Tiago 2
Thomas Constable · Citado em PreceptAustin
Tiago 2
Constable explains that "The usher made two errors. First, he showed favoritism because of what the rich man might do for the church if he received preferential treatment. He should have treated everyone graciously, as God does. This reflects a double-minded attitude, thinking like the world in this case while thinking as God thinks in other respects (James 1:8).Second, the usher, who represents all the believers, manifested evil motives in judging where to seat the two visitors. His motive (ED: THIS IS IMPLIED BUT NOT STATED) was what the church could obtain from them rather than what it could impart to them. The Christian and the church should seek primarily to serve others rather than getting others to serve them (cf. Mark 10:45). (James 2 Expository Notes) Brian Bell - So why can’t I show partiality? Because it’s impossible to judge another person’s motives simply on the basis of outward appearance or any other external force. No one can determine the heart of another especially in a 1st-time encounter. Thats why James says it’s wrong! Michael Andrus points out that " This sermon, hard-hitting as it will be on the subject of discrimination, should not be interpreted as support for gay marriage, for example. The God who calls discrimination sin discriminates Himself in favor of marriage between one man and one woman. And become judges (krites) with evil (poneros) motives (dialogismos)? - Some translate this as "Judges with vicious intentions." Again an affirmative response is expected to this rhetorical question James uses to draw their attention to their sin of favoritism. If they demonstrated favoritism as in this illustration of a rich man and a poor man they would in effect have made themselves judges, and bad ones at that, because their motives were evil. The "usher" is not judging with honesty and objective clarity but with evil motives. Craig Blomberg adds "When we attempt to discern people's value based on external features. we not only try to usurp God's role as Judge, but we fail miserably in the process." (James - Page 109) Dana Gould - In the Old Testament, evil judges often showed favoritism toward rich and powerful people at the expense of those who were not (see Ps. 82:2; Prov. 18:5; Mal. 2:9). This behavior or attitude is not characteristic of God. (Shepherd's Notes: James) Michael Andrus on evil (poneros) motives (dialogismos) - I think a case can be made for the fact that all favoritism and prejudice can ultimately be traced back to evil motives. We cater to the rich because we hope to get something out of them, we show favoritism to the powerful and the popular because we feel important when we’re around them. James speaks against judging others again in chapter 4 - "Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it." (Jas 4:11+) John
Tiago 2
Constable says "How inconsistent it is to despise one's friends and honor one's foes!" D Edmond Hiebert - The rich were using the courts to exploit the poor, either through appeal to unjust legal enactments or by their power with the judges to deprive the poor of their just rights. (Commentary on James) Warren
Tiago 2
Constable writes that "The type of preferential treatment James dealt with in this pericope (James 2:1-13) violates the royal law because it treats some as inferior and others as sources of special favor (cf. Acts 10:34+). It also violates specific commands found in God's Word that reveal God's will in interpersonal dealings (Matt. 7:12+; cf. Lev. 19:15+). (Ibid) But (term of contrast) if you show partiality (prosopolempteo) - Just as the "IF" in James 2:8 is a first class conditional, so too is this "IF" which assumes the follow as a true statement. That is, you are showing favoritism (present tense). It would seem that James gives the readers the two extremes - obeying or disobeying the royal law, and respectively, doing well or committing sin. The choice is theirs! Just as the "if" in James 2:8 is a first class conditional statement, so also is the "IF" in James 2:9, assuming the condition to be true for the sake of argument. In other words, James assumes that his readers are showing favoritism (continually - present tense), a practice he has already exposed in verses 1–4. James presents two stark alternatives: either they are fulfilling the royal law by loving their neighbor and thus doing well (v. 8), or they are showing partiality and thereby committing sin (v. 9). There is no middle ground. The contrast is deliberate and forceful. Their treatment of others reveals whether they are obeying the royal law or violating it. The choice is theirs, to continue showing favoritism and stand condemned as transgressors, or to love their neighbor impartially and demonstrate obedience to God's law. But habitual, blatant partiality (present tense) is a serious sin because as