Docstoc

Jakobus 2

Document Sample
Jakobus 2 Powered By Docstoc
					Jakobus 2
Jakobus 2.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Afrikaanse Kommentaar.................................................................................................................... 1
The Case of the Near-Sighted Usher ................................................................................................ 2


Afrikaanse Kommentaar
2:1-26. Praat én tree op soos kinders van die koninkryk
In 1:25 het Jakobus gesê dat dit in die volmaakte wet wat ’n mens vry maak, gaan om hoor én doen. Toe het
hy een voorbeeld daarvan gegee (1:26–28). In hierdie hoofstuk gee hy twee verdere toepassings: a. die
verskil in optrede teenoor armes en rykes (1–13) en b. die onhoudbaarheid van geloof sonder werke (14–26).
Dié twee gedeeltes skarnier om die vermaning in 12: “Praat en tree dan o… . volgens die wet wat vry maak”.
2:1-13. Moenie volgens die uiterlike oordeel nie.
1: Sy redenasie begin met ’n uitdruklike gebod wat tegelykertyd ’n algemene stelling is: geen gelowige
takseer ’n ander op sy baadjie nie. Die rede is voor die hand liggend: Jesus Christus is die Here van die
heerlikheid. Hy besit die volle heerlikheid van God (Joh. 1:14), al was mense te blind om dit raak te sien, ook
hý wat Jakobus is. Later het hy besef: die skyn bedrieg, en toe tot bekering gekom. So ’n geval van oordeel
volgens die uiterlike is die volgende, wat bes moontlik in die gemeente voorgekom het.
2–4: Twee mense stap die kerk binne, eintlik “sinagoge”, maar in dié tyd is ’n Joodse woord soms gebruik
vir ’n Christelike samekoms. Van die een word ’n ophef gemaak, want hy is goud-gevingerd en deftig
gekleed. Op die ander een word neergesien vanweë sy beskeie voorkoms. Vir die een word ’n ereplek gegee,
vir die ander die agterbank of staanplek. Wanneer dít gebeur, gee verskille in stand aanleiding tot
vooroordeel. Daarom is oëdienery so erg soos afgodery (Deut. 16:19), want die maatstaf van beoordeling is
nie liefde en geloof nie, maar rykdom of armoede.
5–7: Armoede is op sigself nie ’n deug en rykdom ’n vloek nie. Dit voel Jakobus self wel aan (1:9). Dit gaan
om die verkeerde oorwegings by die beoordeling (4). As ’n man arm is omdat hy veronreg word, soos wat ’n
mens kan verwag by nuwe intrekkers in ’n vreemde en vyandige omgewing, dan neem God self hulle saak
op. Hy keer nie die rolle om of skep ’n nuwe sosiale orde nie. (Lees Matt. 5:44–48!) Hy sien die arm man se
liefde vir Hom raak, en neem beheer oor van sy lewe. So word hy ’n erfgenaam van God se koninklike sorg.
Dáárop kan die man hom verlaat. En dit is sy geloof: hy vertrou God om sy lewe te regeer en in alles vir hom
te onderneem, want so het Hy belowe. Dit verloor sommige gemeentelede minagtend uit die oog. Ryk
lidmate skroom nie om arm geloofsgenote skandelike verpligtinge te laat aangaan en wanneer hulle dan in
gebreke bly, daarvoor hof toe te sleep nie. So onteer hulle die Naam van Jesus Christus in wie die gemeente
glo (1 Kor. 6:6–9!).
8–13: Die beheersende gebod wat in die koninkryk van God geld, is die liefde (vgl. 1:25). Tussen liefde vir
God en liefde vir die naaste is geen duimbreedte verskil nie (Matt. 22:39–40). Soms is dit die een, dan weer
die ander, wat in gedrang kom. Hier is dit die naaste, daarom word Levitikus 19:18 aangehaal as samevatting
van die geheel, soos in Matteus 22:39. Dit is om ’t ewe watter gebod oortree word. Oortreding van een is
oortreding van almal, want almal verbied ’n vergryp teen die liefde. Elkeen se woord en daad sal aan die
liefde geoordeel word (vgl. 1:25). Die liefdelose mens sal van God geen barmhartigheid op die oordeelsdag
ontvang nie, maar die vonnis van die een wat in en deur die liefde lewe, sal tersyde gestel word, want God
oordeel op grond van die liefde.
2:14-26. Glo en doen. In hierdie deel volg nou die tweede toepassing van die wet van die liefde wat mense
vry maak.
14: Die tema is: as ’n mens bely dat jy in die leerstellinge van die kerk glo, dit wil sê dit aanvaar, is dit nog
nie egte gelóóf nie. “Glo en doen” is van dieselfde familie as “hoor en doen” (1:19–27).
15–17: ’n Voorbeeld hiervan is die gelowige wat broodgebrek ly. Hy word nie gedien met vroom
vermaninkies en goeie wense nie. Geloof wat so iemand nie met raad én daad bedien nie, is oneg. Dit vermag
niks by God of die mense nie (Matt. 7:21; Gal. 5:6).
18: Die besware van ’n denkbeeldige opponent word beantwoord (vgl. Rom. 9:19). Dit klink mooi, sê
iemand, maar jy het nou eenmaal twee soorte mense: die een is ’n “geloofsbaas” en die ander ’n “dienende
klaas”. Daarmee is tog niks verkeerd nie. Goed, sê Jakobus, ek sal jou wys hoe verkeerd dit wel is: uit geloof
sonder dade kan jy nie bewys dat daar egte, lewende omgang met God is nie. Maar bepaalde dade – nie
sommer enige goeie dade nie, maar dade van gehoorsaamheid aan God – bewys duidelik dat hulle alleen kan
voortkom uit die geloof.
19: Neem nou die geval van duiwels. Hulle glo ook, soos die Israeliete, dat daar net één ware God is (Deut.
6:4), maar dit bring hulle niks verder as angs en siddering nie. Hulle het ’n geloof wat niks vermag nie. Dit
kan hulle nie red nie, dit is leweloos omdat dit nie oorgaan in die daad van vertroue in God nie. Uit vrees vír
God kan geen geloof ín God afgelei word nie.
20: Iemand wat so redeneer is gewoonweg dom (dwaas). Bewyse van die teendeel kan in die Ou Testament
gevind word. Jakobus haal twee aan.
21–24: Die eerste voorbeeld is dié van Abraham en die bevel van die Here om Isak te offer (Gen. 22:9v). Sy
daad was die uiting van sy geloof, dit het sy égte geloof bewys. Sonder sy daad van bereidwilligheid en
gehoorsaamheid, sou sy geloof onvolkome gewees het. God het derhalwe te kenne gegee dat Abraham met
Hom in die regte verhouding staan. Dit is die konklusie waartoe Jakobus kom, daarom haal hy Genesis 15:6
aan. Die vreemde is egter dat dit in Genesis 15:6 nie gaan om wat Abraham gedóén het nie, maar om wat hy
geglo het. Vir Jakobus is daar geen teenstrydigheid in die lewe van hierdie vriend van God nie (2 Kron.
20:7), want wat hy gedóén het, was om te gló, dit wil sê om volledig op God te vertrou! Uit die voorbeeld
van Abraham kom Jakobus tot ’n algemene gevolgtrekking: so word ’n mens deur God vrygespreek, in die
regte verhouding met Hom geplaas, op grond van sy geloof én sy geloofsaksie. Wie dus meen om ’n
teenstrydigheid tussen Paulus (Rom. 4:3) en Jakobus te bespeur, lees beide te oppervlakkig en buite verband.
Jakobus stel nie die werke teenoor die geloof nie, en Paulus stel nie die geloof teenoor die werke nie. Vir
Jakobus gaan dit om geloof én geloofswerke – nie wetswerk nie! Hy wil dit sy lesers op die hart druk: die een
sonder die ander is ondenkbaar. Buitendien is dit uiters onwaarskynlik dat Jakobus se brief ’n korreksie wil
aanbring op Paulus se leer. Paulus het weer met ’n ander bedreiging te doen (’n goeie tien jaar later!): ’n
terugkeer tot die Joodse verlossingskema van regverdiging deur wetswerke. Daarom kan hy dieselfde teks
aanhaal, wat hom ruim geleentheid bied om die bedreiging wat hy raaksien, die hoof te bied.
25: Die tweede voorbeeld is dié van Ragab. Wat het sy gedoen wat haar met die God van Israel in die reine
gebring het? Sy het geglo: “julle God, die Here, is God bo in die hemel en onder op die aarde” (Jos. 2:11).
Toe het sy iets gedóén. Haar geloofsdaad word in Josua 2:15–24 beskryf.
26: Met ’n vergelyking word die hele saak afgerond. Dit gaan nie om of die een of die ander nie, maar om
albei. ’n Liggaam wat nie asemhaal nie, staar die dood in die oë. Net so stuur ’n geloofsbelydenis, wat nie
gestalte kry in ’n aktiewe geloofslewe nie, op ondergang af.


The Case of the Near-Sighted Usher
James 2:1-13

David H. Roper

I have a friend back in Texas who told me an unforgettable Texas story about ten years ago and I've never
been able to get the thing out of my mind because it is so true. There was a young attorney with a law firm in
Dallas, a bachelor about twenty-eight or twenty-nine-years-old who lived alone in an apartment. It was
customary every Thanksgiving for this particular law firm to distribute turkeys among the employees and this
man could never figure out what to do with his. Being single he really didn't want to cook the thing and he
could never consume all of it anyway. So every Thanksgiving it was a problem to know how to dispose of
this bird. The distribution of the turkeys was always with a great deal of pomp and ceremony. The president
of the firm would line them all up on a table, and each person would have to file by and get his turkey.

One particular Thanksgiving some of this young man's friends decided they would do him in. So they stole
his turkey and replaced it with a bogus one made of paper-mache. They wrapped it with brown paper and had
just the neck and tail of the real turkey showing. It looked for all the world like the others. The time came to
distribute them and when the president gave him his he took it home on the streetcar.

He was sitting there with this thing in his lap when a man came down the aisle and sat down with him. He
was obviously down an his luck, a little shabby and run down at the heels. They struck up a conversation and
the man told what had happened to him. He had been hunting for a job all day but had had no luck whatever.
He had only a dollar or two in his pocket with which to buy something for a Thanksgiving meal for his
family. He was quite concerned because he knew his children would be disappointed.

So the light came on in this young attorney's mind. He thought, "Here's where I can do my new friend a
service and can also get rid of this bird." His first thought was to give him the turkey but then he thought,
"No, that might offend him. I'll sell him the turkey." So he asked the man how much money he had with him.
The man said, "Two dollars." He said, "I'll sell you the turkey for two dollars." So they made the transaction
and both were very satisfied. The man got off the street car with his turkey and the attorney went home with
his money.

Well, you can imagine the scene when this man arrived at his home. The children gathered around the table,
all excited, and they unwrapped the turkey and there was this phony bird. You know what he must have
thought. "Of all the dirty, low-down, no-good blankety-blanks, that guy takes the cake!" To make a long
story short, the young attorney went back to the office the day after Thanksgiving and discovered what had
happened. He was appalled, and he and his friends rode the streetcar for a whole week trying to find this man
again. They walked the streets and knocked on doors. They would have done anything to set this matter right
but they never found him.

That story keeps coming back to me because it depicts so vividly the impossibility of judging the motives of
other people. We simply do not know their hearts. Our tendency so often is to cast judgment on a person
because of something that he does, or because of some outward appearance, or some other external factor,
when we simply don't know what is going on inside. James addresses a word to us in this regard in the first
thirteen verses of his second chapter where he deals with the problem of prejudice, or the making of
superficial judgments.

Chapter 1, you remember, concerned suffering -- how to utilize it in your life and some of the hindrances to
its utilization. In chapter 2 James takes up the question of partiality. It is a very easy section to outline. The
first verse is a statement of the principle, a word of exhortation. Verses 2 through 4 is an illustration of the
principle. Verses 5 through 11 is an explanation of the principle wherein James tells us why it is so important
that we heed it. Then the last two verses are a word of conclusion. Let's look at the principle as James states it
in verse 1:
My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
The word translated "show . . . partiality" is a Greek word that means "to receive by face," i.e., to judge on
the basis of some external or superficial factor--to judge a man by the color of his skin, or the length of his
hair, or the kind of clothes he wears, or the sort of academic credentials he carries, or his economic status.
This is what James is talking about when he says, "Do not show partiality." "Do not receive a man by face."
We cannot judge on the basis of externals. This word is used a number of other times in the New Testament.
But in every other case God is the subject of the sentence and it is expressed negatively. "God does not show
partiality." "God is not a respecter of persons." "God does not receive people by face." God doesn't judge by
externals; he judges the heart.
There is a vivid illustration of this in I Samuel 16. There was a time in the history of Israel when God
rejected Saul as king and commissioned Samuel to anoint his successor. Samuel was led by the Lord to the
family of Jesse. As he was looking at Jesse's sons, his eyes alighted upon Eliab, the eldest. Eliab must have
been a very big, impressive, handsome young man, and Samuel thought, "Surely this must be the Lord's
choice. He has all the marks of kingship about him." He should have learned from Saul that such was not
necessarily the case, for Saul certainly had a stature befitting a king. But the Lord said to Samuel, "Don't
judge this man on the basis of his appearance and stature, because I have rejected him." God does not see as
man does; man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

You see, the people whom God draws to himself are not necessarily the tall, dark, and handsome. Many of
them are the short, shot, and shapeless. He is not impressed by external features or factors but by the
condition of a man's heart. That is why James says it is inconsistent to hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ
and, at the same time, to judge a man on the basis of some external. We just can't do it. God does not judge
that way, and if Jesus Christ is Lord in our life then we cannot judge that way either.

James goes on to give us an illustration of something that was taking place in the meetings of the believers at
this time:
For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby
clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a
seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or "Sit at my feet, " have you not
made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
One of the indications that this book is a very early book, perhaps the earliest of the New Testament, is the
fact that in the Greek James refers to the "assembly" as a "synagogue." This was before the Christians had
been ousted from the Jewish places of worship. They were gathering on the first day of the week and
worshiping in the synagogues. James depicts a scene that apparently was occurring week after week. Two
men might enter they synagogue, one obviously well dressed and wealthy, the other quite shabby. The well-
dressed man was given preferential treatment. He was very politely, cordially ushered to one of the best seats
in the synagogue while the shabbily dressed man was forced to stand or to sit under the footstool of someone
else. James says that when you do that you make distinctions with evil motives.

We need to distinguish here between what the Scriptures say about judging with proper motives and judging
with evil motives. When we judge with evil motives we are condemning a man. But when we judge with a
good motive our desire is to correct. There is a judgment that takes place within the body of Christ when
believers are sinning. The Scriptures say that if you see a brother sinning those of you who are spiritual, who
are walking in the Spirit, are to go to that man and, in a spirit of meekness and patience and love, you are to
restore such a man. If we see a man violating a specific commandment or scripture then the most loving thing
we can do is to go to that man and correct him, restore him. It is the redemptive thing to do. And we must
carry out that sort of judgment. But the sort of judgment that James describes is wrong because we are
judging with the wrong motive. We are trying to exalt ourselves, trying to further our own program. We want
to associate with the wealthy, with people of status, because of what it does for us. But James says that we
cannot carry on that type of judgment.

James explains why we are not to judge superficially and provides us with three clear reasons. The first in
verse 5, is that it is not in accord with the choice of God. The second is found in the latter part of verse 6: it is
in accord with the conduct of the godless. The third is in verse 8: it is contrary to the command of Scripture.
Let's look at them in more detail:
Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith
and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the
poor man.
"God has chosen the poor man," James writes, "but you have dishonored him." Isn't it obvious that God has
chosen the poor? There are many among us who are poor. They are part of the family. God has brought them
to himself. The Greek verb James uses is in the middle voice. It means "to choose for yourself." God has
chosen them to sustain a loving relationship with him. He does not merely tolerate the poor. He has chosen
them in order to pour himself out to them, to love them. And James says that we can do nothing less.

Do I have the right to reject someone whom God has chosen? Can I bar him from my church, exclude him
from my home and my table and my friendship and love? I cannot. God has chosen the black people. He has
chosen brown people. He has chosen white people. Can I exclude them? He never asked me whom to include
in the church. He just chose them on the basis of his mercy and grace. He never inquired as to what I thought;
he just chose them. Do I have any right to exclude them from my love? God chose hippies. Can I exclude
them?

I was speaking recently on the passage in 2 Corinthians 4 in which Paul characterizes his own ministry as the
proclamation of "Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake," and I was describing
what is meant by servanthood--that we submit ourselves to people--all kinds of people. Not just the kinds of
people that we would normally respect, but all kinds. A lady at the back of the room raised her hand and
asked this question: "Isn't it true that God hung the first hippie?"

For a moment that didn't register with me and I asked her what she meant. She reminded me of the Old
Testament story of Absalom, David's long-haired son. He rebelled against his father and later on accidentally
hanged himself in a tree by his long hair as he rode through the forest. Frankly, I was appalled, because God
doesn't hang hippies -- God loves them. As a matter of fact, God hung his own Son for hippies and for street
people. God loves these kids. He chose them for himself. Can I exclude them? Am I going to bar them from
my home and my table? I don't have that right. To dishonor the poor man, James says, is to reject God's
choice. God has chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. They are brothers.

The second reason James says that we must not judge on the basis of superficial factors is that to do so is to
ally ourselves with the conduct of the godless:
Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme
that honorable name by which you are called?
It is a matter of historical records that wealthy Jewish overlords were oppressing the poverty-stricken
Christians of this time, as I mentioned earlier in this series. People had lost their jobs, their businesses were
being boycotted, some had lost everything and were destitute, and they were being hounded by the wealthy
Jews in the community. James says that if we oppress the poor or if we judge them by their poverty we ally
ourselves with those who blaspheme the name of Jesus Christ. Because that is the way the world, the
unbelieving world, looks at others. They oppress them, they exploit them, they are guilty of injustice. But
James says that we can't do that. We can't oppress them; we must serve them. We must not drag them into
court; we should be willing to be defrauded, if necessary, rather than to do that. We must glorify the name of
Jesus Christ by our charitable actions toward them.

The third reason that we cannot judge superficially is that it is a violation of the command of Scripture:
If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself,
you do well...
The royal law is the law of the King, the law of love, and if we are fulfilling the royal law then we are doing
well. That is, if your preferential treatment of a wealthy man is because you really love him and are seeking
to meet his needs, then you do well.
But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Everything that we do, James says, ought to be controlled by the law of love. This is the law that sums up all
the Old Testament laws: "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 . . . and your neighbor as yourself." That ought to govern every
action. That is the motive which ought to distinguish us as believers.

Love is difficult to define. Scripture never tries to give us a text book or dictionary definition of love. In the
New Testament God directs us to look at himself, or to look at his Son, if we want to see what love is. John
says, "This is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our
sins." That is what love is--it is the giving of yourself. Paul says in Ephesians 5 that husbands are to love
their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". That is the nature of the love that we
receive from Jesus Christ. It isn't dependent upon the lovableness of the people who are the objects of that
love, nor upon any external feature which would naturally draw us to them. It is apart from all that.

One of my young student friends gave me a poem not too long ago. I don't claim credit for it. It's called
"Paul's Girl" and any resemblance between this poem and persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
Paul's girl is rich and haughty;
My girl is poor as clay.
Paul's girl is young and pretty;
My girl looks like a bale of hay.
Paul's girl is smart and clever;
My girl is dumb, but good.
But would I trade my girl for Paul's?
You bet your life I would!
That is the kind of love we too often display. If the object of our love is young and pretty and clever then she
just naturally evokes a response of love. But what if the object looks like a bale of hay? Do you see what
James is saying? If we have truly received Jesus as Lord then there will be a change in our life. He will be
our source of love. And we will be motivated by that source of love to reach out toward other people--even if
they're not "our kind of people", even if they don't wear the right clothes, or don't wear their hair the way we
like, or don't have the kind of background we would prefer. We love them anyway.

Verses 10 and 11 are directed toward our tendency to rationalize:
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said,
"Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have
become a transgressor of the law.
Our tendency is to say, "But, James, I may be guilty of discriminating against certain types of people, but I've
never been a murderer or an adulterer. How can you call me a lawbreaker?" James says that if you break any
of the law you become a transgressor of all of it. And in James' eyes it is just as serious to be discriminatory
toward others as it is to be a murderer or an adulterer. It really makes no difference. The law is like a pane of
glass: if you break part of it, you break it all. And if there is in our life this sort of prejudicial attitude toward
people, if we are sitting in judgment on people because of the way they look or because they don't meet our
expectations, James says we have broken the whole law, we are transgressors, and it is really no different in
God's eyes than being an adulterer or an adulteress or a murderer.

James now comes to his conclusion:
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
The law of liberty is the law of love. James says, "Speak and act as people who are judged by the law of
love." God judges us on the basis of his mercy and his grace. It is not because we are clever or handsome, nor
because we are the right weight or the right height or the right size, nor because we have the right IQ. That is
not the basis upon which we are accepted by God. We are accepted solely because of his mercy and grace.
That is what we are judged by, and James says we must act as people who are judged on that basis. He goes
on to say,.
For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment.
His point is that if we do not show mercy toward others, if we don't accept people as God accepts them, then
it is obvious that we have not ourselves accepted the mercy of God. But if we are merciful and open hearted
and responsive and loving, and are reaching out to people who are not "our kind", it is an evidence that we
have received the mercy of God. Our mercy doesn't have any purchasing power. That is not what gains God's
favor. It is evidential -- it shows that we fully under stand the basis of our acceptance before God.

The parable of the unjust steward was Jesus way of highlighting this same principle. A man owes $10 million
dollars to his creditor. He is forgiven completely. He walks out on the street and the first man he meets is one
of his debtors. He grabs him by the throat and tries to extract $20 from him. So his creditor brings him back
to face judgment because it is obvious that this man does not understand the degree nor the quality of
forgiveness he has received. He doesn't understand the basis of his acceptance. That is what James is saying
to us. If we understand how much we have been forgiven, if we see the infinite debt of which we have been
forgiven, if we understand the basis on which the Father accepts us, then we will show mercy to others.

This is a very timely chapter for us in this period of our own experience here together as a body of believers
because we are discovering that God is bringing together such a diverse and heterogeneous group. Jeff
Squires said recently that he looked down the pew and saw representatives of five different cultures. This is
especially true on Sunday nights--street kids, straight people, members of the Establishment, students,
executives, artisans, blacks, whites, orientals, every type of person you could imagine gathers . . . because
Jesus is Lord. There are no distinctions. We can accept one another in our homes, and give of our love and
assistance and friendship. But the enemy would like nothing better than to destroy the sense of unity which
God has built. So I leave you with James' final word on the subject;
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Prayer:
Father, we thank you that we are accepted in the Beloved, that we are accepted not because of what we are
but solely on the basis of your mercy and grace. We thank you that because you are an indwelling Lord and
because we can lay hold of your resources, we can extend the same mercy, the same acceptance, to others.
Teach us, Lord, to act and speak as those who are judged under the law of love. We ask this in Jesus name,
Amen.

				
DOCUMENT INFO