Readings from the book of James continue on the 15th Sunday after Pentecost, in the Year of Mark, with James 2:1-10 being appointed for this day. As is typical with James, there is exhortation, but in this case, not a little bit of Law. The preacher will have to search elsewhere for a word of Gospel when preaching this text.
(The following questions are best used in conjunction with other fine sets of questions which open up a text to preachers. These questions are designed to uncover the function of the Word in the text, a key concern of Law and Gospel preachers. For more on this method and on Law and Gospel preaching in general, see my brief guide, Afflicting the Comfortable, Comforting the Afflicted, available from wipfandstock.com or amazon.)
1. How does the Word function in the text? This text is split up quite neatly into two distinct functions: the first 7 verses are a call to obedience, while the last 3 verses are a word of Law. The opening call to obedience is obscured in the preferred NRSV translation by failing to keep the original imperative voice in the text. Better is the alternative translation offered in the margins of the NRSV: "Hold the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ without acts of favoritism." Most other translations retain the imperative voice. In any case, this is a call to obedience, exhorting believers to love all equally. The last three verses point out our precarious state, vis a vis the Law, noting that failing in even one point of the Law makes one guilty of the whole Law.
2. How is the Word not functioning in the text? There is no word of Gospel here, no word which proclaims what God has done in Christ. One could infer that God is not a God of partiality, but that is not stated here. The only hint of that is in verse 5b, where we read of God's high regard for the poor.
3. With whom are you identifying in the text? We are those under judgement here. We are those who consistently fail to treat people without favoritism, consistently doing the very things that are forbidden here. We stand guilty as charged.
4. What Law/Gospel couplet is suggested by this text? We can imagine a number of couplets, just based on what is the opposite of what is illustrated here: under judgement/under mercy; treated dishonorably/honored; poor/rich; ignored/welcomed.
5. Exegetical work: The word translated as "partiality" is rare in the NT. It is a composite of two words - face/appearance and receiving/regarding (prosopolemphia). One can see in this word, prosopo, the word for face, and a form of lambano, the common verb for receiving. To show partiality, then, means to receive a person according to their appearance only. The only other places this word occurs are in Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9, and Col. 3:25, where we are assured that "God shows no partiality." In the OT, we have this same claim in Dt. 10:17 and II Chr. 19:1. It is interesting that in the disputes with the Pharisees, Jesus was flattered as one who did "not regard people with partiality," (Mk. 12:14, Mt. 22:16, Lk. 20:21), but taught "the way of God with truth." Even though this is empty flattery, it is true: Jesus does not receive people according to their appearance. In one final NT passage, Jesus exhorts his followers to "not judge by appearances." (Jn. 7:24) John Donne, the 17th century poet and preacher, writes why this is so important: "And this is truly, most literally, the purpose of the apostle here, that you undervalue no one for their outward appearance; that you overvalue no one for their goodly apparel, or gold rings...But it is a precept of accessibleness, and of affability; affability that is, a civility of the city of God and a courtship of the court of heaven, to receive other people, the images of God, with the same easiness that God receives you." (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, NT, vo. XIII, p. 228.) Pheme Perkins, in her commentary, speaks of the language of early Christians, and how this bears on this subject: "Early Christians went beyond the language of benefaction and friendship to speak of one another as 'brothers' and 'sisters'. The family was the only sphere in which benefits did not come with a corresponding obligation attached." (Interpretation series, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, p. 109).
Blessings on your proclamation!
No comments:
Post a Comment