Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

If James uses criticism of a popular opinion to make his point, his explanation
would account for the order in which the Sixth and the Seventh Commandments
are introduced. It is part of a logical argument. Incidentally, one
does not need to find the solution in the sequence in which these Commandments
are presented in the Greek LXX (Johnson, 233; Martin, 69-70; Tasker,
61-62). This would be both a polite and clumsy way to imply that James’ order
does not serve a purpose, would be basically a random shot in the dark,
and would neither have, nor be in need of, an explanation.
The third step is his conclusion that, since any sin is a lack of conformity
to, or a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4), murder is a transgression
of the law as well.
It cannot but be asked what James tries to accomplish with this triad of
steps. Well, in a stripped down form the following syllogism appears to come
into view. Partiality is a transgression of the law. The sin of murder is a
transgression of the law. Therefore, partiality is a form of murder (See Nystrom,
122, for the same conclusion).
In other words, partiality, which from the Greek appears to be a habitual
practice, rather than an occasional slip or two (Zodhiates, I, 173) flies in the
face, not only of “love,” but also of “law,” specifically the Sixth Commandment!
In order to show that this is not as far-fetched as it may seem (Laws,
112!) the following will serve as a graphic image to drive James’ truth home
in heart and life. During the height of the racial tensions in the South, two
black women, intrigued by a Gospel presentation in their University by a local
pastor, got involved in a discussion with him, and at his invitation decided
to visit his assembly on the following Sunday. However, they were denied
entrance for racial reasons by one of the officers in the Church, and deprived
of the opportunity of worship, unbeknownst to the pastor. This constituted
partiality in its grossest form, since the Gospel was at stake! When this came
to light, the question was, of course, raised how to deal with both the issue
and the official.
Well, James provides the model. First, such treatment does not make
“sanctified sense.” Sooner or later Christians or prospective Christians would
be denied entrance. Further, it violates the law of love, and constitutes a form
of hatred. Third, it goes against the grain of the law of God, specifically the
Sixth Commandment. Consequently, it is a form of murder. These two
women could easily have vowed never to darken the door of an “evangelical”
Church again. The final verdict, therefore, should be that the Church official,
taken all three counts together, made himself liable to ecclesiastical censure,
and ultimately, upon refusal to repent and make tearful amends, to excommunication!
499