did he have access to an established scholarly community dedicated to biblical languages? Did Luther have any of the modern pub- lishing tools let alone a computer? And, yet the Reformation’s success not only depended upon sola fide (faith alone), but also sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Indeed, Martin Luther and his contemporaries argued that departures from the Scripture authorized by the pope and various councils obscured the biblical doctrine of eternal justification, sola fide. In other words, sola fide was a compelling argument only if sola Scriptura were true. Luther’s enemies not only rejected sola fide, but also sola Scrip- tura, while those who embraced sola fide, of necessity, embraced sola Scriptura. The two doctrines stand or fall together.

Luther quickly saw the practical ramifications of sola Scriptura: People who read the Bible for themselves could dis- cover (or verify) that eternal justification comes by faith alone. Those who could not read it were dependant on those who could. Unfortunately, most who could read a Latin Bible were clergy- men of a church that rejected sola fide and sola Scriptura. If Lu- 14 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001) ther were to translate the Bible into German, the recently in- vented printing press would allow him to distribute German Bi- bles widely. If people could read the Bible for themselves, not only would they be reading Scripture, but also they could person- ally verify sola fide. Thus, five years after nailing his 95 Theses on the door at Wittenburg, he released his first German New Testament. During the remaining years of his life, he produced almost twenty revised editions of the New Testament and four of the whole Bible.1

For Luther an accurate Bible translation was essential to both sola Scriptura and sola fide; however, the Bible contains some problem passages, which on the surface seem to contradict faith alone for eternal justification. What would he do? Was Lu- ther to compromise the doctrine of sola Scriptura through an un- reliable translation of the original text?2 Or, was he to compromise sola fide with reliable translations of problem texts for which he (and his contemporaries) lacked exegetical answers?

1 A critical edition of every version produced during Luther’s personal supervision exists: Heinrich Ernst Birdseil and Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, eds., Dr. Martin Luther’s Bibelübersetzung nach der Letzten Original-Ausgabe, 7 vols. (Halle, Germany: Canstein’sche Bibel-anstalt, 1845–55). For those de- siring a summary, Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, Mod- ern Christianity: The German Reformation, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 346–49, discusses the many editions of his New Testament and/or complete Bible that he released in his lifetime. 2 Martin Luther, On Translating: An Open Letter, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. by E. Theodore Bachmann, in Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Mul- lenberg, 1960), 182, 187–88, and 195, defends his insertion of the word allein (“alone”) into Romans 3:28, despite admitting that the Latin lacks it. The Greek also lacks it. Luther does correctly understand the sense of the passage, but Paul did not say alone here. It was not necessary for him to tinker with the text. A literal translation is quite sufficient because the burden of proof would be upon anyone who would add anything to faith in Romans 3:28. Unfortu- nately, Luther was not gracious toward those who questioned his paraphrase (cf. ibid., 181–202. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 15

Few contemporary theologians have faced such tremendous consequences for their work. Quite simply, if through the incorrect interpretation of difficult passages, the reformation in its in- fancy could be throttled by those amenable to the position of the Catholic Church, the impetus needed to publish the Bible in other languages might stall. James 2:24 remains the quintessential ex- ample of Luther’s dilemma, a passage that translators still ob- scure.

Luther’s Dilemma

In regard to James 2:24 Luther, the accomplished debater, seems to have prevailed though the use of a two-tiered approach. First, he tinkered with the translation in an effort to salvage sola fide.3 Second, if anyone challenged his translation (or interpretation), he simply expressed reservations about James being canonical.4 In the short run, this approach is quite clever, for if anyone disagreed with his translation, he could then, based upon the strength of their own argument, cite their opposition as reason to question the canonicity of James.

Five centuries later most theologians still assume that Lu- ther’s translation was right. This is a situation where an illustra- tion by former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, applies. He said Canada’s relationship with the United States is like sharing a bed with an elephant. No matter how friendly the elephant (United States), Canada suffers when the elephant rolls

3 Luther worked with both Erasmus’ Greek text and the Latin Vulgate. Lu- ther’s translation misconstrued the Greek grammar here, but it violated both Latin grammar and lexicography. Furthermore, Melanchthan, who knew more Greek than Luther, became involved in checking the translation for the many revised editions. Furthermore, Luther’s translation handled monon versus monos correctly elsewhere. One cannot attribute the rendering of James 2:24 to ignorance of the other (the only legitimate) option. 4 Cf. Martin Luther, Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. by E. Theodore Bachmann, in Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. E. Theodore Bach- mann (Philadelphia: Mullenberg, 1960), 395–97. 16 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001) over. Likewise, Luther’s opinions carried so much weight in the realm of sola fide and sola Scriptura that his tinkering with the translation squeezed the literal rendering out of Protestant Bibles. Indeed, Luther’s approach to the verse has dominated not only most English versions, but also most theological discussions of James 2:24. In this sense, the elephant has been alive and well in Protestant circles for five centuries. However, because modern theologians are not willing to accept Luther’s second tier (to question the canonicity of James), both sola Scriptura and sola fide have suffered under this burden. In other words, what was clever in the short run has in the long run been rejected: The error in translation requires correction, for Luther’s second tier has be- come untenable and rightly so.

Context: James 2:21–24 and the Roman Epistle

What models of faith without works are conceivable in the epistle of James? What interpretive choices did Luther face?5 Why did Luther find one less repugnant than the other? What is the basis for saying that Luther’s translation is incorrect?

Models of Faith without Works

The CTS Journal recently published an article titled, “Faith without Works: A Definition,”6 in which two distinct models of faith without works were formulated and described in detail based upon James 2:18–21. These two models are as follows:

The Subtraction Model

Formula: Faith – Works = Something less than Faith Picture: A Bicycle – A Frame = Something less than a Bicycle

5 Luther exercised a non-option as though it were a valid grammatical choice. 6 John Niemelä, “Faith without Works: A Definition,” CTS Journal 6 (April–June 2000): 2–18. That article goes into greater depth on the basis for adopting the Addition Model within the context of James. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 17

The Addition Model

Formula: Faith + (0 _ Works) = Faith Picture: A Bicycle + (0 _ Riders) = A Bicycle

Most interpreters understand James based upon the Sub- traction Model. Just as one cannot ride a bicycle that lacks a frame (which is not really a bicycle anyway), they say that such a faith cannot give eternal salvation. Furthermore, this view argues that the addition of works to a defective kind of faith does not convert it into saving faith. Ultimately, the Subtraction Model asserts that the problem is with the faith, not the works. However, the model is unfaithful to James. The Addition Model recognizes that a bicycle without a rider does not go anywhere. Even though they believe certain biblical truths, regenerate believers, who fail to apply these truths, will not receive deliverance from the deadly power of sin in their lives. If a regenerate person believes that the Bible forbids stealing, but he cheats on his income tax, he is not being ‘saved’ from sin’s deadly grip on his life. Will he go to heaven? Yes. Is his Christian experience one of deliverance? Ab- solutely not!

Adjectival or Adverbial Usages of Monon

Although Luther would never have articulated his argument in terms of these two models. His translation of verse 2:24 treated monon or “only” as an adjective and in so doing presupposed the validity of the Subtraction Model. On the other hand, had Luther treated monon as an adverb, he would have validated the Addi- tion Model.

Subtraction Model ↔ Monon as an Adjective Addition Model ↔ Monon as an Adverb

If he did not think in terms of models, how would Luther have decided whether monon was adjectival or adverbial? 18 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001)

Regarding the use of adverbs and adjectives, the similarities between English and German are useful in answering this crucial question. The addition of emphasis highlights the crucial words.

Adjectival

A man is justified by works, and not by faith only7 (NKJV).8 Der Mensch durch Werke gerecht wird, nicht durch Glauben allein.9

Adverbial

A man is justified by works, and [is] not [justified] only by faith.10 Der Mensch durch Werke gerecht wird, nicht allein durch Glauben [gerecht wird].

7 Only can be either an adjective or an adverb. Alone can only be an adjective. The use of only, rather than alone, shows that word order is what differentiates the adjective from the adverb in English. This is also true for allein in German. 8 Most English Scripture quotations are the author’s translation or the NKJV, New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982). Unnoted citations (Eng- lish or German) are the author’s translation. 9 Die Bibel oder die ganze heilige Schrift des alten und Neuen Testaments: Nach der deutschen Übersetzung Martin Luthers (N.p.: National, 1967). In five hundred years, German has modernized some spellings, just as English has since the KJV. For a critical edition examining all the variants in the mul- titude of editions supervised by Luther, cf. Heinrich and Niemeyer, Luther’s Bibelübersetzung vol. 6 (Halle, Germany: Canstein’sche Bibel-anstalt, 1854), 250. Most variations in the verse since Luther’s lifetime are orthographic. One is not. The editions produced under Luther’s supervision actually used alleine (“alone”) rather than allein (“alone, only”). Word-order determines whether allein is an adjective or an adverb, but alleine can only be an adjective. In other words, the editions produced in Luther’s lifetime definitely translate monon as an adjective in James 2:24. 10 The Jerusalem Bible: Reader’s Edition, ed. Alexander Jones (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), renders it, “. . . it is by doing something good, and not only by believing that a man is justified.” It paraphrases and gratuitously cre- ates an appositional clause, but understands the force of only. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 19

The adjectival use expresses the view that one’s justification does not occur by faith alone. Rather, it is by faith and works. This clashes with Paul’s doctrine of eternal justification. Advo- cates of this view must finesse the difficulty by saying that James knew that justification is by faith alone, but that the kind of faith that justifies is never alone.11 Faith alone is the basis for the person receiving eternal justification, but advocates of the view would deny that any workless person ever receives eternal justification. Another way of saying it is that both faith and works must be present at eternal justification, but God only takes faith into account at that moment.

In direct contrast to the adjectival view, the adverbial use indicates that James speaks of two separate justifications. James knows that his readers understand that eternal justification occurs by faith alone. James 2:23 says,

And the Scripture [Genesis 15:6] was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God [Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chronicles 20:7].

James does not say Genesis 15:6 became true when people called Abraham God’s friend.12 Furthermore, it is Genesis 15:6, not Isaiah 41:8 or 2 Chronicles 20:7, that was fulfilled. Why?

11 The present author regards this as the use of smoke and mirrors, but will briefly withhold critique. 12 Genesis 15:6 was already true by the time of Genesis 15’s narrative. Cf. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 309–10, argues grammatically that verse 6 does not occur sequentially, but that Abraham had already believed. Based on Galatians 3:8 and Hebrews 11:8, Abraham was a believer at the end of his days in Ur. According to Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 31, Isaac’s birth was twenty-five years after Abraham left Ur. Even more time elapsed, since Isaac is a lad, Genesis 15:6 occurred over thirty years before Genesis 22. 20 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001)

The recognition of Abraham as God’s friend fulfills Genesis 15:6 in the sense that friendship with God goes beyond ceasing to be God’s enemy: Eternal justification through faith alone results in reconciliation (ceasing to be God’s enemy). Obedience yields friendship with God. James 4:4 reinforces this concept within the book.13 On the other hand, Genesis 15:6 was true of Abram even before he had any works. It was true long before he became the friend of God through obedience. Certainly, it was true before people saw that he was God’s friend. Genesis 15:6 speaks of eternal justification, which is by faith alone (plus no works).

If monon is adverbial, then James does not see eternal justification by faith alone as the only type of justification. Verse 21 asks a leading question, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?” The expected answer is, “Yes, Abraham our father was justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar.” It is not a justification without works, so it cannot be an eternal justification before God. Interestingly, John MacArthur acknowledges this for James 2:21.

2:21 justified by works. This does not contradict Paul’s clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone (Rom. 3:20; 4:1–25; Gal. 3:6,11). For several reasons, James cannot mean that Abraham was consti- tuted righteous before God because of his own good works: 1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); 2) in the middle of this disputed passage (v. 23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith. . . and 3) the work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1–7; 15:6). . . .14

13 Cf. John 15:14. Also cf. Revelation 3:9–10a in light of John Niemelä, “For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10,” CTS Journal 6 (January–March 2000): 14–38. 14 John F. MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible (Dallas, TX: Word, 1997), 1930. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 21

Indeed, one kind of justification requires good works before man.15 In addition, verse 21’s two justifications give a contextual reason to expect monon (“only”) to be adverbial, not adjectival in verse 24.

Romans and Justification by Grace

Luther found James 2:23–24 especially difficult, because he thought in terms of only one justification (the one before God).

. . . [James] is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:23]; though in Romans 4[:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone,16 before he had offered his son, and proves it by Genesis 15[:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation might be devised for this justification by works, it cannot be de-

15 Ibid. and the present author depart company in regard to the italicized words in the following citation, “. . . Abraham’s offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man’s claim to salvation. James’ teaching perfectly complements Paul’s writings; salvation is deter- mined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8, 9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God’s will alone (Eph. 2:10).” In one sense, he sees only one justification (the absence of justification before men proves that one was not justified before God). However, he recognizes that there are two justifications: one before God and one before men. As a critique, James 2:21 clearly identifies two justifications. The sole support for his view that there is ultimately only one justification comes from taking monon “only” (verse 24) as an adjective. Both verses 21 and 24 speak of two justifications. 16 Paul does not deny Abraham’s justification before man by works, but that he was justified before God eternally by anything other than by grace through faith. Romans 4:1ff., “What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. . . .” 22 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001)

fended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ state- ment in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4.17

The tension that Luther perceived between the epistles of James and Romans is transparent on the surface. If Luther would not consider the notion of two justifications (the adverbial usage), it is clear that even his adjectival view was a hard pill for him to swallow in light of the seeming great gulf between Paul and James regarding the issue of justification. The reading of the Vulgate would seem especially difficult. It must have seemed to marry faith and works, whereas at least the adjectival view was more like courtship.

Compare Romans 4:1–5 with James 2:21–24:

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Since James and Paul speak of justification, Luther wanted James to divorce the faith and works from each other. Thus, the

17 Martin Luther, Preface to James, 396. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 23 second tier (from which he questioned the canonicity of James) caused Luther to place the books he questioned (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation), as unnumbered books at the end of his New Testament.

Lutheranism has suffered under the burden of its canon within the canon. Whenever Luther could not reconcile a book’s message, he questioned its canonicity, not his perception of its message. In the end, his dogma assumed a theological authority, which superseded canonical Scripture. Surely, this violates James 4:11b–c, does it not? Martin Luther stood for sola fide and sola Scriptura, but his willingness to tinker with the translation of James 2:24 and his willingness to challenge the canonicity of various books eventually compromised both sola fide and sola Scriptura.

The Need for a New Translation

Luther and his contemporaries faced an enormous challenge in their work as Reformers. The Catholic Church stood firmly against sola fide and sola Scriptura, systematically obscuring the biblical doctrine of eternal justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Making the Bible available to common people was an essential ingredient in demonstrating the truth of sola fide and sola Scriptura.

However, in translating the Bible into German, Luther and his contemporaries faced a dilemma: Was the doctrine of sola Scriptura to be compromised through an inaccurate translation of the original text? Or, was sola fide to be compromised with reliable translations of problem texts lacking contextual explana- tions? In response, Luther used a very clever two-tier approach: (1) With his translation (although not grammatically correct), he thought that the theological tension was soluble; and, (2) if faced with a challenge to his translation or his interpretation, Luther had already expressed reservations about James being canonical. 24 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001)

Luther’s second tier is no longer tenable; therefore, sola fide and sola Scriptura have suffered in the midst of a seemingly ir- reconcilable difference between the apostles Paul and James regarding eternal justification. Furthermore, in accounting for this seeming discrepancy many expositors have allowed an unneces- sary contradiction between James 2:21 and 2:24 to distort their theology. These reasons present sufficient cause to investigate the grammar of James 2:24 in order to determine whether monon is an adjective or an adverb. In so doing a longstanding translation can be corrected and sola fide and sola Scriptura upheld.

—To be continued—

John Niemelä received a B.A. (University of Minnesota), and earned the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in New Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. John is Profes- sor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary. His email address is [email protected].