In Romans 4, Paul speaks of Abraham and presents him as the father of all believers, namely both Jews and non-Jews (the nations). In doing so, he names certain aspects. James also quotes from the life of Abraham later in the New Testament. James, however, draws quite different conclusions from this than Paul. Paul and James, it seems, have two opposing views. We now want to follow these up a bit. From this we can learn some things that are important for an understanding of the New Testament.

The Covenant of God

Paul referred to the life of Abraham and the promises, asking:

“Now is this blessedness for circumcision alone, or for uncircumcision also? For we say, To Abraham faith was counted for righteousness. – Now how was it counted to him, in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision! And the sign of circumcision he received as a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had in the time of uncircumcision.”
Rom 4:9-11

The issue here is whether Jews can derive some kind of “exclusivity” from their circumcision. Paul counters this with a reference to the life of Abraham. Paul distinguishes the life of Abraham according to the criterion of circumcision. For part of his life (the first 99 years) he lived as an uncircumcised man (“the time of uncircumcision” 4:11-12). Then, at 99, he circumcised himself and all the men in his tour group. What all happens afterwards happens “in the circumcision”, so to speak. Everywhere in the Bible where circumcision is mentioned, it goes back to Abraham and the subsequent ways of God with His people Israel.

The covenant God made with Abraham brought with it an obligation to circumcise the male descendants(Gen. 17:9-10). “This shall be the sign that I have made my covenant with you.” (Gen 17:11). Abraham, whom the Jews rightly see as the “original father,” already had a covenant with God before he was circumcised. Circumcision came later. Therefore, there is no exclusivity based on circumcision.

According to the story, Abraham experienced and did epic things. When he was 75 years old, he really went on the road. At this advanced age, he set off from his home town, following the promise of God (Gen 12:4). Almost 25 years later, he is still wandering when God makes a covenant with him. At that time his name was Abram.

Abram was 99 years old when the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty. Live before my face, and be blameless. 2 And I will put my covenant between me and thee, and will greatly multiply thee.”
Gen 17:1,2

On this occasion, it is God who gives Abram (hb. Exalted or High Father) the name Abraham (father of the multitude). He is to become a father of many nations.

“Then Abram fell on his face, and God spoke to him, saying: I, behold, this is my covenant with thee: thou shalt become the father of a multitude of nations. And no longer shall your name be called Abram, but Abraham shall be your name! For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

And I will make you very, very fruitful, and I will make you nations, and kings will come out of you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your alienage, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be God to them. And God said unto Abraham, And thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: All that is male shall be circumcised among you; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin. This will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. At the age of eight days all that is male among you shall be circumcised, through your generations, the slave born in your house and the slave bought for money from any stranger who is not of your offspring; circumcised must be the slave born in your house and the slave bought for your money! And my covenant in your flesh shall be an everlasting covenant.”
Gen 17:3-13

“Behold, my covenant is with you!” (Gen 17:4). These words and this covenant echo throughout the Bible. It is one of the important chapters of the Bible. Since then, there have been the two groups of “circumcised” and “uncircumcised,” or the “covenants of Abraham” and “the rest of the nations.” In a narrower sense, the Bible speaks of the circumcised as of Israel, namely, the people who came forth from the archfathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (whose name changed to Israel).

The sign of circumcision

In Romans 4, Paul speaks of the “sign of circumcision”. For him, this was a “seal of the righteousness of faith – which he had in the time of uncircumcision” (Rom 4:11). Paul sees circumcision as a confirmation of the faith that Abram had already exhibited before. Without Abram’s previous faith, God might not have come this far with him. Circumcision cannot be viewed in isolation from the previous story.

This view is, of course, helpful where an arrogance had arisen in religious thinking because of circumcision. The Apostle Paul untangles this knot and places circumcision back in the original context of faith. By this he shows that Abram was “even a heathen” when he was called, but he believed God and this was counted to him for righteousness. This is the key to establishing an equality of nations.

James also refers to Abraham, but proceeds differently. While Paul focuses on the time before the circumcision of Abraham in Romans 4, James talks about things that happened after the circumcision of Abraham. Both speak of the faith of Abraham, but Paul sees this as the foundation of righteousness, while in James faith is a beginning to live it out in righteousness as well. This is a Jewish view, based on the Tenach, but viewed in light of Jesus’ ministry. Let’s learn to distinguish there.

This is a good starting point for a better understanding. Why is this important? Now, Paul and James are often pitted against each other. In fact, they make contrary statements. These statements are real. However, they only become comprehensible when the statements are read in their own context. James is speaking to Jews with a Jewish expectation, while Paul was speaking to Gentile believers who had no idea of this Jewish expectation and will have no part in it.

For such a differentiation to be possible, two things must be kept in mind:

1. Paul and James make contrasting statements
2. A differentiation requires that I want to understand them in their own context and not reconcile them partout with each other.

The second point is important because many tend to put “something of Paul” and “something of James” together into a separate mixed gospel. The starting point is: the whole New Testament reports one message and therefore you have to balance everything with each other. That is the opinion – but is it true? This starting point is unfortunately flawed because it has been proven that there are not only different target groups in the New Testament, but also separate and adapted messages for each target group. It is not a matter of one message with different addresses, but of two messages from the same Lord, adapted to two destinations. However, this can only be recognized if one does not try to create a one-size-fits-all approach on the surface, but attentively follows the story in the New Testament.

What are the differences?

Paul opened the door of equality for believers from the nations with the story of Abraham. He was an “apostle to the nations” (Romans 11:13). Something completely new was created. Paul reveals secrets that were previously unknown (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:1-3). Therefore, we should not be surprised that there were differences between Paul and the other 12 apostles and James. Even Peter made it clear that not everything in Paul’s letters is easy to understand and that the meaning of his letters is often distorted (2Pet 3,15-16). So Paul is not speaking to or from Israel, but he is addressing all nations and calling individuals to faith with his gospel.

James, on the other hand, had a different task than Paul. He wrote to the 12 tribes of Israel who were in the diaspora (Jas 1:1). He also quotes Abraham, but from a different perspective. James speaks only of Israel, specifically of the Jews in the dispersion (i.e., those living outside the land of Israel). James does not carry out the Great Commission, but stays in his own house (Israel).

These differences are significant and help to better understand each other’s message.

Faith and works

There are clear differences between the statements of Paul and James. When Luther finally recognized the liberating message of God’s saving grace by faith alone (he read the Epistle to the Romans), he could no longer do anything with the Epistle of James (Luther called the Epistle of James a “straw epistle” in his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews). These are the differences:

It is interesting that both Paul and James refer to the faith of Abraham. However, they handle it differently. Paul emphasizes righteousness by faith, while James sees this as an occasion to bring works as evidence and fulfillment of it.

These are not simply two sides of the same coin, they are statements against different backgrounds.

Differences are relevant

How can this be interpreted now? Often people just try to sweep the differences under the rug. “Somehow they’re both saying the same thing, aren’t they? They both mean well, don’t they?”. Another may say “The two complement each other! There should be something of the law and something of grace!” What would Paul and James have thought, if they heard us talking like this? Probably no one would have felt understood. Maybe they would even be really outraged that they are not being listened to properly. Paul would probably have been radical – he summarily banned a mixed gospel of law and grace (Gal 1:6-10).

The problem with leveling statements is the blunting of truth. Paul makes a clear statement, but you can’t just sweep it under the rug when James says something different. James, on the other hand, clearly speaks of something different than Paul. His statement also wants to be understood correctly in its own context first. For Paul, it was important to emphasize righteousness by faith, entirely without works. We are saved by grace, without works. James, on the other hand, speaks of a faith that is dead without works and is not even able to save. This is a contrast that could not be stronger.

This contrast poses a problem only if we assume that both texts speak to the same audience, and both speak to the same congregation, so to speak. That’s the reason that you try to tone down both of these statements and match them up. It is also the reason that Luther wrote that the Epistle of James is a “stroherne Epistle”, that is, a worthless letter, compared to the Epistle to the Romans and the grace shown there.

But do we have to pit the two against each other? Do we have to align the two by hook or by crook? Or are there other ways of looking at it? That is the question here now. This is where opinions differ, but this is also where deep insight into the history of salvation comes in. Let’s compare Paul and James again:

The adaptation of the message

According to the information in the text, there are clear differences, both in the target audience of the two, and in the good news which they proclaim. While both gospels have Jesus Christ at the center, they have a different target audience. Their message is adapted to the target groups and their expectation. Why? They are two different situations, with two different groups.

Today’s church is not the continuation of Israel, or the replacement of Israel, but came along by the way. Therefore, there is a selection from Israel (the 12 apostles and the church in Jerusalem) and a selection from the nations (called by Paul). Israel was not removed from God’s plan. The church today is a miracle of God’s grace, in addition to Israel.

Paul is the only apostle known as the apostle to the nations. Only he speaks of the “body of Christ” (Leib Christi). Only he speaks of grace without works. In contrast, Peter, James and John speak of the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Israel. With you, the law belongs, not in view of an endless eternity, but as a task in this world. The church of the Jews in Jerusalem was still awaiting the fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom for Israel (Acts 1:6). They were waiting for the Messiah for Israel (Acts 2:36). The focus is different. For the 12 apostles, the law was never abrogated. For Paul, however, the message was vastly expanded. Mixing both messages is thereby automatically mixing law and grace.

The primary problem with this mixing is that many today often assume that everything in the Bible speaks of “eternal” things. However, this is not the case. Much of the Bible describes the coming messianic time and says nothing at all about the time after that.

The good news of the coming messianic kingdom was the right message in the gospels. James builds on this message. He is speaking to the believers from Israel who are still awaiting the Messianic Kingdom. What Paul later begins to preach would be unthinkable in the Gospels. There it was only about the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24) and the promises to Israel (Rom 15:8). We must learn to appreciate the Bible words in their own context.

What James says makes 100% sense in the Jewish context. The view is not “unlimited eternity, playing a harp while sitting on a cloud in heaven”, but a kingdom of heaven descending from heaven to earth. This is the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. In this coming time, the nations shall be blessed via Israel, as it was already promised to Abraham(Gen 12:3) and what the prophets spoke about(Isa 11:10 and others).

What Paul says makes 100% sense in the context of today’s church from all nations. There is no privileged position of Israel here and we have direct access to the Father in the Spirit without mediation via Israel (Eph 2:17-18). This situation is not the same as what James writes about. The messianic kingdom was postponed, but not abolished. In the time in between, there is today the church from all nations, the body of Christ, called by Paul. This is only a temporary phenomenon on earth until Israel resumes powerfully (Rom 11:25-27).

In the New Testament, amazingly, one does not find a single message, nor a single expectation. When the kingdom was not established (Acts 1:6-8) and Paul appeared on the scene, there were two churches a short time later. One was in Jerusalem, waiting as the firstfruits of Israel for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom. The other originated outside of Israel among all nations, and it is the Church, which for 2000 years has been called not by law but by grace. Luther had recognized this correctly, but he could not do anything with James. His theology prevented him from seeing for Israel the place for which James worked.