In this verse, James says, “If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well.” (RSV) But that gives rise to the question as to what the “royal law” really is.
McKnight provides what is perhaps the most comprehensive answer to that question after giving his reasons: “I suggest then that 'royal law' refers (1) to Jesus' highlighting of Lev 19:18 as the preeminent command of all commands, alongside loving God, (2) to this interpretation of the Torah bringing Torah to its destined completion (1:25), (3) to this law of love actually creating freedom for the messianic community, and (4) to the empowering implanted presence of word and Spirit in the messianic community.” He feels that all of these aspects are covered by the phrase and that there is no need to choose between them. Most other commentators in their writings tend to stress one or more possibilities to the near exclusion of the others. Below are some of these scholars' thoughts on this subject:
The reference is to the love command of Leviticus 19:18.
One problem faces us immediately in considering this view, namely, why is only the second part of this command given? Kistemaker answers that objection by saying, “James calls attention to only the second part of the summary [in Matthew 22:37-29], 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' He stresses this part, just as Paul does in his epistles (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; and compare Matt. 19:19). But the implication is the same: the entire law is summarized in expressing love for one's neighbor. Keeping the second part of the summary means fulfilling the first part as well. The two parts are inseparably connected (I John 4:20-21).”
Felder states: “The royal law [is] a designation of Lev 19:18 that is unique to James. He attributes prominence to this precept because of its elevated status in the teachings of Jesus (Mt 22.39; Mk 12.31; Lk 10.27; cf. John 13.34 and Gal 5.14; Rom 13.9).”
And Vine calls it “the law of love, royal in the majesty of its power, the law upon which all others hang, Matt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14.”
A rather weak argument in favor of this interpretation can be seen from the literary structure of the context. The common theme of partiality is pursued in James 1:1-13. Although Johnson divides this section into two parts (2:1-7 and 2:8-13), he gives abundant evidence that they are closely linked. My alternative structure for this sub-section is shown below:
1. Rhetorical question beginning “my brothers” (v. 1)
2. Favoring the rich over the poor (vv. 2-3)
3. You have become evil judges (v. 4)
1'. Rhetorical question beginning “my beloved brothers” (v. 5)
2'. Dishonoring the poor (vv. 6-11)
3'. Proper judgment (vv. 12-13)
If this arrangement means anything at all, it my indicate the parallelism between the specific teaching regarding the poor in verses 2-3 and the immediate context in which our problem phrase appears.
Now for some negative indications regarding this interpretation of “royal law:”
“Although a number of commentators think that James restricts the 'royal law' to Lev 19:18..., those who think that James means all of the law (given explicit expression by Lev 19:18) are probably correct...” (Johnson)
Davids starts out by presenting the case of those who believe this view: “It is a 'sovereign law,' i.e. it has royal authority (Dibelius), but more than that the anarchrous nomos indicates a particular law with, as Mayer argues, a stress on its character.” Davids' rejoinder is “Is it not most natural to see a reference to the whole law as interpreted and handed over to the church in the teaching of Jesus, i.e. the sovereign rule of God's kingdom (cf. Matthew 5)?...The use of nomos instead of 'entole ['commandment'] makes it appear decisive that the whole law rather than a single command is intended...”
It is royal because it refers to the teachings of Jesus the King.
After discussing several possibilities for the term, Adamson concludes, “For the most part these interpretations are merely derivative; we prefer: From a king, namely, Christ.”
Quanbeck simply says, “James uses a variety of expressions for the gospel: perfect law (v. 1:25), law of liberty (v. 1:25; 2:12), royal law (2::8).”
“The argument from beginning to end [James 2:1-26]...concerns the necessity of living out the faith of Jesus in appropriate deeds...The adjective basilikos can refer to that which is 'kingly' in character or excellence...or simply because the 'king' does it, as in the 'royal custom.' The adjective can also be attached to that which belongs to the king in any fashion...In the present case, the close proximity to basileia in 2:5 suggests a reading like 'law of the kingdom...meaning the law articulated or ratified by Jesus 'the glorious Lord,' whose name 'is invoked over them' (2:7).” (Johnson) As you can see, the author feels that a number of different interpretations may apply here.
Esser similarly hedges his bet by saying that “the combination 'law of liberty' [1:25; 2:12] in Gk. has a mainly Stoic origin. The phrase probably comes from the Jewish-Christian diaspora and refers chiefly to those collections of Christ's sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) and the Discourse on the Plain (Lk 6:20ff.), which were regarded as the rule of life. Anyone putting them into practice was thereby set free from a literal observance of the OT law...Jas. also calls this law the 'royal law [nomos basilikos]' (2:8), which can be summarized in the command to love one's neighbor. ('Royal' need not necessarily refer to Jesus the King; it may equally refer simply to the grandeur of this commandment.)”
A variation on this view is that it refers the law as laid down from God the Father, not Jesus. Thus, Ward says, “The royal law (cf. Lv. 19:18) is 'kingly' as coming from God the King, to be observed by the subjects of His kingdom; and it has royal rank over the other commandments.”
It refers to the new law which fulfills the old one.
“The term 'synagogue' in James 2:2 “probably means no more than an assembly in context, but an assembly for the purpose of discerning and keeping the true, 'royal law' (Jas 2:8) represents an implicit challenge to other congregations which claim to uphold the Torah.” (Chilton)
It is the law of God's new kingdom on earth.
Tasker considers this view in conjunction with others. “This law is called royal, partly because it is the law of the kingdom of God, given by the supreme King Himself, and partly because, in its very comprehensiveness, it is the law that governs all other laws concerning human relationships”
In summary, the expression “royal law” may encompass a number of related concepts.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments