Content uploaded by Honor Sewapo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Honor Sewapo on Apr 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
African Journal of Biblical Studies, Volume xxxi, Nos 1 &2, April & October
2013, pp. 97-116, ISSN: 075-7602
The Relevance of James’ Attitude towards Partiality for Nigeria
By
Honore Sewakpo, PhD
Department of Religious Studies,
Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
honorsewapo@gmail.com
+2348034233298
Abstract
Partiality, which is sometimes referred to as favouritism, is the bedrock of all
discriminations. James makes clear that partiality is sin against the Almighty God. Existing
studies on partiality have focused more on the justification of its practices and meanings at
the neglect of its negative influence on obedience to the sovereign God and His Law. This
study, therefore, examines James’ attitude towards partiality with a view to establishing its
relevance to the Nigerian society. Using Martin Dibelius’ approach to James, the study
revealed that partiality usurps God’s sovereignty, aligns its practitioners with God’s
enemies, and violates God’s law of love. The paper condemns acts of partiality as God does
not show partiality and recommends that all Nigerians should display the same attitude as it
is enshrined in James 2:1-12.
Introduction
James’ concept of partiality is the hallmark of his theology of practical Christianity and ‘pure
and faultless religion’. It abolishes discriminations at all levels. Partiality implies an
inclination to favour a person or thing because of strong fondness or attachment. Literally, it
means “to take the face”, that is first to look at someone’s appearance (status, money,
position, tribe, etc.) and then to decide things. In other words, it means to be willing to take a
bribe. Treating people with partiality may spring from predilection, or from prejudice, or
from bias. Predilection implies a preconceived liking formed as a result of one’s background,
temperament, etc., that inclines one to a particular preference. Prejudice implies a
preconceived and unreasonable judgment or opinion, usually an unfavourable one, marked by
suspicion, fear, intolerance, or hatred. Bias implies a mental leaning in favour of or against
someone or something without passing judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of the
preference.
1
Partiality is the characteristic sin of a corrupt judge, who does not pronounce a
sentence according to evidence alone, but who allows the influence of money to pervert
justice. James makes clear that integrity of faith places Christians in opposition to the roles
that money, across the centuries, has played in human society. God is impartial, and so
should we be.
2
In Nigeria, partiality sometimes arises because of differences in economic levels, ethnic
groups, religious preferences, political views, educational backgrounds, and personal
opinions, to name but a few causes. It manifests in all spheres of the Nigerian society such as
work places, families and even in religion. Some rich do not only oppose Christians; they
also typically speak against Christ. This was true in James’ world as it is in ours today. It is
inconsistent with the Christian doctrine to give special honour to those who despise the Lord
whom believers love and serve. But, why court the favour of those who oppose God? To
what degree is the teaching of James on partiality eroding the social distinctions between
great and small, rich and poor, male and female, Hausa or Ibo and Yoruba in Nigeria? At the
moment when Boko Haram, an Islamist sect, has gained press attention in Nigeria and
electioneering campaigns are in progress. James’ attitude towards partiality draws significant
attention.
Martin Dibelius’ approach posits that James represents a practical manual of Christian
instruction.
2
Using this as framework, this paper aims at examining James’ attitude towards
partiality and its relevance to Nigerian society.
The Context
James writes a practical treatise for Jewish Christians, not only in Jerusalem, but throughout
the Roman Empire. These were likely the believers from the early Jerusalem church who,
after Stephen’s execution, were scattered through Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1) and as far as
Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Syrian Antioch (Acts 11:19). Also, since the Assyrian and
Babylonian captivities, many Jews were scattered throughout different nations (Acts 2:5-11;
James 1:1). This naturally leads one to think of Jews (Acts 26:6-7) living outside the land of
Palestine. He writes about AD 60
3
just before the first severe persecution breaks upon the
Church, but at a time when behaviour within the community and its attitude toward those
outside had already become a problem. Many of these Jewish Christians were poor and
oppressed. Being Jews, they would often be rejected by the Gentiles. As Jewish Christians,
they would also be rejected by many of their own countrymen.
4
Also, James indicates that
most of them were being defrauded and oppressed by overbearing Jews and by the rich
respectively (James 2:6-7). Evidently the gospel was spreading among rich as well as poor
people, or else it would be unrealistic for James to suppose a rich person would be present at
either the worship or the judicial assembly. Jewish Christians were encountering the moral
issue of discrimination, and they were struggling with the relationship between rich and poor.
3
However, the New Testament church was radically counter-cultural. It consisted of Jews and
Greeks, slaves and slave-owners, worshipping together. Instead of being a revolutionary
movement that threatened the cultural status quo, the early church proclaimed the gospel and
exhorted both slaves and slave-owners to regard each other as brothers in God’s family. God
shows no partiality, impartiality is known by having the fear of God and doing what is right
and acceptable to Him. Partiality contradicts faith in Christ Jesus. This is ‘the true position’
of the Christian condition.
5
The periscope James 2:1-12 reveals the first part of the central teaching of James and it
discusses partiality in the assembly. The second part, James 2:14-26 addresses the
interrelationship of faith and works while James 2:13 stands between those sections and
provides a link between them as well as giving a clue to the point he wishes to make in the
chapter.
How then can vv. 1-12 be understood in the text, especially as our subject for discussion lies
within this unit? A number of proposals have been advanced. In a short essay as this, we will
deal with two areas of the context of James that are especially significant for understanding
the text. First James reflects something of the concerns of the Jerusalem Church in its
primitive stage: still very Jewish in character and not yet aware of its universal mission. Then
James reflects a close acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures, especially in its Greek
translation. And finally he reflects a close awareness of the teaching of Jesus, especially that
which finds expression in the Gospel of Matthew.
6
As to the context of the early church one can easily imagine the situation pictured in the early
chapters of Acts as a background of James’ teaching. Acts 2:45, for example, gives us a
glimpse of the spontaneous love for one another that characterised that first group of
believers. The initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit created a natural openness and sharing and
it is surely with these early days in mind that James wrote his letter. He is painfully aware
that the first flush of loving enthusiasm had not lasted. The unity had begun to give way to a
partiality that judged people by human and external standards. As we noted above James
fears that believers might lose that essential mark that set them out as God’s own people: that
loving concern for one another that reflected their faith in God.
The second context of the book of James is the teaching of Jesus. Perhaps because James was
the brother of Jesus
7
and benefited from close association, he makes significant use of the
4
Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. Because of James’ emphasis on judging, the obvious place to
begin looking is Matthew 7:1, where followers of Christ are commanded not to judge. Except
for James’ omission of Jesus’ emphasis on asking and believing (which James included in
1:5-8 and which does not really fit his primary purpose in this section), the parallels between
the two passages are extensive.
Table: The Parallels between Matthew 7:1-14 and James 2:1-13
Matthew 7:1-14
James 2:1-13
1-2 Prohibition against judging
1 Prohibition against judgmental partiality
3-5 Illustration of removing one's own faults
so that one can help remove others' faults
2-4 Illustration of removing one's own partiality
so that one can judge or instruct others
6 Warning not to despise what is sacred in
favour of dogs or pigs that will harm you
5-7 Warning not to despise brothers who are
rich in faith in favour of others who harm you
7-11 Encouragement to ask and to believe
12 Summary of the law as doing to others
what you would want for yourself
8-11 Summary of the law as loving others as
yourself
13-14 Summary admonition to follow the
narrow way that leads to life.
12-13 Summary admonition to follow the law
that gives freedom
Verses 1-12 introduce the problem of partiality. “Partiality” as practised by Christians is a
manifestation of inconsistent love for other people. We do not love some people as we should
when we show partiality. Throughout this epistle, James dealt with inconsistencies in
Christian behaviour. We saw this in chapter 1, in which inconsistency involved regarding
trial as good gifts from God sometimes and as bad gifts at other times. In chapter 3, the
inconsistency is with our speech. In chapter 2, it is inconsistent treatment of other people.
Consistency is very important in both theology and practice.
8
Luke’s account of the parable of the great supper
9
is also a significant teaching of Jesus in the
context of James. In this parable, J. A. Sanders believes, Jesus is offering a prophetic critique
of what the religious leaders of his day had done with the Deuteronomic doctrine of
election.
10
As their fathers before them they had come to see their place in God’s call as a
special privilege which God would not revoke. They, in the terms of the parable, were sure
who would be invited to the messianic banquet and who would be excluded. They even
believed they knew the guest list and the seating arrangement! In other words, they had
completely lost sight of the fact that God’s call, the call they were to echo was itself a
‘showing of mercy’ to the needy and was intended to include as many as had need (‘Go out to
5
the highways and hedges’ Luke 14:23). It was this idea which underlayed much of the
teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and which James reiterates in his book, especially in
the second chapter. Righteousness is not a matter of calculating observance of laws, but it is a
spontaneous overflowing expression of love and showing impartiality.
11
In James’ language
partiality contradicts faith in Christ Jesus.
12
The Background of James’ Teaching
James’ teaching on partiality had roots in both the logia of Jesus and the Jewish world. The
logia of Jesus are the teachings that make up what we call the Sermon on the Mount. Christ’s
teaching recorded in Matthew 7 and Luke 6 is the background for James 2. Its setting has
been further explained by the discoveries at Qumran and their revelations about Jewish
community life at the time of Jesus. Parallels between James and Qumran are so interesting
that T. H. Gaster concluded: “the Dead Sea Scrolls indeed open a window upon the little
community of Jewish Christians clustered around James in Jerusalem. These men may have
been originally the urban brethren of the ‘hardier’ souls that betook themselves to Qumran.”
13
This explains the frequency with which James repeats the teaching of the Sermon on the
Mount. Any Jewish Christian would be supremely interested in the ethical teaching of the
Christian faith.
James and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem to the Gentile Churches have a curious
resemblance in that Acts 15:17 has a phrase in the letter of the Council of Jerusalem in which
it speaks of the Gentiles who are called by my name. This phrase does not in any other place
occur in the New Testament except in James 2:7 where it is translated as the name by which
you are called. Although the Revised Standard Version translation differs slightly, the Greek
is exactly the same.
14
The text is a clue that in the illustration of James 2:2-4 he is thinking of the rich and poor
individuals as ones who come needing to be instructed in some way. James’s illustration fits
the pattern in Matthew 7 and Luke 6 if the partiality is seen as disqualifying the Christian
community from being able to instruct the ones who come into the assembly.
The Jewish world also had its tradition of teaching on partiality. The Jewish rule of law states
that since God is just and opposes the persons who use the law to further oppress the
marginal members of society, he expects his people to follow his example faithfully.
According to the Deuteronomist Code, the God of heavens and earth, who loved Israel’s
6
forefathers and loved the nation dearly, shows no partiality and accepts no bribes and
demands total loyalty, “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether
he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns” (Deut
24:14).
15
This Jewish teaching was frequently a string of moral truths and exhortations
coming one after another. This is exactly what James’ teaching is. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to extract from it a continuous and coherent plan. Its sections follow each other
with certain disconnectedness. Goodspeed writes: “The work has been compared to a chain,
each link related to the one before and the one after it. Others have compared its contents to
beads on a string.... And, perhaps, James is not so much a chain of thoughts or beads as it is a
handful of pearls dropped one by one into the hearer’s mind.”
16
James’ teaching, whether looked at from the logia of Jesus or from the Jewish point of view,
is a good example of an ancient teaching on partiality. His focus is on the sin of showing
partiality to the rich and despising the poor, but his words apply to all types of prejudice,
whether based on economic status, race, social levels, or age groups. To favour some people
and to disregard others based on outward factors is a terrible sin that plagued the early church
in James’ time. It has plagued the church and the society in every generation, because it stems
from pride, which is endemic to our fallen hearts. It ignores the glory of the New Testament
church, “in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and
uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all” (Col.
3:11). Partiality obliterates the glory of God and His salvation. In Christ this imbalance was
to be restored. This is why James’ teaching has stood the test of time, and still has relevance
for us in Nigeria today where societal disparity manifests itself in all shades and colours. It is
with these conditions in mind that James speaks on partiality.
Exegesis of James 2:1-12
Verses 1-5
In these verses James shows two ways that partiality usurps God’s sovereignty:
First, Partiality puts man as judge in the place of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ (2:1-4).
James opens with the command,
μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις ἕχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης
. “show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” The word
προσωπολημψίαις
is in the dative plural case of
the noun
προσωπολημψια;
either
προσωπολημψια
or
προσωπολημπτης
denotes one
7
who shows partiality or judges according to appearances or has human respect. It is used of
prejudicial partiality for the greater at the expense of the lesser.
17
Here discrimination rests on
outward and external standards. The word
προσωπολημψια
, is found only here in the New
Testament but reflects the semiticism,
πρόσωπον λαμβανω
, and recalls Deuteronomy
10:17 (LXX) where God
οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον
. One cannot impress God with his
appearance, and God’s people are to be similarly unwavering (interestingly the word for
‘wavering doubt’ in James 1:6 and ‘distinction’ in James 2:4 are the same in Greek). In Job
34:19 it is this characteristic of God, His not showing partiality, which qualifies Him to
govern. Partiality is not a glorious characteristic, and it is therefore inconsistent for a
Christian who worships the glorious Lord Jesus Christ to practise it (cf. Matt. 22:16 Acts
10:34). All earthly distinctions disappear in the presence of our glorious Lord. By focusing
our attention on Jesus Christ in His glory, James addresses the problem of partiality in two
ways. First, he gets us to see how petty our distinctions between the rich and poor (or any
other distinctions) really are. Even the most powerfully rich men on earth are nothing
compared to the glory of Jesus Christ, the King of kings. For example, King Nebuchadnezzar
thought that he was great, but God humbled him so that he ate grass like a beast of the field.
When he came to his senses, he acknowledged that God alone is great (Daniel 4:34-37).
When men are exalted on account of their wealth or power or status, glory is robed from
Jesus Christ, who in His sovereignty gives men everything that they are and have (1 Cor.
4:7). Rather than exalting the rich, men should exalt the supreme glory of Christ alone.
Focusing on the glory of Christ puts us all in our proper place before Him. Second, when
James ascribes glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, it probably points to His coming in power and
glory to judge the earth (Matt. 26:64).
18
To judge a man based on his outward appearance is
to usurp the place of Jesus Christ in His glory as judge of all the earth. It must not be
mistaken to conclude that James is saying that the rich are categorically bad and the poor are
categorically good. Some rich men are very godly and some poor men are very evil.
However, James’ point is that any judgments based on outward factors alone are wrong
judgments, because they do not discern the heart. Only God can judge the heart, and so it is
wrong to usurp His place as judge.
Second, Partiality puts man as sovereign in the place of God who chooses (2:5). First, the
New Testament writers
19
consistently assume that God chooses those who are saved apart
from any merit or qualifications on the part of those chosen. Salvation is not offered to
8
anyone on the basis of anything that God sees or foresees in that person. He does not choose
the rich man to get his money for the kingdom. God does not choose the poor man because of
his poverty. God does not choose those whom He foresees will one day trust in Him, because
that would make salvation depend on something that originates in fallen man. God’s choice is
completely based on His grace and purpose (Rom. 9:11-16). Since God has chosen the poor
of this world to be the recipients of His blessings it is inconsistent for Christians to withhold
blessings from them (cf. Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20). James is not teaching that God chooses all
poor men for salvation and passes over all rich men. Rather, it was obvious in the early
church that many more poor people had trusted in Christ for salvation, as compared to the
rich. William Barclay says, “. . . in its early days the Church was predominantly poor and
humble; and therefore if a rich man was converted, and did come to the Christian fellowship,
there must have been a very real temptation to make a fuss of him, and to treat him as a
special trophy for Christ.”
20
There were some rich people (Zacchaeus, Nicodemus, Barnabas,
Philemon, etc.), but the numbers were slanted toward the poor. That’s why Paul says to the
Corinthians, “For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the
world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the
things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen,
the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast
before God” (1 Cor. 1:26-29). By choosing those whom the world rejects and despises, God
magnifies the riches of His grace. When James says that God chooses the poor “to be rich in
faith,” he means they have spiritual riches in Christ through God’s sovereign, gracious
choice, which brought them to faith in Him (as Paul argues in Eph. 1:3-14). At the moment of
salvation, they come under the reign of Christ in their hearts (Col. 1:13-14), but there remains
in the future the fullness of that kingdom and its blessings, when Jesus returns in power and
glory (Matt. 25:31-34).
In contemporary Nigeria, the practice of partiality among the royal, political and religious
godfathers have become the order of the day. It is arrogantly practised with all pleasure and
impunity. People that are supposed to checkmate this malady, which is eating deep into the
development and progress of Nigeria, practise favouritism at all levels of the social structure
and governance. Their acts of partiality make them demand the glory which belongs to God
from their godsons after assisting them to such offices. These acts make them become their
dictators. They ignore the fact that God allows their godsons in the offices they occupy. For
9
instance, the Lagos State governor, Babatunde Fashola, got a rude shock from his principal
and predecessor, Bola Tinubu who says to him “If there’s no partiality, you cannot be
governor yourself.” Tinubu added that he had not regretted choosing Fashola as governor.
21
The question that may come to mind is whether Nigerian governors selected or elected? This
selection and favouritism approach to the appointment of offices has made Nigerian youths
resort to militancy, which involves kidnapping, destruction of oil pipelines and bombing of
oil fields in order to vent their anger on government and those in governance. Partiality in
governance has led to youths’ claim that they are fighting for their own survival, gainful
employment, the dehumanisation of our own people, denial of fundamental human rights
(regular power supply, good roads, etc.) and the lack of effective education for them. Also,
there is denial of justice in Nigerian courts at all levels. The agitation by the Nigerian youths
is their own way of expressing their bottled up anger at the social paradox whereby they are
suffering from poverty in the midst of plenty. So James’ argument is that partiality toward the
rich and against the poor (or, partiality based on any external factors) is wrong because it puts
this perpetrators in the place of judge like God. By showing partiality, we usurp the role that
belongs to God alone, who makes sovereign choices.
Verses 6-7
James 2:6-7 implies that Partiality aligns its practitioners with God’s enemies. James states
that by making distinctions based on outward factors, the church has dishonoured the poor
man. However, James is not teaching that the church should ignore or despise the rich
because of their riches. That would be reverse discrimination! The church should show God’s
love and grace to all, whether rich or poor. Rather, he is saying that the rich should not be
given preferential treatment, to the detriment of the poor, in an attempt to court their money
or influence. James makes two points:
First, God’s enemies use their strength to oppress the poor, whereas God is concerned for
justice for the poor (2:6). He asks a question that required an affirmative answer,
οὐχ οἱ
πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς κριτήρια;
“Is it not
the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?” James writes with a sharp
contrast between
πλούσιοι
“the rich” and
πτωχοι
“the poor”. James would surely
remember Jesus’ warning of how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom; it astonished
the disciples when he said it (Mt 19:23-25). Why would wealth have this effect? Because of
greed and selfishness, in every culture and age, the wealthy tend to take advantage of those
10
who are helplessly poor. Even though the rich man does not need the money, he forecloses on
the poor person’s property to collect on a debt, or he charges exorbitant interest that the poor
person could never hope to repay. Or, he pays pitiful wages that hardly allow a man to feed
his family, while the rich man just gets richer. Also, as William Barclay explains, “If a
creditor met a debtor on the street, he could seize him by the neck of his robe, nearly
throttling him, and literally drag him to the law-courts.”
22
That’s what James is describing
here. It is not wealth that James is condemning, but a lack of compassion and understanding
on the part of the wealthy towards the poor. The Old Testament repeatedly emphasises that
God is concerned for the rights of the poor. The wicked Queen Jezebel hired false witnesses
to accuse Naboth and execute him. Then she seized his property, just because her pouting
husband wanted it for a vegetable garden. Because of this, God pronounced severe judgment
on Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 21:1-24). The law stipulated that Israel appoint those who
judge the people righteously (Deut. 16:18, 20; Ps. 82:3-4). Merchants were commanded to
have full, just weights and measures (Deut. 25:15). Bribery was condemned (1 Sam. 8:3; Ps.
15:5; 26:10; Amos 5:12). The prophets often confront Israel for oppressing the poor,
especially orphans and widows (Isa. 1:17; Jer. 22:15-16; Ezek. 22:7; Amos 4:1; 5:15, 24).
Sodom was condemned because she “had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she
did not help the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). In the New Testament, Paul exhorts (Col.
4:1), “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master
in heaven.”
Abogunrin avers that today the poor in Nigeria suffer not only materially but socially,
culturally and politically, as well as in the area of human rights and job opportunities. The
rising affluence and the ostentation of the few neighbours next door make the poor to feel
really miserable. African traditional and religious values have been eroded. Moreover, the
social and community support of the past have gradually disappeared and this has really
complicated issues and made life unbearable for the poor in Nigeria. In addition, apart from
the loss of human dignity, they are increasingly oppressed and exploited by both the
government and the rich. The concentration of the national wealth and power in the hands of
a few Nigerians makes the poor feel marginalised and less human. Poverty appears to the
poor as a deprivation of life in relation to the basic necessities for comfortable daily living.
But the poor in our midst have the right to better life, to decent food and housing, to good
jobs, to be educated, to good health-care and to participate in the making of decisions
affecting their destiny. They live on the very margin of existence, with inadequate food,
11
shelter, clean water and healthy environment.
23
So James’ point is that if you give preferential
treatment to the rich man who oppresses the poor, you’re aligning yourself with God’s
enemies. John Calvin compares it to honouring your executioners and injuring your own
friends!
24
Second, God’s enemies blaspheme the name of Christ by which Christians have been called
(2:7). James’ second rhetorical question is,
οὐκ αὐτοὶ βλασφημοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ
ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς;
“Is it not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was
invoked over you?” The literal rendering, “which has been called upon you” (NASB, margin)
refers to the practice of a wife taking her husband’s name, or a child taking on the name of
his father. Christians take the name of their Saviour, Jesus Christ. The verb
βλασφημεω
means to mock deliberately or to speak contemptuously of God. Perhaps those who were
blaspheming Christ’s name were unbelieving Jews (cf. Acts 13:45). Douglas Moo suggests
that it could have been the Gentiles mocking the Christians’ God, or the Jews criticising the
Christian claims about Jesus. It may refer to unbelievers making fun of Christian morality or
worship.
25
William Barclay
26
suggests that the wealthy slave owners may have insulted their Christian
slaves or the slaves’ new Lord and Master because of several reasons. The believing slave
would have a new sense of independence, and thus no longer cringe at his master’s power. He
would have a new sense of honesty, and thus not go along with his master’s dishonest
practices. He would have a new sense of priorities, and thus insist on leaving work aside so
that he could worship with his fellow believers. These and other reasons would cause these
rich unbelievers to blaspheme the name of Christ and those who followed Him. So, again,
James’ point is that showing partiality to the rich is wrong, because you align yourself with
those who despise God. He is not saying that all rich people do this, but is making
generalisations.
Verses 8-12
These verses suggest that partiality violates God’s law of love. Here is the flow of thought:
To show partiality violates the second great commandment of God’s law, to love your
neighbour as yourself. To break God’s law is sin and to break even one part of it is to break
the whole. Since God’s law is the standard by which everyone will be judged, we should live
in the light of that coming judgment, especially by showing mercy to the poor. James singles
12
out the command from Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” This is
cited six times in the synoptic gospels, and also in Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14. Jesus
referred to it as the second great command, after, “You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37). He added
(Matt.22:40), “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” Just
prior to the command to love our neighbour, Moses wrote (Lev. 19:15), “You shall do no
injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to
judge your neighbour fairly.” So part of biblical love for one’s neighbour includes treating
each person fairly and impartially.
The uniformed people in Nigeria are not also exempted from the practice of partiality. Two
political parties in Nigeria, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and the Congress for
Progressive Change (CPC) in separate reactions on Thursday, July 18, 2013, accused the
police of being partial in their handling of investigations into the Rivers State House of
Assembly fracas.
27
The love for truth and unity among Nigerians is missing due to the
presence of partiality in every sphere of our country. No one cares about the aftermath of this
malady and disobedience to God’s commandments. We have our various cultural and
political constitutions that we apply to suit our selfish and partial practices. Obedience to the
law of economic power is the order of the day since the rich must get richer and the poor
poorer.
Indeed, there are only two great commandments, not three: (1) Love God; (2) love your
neighbour. Love of self is assumed as the standard by which we must love our neighbour. So
the point of the second great commandment is, you care about your own needs; show the
same care for the needs of others. You care about your own feelings; show the same care for
the feelings of others. You care about your own desires; show the same care for the desires of
others. You care about how others treat you; treat them as you would want to be treated. But,
in case anyone doesn’t get it, James goes on (James 2:9) to apply the law of love specifically
to partiality. To show partiality to the rich while you treat the poor with contempt, or to show
partiality to a certain race, while treating those of another race as inferior, is to commit sin.
James did not mean Christians should avoid honouring the rich but that we should love
everyone and treat every individual as we would treat ourselves (Matt. 7:12; cf. Lev. 19:18).
The word
βασιλικος
“royal” refers to law. It is royal in that it is the law of the King who
heads the
βασιλικὸν
“kingdom” that believers will inherit (v. 5). It is also royal in that it is
13
primary; it governs all other laws dealing with human relationships (Matt. 22:39; cf. Lev.
19:18).
28
James calls the law “the royal law.” Primarily, this means that it comes from the
King, the Lord Jesus Christ. It emphasises the authority of the law. James has just mentioned
(2:5) that believers are heirs of the kingdom. As such, we are first believers Nigerians, then
Hausa, Ibo and Yoruba, and must live under the law of the king. So “the royal law” probably
refers to “the whole law as interpreted and handed over to the church in the teaching of
Jesus”.
29
That law is contained in Scripture: “A new commandment I give to you, that you
love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men
will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35). The
Bible is our authoritative rule of life. It reveals God’s will for how we should think and live.
So we should always read and study it with a view to learning how it applies to our daily
lives.
Conclusion
The type of preferential treatment James dealt with in this periscope (2:1-12) violates the
royal law because it treats some as inferior and others as sources of special favour (cf. Acts
10:34). It also violates specific commands found in God’s Word that reveal God’s will in
interpersonal dealings (Matt. 7:12; cf. Lev. 19:15). “The passage calls us to consistent love,
not just polite ushering. People of low income are to be fully welcomed into the life of the
church and secular institutions. The passage calls us to be blind to economic differences in
how we render our services. The poor person is as worthy of respect and love as the person
who has the means to rescue an institution from its budget crisis.”
30
This is true of Burdick
who says, “Anyone who shows favouritism breaks the supreme law of love for his neighbour,
the law that comprehends all laws governing one’s relationships with one’s fellowmen.”
31
James’ treasured teaching on
ἀδελφοι
, brethren should guide and motivate all interpersonal
relationships among Hausa or Fulani, Ibo or Yoruba, etc. People of majority or minority
groups, Hausa, Ibo and Yoruba must realise that matters in religion and politics that live with
us today in Nigeria were man-made and could be resolved when individuals from each group
or geo-political zone play their role without partiality.
The analysis of the text, context and background reveals that (i) partiality usurps God’s
sovereignty: First, Partiality puts man as judge in the place of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ;
and second, it puts man as sovereign in the place of God who chooses. (ii) Partiality aligns its
practitioners with God’s enemies: First, God’s enemies use their strength to oppress the poor,
14
whereas God is concerned for justice for the poor; and second, God’s enemies blaspheme the
name of Christ by which Christians have been called. (iii) Partiality violates God’s law of love.
Indeed, James has fixed a spotlight on the dangerous role of wealth. Christians who seriously
desire to be doers of this word will be all the more earnest in practising the law that is higher
than the law of economic power. The law of economic power enables people to practise
exploitation, abuse and blasphemy. James enjoins the clergy and laity, the intellectuals and
unlettered, businessmen and women in Nigeria to adhere passionately to another law: the
royal law, which commands impartial and unconditional love.
James 2:1-12 gives us a revolutionary teaching on social ethics. James affirms here that, on
account of Christ, all men and women, in other words, all Nigerians irrespective of tribe,
creed, riches, poverty and party affiliations are entitled to an equal treatment. In ecclesiology
as in politics this statement calls for far reaching consequences. In 2015, Nigeria would be
conducting her general elections for her leaders. This occasion should not be turned into a
war among various ethnic and political groups at the inspiration of those aspiring to political
office. Our political atmosphere is already polluted with acts of partiality. It is time our
politicians address themselves to issues and desist from politics based on ethnic grounds and
personalities with all its evils of mudslinging and character assassination reminiscent of the
First Republic.
32
A text like James 2:1-12 calls for a better future for Nigeria by challenging
the security agencies, the cabals, the traditional and religious leaders, male and female, adults
and youths, rich and poor again that the survival of democracy in this country depends on
their impartial role in the forthcoming general elections.
In sum, this paper submits that unless James’ attitude towards partiality is given rapt attention
in all the public and private institutions and tiers of government in Nigeria, the existing
injustices and lopsidedness of Nigeria’s federalism will continue to anger the Nigerian
society. It further recommends that acts of partiality with all its evils be condemned and
enjoins all and sundry to be impartial in their role for the development and progress of
democracy in Nigeria.
15
References
1
Thomas L. Constable. Notes on James. 2013 Edition. Pdf., p. 26.
2
Dibelius, Martin. James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A.
Williams. Edited by Helmut Koester. English ed., (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1976). See William Dyrness. Mercy Triumphs over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theology of
Faith and Works. Themelios 6.3 (April 1981):13.
3
R. V. G. Tasker. The General Epistle of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 28.
4
Mark A. Copeland. James Introduction - A Study Guide.
http://executableoutlines.com/ja2/ja2_00.htm. Retrieved 05 July, 2013.
5
Galatians 3:28
6
J. Cantinat, Les epítres de Saint Jacque et de Saint Jude (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1973),
pp. 27-28.
7
Franz Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (Frieburg: Herder, 1975), pp. 7-8.
8
Thomas L. Constable. Notes on James. 2013 Edition. Pdf., p. 25.
9
Luke 14:12-24
10
J. L. Crenshaw. Ed. Luke’s Great Banquet Parable. Essays in Old Testament Ethics (New
York: KTAV, 1974), p. 255.
11
William Dyrness, “Mercy Triumphs Over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theology of Faith
and Works,” Themelios 6.3 (April 1981): 15-16.
12
James 2:1, 9.
16
13
T. H. Gaster, ed. The Dead Sea Scriptures (Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor, 1958), intro.
p. 17.
14
William Barclay. The Letters of James and Peter Revised Edition (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1976), pp. 22-23.
15
Old Testament Legislation and Foreigners: An Alternative Majority Group Response
Aquiles Ernesto Martínez Reinhardt College, Waleska, GA, p.12 (1-19)
16
William Barclay. The Letters of James and Peter Revised Edition (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1976), pp. 27-30.
17
K. Berger. Ποσωπολημψια. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol.3. Horst Baltz
and Gerhard Schneider. Eds. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), pp.
179-180.
18
Peter Davids. New International Greek Testament Commentary on James. (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,) p. 107.
19
John Mark, Matthew (the Tax-Collector), Luke (the Physician), John (Son of Zebedee) and
Paul of Tarsus.
20
William Barclay. The Letters of James and Peter Revised Edition (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1976), p. 76.
21
If There's No Partiality, You Won't Be Governor Yourself" - Tinubu To Fashola.
http://www.nairaland.com/902151/theres-no-partiality-wont-governor#10481775 accessed
August 5, 2013.
22
William Barclay. The Letters of James and Peter Revised Edition (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1976), p. 67.
23
S. Oyin Abogunrin.. Religion and National Rebirth: The Nigerian Experience. Orita.
Vol.xxxiii/1&2 (June & December, 2001), pp. 13-14.
24
John Calvin. Calvin’s Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. John Owen. Trans. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1855), pp. 303-304.
25
Douglas J. Moo. The Letter of James. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), p. 109).
26
William Barclay The Letters of James and Peter Revised Edition (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1976), pp. 67-68.
27
http://sunnewsonline.net/news/acn-cpc-accuse-police-of-partiality-in-rivers accessed
Monday, August 05, 2013.
28
J. Alec Motyer. The Message of James. The Bible Speaks Today series (Leicester,
17
England, and Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), pp. 96-97.
29
Peter H. Davids. The Epistle of James. New International Greek Testament Commentary
series (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), p. 114.
30
George M. Stulac. James. (Downers Grove, Ill. and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press,
1993), p. 93.
31
Donald W. Burdick. James. Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), p. 180.
32
C. U. Manus. Gal. 3:28—A Study on Paul’s Attitude towards Ethnicity: Its Relevance for
Contemporary Nigeria. Ife Journal of Religions. Vol. II (December 1982), p. 25.