In a way that continues to echo the example and the teachings of Jesus, as we hold on to a construct which has James envisioning the character of the meal practice of the church, James goes on to say “Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Did God not choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5) If a banqueting table is in mind, this mention of the kingdom, along with the use of “heirs” (which provides the Abrahamic covenant context that the author, due to his mentioning of Abraham that is soon to follow) that accompanies the contrast between rich and poor, places James squarely within the Jesus tradition that served as a constant reminder of the messianic banquet and of the unexpected way in which God was going about the business of establishing His kingdom.
As we should expect from those that are operating with a proper, first century Jewish mindset, it is the earthly manifestation of the kingdom of God and its demonstration through the meal (the prominent social event of the day in that time---this has gone effectively unchanged) that is the foremost consideration, rather than an ambiguous concept of “salvation” that relied on foreign, Greek concepts of an ethereal escape into a good-creation-denying-and-therefore-supposedly-blissful disembodied condition, with an eternal residence in some nether-regions beyond the clouds. This concept, though familiar to Jews of the first century, was rejected. It would also come to be rejected by Gentiles that came into contact with the Gospel claim of the Lordship of Jesus, and who, by submitting to that Lordship by the Spirit’s effectual application of the power of the Resurrection, came to be concerned with the manifestation of God’s kingdom on earth, with its intended end of the renewal and restoration of the creation and its gathering together of a people into a body that was called to live out, in advance, that soon-to-be consummated kingdom, as they celebrated the re-creation that was to come. The Resurrection of Jesus into this world (now changed and being changed by the power of the Resurrection), with a new and transformed physical body, served as the model for their expectation.
Moving forward here in James, we do well to keep in mind the words of Jesus (from Luke 14) concerning exaltation and humiliation, about the first being last and the last being first, about the filling of the empty seats in the parable of the great banquet, and about the prevailing mindset in His day about the messianic banquet (God’s judgment on non-covenant people, represented by the deaf, blind, and lame), so that we may rightly hear the contextual critique that is being offered. Doing this allows us to avoid anachronistic and improper application of terms when we read “But you have dishonored the poor! Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging you into the courts?” (2:6) James, with the messianic banquet as exampled by Jesus (as Messiah) in mind, and with Jesus’ criticisms of the rich (Sanhedrin, High priest, Temple authorities, scribes, etc…) that were in circulation at that time, is expressing incredulity that these same rich ones to whom they are offering the chief seats in their assemblies, are the same ones that are dragging them before courts and councils, demanding that they disavow their claims that Jesus was the Messiah. This seems to be made clear when we read “Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to?” (2:7) With this, we are reminded of what Jesus said to His disciples, that “they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of My name” (Luke 21:12b).
We must remember that these were highly charged times. Much like Jesus, who expected His listeners to have ears to hear, James did not offer direct criticism. Such a thing would have been unwise. Presumably then, the “rich” must be understood, not in a general sense as those with money, but primarily as the rulers of the people, who have gained their wealth by oppression (and possibly corruption in connection with the Temple). We see the same types of language with writers like Paul and John, as they cloaked their subversive words, whether those words were subversive of the authorities of Israel or Rome, in what might be considered to be obscure language. However, what might be obscure to us would be readily understandable to those to whom the words were initially directed. Indeed, to this end, Paul takes up much of the language of the Caesar cult, which would have been quite familiar to those that received his letters (a prime example is the “from faith to faith” statement of Romans 1:17), but is heard quite differently by those of us that live at such a tremendous time and distance from the Apostle.
These early Christians, living in altogether different times, with a message that challenged the power structures of their entire world (both Jewish and Greco-Roman), had to speak and write in a way that forced the recipients of their words, whether spoken or written, to make the necessary connections and extrapolations that would convey right understanding. It is incumbent upon us, if we desire to rightly hear and understand even the smallest portion of what is being communicated, to make our best attempt to immerse ourselves in that same world, which requires those of us that are not denizens of the first century, to engage in serious, sustained, and strenuous mental efforts. This most definitely must be done, quite obviously, to understand Jesus’ words, and indeed, all of the words of Scripture, lest we shortchange the words and intentions of our Lord and our God, and go about on our merry way of ignorant and prideful spirituality.
No comments:
Post a Comment