Schwing!
In a recent podcast (around the 61 min mark) attempting to defend sola fide and the Reformed interpretation of Jas 2:24, wherein “justification” is said to mean “vindicate” or “declare,” Jeff Durbin appealed to Luke 7:35 (cf. Matt 11:19):
But wisdom is justified (ἐδικαιώθη [δικαιοω]) of all her children.
While it is true that δικαιοω is used in a sense of "vindication" in this text, it is being used as a metaphor and, furthermore, is not being used in a soteriological context. It is only because the context of these verses does not concern themselves with justification and related issues. Something similar happens in English--if you refer to your wife as "the apple of my eye," such clearly uses "apple" in a metaphorical sense, not the "normative" sense of "apple"--to claim otherwise would result in utter inanity! Obviously, "wisdom" cannot be justified in a soteriological sense, as it is a virtue, so "justified" changes from its "normative" meaning to be accommodated to the metaphorical context it is used in. Such shows that Durbin's theology and exegetical skills are deficient.
It should be noted that, even in other instances where δικαιοω has a sense of "vindicate," such texts refute, not support, Reformed theology. Take 1 Tim 3:16, for instance:
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated (ἐδικαιώθη) in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, Believed on the world, taken up to glory. (NRSV)
This text shows that δικαιοω has, not just a legal/declarative meaning, but also a transformative meaning. The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also have a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.
Durbin's attempt to salvage his soteriology in light of Jas 2 fails. Here is Jas 2:21-26:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
This pericope clearly proves that good works, when done under the auspices of God’s grace, can be meritorious. However, Durbin and other Protestants claim that James in v.24 is merely speaking of Abraham “proving” or “vindicating” his once-for-all justification from Gen 15:6. However, this is fallacious:
(1) If James were teaching a concept of vindication, he could have chosen a word that solely and clearly refers to a vindication or exoneration, rather than a word that is commonly used and understood in Scripture to refer to salvific justification. Such words are commonplace in Koine Greek. For example, James could have used such words as δοκιμαζο, δεικνυμι, παριστημι, περιαζω, συμβιβαζω, φανερος.
(2) The addition of “and not by faith [alone]” in Jas 2:24 introduces a specific element and direction to James’ argument, for it clearly shows that his primary concern is to show that faith alone cannot justify a man, not merely to suggest that Abraham was vindicated by works. If his concern were to teach that works are added to faith only as a demonstration of a previous justification, there would be no reason to add “not by faith only,” for “faith [alone]” is not demonstrating anything in order to be negated, and thus it would be unnecessary to eliminate it from the works that are demonstrating
(3) If James were arguing for Abraham’s vindication, this line of argumentation would only make sense if in the context of Jas 2 one of James’ opponents had claimed that Abraham was “vindicated by his faith only.” If so, James would have easily refuted the argument by saying something to the effect of “you see, a person is vindicated by his works and not by faith alone.” But this phraseology would have required James to use the notion of “vindicated” in the early part of his argument (vv. 14-23) in order for him to use it in the latter part (v. 24); otherwise, the concept of vindication would have no referent in the context. Moreover, the syntactical structure of Jas 2:24 would require that the phrase “not by faith only” have its referent in “is vindicated,” and thus the text would have to mean: “you see, a man is vindicated by works and not vindicated by faith only.” It would assert that one is vindicated not only by faith but also by works. Consequently, by injecting the concept of vindication into Jas 2:24, the Protestant argument has actually done more damage to its case than would have otherwise occurred, for the concept of vindication must then apply to both faith and works, which then destroys faith itself as being salvific.
(4) The Protestant argument must assume that Paul and James are using two entirely different definitions of justification, the former referring to a forensic and salvific justification, the latter referring to a demonstrative vindication of a prior justification. But two definitions are unsupported by the context. This is noted as James quotes from Gen 15:6 (“And [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness”) in Jas 2:23. Gen 15:6 is the same passage from which Paul quotes in Rom 4:3. The Greek word for “righteousness” in both passages is δικαιοσυνη. Since both James and Paul quote from Gen 15:6, both must have the same definition and understanding of the word δικαιοσυνη. That being the case, it would be totally incongruous for James to suddenly inject a different meaning of δικαιοσυνη’s verbal form, δικαιοω (“justified”), which appears in both Jas 2:21 and 2:24, and surrounds the reference to δικαιοσυνη in Jas 2:23. To support its thesis, the Protestant argument is forced to conclude that James begins with a definition of the δικαιοω word group which means vindication (Jas 2:21), switches to another meaning which refers to salvific justification (Jas 2:23), and then switches back to the meaning of vindication (Jas 2:24).
(5) That vindication cannot be James’ meaning of the word δικαιοω is proven further by his addition of Rahab to the discussion of justification. As James opens up the review of Rahab, he introduces her account by the phrase, “Likewise” or, alternatively, “in the same way” (Jas 2:25). By this wording, James is equating the justification of Abraham to the justification of Rahab and declaring that they are the same. We must conclude then, that there is no theological difference in the way these two people were justified in the eyes of God. If there were a difference, then God would have two systems of justification, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles, but this cannot be, for God shows no favouritism between Jew and Gentile, and there is only one name under heaven by which men and women are saved. The importance of understanding the correspondence between Abraham and Rahab’s respective justifications becomes clear when we consider that James certainly does not view Rahab’s justification as a vindication. Using Protestant terminology, we cannot say that Rahab was given a forensic imputation of justification prior to the hiding of the Israelite spies. Rahab was a prostitute who lived an immoral life until she encountered God through the Israelites. Her justification comes on the heels of her acceptance of the God of Israel and his laws, which would necessitate that she immediately repent of her evil ways and decided to live righteously. An active event took place in Rahab’s relationship with God, not a demonstration of a previous justification. Hence, if Rahab is not vindicated but is salvifically justified during her encounter with the Israelite spies, and since James insists that Abraham was justified “in the same way,” then we can only conclude that both Abraham in Gen 22 and Rahab in Josh 2 was salvifically justified before God, not vindicated.
Another exegetical swing and a miss from Durbin et al.
For more on the exegetical failings of Jeff Durbin on the topic of soteriology, see Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement where topics such as the nature and extent of the atonement, Christ's intercessory work, and Heb 7:24, απαραβατος, and the Melchizedek Priesthood are discussed, among other central theological issues. Another page discussing Jas 2:18, in response to pp. 339, 340-42 of James White's The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification (2001) is James 2:18 and the "vindication"/"demonstration" understanding of Justification
Another exegetical swing and a miss from Durbin et al.
For more on the exegetical failings of Jeff Durbin on the topic of soteriology, see Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement where topics such as the nature and extent of the atonement, Christ's intercessory work, and Heb 7:24, απαραβατος, and the Melchizedek Priesthood are discussed, among other central theological issues. Another page discussing Jas 2:18, in response to pp. 339, 340-42 of James White's The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification (2001) is James 2:18 and the "vindication"/"demonstration" understanding of Justification
