James 2.xx
February 22nd 2015
MEAT
Welcome
Prayer
Music
Reflection
Okay we ended last week with James defining for us what pure orthopraxy (or pure religious observances) look like –
To visit the widows and fatherless in their times of trial AND to keep ourselves unspotted from the world.
We mentioned last week that James has also been alluding to the things that come out of our mouths and how they relate to our expressed religious actions.
Meaning, our words ought to match up with the actions we take.
If we are doing benevolent acts of love through external religious observances our mouths ought to reflect benevolence.
Long story short – bridle the tongue if the the tongue speaks contrary to what being a Christian really is all about.
So now, chapter two.
It seems to consist of three main subjects –
1st the need to be impartial in our reception and treatment of others.
2nd a discussion on the law – including what he calls the Royal Law, and
3rd the most controversial set of passages in scripture which discuss faith and works.
Before saying word one about any of this I want to point out that all three of these topics are speaking of the importance of Christian love.
Part one that speaks of not treating people preferentially is really talking about agape love.
Part two that speaks of the Law and then the Royal Law is talking about love, and
Part three where he speaks of faith is really talking again about the importance of Christian love.
So let’s read through the first seven verses and then come back and talk about them.
2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
2:1 “My brethren,”
James begins, speaking to His brethren the Jews who converted and became His brethren as Christian believers . . .
have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
The phraseology provided here in the King James is difficult.
The BBE says:
My brothers, if you have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, do not take a man’s position into account.
(MNT) My brothers, do not hold the faith of the Lord Jesus, the Lord of Glory, in a spirit of caste.
(TCNT) My Brothers, are you really trying to combine faith in Jesus Christ, our glorified Lord, with the worship of rank?
(WNT) My brethren, you must not make distinctions between one man and another while you are striving to maintain faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our glory.
We might simplify the point even more by saying:
A person who has faith in Christ would never treat people with partiality.
When we think about it for the converts to Christ, who had come from 1500 years of religious tradition, the temptation to treat people with partiality, based on their social status would be expected.
First of all, it’s a very natural thing we humans do – glom onto people of status or pay them extra special attention. I mean its really the modus operandi of most things in the fallen world, right?
We have first class and steerage, we have Rolls Royce and we have 1974 Ford Pinto’s – and I can guarantee that when both pull up to a valet parker at the same time which one will get the attention first.
I’ve told this story before so excuse the repetition buy my now deceased brother was financially very secure. When he died he left his wife millions including a ten thousand square foot house in Laguna Hills CA.
But my brother was very down to earth and loved the common man. And he dressed the part.
One day he went to a Mercedes dealership with the intention to actually purchase a new vehicle – with cash.
When he went into the showroom he was not approached by any of the sales staff and when he finally got ahold of someone and requested to test drive a car he was rejected with the inference being he probably couldn’t qualify financially to buy it.
In a material capitalistic world we might understand this type of treatment – we are trained to sort of go by appearances, right?
But not in the Body. James makes this clear.
Aside from it being the natural way we humans do things, the trait was most particular in the eastern culture and admittedly, it was very much part of being a Jew.
Under the law of blessing for obedience and cursing for rebelliousness, it was very natural to give regard to those who appeared blessed and unfortunately (because this was never God’s heart) to somewhat disregard the societal rejects.
I say somewhat because the most devout Jews, even under the Law, would – if they had a heart for God and knew the Law – have paid particular attention to the suffering and poor.
By the time James wrote (and by the time Jesus came) it seems that the respect for the upper crust had gone through the roof – while the suffering were cast to the side of healing pools or even considered unclean.
Having presented us with his theme statement, he gives us an example of that he is talking about, saying (verses 2-4)
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Let’s talk about this illustration.
First of all we have the use of a word that is only found once in the New Testament.
The word is “soon ag go gay” and transliterated is read synagogue.
In all probability James uses it because he is writing to the scattered believers from the Nation of Israel who were used to gathering in such a place that was called the synagogue.
From this we might suggest that in the earliest years of the Gospel, because the members were all converted Jews, they referred to the place they would congregate as the synagogue the same name they used when they gathered as believing Jews.
In time, when the Gentiles were offered the Gospel the term was probably replaced (over time) with church, or in the Greek, ekklaysia, which means a calling out, a gathering, an assembly, especially the calling out in a religious sense.
Those are two different words –
Soon agga gay and ekklesia but they essentially mean the same thing and only go to show that while cultural preference might be the way humans work we really don’t need to get bogged down in the arguments that certain terminology is proper while other must be removed.
I mean if we went to some far off place and discovered that believers in Christ were gathering in a place they called the synagogue how many of us would strive, in the name of God, to get those believers to change the title they have given their assemblies.
No small number if those involved were American Evangelicals.
There is an argument that James was speaking in general of ANY gathering of Jews here (spiritual, Christian or not) but when the term church is used that it specifically refers to believers who have been called out from the world and gather in one locale.
I’m not so sure that this justification holds water . . . for me anyway.
One thing we can probably safely assume is that the Christian church was, in fact modelled, after the Jewish synagogue.
Synagogue
In the Greek all the word means is an assembly and it is found only once in the Authorized Version of the Old Testament – Psalms 74:8 which says:
“They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.”
Again, the term really just meant “places of assembly,” and while the origin of “synagogues” is unknown, it is assumed that as the Nation of Israel divided according to tribes and spread out that there was probably a network or system of them that dotted the land at some point in time or another – a practice that carried out to the Day of the Lord and continues even today.
Some scholars suggest that it was especially during the Babylonian captivity that an actual “system of synagogue gathering and worship” was either formalized or reorganized into a systematic plan.
Ezekiel makes reference to places (even homes) where people would gather which, displaying what we would call a House Church, was probably the origin of the first synagogue.
In Ezekiel 8:1 we read:
“And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me.”
And in 14:1 we read:
“Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me.”
Knowing human nature, that we are social animals, it is almost without question ancient Israel had at least a loosely knit practice of gathering in places that came to be called synagogues.
Additionally, it seems that during the Babylonian captivity that the exiled Jews would gather together in designated places for the reading of the law and the prophets (as they were able) and then after their return from bondage this practice continued.
It’s possible that Nehemiah touches on the early days of such gatherings when he wrote in chapter 8:1-2
“And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.”
Once the practice sort of took hold, and after the captivity wherever they were dispersed abroad it seems the Jews would establish synagogues and kept up community worship.
We read about synogogues, which were firmly established by the time of Jesus, in
Acts 9:20; 13:5; 17:1,17; 18:4).
Based on the wealth of the community where the synagogue was erected there would be some different forms or arrangements.
That being said there were also certain traditional elements which appear to have existed into Jesus day – and possibly even today.
For example there was a special place for women established which was typically behind a partition of lattice-work.
There was also a centralized desk where the synagogue leader would, from his “pulpit of wood,” “open the book in the sight of all of people and read.”
Each synagogue also had an ark (or box) that always rested along the wall closest to Jerusalem and where they would keep rolls and manuscripts.
Then from that center space, where all “eyes could fall upon Him who speaks” there were certain “chief seats” where the leaders and men of reknown were placed.
Once the system was somewhat perfected, like all systems get perfected at the hands of men, the synagogue would operate in conjunction with the temple on Mount Moriah.
In other words the synagogue would be open during the same hours and those wherein would do some things that replicated what was actually happening in the temple itself.
For example, the would pray, which ultimately formed a type of liturgy composed of eighteen prayers, then they would read selected portions of scripture in defined amounts, and then there would be an expository teachings on the portions read.
We see evidence of these things in Luke 4:15 and22 and in Acts 13:14.)
We also know from the gospel narratives and Acts that the synagogue was also used to hold “court” and that there wee rulers of the synagogue who would preside over such things.
There is a lot of evidence that they also served as public schools.
In addition to the hand of God it seems that the establishment of synagogues contributed greatly to the survival of the Jews in preparation for the promised Messiah.
We know that Jesus and His disciples taught often in synagogues and that the phrase to be “put out of the synagogue” meant to be excommunicated from fellowship.
From all of this we can readily see that the synagogue served as a model for both the early Christian church and out to churches established ever since.
It could be that once the gentiles were given the opportunity to receive the Good News that, while adopting much of what the synagogue had established, found some elements not so conducive to their understanding of the how to worship, and they chose the ekklesia (Church) as the term that would better describe what they thought worship and Christian gatherings were all about.
For example, where the Jews sequestered the women behind a lattice I would guess that in an all gentile church women were treated with more equanimity.
I say more because Paul does say that they ought to keep quiet in the church – which serves as indirect evidence that they were no longer sequestered, right?
A final thought I think is really, really important to consider – especially in light of the history of our synagogues (churches) literally being at war with each other – and thriving on division.
Try and hear my point.
If the system of synagogues is ordained (or at least approved) of God today, with the same order, systemization and uniformity that synagogues had in ancient Israel, then it seems to me that religious empires that have attempted to replicate the model – the Catholics, the Jehovah’s Witness, and especially the Mormons – have at least gotten closer to what is “right and best and of God” than the disorganized hodge-podge of individual churches found the history of Protestantism.
From a strickly organizational and material sense the synagogue system seems obviously superior when it comes to
keeping a people unified
supplying the local culture with order (even a judiciary)
and providing physical locations for religious and secular education
In other words, IF an organized method (like the synagogue) pleases God most because it is so effective at achieving and maintaining continuity, then groups like the Mormons are pleasing God most – at least in this respect.
Since Cornelius and his family received the Gospel (from Peter) there is another approach that, as we’ve already pointed out, seems to have replicated the synagogue of old – the church.
But instead of each church orbiting around a temple schedule and having an established system in place, Christin churches seem to have been established on local needs.
And while there does appear, under apostolic rule, to have been an established order and fellowship and continuity existing among some of these various assemblies I have to be honest and suggest that almost all of the New Testament examples I see represent total autonomy – with even specific letter written to address the specific needs of the different locations.
Then, once the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD occurred, we have to again admit that where there may have been a period of unanimity among believers it didn’t take long before it became every man for himself.
In the face of this, we have to ask if this was and is the will of God? That there be so many denominations (35000) world wide is the estimate, so many churches, all moving as they believe they are led?
There is one more alternative that I don’t believe is taken very seriously and yet for me solves the question of which approach is better and more God pleasing.
So far we can suppose that God is most pleased with highly organized systems of religion (like the LDS) or we can supposed that He is most pleased with a multitude of individual approaches to doing church (like much of protestantism today) or that He is ambivalent to either approach because the Holy Spirit is at work through all of it . . . OR . . .
That all the order, and brick and mortar, and empire building, and church regimes small and great have actually hindered Him and His ways, which are entirely spiritual, and made up of individual believers found all over the world, and in every clime, every denom, every order or sect – in spite of the sect itself.
I realize I have gotten pretty tangential here but it is really easy to read this historical book of scripture and believe it is revealing to us the manner in which God wants us to “do” church.
Instead of seeing its applications in the physical, and in trying to replicate, why don’t we take what fits to us spiritually, and leave all the physical applications where they originated – in history.
Anyway, where James uses the example of a man walking into a synagogue, and Gentile readers of his epistle in his day would liken this to a man walking into their church, I think we can read it now and express it as:
“If a man enters into a room full of people,” “if a man joins you at a company picnic,” “if a man appears at a wedding” . . . or “at a gathering of people reading the Bible . . .”
with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
The illustration doesn’t need much explanation does it? Bottom line, James is speaking to the practice of showing preferential treatment to people based on his apparent socio-economic status while showing indifference to another based on the same standard of measurement.
In this story one man has apparent wealth displayed by his jewelry and clothing and the other has apparent poverty based on the same (or lack thereof).
This story is not about wrongly judging the condition of the people involved – one man is obviously well off and the other, based on the Greek, is obviously poor.
In fact the Greek suggests that poor man is filthy, foul, and is dressed in shabby clothing. And then James addresses our response to the men, saying:
“And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, “Sit thou here in a good place;” and say to the poor, “Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:” are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
The word the King James translates to repect is “epiblepo.” With bleppo meaning to look upon and epi meaning “through” we are given imagery the suggest our really looking someone over and being impressed with what we see.
And then responding to what we epiblepo by offering the well adorned person a good seat in the house while telling the dirty shabby man to stand somewhere else.
Now, I frequently appeal to commentaries to round out my thoughts and to supplement information and in one of them it said:
“Religion does not forbid proper respect to rank, to office, to age, or to distinguished talents and services, though even in such cases it does not require that we should feel that such persons have any peculiar claims to salvation, or that they are not on a level with all others, as sinners before God.”
When I consider the words of the Lord to His apostles, that the last shall be first and the first last, and all the information on the weak things of the world, and all the insights on the wealthy verses the poor, etc. etc. I couldn’t help but scoff at the insights of this commentator.
I realize there is no prohibition from honoring men of reputation, but it smack squarely against the general attitude we ought to maintain for all folk no matter if they are respected in this world or not.
This being said there does exist in the body what we might call reverse discrimination which is where those who are accomplished in the things of this world, or who have worked hard at achieving, or gaining degrees, or wealth are treated poorly simply because they have been successful.
In other words the slovenly and poor and smelly have no MORE right to the best seats in the house than the well to do – God is NO respector of persons, whether those persons are well heeled or without shoes.
Get it?
So where James uses what must have been a very common problem at that time and in that day, the end lesson he shares truly can flow either way.
And he asks that in the face of showing preferential treatment to the rich man (in this case) over the obviously poor:
“would you not be “partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
“Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?”
“Are you not making distinctions among yourselves, and prove yourselves prejudiced judges?”
The Greek word for distinctions is “diakrino” a compound word made from dia (through, cut across) and krino (to condemn).
Do you not cut across lines and divide through condemnation?
(beat)
We talk about the natural man and the spiritual man and for most of us we have triggers (seen and found in people) that take us to that place where we are easily led to “diakrino” another.
For some of us we diakrino the poor and unkept, for others we diakrino the unsightly. Some of us are guilty of diakrinoing people who are physically attractive, or of different races, or on gender.
The action is antithetical to the spirit of Christ. Remember, we may have to judge another based on what we see but it does not mean we condemn them nor separate them from our company.
The other night I had a woman approach me in her car and was waving wildly at me. I stopped and rolled my window down and with a great deal of agitation she asked if she could us my phone (I was talking on it at the time.)
She was extremely bouncy and demonstrated all the signs of being on meth. And I was distinctly told not to let her take my phone – I don’t know why – because I typically would.
I asked her, “why are you so jittery?” She said, “because I’ve been waiting here for a long time for a guy to show up.”
Obviously I judged the situation and instead of giving her my phone gave her 50 cents to go to the nearby seven eleven and use the payphone.
I do not diakrino the woman. She may, in my estimation, stand in better favor with God by her faith than I do, but I was forced to assess the situation and act.
This is not what James is cautioning against.
He is speaking of treating others with partiality based on what appears to be mertitorious conditions of their person (wealth, status) verses deleterious conditions (poverty).
Regarding the line:
“And are become judges of evil thoughts,”
OR “have you not proved yourselves possing evil prejudices”
there have been a number of different ideas on what this means though the meaning seems pretty straightforward.
One stance is that they exhibited evil in that they took it upon themselves to be judges of other peoples character and heart and worth based on appearances of esteem or dishonor and the other is that in doing this they were not guided by just rules of judgment (like God is) but that they did it under the influence of their own evil minds.
One view, I other words, says the evil was from taking the job of God and making an assessment they had no right to make and the other view says their hearts were proven evil by the judgments they made.
In the end I would suggest that both views are applicable – that until we are in a place to judge rightfully we would do well with refuse the inclination – because most of us naturally possess evil perspectives we are almost certain to allow them to override our Christian hearts and we will find ourselves convicted by the judgments we make.
Questions Comments
Prayer
