Playing Favorites

Introduction

            If you’re like me, you’ve watched as someone else was always the favorite-something—teacher’s pet; coach’s pet; most popular boy; most popular girl; prom queen; prom king; most likely to succeed; the prettiest girl on campus; the most handsome guy in the office; the most fun at parties. Are you beginning to remember some of those titles? For some people, “success” was defined as being recognized or being able to associate with one of these people who seemed to exist on a different stratosphere than the rest of us. Being with them or being recognized by them seemed to mean in some small way that we were possibly on their level. Being excluded, however, didn’t have a neutral meaning, it meant that you were at a lower level; a kind of lower life-form. We see this at all levels of our society don’t we? Tell the truth, have you ever been in the presence of a celebrity and felt better about yourself? Tell me you haven’t envied someone rich and famous—a prominent politician; a world renown author; a brilliant scientist; a talented actress; a famous singer; a dominant professional athlete. If I asked you to name one person, not named Jesus, you’d like to spend a day with, who would you name? Who was the first person that popped into your mind? I’ll bet it wasn’t the homeless man that stands on the same street corner you pass every day on the way to work. It probably wasn’t the single mom working at the Starbucks where you get your coffee every morning. Was it the son who disappointed you and you haven’t talked to in years? Was it the daughter you kicked out because she disobeyed you and got pregnant? How about the gay guy who lives with his partner in the apartment down the hall? Most of us have learned which people are the most advantageous for us to associate with and which ones embarrass us or make us uncomfortable. Let me just clarify something—I am not a ribbons-for-everyone kind of guy. There are winners and losers in everything. Some people are more talented than others. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger and faster than others. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about judging someone’s essential value based on these things. We see it every day, and I’m going to make a broad assumption that we are all guilty of it to some extent or another, at school, at work, at home, in our communities and sadly in our churches. I came across an egregious example of this last week that I want to share with you.

            Ok so this pretty much covers everything I was trying to explain to you earlier. What was your first reaction when you read this? Disgust? Anger? Embarrassment? Those where certainly my feelings but probably not for the reasons you might think. I felt those things because I know I have behaved like the Sad Sister before and I know that my actions have wounded in the same way that Wendy was wounded. If you’re like me, maybe you too are guilty of Playing Favorites from time to time. I’m not proud of it but I’ve done it. It’s a common mistake, not just in our present day, but as part of the sinful human race throughout history. James, the brother of Jesus, had to deal with this as well when he learned that there were people in the church who were Playing Favorites with those who were wealthy and influential in their culture at the cost of those who were not. Let’s look at how James addressed the issue and see where we might need to change the way we think and act.

Subject Text

James 2:1-13

            ¹My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. ²Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. ³If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” ⁴have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? ⁵Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? ⁶But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? ⁷Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? ⁸If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. ⁹But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ¹¹For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. ¹²Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, ¹³because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Context

            James says something in our Subject Text that will only make sense if we understand the context of his letter. According to the first verse of the letter, James is writing to the Jewish Christians that have scattered among the gentile nations. It’s important to keep in mind that these Christians didn’t just wander away from Jerusalem in search of greener pastures. Instead, these were Christians who were fleeing the persecution of the Church in Jerusalem specifically during the two decades after the death of Jesus. Persecution of the Church in Jerusalem began shortly after the first Pentecost not at the hands of Rome but by and through the Jewish leadership. Among this group was the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus who played a role in the stoning death of Stephen. The Jewish leadership in Jerusalem was the Bible’s version of the rich and famous. They were the ones everyone wanted at their gatherings and banquets. Christians weren’t being persecuted by the poor and oppressed, they were being persecuted by the privileged class before they fled Jerusalem. However, James has learned that the dispersed Christians are courting and celebrating the very class of people who created the oppressive environment that caused them to flee Jerusalem in the first place. The dispersed Christians had the opportunity to live and act differently in relation to those who are normally marginalized by society—the poor and oppressed. Instead, James exposes their hypocrisy because they are Playing Favorites with the “important” people in their midst while claiming to be Christians under the authority of the God’s command to love their neighbor as themselves—especially the neighbors whom no one else seems to love.

Text Analysis

            James wastes no time getting to the point in v. 1 when he tells the believers very bluntly that they are not to show favoritism toward anyone. You can look for an exception of some sort but you won’t find it. James is not making a suggestion here. The verse is written grammatically in the imperative so it should be understood as a strict command that the believers must not show favoritism. James’ instruction is blunt and to the point and without equivocation. But what exactly does James mean by “favoritism?” The word that is translated by the NIV as favoritism is derived from the Greek word prosOpon that translates literally as “partiality.” The grammatical structure of the verse can be understood as creating a kind of oxymoron that would be understood as believers who “hold the faith while showing partiality.”[1] Implying that the one cannot be a believer in “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” while at the same time Playing Favorites. This seems like a simple concept but it can get very confusing at times. This is not a question of whether or not we should show a proper level of respect for those who are in positions of authority over us. For example, the President of the United States is treated differently because of the position he holds then is the White House gardener. However, this does not mean that the President is more valuable as a person than is the gardener. In that respect they are equals. The President and the gardener are equally valuable as persons created in the image of God. A more important position does not equate to a more valuable person. The key distinction is value of person.

            James attempts to clarify his instruction in vv. 2-4 by offering an example to illustrate his point. It was common practice to invite an important or influential leader to a gathering or banquet as a status symbol. Religious leaders loved it when the people made a fuss over them—giving them special recognition and always seating them at the head of a table where everyone could identify them as the most important person at the event. The host, too, would receive special recognition as one who was important enough to attract an important or popular guest. Note how many times the host was specifically mentioned whenever Jesus was there as a dinner guest—Matthew was a host (Mt 9:10-11); Zacchaeus was a host (Lk 19:1-10), Simon the Leper was a host (Mk 14:3-9), etc. Having an important person accept a dinner invitation gave people the impression that you were also important. James, however, warned the believers that segregating guests based on their outward appearances was in conflict with the spirit of the Gospel that prohibits passing judgment on one another based on one person’s perceived value over another. What the believers don’t realize is that they are unnecessarily creating division amongst themselves. In fact, v. 4 can actually be translated as “Are you not divided among yourselves?” according to the Peshiṭtâ (the Syriac Vulgate). In the Peshiṭtâ, the same word for “divided” in the Greek is used in Luke 11:17—“Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…” “The reference to the verse before us might be to the class distinctions which were thus being made, and which would have the effect of engendering envy and strife, and thus divisions.”[2] Like any culture, there were distinct socio-economic classes during the time of Jesus. However, Jesus worked really hard to break down those distinctions be emphasizing the essentially value of the person. Jesus regularly elevated the poor to the position of divine favorability and James’ audience has somehow forgotten that and reverted back to the old way of catering to the “important and influential” people at the expense of the poor among them. “What James has in mind is at least the sundering of the community into the haves and the have-nots by this one symbolic act. And surely we can extend this also to include using a standard for judgment that is at odds not only with the great prophetic tradition (e.g., Isaiah 58), but also with Jesus’ own teachings and practice (e.g., Luke 6:20-26; see also Luke 1:46-55). And, if we keep 2:1 in mind, James intends for his readers to know that Jesus himself was poor and was raised to glory and that faith in that Jesus as Messiah involves commitment to those like him—the poor.”[3]

            James reminds his fellow believers of something very important in v.5 with respect to the God’s perspective on the divine value of the poor. James reminds them that one of the defining attributes of the poor is the depth of their faith and that they are heirs to the Kingdom. James’ description of the poor in v. 5 ties in perfectly with his reference to Jesus in v. 1 because it was Jesus who said: Blessed are the poor in spirit; those who mourn; the meek; those who hunger and thirst for righteousness; the merciful; the pure in heart; the peacemakers; those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for they will be comforted, be filled, be shown mercy, see God, be called sons of God, and inherit the kingdom of heaven. Jesus makes clear and James reminds his audience, and by extension us, that God doesn’t put value in gold rings or fine clothes. God puts value in the person and He is especially concerned with the welfare of those less fortunate. “No Christian is called ‘rich’ in the letter, and when Christians act like the rich or try to increase their wealth (4:13-16) they are criticized. Wealth for James is dangerous at best and those who hold onto it instead of sharing it are not viewed positively. James has a different view of the poor. The poor Christian is ‘exalted’ (1:9) and is an heir of the kingdom (2:5; cf. Luke 6:20). The poor are persecuted by the rich, but they should be patient, for the coming Lord will take up their cause (5:6-8). Thus for James ‘poor’ is an honourable name for people within the community, while ‘rich’ is reserved for those outside. The community itself is condemned when it favours the wealthy over the poor, for it is then taking the part of the rich, who persecute the church…The epistle of James, then, reveals a theology of the poor in line with the teaching of Jesus and significant strands of Jewish tradition before him.”[4]

            Imagine for a moment being invited to an elaborate dinner party that included a number of important, powerful, influential, and famous people. Now imagine entering a banquet hall with assigned seating. As you walk by the banquet tables you see name cards at each place setting. You recognize all the names because they identify people of prominence you’ve either seen, heard about, or read about. The only problem is that you can’t find your name on any of the name cards. When you ask one of the servers where you should sit, he directs you to speak to the host. When you make an inquiry of the host, who is also a friend of yours, you’re told that you have a couple of options—you can either stand along the walls of the banquet hall or sit on the floor at the feet of those seated at the tables. How would you feel? Angry? Humiliated? Embarrassed? How about insulted? Well the believers James is addressing had insulted the poor by doing exactly that according to v. 6. To make matters worse, if that were possible, they were catering to the rich among them; the very people who were oppressing them by manipulating the legal system. “Roman courts always favored the rich, who could initiate lawsuits against social inferiors, although social inferiors could not initiate lawsuits against them. In theory, Jewish courts sought to avoid such discrimination, but as in most cultures people of means naturally had legal advantages: they were able to argue their cases more articulately or hire others to do so for them.”[5]

            James doesn’t elaborate in v. 7 exactly how the rich are slandering the name of Christ but it is likely that James is making a close correlation between Christ and the poor and oppressed with whom Christ most closely associated with. As such, to offend the poor was tantamount to offending Christ. It is also likely that the rich looked down on the poor as they hauled them into the courts to settle their debts and in the process spoke disparagingly of their faith in Christ. To insult someone bearing the name of Christ through faith is, by extension, an insult to Christ. In the ancient near east, a person’s name was no small matter. It carried special meaning and often pointed to the original bearer of that name. For example a son would bear the name of his father in addition to his own (e.g. James and John, sons of Zebedee). Similarly a slave would bear the name of his owner in addition to his own (e.g. Onesimus, slave of Philemon). Consequently when the son or slave is offended or injured, the father or master is offended or injured as well. For more on the importance of names in the ancient near east, you can access a previous lesson titled, What’s In A Name, at: http://seredinski.blogspot.com/2013/04/whats-in-name.html. “Religious differences may have played a role in the decisions of the rich to oppress the poor and defenseless Christian community. The ‘slander’ directed against Christians may have taken several different forms. The word James uses is blasphēmēo, from which we get the word ‘blaspheme.’ In its deepest sense, the word connotes a violation, usually in speech, of God’s own person (see, e.g. Matt. 9:3; 26:65; Mark 2:28-29). But it can be extended to include any slander that involves God, even indirectly—such as criticism directed against Christian behavior by other believers (1 Cor. 10:30; Rom. 14:16) or abuse heaped on believers by unbelievers over differences in morality (1 Pet. 4:4). Because James supplies so little information, we can only speculate about the exact situation here. It may have been Gentiles profanely mocking the God whom believers claimed to worship. It may have been Jews criticizing Christian claims about Jesus. Or, more generally, it may have involved unbelievers making fun of Christian morality and worship practices.”[6]

            We get to James’ justification for his criticism in vv. 8-9 when he says that they have violated the law by showing favoritism. And the law James says they have violated is the law of love, specifically the law to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Not surprisingly, this is also referred to as the “Royal Law” because it was given to us by King Jesus himself who commands us to “Love each other as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). And because they have violated the Royal Law specifically, James proclaims them to be lawbreakers generally. “Christians know well that it is God’s character not to regard the appearance of things but to evaluate people on the basis of what is in the heart. How then can the Christian who is called to reflect God’s character give preferential treatment toward the rich visitor while dishonoring the poor by treating them with less dignity?...The disciple is challenged to take seriously Jesus’ reevaluation of people, according to which it is the poor who are ‘favored’ or ‘honored’ to be heirs of the ‘kingdom of God’ and the rich are the disprivileged ones. James insists that these reevaluations ‘heard’ from Jesus now shape interactions in the community of faith…Treating people differently on the basis of appearance is a violation of this part of the ‘royal law.’…The Christian’s refusal to value another human being as he or she would wish to be valued makes the Christian a transgressor of the law, a mere ‘hearer’ who does not allow an understanding of the law to shape his or her response to each new situation.”[7]

            Many of us attempt to rationalize our sins as being worthy of condemnation such as committing murder compared to sins which to us seem like “no big deal.” But God doesn’t view sin this way according to vv. 10-11. God does not handicap sin as though some forms of sin are more acceptable than others. Instead, God views sin as constant or linear meaning that no sin is more or less egregious than any other with the exception of the sin of blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:29). As a result, committing one type of sin is no different than committing any other type of sin and committing one sin is no different than committing multiple sins. To God, who is the final Judge, it is all the same. James insists “that one is a lawbreaker even though not all commandments are actually transgressed. This has been called a unitary understanding of the law, so that the readers of James’ epistle cannot claim innocence of the charge of transgressing the entire law simply because some commandment(s) remain unbroken. A failure to love the poor—a failure demonstrated by showing favoritism toward the rich—undercuts the whole intent of the law and places one under condemnation as a transgressor of the law…From a particular viewpoint, James is saying that one does not have to break all the commandments of the law to be classed as a lawbreaker.”[8] As I have often told you and would like to tell you once again, proper interaction with God is not based on keeping a specific set of laws as a matter of ritual but instead is based on an intimate relationship with Him and with people. Let me see if I can show you this by illustrating the juxtaposition between the Law generally and the Royal Law specifically as James identifies. In order to be the “perfect” law-keeper, a person must always keep all commandments perfectly (James 3:2). However, even though that same person may stumble on the road to perfection by just one failure (Mt 19:16-22) he or she can actually be deemed to have kept the law in its entirety by loving one’s neighbor (Mt 22:34-40). In this respect, God demonstrates that His heart is not moved when we maintain a strict set of rules but when we love others as we love ourselves.

            If the James’ epistle is anything, it is a call for the practical application of our faith. In vv. 12-13, James insists that how we speak and the way we act must reflect what we say we believe. The profession of our faith means we must reorient our way of thinking to align with the heart of the One who has placed His name on us. Remember, we have been saved from the punishment our sins deserved because God is merciful and loves us passionately. Consequently, as His followers, our lives must reflect the same characteristics of mercy and love towards one another. Keep in mind the name of a person reflects one or more of the essential characteristics of that person. As people bearing the name, “Christian,” we should be defined by love first and foremost. However, the only way to enter into a loving relationship with broken and sinful humanity is to soften our hearts to mercy. James reminds his readers that God will only extend mercy to them to the degree they extend mercy to others. “The wise community is quick to hear and act upon what the Torah commands, knowing that it articulates God’s will according to which all people will be either blessed or judged at the coming triumph of God’s reign. If the Torah is centered on the command to love the neighbor, especially those who are like the ‘widow and orphan in distress,’ then it is foolish to favor the rich over the poor when the result is eternal retribution. According to Torah, faith in God is embodied by works of mercy: true religion is an ethical religion, not confessional orthodoxy. To profess devotion to God without a complement of merciful works is foolish. Such religion is worthless for either heralding or entering the age to come.”[9]

            Many years ago when I started out in business, me and my peers used to have a saying when it came to career advancement that it’s not what you know but who you know that eventually leads to success. As a result, relationships were usually based on whether or not they served to advance our respective careers. It’s a foolish and dangerous principle because it inevitably leads to career advancement by stepping on the throats of those who aren’t in a position to help advance your career. This is nothing new as we see from our Subject Text, that James’ readers were doing the same thing. They wanted to improve their station in life by catering to the people they thought could get them there. But James wanted them to know that that behavior is the way of the world and they have been called to a better way; they have been called to love their neighbors—especially if they can’t do anything to help them. It’s different and at odds with everything the world teaches and practices and that’s precisely where we will find God touching lives and changing hearts. “Christianity grew and developed in confrontation with an environment that breathed hostility to its doctrines and practices. A chief reason for its triumph was the superior moral practices of Christians. The lives of early Christians showed that accusations against them were lies. They fed the needy, accepted the outcasts, buried the poor, cared for orphans and the aged, encouraged prisoners and victims of disasters, and showered compassion on the persecuted. Their lives proved that Christianity produced a superior character.”[10]

Application

            If you don’t think Playing Favorites creates division, let me remind you about a very famous story you can find all the way back in Genesis 37. In the story, Jacob had twelve sons but his favorite was Joseph and he didn’t hide his affection for him from his eleven other sons. Granted, God had a divine purpose for Joseph but the road to that purpose was laden with pain and suffering that had its roots in Jacob Playing Favorites. In fact, Jacob so favored Joseph that he made him a beautiful coat of many colors. Unfortunately, Jacob made nothing for his other sons. Eventually, Joseph’s brothers had enough of their father’s favoritism and Joseph’s boasting and they dropped him in a cistern to die. Some of his brothers grew a conscience and pulled him out of the cistern, and promptly sold him into slavery. In case selling Joseph wasn’t bad enough, his brother took the coat of colors from him, shredded it, dipped it in animal blood and delivered it to their father telling him that Joseph was killed by a wild animal. Still wondering if Playing Favorites creates division?

            Will you parents and grandparents allow me to say a few words to you? If you are favoring one of your children or grandchildren, will you please stop and think about what you’re doing? You might think you are being subtle but you can trust me when I tell you that your children and grandchildren know it and are suffering the pain of that favoritism even if they don’t show it. Additionally, you are creating division in your family that may not manifest itself for decades. Instead of building life-long bridges that lead to blossoming family relationships, you are constructing walls that will, inevitably, divide your family. Each time you favor one of your children or grandchildren above the others, you are adding a brick to those walls. Please, please think about what I’m saying and consider the harm you’re doing to your family by your favoritism and make a commitment to begin to tear down those walls.

            It’s easy to demonstrate the damage caused by favoritism in families because it is a somewhat closed social system. It is a bit more difficult for me to demonstrate the damage caused by favoritism in our society at large. However, it exists if we will only look with God’s eyes. All we have to do is follow Jesus around the Scriptures to see it: The Samaritan woman who was less than a person according to the Jews (Jn 4); The woman caught in adultery while the man who was complicit in the adultery is nowhere to be found (Jn 8:1-11); The woman who suffered from perpetual bleeding who had to live in a state of religious uncleanness for something she had no control over (Mk 5:25); The blind man who had to beg at the roadside (Lk 18:35); The man with leprosy who had to exist outside the city gates and warn people at a distance that he was unclean (Mt 8). Are you beginning to see the favoritism in the larger society? It’s there if you look with God’s eyes—It’s your fellow student who eats lunch alone every day because no one wants to include them; It’s your fellow worker who’s never included in group activities after work; It’s the neighbor who never gets any visitors; It’s the young, pregnant girl with the tattoos who works at Starbucks that you don’t talk to because you think she’s done something wrong based on her appearance; It’s the guy who lives a few apartments away that you never invite over when the rest of the guys come over to watch the game because you’re pretty sure he’s gay. Can you see some of it now? Here’s the most important thing I want you to understand. We recognize favoritism in our families because, as I said, they are a somewhat closed social system. It is far more difficult to detect the effects of favoritism in the society at large because we think it is a large open system where human experience is diluted across a much larger population. However, it is a small and closed family system from God’s perspective. When we show favoritism toward some, we serve to construct walls that divide people within God’s family. Never assume that your words and actions occur in a vacuum. We are not qualified to judge the value of one person over another. When we do that, someone will inevitably get hurt. There is always a price to Playing Favorites.

---

[1] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 887.

[2] W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), p. 437.

[3] Scot McKnight, The Letter of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 189.

[4] T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 346.

[5] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary—New Testament, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 694.

[6] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James—The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 109.

[7] David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 827.

[8] Ralph P. Martin, James—Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), p. 69.

[9] Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 558.

[10] Thomas D. Lea, Hebrews & James—Holman New Testament Commentary, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1999), p. 285.