Fri, May 1, 2009
My thoughts
James has some radical ideas related through his book, and these ideas have been the subject of many commentaries. The first thing I will be looking at is the Oxford Bible Commentary. I have made numerous statements regarding the nature of this section regarding the treatment of the poor. Oxford says “In James ‘faith’ is closely bound to ethics, but this does not imply a low Christology (Barton 1259).” Christology can be defined as the systematic reflection on the basis of the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, along with its expression and application throughout the history of the church (Faulbusch 458). This definition tells us the Oxford commentary is referring to the manner in which James references the salvation power of Jesus. He is not ignoring it because in verse 1 he does mention “Lord Jesus Christ.” The Oxford Commentary also goes on to mention to extensive knowledge James had of a Jewish synagogue and the order placed upon it in terms of sitting order. Biased seating of the poor is also criticized in other sections of the Bible such as Leviticus 19:15 and in Luke 18:6 by Jesus. This commentary also mentions that concern for the poor is one of the main subjects of the “Lukan special tradition.” Oxford goes on to talk about verse 5 and how James is reminding the church of the blessing on the poor as the heirs of the kingdom of heaven. James is also pointing the experiences of his audience and how they have been brought to court by the rich and yet still admire and elevate them. The name that has been blasphemed, as mentioned I verse 7, is not that of God because in Jewish tradition it cannot be uttered; however, it is the name of Jesus invoked in baptism (Barton). Jesus has previously declared that to love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself are the greatest commandments, but how can this be reconciled with verse 10 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” How can one be guilty of the whole law if only one transgression is done? The Oxford Commentary says that James views the law as indivisible which is obvious, but James goes on to mention the “law of liberty” which Oxford says is, “the law of Moses as interpreted, supplemented, and altered by Jesus (Barton 234).” So the law that one has broken is not merely the Mosaic Law, but also the laws provided by Jesus. This means that if one were to break a small portion of the law and be guilty of the rest there is mercy applied upon those wrongful actions.
The next commentary I used was The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, and it starts off talking about verse 1. There is the idea of “holding faith” which is just a public posture that identifies one as a believer. And this faith is not to be held in any form of favoritism. This is special consideration which places one person ahead of another. This commentary mentions why it is wrong to show favoritism, and this is because it is contrary to God’s manner of dealing with people when he judges them. He does not view the earthly differences in wealth so we should not do so either. “By his exhortation in 2:1, James implies that a public commitment to Christ, the Lord of glory, is incompatible with an attitude that degrades a fellow believer or puts the person at a disadvantage, for such an attitude runs contrary to God’s law (Longman 230).” Next is the instance or example where people are placed in different seats based upon their appearance as either wealthy or poor. This is going deliberately against the idea placed forth in Leviticus 19:15 which says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” I think that the use of the word injustice is important because today we often say that it is just for people to get what they deserve rather than the manner in which God has commanded the body of believers to behave. We think that if people are in dire situations generally they are there because of their own actions and do not merit any outside help. The term used for distinctions in verse 4 is stated to have the probability to have been used as a legal term by this commentary. This shows that the outcome of the case has already been predetermined despite not having any evidence to do so. By placing people in these physical positions within the church a value judgment has been made that implies the poor do not deserve equal treatment. In verses 5-6a James relates the strong theological idea of the fair treatment of the poor to way things have really been done and this shows the stark contrast. This commentary says that the poor become more predisposed to notice their lack and recognize their need for God. The concept of inheritance that James relates is that the poor will inherit the kingdom of God. At that time period inheritance was important and usually meant the heir “was one with authority to utilize or administer some possession or possessions (Longman 234).” This was not a position to be taken lightly, but the position as an heir would be one of great importance. This commentary states when talking about verse 10 that there is no small part of the law to be taken lightly. He may be reacting to those who are not treating the law with a serious attitude. This commentary also states that the Jewish teachers of the era strongly emphasized the unity of the law. Here James highlights the fact that the law of liberty involves right speaking as well as right acting. This in conjunction together lead to righteous living, and this righteous living impacts interpersonal relationships within the church community. The law of liberty is a central idea to living a life effectively for God. Those who have passed judgment on others will now stand before God and be judged. To avoid this conclusion, living a life of mercy diffuses judgment.
With the text I was not trying to wrestle over any great theological theories or ideas, but I was only attempting to answer the questions that arose in the course of reading the passage of James 2:1-13. I am just going to say my general stance on the subject of passing judgment. This is something everyone does whether it is in minute instances or overt actions or words. Everyone has their own since of identity and tend to gravitate towards those who are similar not those who are different. I asked the question of the text, “What drives people to separate themselves and make divisions among themselves?” Looking at the world today I think it will continually be a struggle not only within individuals but in communities and countries. We must not differentiate among people because of how they appear to us. These commentaries just helped me the further develop my idea by providing insight I did not have. Jewish synagogues placed importance upon the seat in which one sat, and in doing this placed more importance on the seat then the person.
In the course of doing this research I have discovered several other instances focused upon this topic. Leviticus 19:15 says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” Luke 18:6 Jesus spoke concerning the unrighteous judge and the justice God will show upon his elect. James 2:13 also states that those who are passing judgment will be shown no mercy when the time comes for them to be judged. These commentaries and the other research I have done have only seemed to further my own personal belief that passing judgment upon others is not something to be ignored, but one idea I have struggled with mightily is verses 2:10-11. How can one person be guilty of the entire law in the committing of a singular sin? I have questioned whether it is the concept of the Jewish law or the law Jesus set forth in Mark 13:30-31, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” This is something that I have been unable to answer throughout the course of my research and am still pondering. I am still struggling with this holistic concept of man because I have been taught that man is made up of the separate parts of the body, soul, and mind. I am still unsure of how the reconcile verses 10-11 in my own heart. What I do know, however, is that I must attempt to live my life devoid of as much judgment as possible and with a heart of mercy towards everyone. I believe it is necessary to act with mercy with both rich and poor, sick and healthy, the disabled or the able bodied, and even with myself. No person is perfect, but this is no reason to not attempt to be so. To act with mercy and to live with a merciful disposition are two different ideas and I pray I will be the latter.
Barton, John I., and John Muddiman, eds. Oxford Bible commentary. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.
Fahlbusch, Erwin, Jan Milic Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, eds. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. New York: Brill Academic, 1998.
Longman, Tremper I., and David E. Garland, eds. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
The next commentary I used was The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, and it starts off talking about verse 1. There is the idea of “holding faith” which is just a public posture that identifies one as a believer. And this faith is not to be held in any form of favoritism. This is special consideration which places one person ahead of another. This commentary mentions why it is wrong to show favoritism, and this is because it is contrary to God’s manner of dealing with people when he judges them. He does not view the earthly differences in wealth so we should not do so either. “By his exhortation in 2:1, James implies that a public commitment to Christ, the Lord of glory, is incompatible with an attitude that degrades a fellow believer or puts the person at a disadvantage, for such an attitude runs contrary to God’s law (Longman 230).” Next is the instance or example where people are placed in different seats based upon their appearance as either wealthy or poor. This is going deliberately against the idea placed forth in Leviticus 19:15 which says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” I think that the use of the word injustice is important because today we often say that it is just for people to get what they deserve rather than the manner in which God has commanded the body of believers to behave. We think that if people are in dire situations generally they are there because of their own actions and do not merit any outside help. The term used for distinctions in verse 4 is stated to have the probability to have been used as a legal term by this commentary. This shows that the outcome of the case has already been predetermined despite not having any evidence to do so. By placing people in these physical positions within the church a value judgment has been made that implies the poor do not deserve equal treatment. In verses 5-6a James relates the strong theological idea of the fair treatment of the poor to way things have really been done and this shows the stark contrast. This commentary says that the poor become more predisposed to notice their lack and recognize their need for God. The concept of inheritance that James relates is that the poor will inherit the kingdom of God. At that time period inheritance was important and usually meant the heir “was one with authority to utilize or administer some possession or possessions (Longman 234).” This was not a position to be taken lightly, but the position as an heir would be one of great importance. This commentary states when talking about verse 10 that there is no small part of the law to be taken lightly. He may be reacting to those who are not treating the law with a serious attitude. This commentary also states that the Jewish teachers of the era strongly emphasized the unity of the law. Here James highlights the fact that the law of liberty involves right speaking as well as right acting. This in conjunction together lead to righteous living, and this righteous living impacts interpersonal relationships within the church community. The law of liberty is a central idea to living a life effectively for God. Those who have passed judgment on others will now stand before God and be judged. To avoid this conclusion, living a life of mercy diffuses judgment.
With the text I was not trying to wrestle over any great theological theories or ideas, but I was only attempting to answer the questions that arose in the course of reading the passage of James 2:1-13. I am just going to say my general stance on the subject of passing judgment. This is something everyone does whether it is in minute instances or overt actions or words. Everyone has their own since of identity and tend to gravitate towards those who are similar not those who are different. I asked the question of the text, “What drives people to separate themselves and make divisions among themselves?” Looking at the world today I think it will continually be a struggle not only within individuals but in communities and countries. We must not differentiate among people because of how they appear to us. These commentaries just helped me the further develop my idea by providing insight I did not have. Jewish synagogues placed importance upon the seat in which one sat, and in doing this placed more importance on the seat then the person.
In the course of doing this research I have discovered several other instances focused upon this topic. Leviticus 19:15 says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” Luke 18:6 Jesus spoke concerning the unrighteous judge and the justice God will show upon his elect. James 2:13 also states that those who are passing judgment will be shown no mercy when the time comes for them to be judged. These commentaries and the other research I have done have only seemed to further my own personal belief that passing judgment upon others is not something to be ignored, but one idea I have struggled with mightily is verses 2:10-11. How can one person be guilty of the entire law in the committing of a singular sin? I have questioned whether it is the concept of the Jewish law or the law Jesus set forth in Mark 13:30-31, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” This is something that I have been unable to answer throughout the course of my research and am still pondering. I am still struggling with this holistic concept of man because I have been taught that man is made up of the separate parts of the body, soul, and mind. I am still unsure of how the reconcile verses 10-11 in my own heart. What I do know, however, is that I must attempt to live my life devoid of as much judgment as possible and with a heart of mercy towards everyone. I believe it is necessary to act with mercy with both rich and poor, sick and healthy, the disabled or the able bodied, and even with myself. No person is perfect, but this is no reason to not attempt to be so. To act with mercy and to live with a merciful disposition are two different ideas and I pray I will be the latter.
Barton, John I., and John Muddiman, eds. Oxford Bible commentary. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.
Fahlbusch, Erwin, Jan Milic Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, eds. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. New York: Brill Academic, 1998.
Longman, Tremper I., and David E. Garland, eds. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
From the YouVersion Blog RSS Feed
Videos for you to use Introducing YouVersion Live to your Group, Church or Event
Below are a couple resources we wanted to pass on to all of you who have been creating groups and events... Read more »
