Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

partly ad hominem, and twofold. It is also introductory to the second line of
argument. This one is principial in nature, and threefold. Especially in their
cumulative effects James’ two steps, practical as well as principial, are gripping!
The introductory, practical, argument is twofold, telling, and compelling.
It is one of “biblical contextual consideration” as well as “painful factual observation.”
Both, incidentally, have eye-opening logical implications. Together
they make up the argument of “sanctified sense!” Further, the core of
the threefold principial argument is obedience to the law of God. James extrapolates
on God’s law in terms of its motivation (Love), its substance (Ten
Commandments) and its end station (The Judgment). 222
The issue of prejudicial partiality is a serious enough problem to warrant
James’ deep concern on its own demerits. It is difficult to visualize such a
flagrant and gross conduct that appears to fly in the face of everything decent
and appropriate. It seems beyond contempt. After all, “so far from being a
trivial matter, (it is) a radical denial of the Gospel” (Cranfield, 190). But it
equally functions as a sample of how to deal with problems in general. For all
practical purposes James turns the treatment of partiality into the occasion of
formulating a “new” case law based on (one of) the Ten Commandments. 223
This makes James’ handling of this “misconduct” even more significant. He
does not treat it as merely “indecent” or “inappropriate.” In short, James’
222 Nystrom, 113-114, differentiates between the argument from experience and the argument
from Scripture. The present proposal is similar, but more nuanced!
223 He follows the pattern of Deuteronomy, as I explain at greater length below. In Chapter 5
Moses promulgates the Ten Commandments afresh. In the Chapters 6-26, customarily designated
as case laws, he provides a systematic exposition of each of the Ten Commandments
(C). C1: 6:1-11:32; C2: 12:1-13:18; C3: 14:1-29; C4: 15:1-16:17; C5: 16:18-18:22; C6: 19:1-
22:12; C7: 22:13-23:14: C8: 23:15-24:15; C9: 24:16-25:19; and C10: 26:1-19. It is my thesis
that James subsumes (the sin of) partiality as a case law under C6. It is my further conviction
that in doing so he simply utilizes an OT universal pattern of dealing with issues. At the same
time he puts it in concrete for the NT, so that the Church of Christ should always indicate how
an apparent “misconduct” can be formulated as a case law under one of the Commandments.
If it cannot do so, it has no choice but to declare that it is no misconduct after all, and grant
total freedom and immunity! This cuts at the heart of the so-called “politically correct thinking
or conduct” syndrome that appears to be in evidence everywhere. The latter always comes
down to a tyranny of the majority that runs rough shod over a minority, or a tyranny of the
elite, that has a stranglehold on procedures and proceedings. Both fly in the face of slavery to
Christ vis-à-vis biblical directive, and freedom under Christ, vis-à-vis the absence of such directives.
This issue is clearly the subject matter of Romans 14:1-15:11. The extraordinary
length Paul goes to in order to treat it indicates that it is, and ever will remain, one of the
thorniest issues in the Church of Christ. Paul’s treatment, in non-dialectic, in fact, antidialectic
fashion, cuts off both tyrannical control freaking and chaotic individual license at
their very root. This note is in anticipation of a more extensive discussion below of the constitution-case
law relationship, and the way it should function in the Church.
480