Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

God’s people into his kingdom. Hence this law is called the royal law.” Furthermore,
as such it is also the embodiment of wisdom (Jam. 1:5), to be “acquired
through the studying and keeping of the law. Keeping the law shows
that one is wise and understanding. (In short) both wisdom and word/law
serve the same purpose in bringing about the perfection/righteousness demanded
by God, the religion that is pure and undefiled (Jam. 1:27)” (Cheung,
160-161).
In conclusion, there is no need for a disjunction at this point. James’
strategy is clear and compelling. In the text he starts out by quoting a single
statement from the Torah. However, soon, in fact, immediately thereafter he
branches out and turns to the multi-faceted Decalogue. This is underscored by
his contention that to transgress the Law on one point is to violate the whole
Law. The notion, therefore, that James would hold to a love-position in isolation
of the Decalogue, let alone a non-nomian love-view, is preposterous on
the face of it. 232 Obedience simply does not vanish into love as if it were a
“black hole,” but issues forth from it as from a “white hole.” 233
232 See also the exposition of Jam. 1:25, where I distinguish between an antinomian, nonnomian,
neo-nomian position on the one hand, and a (truly) theo/christo/spiritu-nomic position,
on the other. In a rather surprising fashion Zodhiates, I, 178, muses that James particular
law of love possibly encompasses the “entire body of law of Moses” with reference to Deuteronomy
1:17. However, Zodhiates, I, 188, reasons that the “law of liberty” could not be the
Mosaic Law or the Ten Commandments because of their strictness. Exposure to them would
sign the death warrant of anyone exposed to them. This is curious reasoning, to say the least.
For one thing, the “law of love” is equally strict. For another, the law of liberty in this context
functions as the standard and substance of holiness rather than as the taskmaster unto Christ!
Tasker, I, 161, has a better handle on it, “Respect of persons is wholly incompatible with the
royal law, for it is expressly forbidden in one of the subsidiary by which the royal law was
applied in the Mosaic legislation to the various contingencies of life.” In this quotation the
royal law and the Mosaic legislation do not diverge, let alone stand in tension-laden relationship
to each other.
233 Cheung, 100, 106-121, argues with reference to Matthew 5:17-48; 19:16-30; and 22:34-40
that the love command is not only the focus of James’ emphasis vis-à-vis the law, or Paul’s
summary of the law in its totality (Rom 13:9), but also directs how “the royal law of liberty
should be kept.” In other words it is a “principle of interpretation” that determines how to derive
the particulars of Christian conduct from the Torah. In order to be perfect the Rich Young
Ruler, according to Matthew 19, must meet Jesus’ twofold demand of giving his total allegiance
to the Kingdom of God and following him in discipleship. This requires the selling of
his possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor as an “intensification” of the love command
of Lev. 19:18. The lawyer in Matthew 22 is told that the double commandment of love
toward God and the neighbor establishes “how all the other commandments are to be interpreted
and applied.” They have “hermeneutical priority” over them without displacing them.
And last but not least, in Matthew 5 Jesus calls for a kind of righteousness that exceeds the
Pharisaical type as indispensable for citizens of the Kingdom. In this context he does not simply
“restate the Mosaic law.” Nor does he merely “reestablish its meaning.” No, he assumed
total authority as in six antitheses he “internalized ... , intensified ... , radicalized ... , elabo-
491