All Sins Are Evil

It is important to see that the question asks if all sins are equally evil. What it does not ask is if all sins are evil. The answer to that question is most assuredly “yes.” There are no sins that are not evil, from the sins we excuse in ourselves everyday to the hideous sins that practically everyone in society would recognize. As Romans 3:10-18 says, “None is righteous, no, not one.” Everyone has “turned aside” and “become worthless.” There is not a single person who “does good, not even one.” But of course, not all have committed the exact same sins, so the conclusion can only be that all sins are evil. And since they are all evil, they all call forth the wrath of God. There is no such thing as a sin that is “no big deal.” All sins bring condemnation; all sins require the atonement of Jesus to bring absolution.

There is a need to emphasize this lest some think that they are more-or-less good. For this the Bible is clear, “There is no one good! Not even one!” And James tells us that even if a person kept the whole law, offending only at one point, he would “become guilty of all of it.” In other words, the law of God holds together as a representation of his holiness. To violate any of it is to violate all of it when it comes to the standard of holiness. We remember also the teaching of Jesus, that sins of the heart bring culpability before God, even if those sins never are expressed with the hands (Matt 5:21-22). So, for example, the sixth commandment (you shall not murder) is broken by the murderous roots of envy, hatred, anger, and revenge (Q96). God sees not only the sin but the sin beneath the sin, and he judges accordingly. Therefore, as the answer to catechism question 106 asserts, “Every sin deserves God’s anger and curse, both in this life and in the life to come.”

The Severity of Evil

But, it would be inaccurate to say that all sins are equally evil. The catechism teaches, “In the eyes of God, some sins in themselves are more evil than others.” When Jesus went on trial before Pontius Pilate, Jesus told Pilate that the one who handed him over to Pilate was guilty of a “greater sin” than Pilate was. Far from excusing Pilate’s role in the crucifixion of Jesus, the point is simply that in comparison to the one who initiated the conspiracy to kill Jesus (the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas), Pilate’s guilt was less.

This point seems instinctively true to most of us as well. It is more evil to actually murder someone than it is to hate them; that is easy to understand. The catechism says that some sins are more evil than others “because of the harm that results from them.”

But we are not always accurate in our assessment of the severity of evil. In Exodus 32, Aaron complies with the demand of the people of Israel to construct a golden calf. They were not completely rejecting the one true God in favor of some other god of worship. Rather, uncertain if Moses would ever come down from Mt. Sinai, the people seemed to crave some visible representation of the God (or gods!) who had brought them out of Egypt. The golden calf constructed, the next day was proclaimed a “feast to YHWH,” complete with burnt offerings and peace offerings. We might want to excuse them for being a little off in their worship of the one true God. Surely they meant well, and God sees the heart, right? But the Bible says this was a great sin indeed, and God punished the sin with a severe plague (Exo 32:30-35).

Degrees of Punishment

Because sins are not equally evil, there are varying degrees of punishment and consequence that God brings upon them. Throughout the Mosaic Law, some crimes require a one-to-one form of restitution. Others require restitution at 200%, 400%, or even 500% (Exo 22). Some crimes are so severe, they can only be paid with one’s own life.

The different degrees of punishment reveal most plainly that not all sins are equally evil. And Jesus affirms this point in Matthew 11:20-24. On the day of judgment, the punishment for some will be “more tolerable” than for others.
But let no one find comfort in such varying degrees of punishment for sins. Let us find comfort instead in a God of mercy who punishes us infinitely less than our sins deserve. Let us find comfort in Christ who took the full wrath of sin on our behalf so that there is “now no condemnation”—none at all!—“for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).

Sin’s Stain Is Deep

Yet the ability and even the willingness to meditate deeply on the effects of the Fall are hindered partly by the Fall itself. Most of us seem to know there is something wrong with us, but sin itself discourages us from looking too closely. Often, we counter any sense of imperfection with the much stronger declaration that there’s a lot of good still in us, and it is this natural goodness which we convince ourselves should be the focus of our attention.

The hymn writer, Isaac Watts, brings the spotlight back on our fallen state in his song O Help My Unbelief.

How sad our state by nature is,
Our sin, how deep it stains;
And Satan binds our captive minds
Fast in his slavish chains.

The early seventeenth-century Scottish preacher, Thomas Boston, dared to go deep into the misery of the human condition. In his book, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, he reflects on the four different states in which human nature has existed: innocence, nature, grace, and the eternal state. He spends around 150 pages on “The State of Nature,” the second largest section in his book, second only to the eternal state, and taking up more room than “the state of grace.”

Sinning While Dreaming

Boston explores the “noetic effects of the fall,” how sin has corrupted our understanding and our minds. He offers six evidences of this corruption. His third is this: “There is in the mind of man a natural bias to evil,” such that while one struggles with things that are truly good, “it acts with a great deal of ease in evil.” He then gives six proofs of this point, and his last, he admits, is questioned by some. This proof is how we can sin even in our sleep, evidenced by “sinful dreams” where the sins our “hearts pant after when” awake are acted out with such ease while we sleep. If it seems unlikely that dreams can be sinful, Boston asks us to consider whether the same dark dreams plagued the incarnate Christ or Adam before the fall. And then he reminds us of Solomon’s sleepy encounter with God in 1 Kings 3, when God rewards Solomon for asking for wisdom rather than for long life or riches or the life of his enemies (1 Kings 3:10-11). Boston observes, “if a man may, in his sleep, do what is good and acceptable to God, why may he not also, when asleep do that which is evil and displeasing to God?”

If it be objected that this is just a natural working of the brain in our subconscious, Boston says this only proves the point: sin has negatively affected us this deeply, this fundamentally. How far we have fallen into sin is even more evident when we see how much we sin without seeming to have any ability to help ourselves.

Sinful Complacency

Here’s another one of Boston’s six evidences for the noetic effects of sin: “There is in the carnal mind an opposition to spiritual truths, and an aversion to receive them.” We who profess to know God are utterly inconsistent with our profession. We believe fire will burn us, so we avoid touching it. But we live so much of our lives as if we think the gospel to be a tale. Boston challenges us, “If you believe the doctrines of the word, how is it that you are so unconcerned about the state of your souls before the Lord?”

While we may rightly criticize our hypocrisy, our failure to live in such a way that shows that the spiritual truths we profess are even more real than the burning property of fire is not just an evidence of unbelief. It is an evidence of a fallen mind, incapable of living consistently with what we say we do believe.

Guilty, Weak, and Helpless

When we begin to see just how far we’ve fallen, the depths of our depravity, we ought to become overwhelmed by our condition. We are, Isaac Watts wrote, “a guilty, weak, and helpless worm.”

But the reality of sin, while creating a holy despair, can also make us more desperate to hope in Christ alone for relief from sin’s deep stain. Jesus is sufficient not only when we understand and believe, but also when we don’t understand and when we see how entrenched unbelief remains in our fallen state.

A guilty, weak, and helpless worm,
On Thy kind arms I fall;
Be thou my strength and righteousness,
My Jesus and my all.

To all who are weary and need rest,
To all who mourn and long for comfort,
To all who feel worthless and wonder if God cares,
To all who fail and desire strength,
To all who sin and need a Savior,
This church opens wide her doors with a welcome from Jesus Christ,
The Ally of his enemies,
The Defender of the guilty,
The Justifier of the inexcusable,
The Friend of sinners.
Welcome!

I like this call to worship. It puts Jesus front and center as our host. It sets a solid tone of grace as we begin the service. And it assures all who have come to the service that there is nothing that excludes them from coming to Christ. In short, it magnifies the wonders of the gospel!

A Welcome to All

The first five lines indicate who all is invited to the service. Anyone who finds themselves in need can come. Are you weary? Are you sorrowful? Do you feel worthless? Do you need strength? Are you a sinner? Then, come.

The only ones who are not explicitly invited are those who have no need. This mirrors the comment of Jesus in Luke 5:31-32. When asked why Jesus feasted with sinners, he answered, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The only qualification for receiving a welcome from Jesus is to be in need of what he can supply.

In reality, Jesus does not turn away anyone who desires to come to him. “Whoever comes to me,” he said in John 6:37, “I will never cast out.” You might think you have need of nothing, but if you come to him you will find that, like the church of Laodicea, “you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked” (Rev 3:17).

Who Is This Jesus?

The last part of the call to worship gives four identifying descriptions of Jesus. Who is this one who serves as host at the worship service? He is not what you would expect.

He is “the Ally of his enemies.” Even though we were all by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3) and hostile to God (Rom 8:7), our sins do not drive him away from us but toward us. In his book, Gentle and Lowly, Dane Ortlund writes that Jesus “sides with you against your sin, not against you because of your sin. He hates sin. But he loves you” (p. 71). Like Adam and Eve, we hide from God because of our sin. We have rebelled against him and now expect him to go to war against us. But this God, this Jesus, goes to war against our sin in order to save us.

He is “the Defender of the guilty.” This Jesus is a Defense Attorney, a Public Defender. He is our advocate (1 Jn 2:1). And he’s the best one there could ever be, for not only does he plead for us and on our behalf, but he also “is the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn 2:2). He doesn’t find some loophole in the law to get us off the hook. He doesn’t merely negotiate a plea deal for a lesser sentence. He makes no excuses for our crimes. Instead, he steps in and pays the full price, atoning for all our sins.

He is “the Justifier of the inexcusable.” Even though we have no grounds for getting ourselves off the hook before a holy God, the Son of God came, not to condemn, but to save (Jn 3:17). Before the throne of God, we have no excuse. Every mouth is stopped; the whole world is accountable to God (Rom 3:19). There is absolutely nothing we can do to excuse ourselves. Jesus doesn’t make an excuse for us either; instead, he justifies us. He pardons (not excuses!) all our sins and declares us to be righteous in his sight. How? By faith in Jesus (Rom 3:26). On what basis? By his grace, because of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:24).

Thus, this Jesus is truly “the Friend of sinners.” Yes, this is what people accused Jesus of being (Lk 7:34), and he did not deny it. His heart beats for sinners, for those who need him the most.

Going Too Far?

There is always the danger that some may hear these words of welcome, or the words of the gospel itself, and come to the wrong conclusion: “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom 6:1). The problem is that many (most? all?) who think that way are not taking the gospel of grace too far—they are not taking it far enough! And this is the same root issue that plagues the legalist, the one who tries to justify himself by works. This root is, as Sinclair Ferguson shows in his book The Whole Christ, “a divorce between God’s revealed will and his gracious, generous character.” One person denigrates the first (and thinks: “I can continue to sin and be justified anyway!), the other denigrates the second (and thinks: “I must not sin or I cannot be justified!”).

The solution for both is to be found in Christ, who is indeed gracious and generous in character, who welcomes the weary and those who need comfort, who feel worthless, who fail, who sin. The full weight of the glorious and gracious paradox of who Christ is (the “Ally of his enemies”? the “Defender of the guilty”? the “Justifier of the inexcusable”? the “Friend of sinners”?) ought to intrigue us all and urge us to come and see for ourselves how good this Savior is.  

Other Names for the Antichrist

As the opposite of all that is good, antichrist may be the best name for this figure, for he denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 Jn 2:22). The term itself is found only in First and Second John, but it seems like other biblical writers have a similar person in mind.

In the Old Testament, Daniel wrote about one who “shall speak words against the Most High” (Dan 7:25). A chapter later, we read about “a king of bold face” who “shall arise,” whose “power shall be great—but not by his own power” (Dan 8:23-25). Revelation 13 tells of a “beast . . . with ten horns and seven heads” and “blasphemous names on its heads.” The creature sounds similar to Daniel’s prophecy, and many people know about the number 666 and the “mark of the beast” mentioned at the end of the chapter.

In Second Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul speaks of this figure who will be revealed before the second coming of Christ and the arrival of the day of the Lord. He is called “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:3), a reference to his utter disregard for the righteous standard of God. But Paul also calls him “the son of destruction,” a reference to his ultimate destiny under the judgment of God.

A Multitude of Antichrists

Seeking to identify the Antichrist may be doomed from the start. Jesus said that many “false christs” will arise (Matt 24:24) and that “many will come” in his name claiming to be the Christ (Lk 21:8). John tells us that “as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come” (1 Jn 2:18). So perhaps there isn’t any one particular individual who alone deserves the title. Indeed “many deceivers have gone out into the world,” John says (2 Jn 7). These deceivers “do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.” Such people, we are told, are “the antichrist.”

While there are certain to be more “antichrists” to come, we are justified by these texts to look back and see antichrist in any number of historical persons. Countless wicked people in history have been labeled as such, but there is one biblical character who seems to fit the bill the best.

The One Who Betrayed Christ

Recall that Paul speaks of the antichrist with the title, “the son of destruction” (2 Thess 2:3). This phrase is also used by Jesus to describe Judas Iscariot in John 17:12. Judas is the best biblical example of the kind of person the antichrist is sure to be.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Paul says that the antichrist “opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship.” This is the nature of the antichrist, the name referring to one who “stands against” the Christ, the true Messiah. Judas Iscariot, chosen to be one of Jesus’s twelve disciples, became hostile to Jesus and his mission and turned against him. 

But Judas opposed Jesus by betraying him. He carried out his opposition through stealth, surprising the other disciples who did not see it coming. As Paul goes on to describe his “man of lawlessness,” he says that he comes “with all wicked deception” (2 Thess 2:9). The same tactic of trickery that Judas employed in his opposition is used by this antichrist, too.

One apparent difference between Judas and Paul’s antichrist is that Paul describes this person as not only opposing God but “proclaiming himself to be God” (v. 4). And while we have no record of Judas desiring anything like that, this may be the clearest indicator of who the antichrist truly is.

Satanic Ambition

In Luke 22:3, we are told that “Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot.” And Paul says that the “man of lawlessness” comes onto the scene “by the activity of Satan” (v. 9). It is Satan who is behind every rebellious desire to be like God (Gen 3:5). It is Satan, the “Day Star” fallen from heaven who says in his heart, “I will make myself like the Most High” (Isa 14: 12-14).

Thus, our interest in identifying the antichrist is not nearly as important as identifying the “spirit of the antichrist,” which, we are told, is “in the world already” (1 Jn 4:3). Whoever might deserve the title “antichrist,” it is Satan who is the real power behind them all. And his real reason for opposing the Christ is because he would rather find himself on the throne of God rather than yielding that place to Jesus.

We need to watch out for that spirit, whether we see it on display in the lives of others, and especially when we see it developing in our own hearts.

Part 3: Galatians 5:13-26

Paul wrote Galatians to address the Judaizing controversy, which was an early Christian Church dispute over whether gentiles still needed to observe some Jewish rituals such as circumcision and dietary laws. Paul argued the teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ made it clear that salvation by grace through faith alone was accessible by all people, both Jew and gentile. Like in Romans, Paul purposed in Galatians to maintain the unity of the church, through union of believers with Jesus Christ, thus promoting the missionary nature of God that Paul and all believers are called to profess.

While Paul writes to unite Jews and gentiles through union with Christ, he is aware of the constant tension found between the law of works which can lead to legalism and the law of grace through faith which can lead to license to sin. Immediately in v. 13, Paul warns not to abuse the freedom found in Christ as an opportunity for the flesh to pursue the sin it desires—this freedom is constrained by love found through life in the Spirit. However, the opposing pull cannot solely be the desire to fulfill the law, which leads to legalism, but rather he counters this tendency with a law of love. Paul summarizes the whole law in v. 14 by quoting Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” which Jesus himself highlighted as the second most important commandment in Matthew 22:39, only behind the command to love God above all else. James less explicitly sought a similar aim when he described how authentic faith should result in works of caring for the poor and loving one’s neighbor. Seeking to serve one another in love, which can only be accomplished in the Spirit, stands in direct opposition to Paul’s warning in v. 15 against division caused by judgment, which leads to consuming and devouring one another.

Galatians 5:16-25 provides the key to unifying Paul and James views of faith and works. Paul starts in vv. 16-17 declaring that if someone walks by the Spirit, they will inherently deny gratifying the desires of the flesh because the Spirit and the flesh are naturally opposed to one another. Thus, the key to denying the desires of the flesh, which when followed to their natural end leads to license, or unrestrained sinful living, is pursuing the Spirit of God. However, Paul proceeds in v. 18 to proclaim that those led by the Spirit are not under the law. This is an interesting distinction that rings true with Paul’s description of the law of faith in Romans 3. In both instances, Paul still thinks followers of Christ should conform to certain rules of behavior, much like James more explicitly exhorts believers towards good works—Paul and James both agree that good works are a natural result of Christian living.

If Christians are not under the law, what then are considered behaviors or “works” in line with Christian living? Paul begins to answer this question by describing the contrary works of the flesh in Galatians 5:18-21, which are the natural outcome of antinomianism, an attitude of complete rejection of the law leading to license to sin. In v. 21, Paul warns that these works of the flesh indicate separation from God and “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Given Paul’s previous emphasis on justification by faith alone in Romans, it is enlightening that he seems to share a point of agreement here with James—works not aligned with the heart of God indicate an inauthentic, or “dead,” faith not leading to justification. On the other hand, in vv. 22-26 Paul describes the fruit of the Spirit, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control,” which are the naturally resulting works that come from authentic faith. Those who are led by the Spirit, belonging to Christ, no longer find the passions/desires of the flesh attractive, and they crucify the flesh, letting it die on the cross with Christ, who paid the penalty for all sin past, present, and future. These fruits of the Spirit described by Paul in Galatians fall directly in line with the “works” described by James and support the argument that these “works” are the required evidence of authentic faith, thus showing believers to be righteous, or justified.

Conclusion

Paul’s explanation of Spirit-filled living in Galatians ties together the paradoxical relationship between faith and works. Authentic faith leads to Spirit-filled living, which naturally results in works pleasing to the Lord, while inauthentic faith leads to continuing in the desires of the flesh, resulting in works of the flesh rather than works pleasing to God. Justification comes through faith alone in the work of Christ on the cross, but any authentic faith will be validated by works. Paul argues from God’s birds-eye perspective, that justification comes through faith apart from works such that the gospel is accessible by all people, and God desires the unification of his church. On the other hand, James from the limited human perspective, that justification comes, or can be perceived, through works out of love for God and others, which is the natural fruit of authentic faith.

Paul and James theological arguments are not a matter of either justification by faith or justification by works, which presents a false dichotomy. Both agree that salvation through Christ is a beautiful paradox in which justification comes by the gift of grace through faith, true heart belief, which manifests in works pleasing to God, displaying evidence of sanctification, continually becoming more like Christ. When discussing the tension between belief and obedience Bonhoeffer astutely observed, “so long as we hold both sides of the proposition together they contain nothing inconsistent with right belief, but as soon as one is divorced from the other, it is bound to prove a stumbling-block. ‘Only those who believe obey’ is what we say to that part of a believer’s soul which obeys, and ‘only those who obey believe’ is what we say to that part of the soul of the obedient which believes.”^[1] Accordingly, we must hold faith and works together in tension, not reducing the theology of Paul or James to arguments for antinomianism or legalism. We must simultaneously “turn the call to follow Christ all the way up to full volume” and “dare to keep turning up the volume on grace—all the way to full blast.”^[2] This is what is called for when we have been made new creations that are in union with Christ and have been freed to walk in obedience through the power of Spirit-filled living.

References

1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, Translated by R.H. Fuller, & Kaiser Verlag Munchen. (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1963), 74
2. Rankin Wilbourne, Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2016)

Okay so I am sure that you remember our discussion on God testing people. How do you reconcile James 1:12-13 with Genesis 22:1?

Let’s begin by citing the verses in question.

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. ~ James 1:12-13

After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” ~ Genesis 22:1

Tempting and Testing

The verb “to tempt” in James is the Greek word peirazo. It means 1) to make an effort to do something; 2) to endeavor to discover the nature or character of something by testing; 3) to attempt to entrap through a process of inquiry; or 4) to entice to improper behavior. Clearly it is this fourth meaning that James has in mind here, the same kind of temptation that Jesus endured from Satan in Matthew 4.

The verb “to test” in Genesis is the Hebrew word nisah. It means 1) to put someone to the test (not just in the form of tempting them to do something wrong but also as in the Queen of Sheba who “tested” Solomon with hard questions); 2) to give experience or to train; or 3) to conduct a test, make an attempt.

So we see that these two words mean essentially the same thing, which is why the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the verb peirazo to translate nishah in Genesis 22:1.

But we also see that both words have a range of meanings so that either one can be used positively (in the sense of test) or negatively (in the sense of tempt). That’s why I don’t think there is any contradiction between these two verses. Genesis uses the word positively (and so is translated into English as “test”) while James 1:13 is using it negatively (and so is translated into English as “tempt.”

Positive and Negative Tests

My friend said he did not see the context of James distinguishing between the positive and negative meanings of peirazo. That is correct to some extent, which is why James says that trials can be of “various kinds.” Clearly verse 13 has the negative meaning in view. But verse 2 tells us to “count it all joy” when we encounter various kinds of trials (peirasmos, the noun form of peirazo). And verse 12 says “blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial” (peirasmos). These encouragements certainly suggest some sort of positive view of peirasmos.

This positive view is also used in verses 3 and 12 which introduce us to another word that the ESV translates as test. It is the Greek word dokimos which only has a positive meaning: “being genuine on the basis of testing.” So in James 1:1-12 the author is telling us that God has positive intent in any kind of “test” he sends our way. But in verse 13 he explicitly says that “God tempts no one” because there he has the negative meaning in mind (i.e. he does not tempt anyone with evil).

I think this helps us see that there is no contradiction with Genesis 22:1. God “tested” Abraham only in a positive sense. His test was designed to prove the genuineness of Abraham’s faith, not enticing him to sin against God.

Part 2: James 2:14-26

The Letter of James is a very practical book that assumes a foundation of faith and serves as a guide for Christian living. Given James’ focus on authentic faith, false religiosity, and practical Christian living, it appears some Christian communities overcorrected from the “works of the law” required by Judaism in the direction of license and “thought they were no longer under any obligation to many Mosaic laws.”^[1] Thus, James was addressing a “context that thought there is no need for any iota of works provided one has faith,” and he desired to present an alternative faith, “that is alive and shows its vitality by the things it does (works).”^[2] This purpose of James, compared to Paul’s emphasis on unity, leads to significant differences in how faith and works are discussed.

Providing some context to our passage, James 2:1-13 describes the sin of partiality and the contrasting impartiality of Christ towards all sin. James apparently saw the sin of partiality, which manifested in dishonoring the poor and failing to love neighbors, in some early believers. James makes it clear in v. 10 whoever “fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” This at least provides context for what kind of “works” James is primarily concerned with and makes it evident that James agrees with Paul—no one can fulfill every point of the law without fail.

James starts our passage of concern in 2:14 asking the rhetorical question, can faith without works save someone? This answer hinges on the contextual definitions of works, faith, and justification. Based on the previous discussion from James 2:1-13, it seems unlikely that James would suggest perfect works is required for salvation, otherwise salvation would be impossible for everyone except Christ. However, vv. 15-17 suggest that faith without works is not sufficient for salvation. If “works” are required for salvation this would seem to contradict other passages from the Bible including many of Paul’s epistles and specifically our previous passage from Romans 3:21-4:12.

One thought to reconcile the incongruence between James and Paul is that they are talking about different kinds of works or faith. It is interesting to note that in Romans 3:20 and 3:28, Paul qualifies works by saying “works of the law.” Does this automatically make it different from the “works” mentioned by James? It is possible that Paul is more specifically mentioning works related to the Jewish laws, while James is more broadly referring to holy Christian living. However, in several other places in the context of Paul’s writings, he uses the same word for works to describe holy living that is pleasing to God (e.g. Romans 2:6-7), so it appears Paul uses “works” in two different senses. The overarching thesis from James 2:1-13 is that mercy towards the poor and unconditional love for your neighbor, rather than partiality towards neighbors, are works pleasing to the Lord, and this concept carries over into vv. 15-16, which qualitatively describe the kind of works James is referring to—works that demonstrate unconditional love of one’s neighbor. Thus, I would argue that the “works” described by James primarily refer to Christian living and the intent of the heart rather than “works of the law.”

We must also evaluate the differences in contextual use of “faith” between James and Paul. When James says “that” faith in v. 14, he is describing a faith void of “works,” which as previously discussed in James’ context means unconditional love for one’s neighbor. James continues in v. 17 to describe this faith as “dead,” indicating that faith without works is not an authentic faith leading to salvation. In James 2:18-19, he presses into this argument by pointing out that even the demons believe, or have faith, in the existence of a powerful creator God, to the extent they respond in shuddering. However, it is fair to assume that Paul and James would readily agree the “faith” of demons is not an authentic faith leading to justification by God, but rather a head knowledge belief that does not penetrate to the heart motivations or result in works that are pleasing to God.

To highlight the necessity of works to validate faith, James asks rhetorical questions in vv. 20-21, attempting to demonstrate from the Old Testament that faith without works is futile. Perhaps James’ most controversial statement occurs in v. 21 when he suggests that Abraham was justified by his works in Genesis 22 when he offered Isaac on the altar. This seems to stand in direct contradiction to Romans 4:1-5, in which Paul describes how Abraham was already justified by his faith in Genesis 15:6, rather than any subsequent works. Paul argues even Abraham received his righteousness, his right standing with God, through his faith rather than his works. Paul reinforces this argument in Romans 4:9-12 to drive home the importance of unity between the gentile and Jewish believers of the New Testament church. The blessing of forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God was not intended only for the circumcised, those sealed under the original covenant with God’s people, but also for the uncircumcised who came to faith in God, just as Abraham came to faith in God before his circumcision.To reconcile the different explanation of Abraham’s salvation by James and Paul, we must understand what James means in v. 2:22, “faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” This explanation implies that authentic faith will be validated by corresponding works, but inauthentic faith will not be similarly “completed.” Much like Paul in Romans 4:3, James 2:23 quotes Genesis 15:6 to describe Abraham’s faith, but in contrast to Paul, James does not isolate this as the moment of Abraham’s justification. James says in v. 23 that Abraham’s works evidenced in Genesis 22 was a fulfillment of Genesis 15:6. Is James arguing that Abraham’s faith was incomplete, or ineffective for justification, before his works testified to his faith? I do not think so. Rather, James’ and Paul’s different purposes in writing result in utilizing justification in a different sense. Maxwell summarizes, “In Paul... ‘justify’ refers to God crediting righteousness to the believer. In James, however, ‘justify’ means that Abraham is shown to be righteous.”^[3] In other words, Abraham was first made righteous, or justified, by God through his faith, but he was shown to be righteous by subsequent works—the natural outworking of his authentic faith. Thus, when James says in v. 24 “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” we can see from his previous descriptions of faith that any authentic faith will be accompanied by fruit of good works.

Indeed, if Abraham’s faith had not been evidenced by subsequent works pleasing to God, then it would have been an indication of a “dead” faith previously described by James. N.T Wright summarizes, “when James says ‘faith’ he means a dead orthodoxy which Paul and Luther would have been equally quick to condemn.”^[4] To conclude his thesis in v. 26, James makes an analogy comparing dead faith apart from works to a lifeless body without a spirit. This paints a bleak picture indeed, a body separated from spirit is just a lifeless bag of flesh and bones waiting to decompose, just as a faith without works is a worthless attempt at salvation destined to futility.

In the final part of this blog series, we will discuss how James’ and Paul’s views are reconciled by union with Christ through Spirit-filled living as described in Galatians 5:13-26.

References

1. Adeniye Gbenga Aboyeji Primacy, "Balanced Christianity: a Nexus Between Faith and Works in the Book of James." Journal of Biblical Theology 2, no. 2 (April 2019), 65
2. Ibid, 65
3. David R. Maxwell, "Justified by works and not by faith alone: Reconciling Paul and James." Concordia Journal 33, no. 4 (October 2007), 376
4. N.T. Wright "Justification: The Biblical Basis and Its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism." In The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian Thought, (London: Collins, 1980)

The question of vaccination is one that often rises between and among believers. Recently, the discussion seems to have become ubiquitous in the setting of a deadly pandemic and the speed at which vaccines are being produced. The first ever vaccine to be produced was the smallpox vaccine, introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796. Smallpox, now eradicated from the world, wreaked havoc on human life and various societies. But the vaccine itself was not without growing pains, of particular knowledge to evangelicals through the death of Jonathan Edwards who received a high dose of inoculum that unfortunately led to his demise.

Since then, scientific knowledge and methods have grown significantly, leading to tremendous safety in vaccination. Yet there’s been an equal growth in arguments against it. The Anti-Vaccination League of America held its first meeting in New York in 1882. Among the assertions made by the speakers at the meeting was the idea that smallpox was spread not by contagion, but by filth. This became a popular, though incorrect, argument of anti-vaccinationists.

Advances in technology

This did not stop the discovery and testing of vaccines. A few highlights were: Isolation of influenza virus in 1933 and production of a vaccine in 1942; DTP vaccine in 1948; breakthrough in culturing poliovirus in 1949; MMR vaccine in 1971; and lastly COVID vaccines in 2020. 

Vaccines can be made in several ways: 

• A live attenuated vaccine uses a weakened version of an actual virus. Examples would be chickenpox and MMR. 
• An inactivated vaccine uses a killed virus that is not capable of causing disease but can still cause an immune response. Examples include Influenza, Polio, Hepatitis A and Rabies. 
• A subunit vaccine uses pieces of a virus that help trigger an immune response. Examples are Hepatitis B and HPV vaccines. 
• A conjugate vaccine is typically used for bacteria like Hemophilus Influenzae (rather than viruses), and attaches a piece of the bacterial coat to a large protein which makes it recognizable to our T cells, thus triggering an immune response. 
• A toxoid vaccine uses a killed toxin that can trigger an immune response, such as in the cases of Tdap. 
• RNA vaccines are very recent (more on that below).

Vaccines and fetal cell lines

There are three stages in the making of a vaccine:

• Design (or development): the process of finding what works as a vaccine. 
• Confirmation: the testing process to ensure the vaccine works.
• Production: the process of manufacturing and mass producing the vaccine.

In most of its early history, vaccine development used animal cells through the mid-20^th century. The use of animals comes at a high financial cost and requires stringent monitoring of the health of used animals. Alternate ways needed to be found. For example, producing the Influenza vaccine uses millions of chicken eggs yearly and the USA maintains chicken farms under stringent conditions specifically for this reason. 

The rubella virus was cultured in lung cells from an aborted fetus (WI-38) around 1962. The resultant vaccine became part of the currently known and widely used MMR vaccine. Another human lung cell strain originated in the UK in 1970, known as MRC-5. Hepatitis A, Varicella, Zoster, Adenovirus and Rabies vaccines have used these lines.

The two cell lines most currently in our conversations are HEK293 (descending from kidney tissue from an elective abortion in 1973 in the Netherlands) and PER.C6 (descending from retinal tissue from an elective abortion in 1985).

The use of fetal cell lines and aborted fetal tissues is highly problematic. There are not currently known fetuses being aborted solely for the purpose of producing vaccines. Neither are there actual fetal cells in the current cell lines. The original cells have long perished in a natural process that eventually limits cell multiplication. The current cells are rather descendants of the original ones, several generations downstream. 

COVID vaccines

In 2020, the first mRNA vaccine was introduced. It is composed of an RNA strand, very fragile by nature, which degrades very quickly after entering a cell cytoplasm and going through the decoding process to produce a protein. As such, unlike certain misconceptions, it does not enter the human cell nucleus and does not alter its DNA. In fact, an RNA vaccine is packaged in lipid particles to keep it stable until it enters a human cell, otherwise it would degrade before ever being used. The only way an RNA strand can alter the nucleus is if it is accompanied by a primer. This is only found in a retrovirus such as HIV. The COVID vaccine does not come with a primer and as such it cannot create DNA in the human nucleus. Like any new discovery, it will be hard to know the long-term safety profile of a recently found vaccine. As of now, the COVID vaccine profile appears quite safe since its first trials in the early summer of 2020, seems to cause similar side effects to other vaccines, yet is able to be produced at higher speed and lower cost.

As in other cases, questions arise about the use of fetal cell lines in designing, confirming and producing the various COVID vaccines. Given the growing vaccine candidates and regularly changing data, the Christian Medical and Dental Association (an organization of Christian healthcare providers I am a member of) and The Charlotte Lozier Institute have published charts continually updated with new information to help Christians inform their consciences and decisions regarding the COVID vaccine, whether in an RNA form or another. As questions arise or you have a desire for more information, I encourage you to revisit these charts, something I regularly do.

Moral reasoning

Many people may find the use of fetal cell lines to be problematic in developing or producing a vaccine, steps that are often more engaged and ongoing. This would be the case of COVID vaccines produced by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Many may not find as problematic the use of such cell lines in the confirmation process which is usually a singular event. This would be the case of COVID vaccines by Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax. The charts linked below provide ample data to inform the conscience on all current and emerging COVID vaccines.

Genuine believers can differ in drawing a direct line or a jagged line between abortion and vaccine production. The abortions that resulted in the cell lines were not done for the sake of vaccine production. Current cell lines are several generations downstream. Current vaccine production does not require ongoing abortions and no abortions are currently known to be performed for the sake of creating fetal cell banks or cell lines to produce vaccines. Despite side effects, vaccines save lives and prevent transmissible diseases, even eradicating some. There should be a push toward producing vaccines free from any ethical dilemma and without any connection to tissue originating from abortion. 

People in general and Christians in particular should not go against the word of God neither violate a well-informed conscience when choosing to receive a vaccine, and should not be forced to choose between violating their conscience or being vaccinated against a deadly virus. 

Personal thoughts

My opinion here is informative. It is not the final word. Passions may run high. I have already received the COVID vaccine series (from Pfizer), and many others throughout my lifetime. I did so to protect myself and my neighbor. I do not consider my receipt of these vaccines as moral culpability nor accessory nor participation in the abortions that happened in 1973 and 1985. At the same time, I will regard and respect those who have differing opinions, and would not force them to violate their conscience. For example, I would consider a mandatory nationwide immunization problematic as it may violate the consciences of individuals.

My first, final and only hope is not in a vaccine, but in the God who graciously grants people knowledge and wisdom to act in a way to preserve and promote human life. If we decide to receive a vaccine, we should do so with gratitude to the Father and prayer that it would be beneficial and a blessing to our body for the sake of immunity, so that we may serve him and glorify him better, more, and longer.

References and further reading

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_100518

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/covid-vaccine-christian-unity/

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-fetal-cells-covid-19-vaccines-treatments/

https://cmda.org/article/is-vaccination-complicit-with-abortion/

https://cmda.org/article/vaccination-information-and-recommendations/

https://cmda.org/coronavirus/

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

https://lozierinstitute.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/

These discrepancies between faith and works are most glaring when the Letter of James is compared with Paul’s writing about salvation by grace through faith in Romans. In this 3-part blog series, I will specifically compare the notorious passage of James 2:14-26 with Romans 3:21-4:12 and argue these apparently incompatible viewpoints are harmonized by union with Christ through Spirit-filled living as described in Galatians 5:13-26.

Part 1: Romans 3:21-4:12

Romans is Paul’s longest letter and stands as his magnum opus of Christian theology. It seems that Paul wanted his letter to the Romans to stand alone as a summary of the work of Christ, namely justification by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in case he was permanently prevented from visiting the believers there. Romans was an ethnically diverse church of Jews and gentiles, thus Paul desired to strengthen the faith of the Roman Christians and foster unity within the Roman church through the gospel of justification by faith alone, for the sake of the advance of God’s kingdom.

In the first half of Romans 3, Paul explains that all people start on an equal footing with respect to God, no one is righteous, and no one can perfectly fulfill the law. Jewish Christians in the early church, as evidenced in Romans 3:1, were tempted to believe their heritage provided an advantage in following the teachings of Christ. Paul, coming from a Pharisaical background himself, understood this mindset all too well and combatted this by preaching a gospel of salvation by grace through faith, separate from works of the law. Paul purposed to make it crystal clear that all believers and non-believers, Jews and gentiles, come from the same starting point: complete depravity and inability to achieve justification through our own works. However, Romans 3:19-20 makes it clear the law is not pointless because the law was necessary to reveal our brokenness and sin, resulting in the need of a means outside our own works to be justified in the eyes of God.

Although the law cannot lead to justification, Paul explains in Romans 3:21-22 that the righteousness of God was made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ apart from the law, and thus made accessible to all who believe. Stephen Runge emphasized the significance of this shift, which we as believers sometimes take for granted, in his Romans commentary, “the description of God’s righteousness revealed in Jesus sharply contrasts with Paul’s characterization of the law. This righteousness offers a solution to the problem of sin, not just knowledge of it.”^[4] Paul makes it clear in Romans 3:23 that no person, apart from Christ, has been made righteous through their own works.

The problem of sin is further clarified in Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death…” There is no qualification to the statement “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” thus all are condemned to death and undeserving of justification. In 3:24, Paul explicitly calls justification by God’s grace a gift, likewise in the conclusion of Romans 6:23, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” God’s offer of justification from sin and substitution with the righteousness of God, is a beautiful and indescribable gift only found in union with Christ. A gift is inherently something that is given and received rather than earned and obliged. If we had earned our own justification through works, God would have been obligated to provide us the wages of righteousness before God and eternal life, and we would have every right to boast of our merits over those who remain enslaved to the desires of the flesh. Paul makes it clear in Romans 3:27 that boasting of any kind is excluded and summarizes in v. 28 that justification comes by faith apart from works of the law.

Despite Paul’s repeated emphasis on salvation by faith rather than works, however, he makes it clear from his summarizing statement in v. 31 that this does not give license to unrestrained sinful living. Paul proclaims, “By no means!” We do not completely throw out the law because of faith, but rather, we uphold the law because it was put in place by a good and wise God. God revealed our need for justification—being made right with God—through the law and provided the means himself through the completed work of his son Jesus Christ, who lived a perfectly righteous life, was crucified on the cross, took the full penalty of our sins, and was raised from the dead, demonstrating ultimate victory over sin and death. Redemption comes only through the person of Jesus Christ!

In the next part of this blog series, we will jump into James 2:14-26 to compare Paul and James’ take on faith and works. We will also dig deeper into Romans 4:1-12 to evaluate Paul and James’ contrasting explanations of Abraham’s faith and justification.

References

1. Martin Luther, PREFACES TO THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE - 1522-1545. 1522. http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

2. Paul F.M. Zahl, Grace in Practice: A Theology of Everyday Life, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 52

3. Ibid, 52-53

4. Stephen E. Runge, Romans: A Visual and Textual Guide, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014)

There were many other moments like that. Sixteen, and the ability to get my driver license. My senior year of high school. Turning eighteen, then twenty, then twenty-one. So many milestones in the early years of life. Graduation from high school, then college. Marriage. Kids. My first real job. Our first house.

Looking Forward to Heaven

The privilege of looking forward to such things is undoubtedly part of the greater sense of pain we feel at the death of a young person in comparison to the death of someone in their eighties or nineties. At some point, we lose any sense of there being something to look forward to, and death seems more acceptable. More palatable.

Christians find comfort in the fact that the Bible promises a conscience existence after death. Believers in Jesus who die, though disembodied, are said to be with the Lord (Phil 1:23). Indeed, this life after death is a direct result of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. Because Christ “died for us,” we are sure to live with him whether we are physically alive or physically dead (1 Thess 5:10).

The Disadvantage of Death

But the Bible makes it plain that there are disadvantages to being dead. Despite the glorious hope of heaven, of life after death, the biblical worldview favors life over death. In fact, the Bible doesn’t tell us much about the intermediate state but encourages us instead to long for the life of earth. Fifteen times (in the ESV) we find the phrase “the land of the living.” The Psalmist prefers to “look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living” (Psa 27:13). He is thankful that God has delivered him from death so that he can “walk before the Lord in the land of the living” (Psa 116:8-9). So while in one sense Christians need not fear death, for to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8), in another very important sense, death is no friend. Indeed, it is a great enemy, the very last enemy that will be defeated (1 Cor 15:26).

While the Christian has heaven as a comfort given the harsh reality of death, the Bible tells us that it is not some intermediate state that promises the greatest comfort. Rather, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead points the way to our own hope for resurrection; “If we have died with him, we will also live with him” (2 Tim 2:11). As glorious as heaven must be, it pales in comparison to resurrection into the new creation where death is no more.

The End of Grief

Thus, Christians should never long for heaven, at least not as they long to be resurrected from the dead, back into the land of the living. The Christian should be looking for the arrival of the day of the Lord, the Second Coming of Jesus, the day of their resurrection. Paul urges us to find our comfort in the death of another Christian not in the fact that they are with the Lord in heaven (though that is certainly true), but in the fact that they will not at all miss out on the greatest moment in history yet to come, the day of the Lord’s return. On that day, the dead in Christ will rise first and then, together with those Christians still living, will meet the Lord at his coming (1 Thess 4:16-17).

The grief of death for us as Christians is not so much a grief for the Christian who has died, for we are certain that in death they have gained heaven. But we still grieve because they are not here with us anymore in the land of the living. They are now dead. And apart from them being raised, our only hope of seeing them again is found in our own death and departure from life.

But then our own death will continue the conveyor belt of grief, for our own loved ones will have lost us from the land of the living. And on and not it goes. Death is a separator, not a uniter. It separates spouses and friends, and parents from their children.

But resurrection promises to unite what death has separated. And that is something to really look forward to.