Faithlife Sermons

Warning against Partiality

Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
· 89 views
Notes & Transcripts
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
View more →

Warning Against Partiality (James 2:1-13)

"'Full many people go to church,

As everyone knows;

Some go to close their eyes,

And some to eye their clothes.'"

The little rhyme suggests the reason that James felt compelled to write 2:1-13. Even in the earliest Christian communities social, financial, and racial distinctions already caused tension. God intended that the church be the one place where every believer could meet on level ground.

Everybody Is Somebody (2:1-5)

Many church bulletins proclaim that everybody is somebody. Is that always the case? James sharply criticized a discriminating process that already was underway in the early church. He wrote: "Show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" (2:1). Actually, James condemned an attitude that already was evident. My paraphrase would be: In practicing your faith, do not play favorites in the church. James softened his appeal by calling his readers "my brethren." Beyond establishing a warm, fraternal relationship between the writer and readers, in the Letter of James this phrase indicates the beginning of a new section wherever it appears.

In verse 1, the word "faith" may indicate either the body of Christian belief or the warm, personal trust in Christ that alone secures personal salvation. James probably meant the latter. A person cannot play favorites in the church on the one hand and, on the other, claim to have an authentic, personal faith in Jesus Christ.

Partiality is one of the truly technicolor words in the Book of James. The word literally means that which receives face or that which lifts up the face. Either meaning fits well. The word may mean to receive the face of another person in an evaluating way. Such an attitude scans the features of a new face coming into the church. An instant evaluation takes place. Immediately, the evaluator categorizes the newcomer socially, educationally, and economically. On the basis of such a decision, fellowship is given or withdrawn. Or, James may have had another idea in mind. Many people cannot conceal their reaction to a newcomer. Their emotions write themselves on their faces. The text may refer to the accepting smile or the rejecting frown on the faces of church members when they reacted to new members. In either case, James condemned such superficial distinctions in the Christian fellowship.

Even the church's enemies and their spies recognized that Jesus did not show any partiality. Luke 20:21-22 records a question that Jesus' opponents asked Him. Even they recognized that Jesus did not show partiality. According to my literal translation, they said: Teacher, we know that you... do not receive the face. Nicodemus, the theologian, did not impress Jesus any more than the immoral woman at the well in Samaria. Jesus expressed the same interest in anonymous peasant children as He did toward adults who were impressed with their importance.

Repeatedly, the New Testament stresses that God will show no partiality in judging husbands, wives, children, slaves, and masters (Col. 3:25; Eph. 6:9). At the final judgment, every rank and category of people will stand on level ground. Paul insisted that God showed no partiality racially or religiously toward Jews or Greeks (Rom. 2:11). After Peter's liberating vision at Joppa, he confessed concerning the Roman centurion Cornelius: "'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality'" (Acts 10:34). The entire Bible teaches God's absolute impartiality.

Have a Seat, Please (2:2-3)

James pictured two men coming to church. They may have been visitors or new converts. Both came to the Christian assembly (synagogue in Greek) seeking a seat. James recorded vividly how each appeared and where each was seated.

One man appeared with gold rings and fine clothes. Literally, the text reads: having gold rings on his fingers in a bright toga. Such a visitor veritably dripped gold from his fingers; he was a gold-fingered man. In ancient cultures, such rings sometimes could be rented in order that a person might give the impression of affluence. In ancient Greek culture, to wear such a ring was the equivalent of having a hillside mansion in the most elite section of a city. The man whom James described might have been voted "Best-Dressed Man" of the city. He wore an elegant, luxurious, shining garment. One commentator has noted that such a white toga, or outer garment, was worn by Romans who were seeking political office. This person was impressive, and he would be seated in the best seat in the house. My translation is: You, yourself, sit there beautifully (becomingly, honorably). He was one of the so-called beautiful people and was seated in "a good place" (v. 3, KJV).

In sharp contrast to the impressive person, "a poor man in shabby clothing" (1:2) entered. The text does not imply that both men entered at the same moment. The story certainly would be more dramatic if they did. The "poor man" represented someone at the subsistence level of living. The word translated "poor man" suggests a cringing begger, someone who did not have enough food or clothes to get by. Today, one would think of a street person or a "bag lady." The poor person wore dirty, vile, shabby clothes in contrast to the affluent visitor's bright toga. He received a strikingly different reaction than the impressive visitor received. The presider demanded: "'Stand there,' or, 'Sit at my feet'" (2:3). The first alternative implies standing room only in some inconspicuous place. The second alternative refers to a debasing, humiliating place. The biblical world often used the footstool.

In the command, "sit at my feet," the speaker deliberately may have alluded to the Old Testament practice of placing one's enemies beneath his footstool. Who can forget the psalmist's reference to the footstool: "The Lord says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool'" (110:1)? The footstool implied the place of humiliation and subordination. However, the man in question in James was not told to sit on the footstool; he was told to sit under the footstool (KJV). Since that was impossible, the text implies sitting on the floor by the speaker's footstool. A greater put-down hardly could be imagined.

An early church manual showed the seriousness with which the first Christian communities took James's word. That manual demanded that the leader-take the place of humility rather than tell the poor visitor to take it:

And if a poor man or woman either of the district or of the (other) districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be respecting the person of man but of God.

Has the kingdom of God lost opportunity for world impact because discriminations between rich and poor take place? The Tennessee" Williams family moved to another city during the famous playwright's childhood. His younger sister and he wanted to join a church's choir. Because of their situation, they "'were made to feel like social untouchables.'" What if his talents for drama had been captured by the church rather than by the world? Will eternity reveal that one experience of rejection turned him away from the church?

The Judges Judged (2:4)

James rendered a verdict on the injudicious judges (v. 4). They had wavered by discriminating among believers and by displaying evil motives. James posed two questions, both of which demanded a Yes answer. Paraphrased, the questions would read: You have made prejudiced distinctions among yourselves, have you not? You have become judges with evil thoughts, have you not? James nailed them with the implications of their partiality. They could only answer, Yes.

Behind the word "distinctions" (2:4) may rest two ideas. The word may indicate wavering or doubting. In that sense, the readers had wavered or doubted the heart of the Christian faith. By their attitude of favoritism, they had denied the core of Christianity. They had become double-minded or divided, the trait that James had exposed in 1:6-8. Their favoritism revealed them to be divided people with a fragmented faith. Or, the word translated "distinctions" may mean to separate or divide. By judging and seating the two visitors as they did, the people betrayed a prejudiced division among its members.

Behind the members' act in seating the two visitors lay their motive. The church members acted as judges who were motivated by evil thoughts. As opposed to God who never receives people according to their faces, the church members received people only according to their faces. Such activity was rooted in the evil one, not in God. As Jewish Christians, James's readers were familiar with the Old Testament demand: "'You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor'" (Lev. 19:15). These believers' conduct contradicted the basic teachings of the Old Testament, not to mention the New Testament faith.

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski made a study of Christian attitudes in the Detroit area. Basically, he found that Protestant churches desired people "'like us'" in socio-economic level. Another investigator recorded specific examples of discrimination within the churches. One church opposed wearing choir robes for a children's Easter program. The purpose was to allow the children to display their new Easter outfits. The result was that several children who could not afford new clothes were absent. A further outcome of the event was that the poorer families showed no more interest in the church or in the Lord. A woman with a questionable background professed faith in Christ. For several weeks, she and her children came to the church. Then suddenly their attendance stopped. She complained that the church people made her feel she was beneath them. One leading member had warned people not to associate with her because of her past life. When she stopped coming, the regular members took an I-told-you-so attitude. They excused their prejudiced conduct by judging that she quit coming because her profession of faith was not real anyway.

If one doubts the relevance of James's warning, consider the following example. Suppose two families move to the community. Through unavoidable circumstances, one family is on welfare. The other family is industrious, respectable, and solidly middle-class. Who will receive the warmer welcome from the church visitors? Will the youth of both families be as eagerly invited to the youth trips? If the men of both families had equal spiritual qualifications, which one would be placed on the deacon body? One quickly might say that the poor family should be the object of the church's charity. Yet, so often, such people do not want charity nearly so much as they want dignity. They want to be included in the church and its activities.

God's Poor People (2:5)

The large number of poor people in the church in James's day betrayed no accident of fate. Deliberately, God had chosen the people who were poor in the material realm to be rich in the spiritual realm. With a sharp call to attention, James demanded his readers' focused interest. My paraphrase reads: God has chosen the poor of this world to he rich in faith, has He not? Once again, James used a leading question which demanded a Yes answer. The number of poor people in the church related to God's electing purposes. Literally, God chose the poor for Himself. God's election of individuals and groups is one of the Bible's unfathomable mysteries. The doctrine of election means that God saves people because He intends to do so. God chooses to save all persons; those who respond to Him in faith become part of His elect. A vital part of God's elective intention is the salvation of the poor. This does not mean that poverty merits salvation and wealth does not. It does not mean that no rich person can be saved and that all poor people are chosen for salvation.

Nevertheless, one cannot deny God's interest in the poor by His own sovereign choice. Jesus declared: "'Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God'" (Luke 6:20). Even though the Gospel of Matthew has "'poor in spirit'" (Matt. 5:3), in Luke Jesus probably addressed the materially poor. Jesus' first sermon in His hometown synagogue began with the affirmation: "'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor'" (Luke 4:18). Jesus identified the Spirit's activity in His ministry with God's concern for the poor. James scarcely could have missed hearing Jesus' sermon. When John the Baptist was imprisoned, he wanted to test the authenticity of Jesus' ministry. Jesus sent him this evidence: "The poor have good news preached to them" (Luke 7:22).

Without question, the early church consisted largely of poor people. Paul reminded the Corinthian Christians that God had not chosen them according to the world's social or economic priorities (1 Cor. 1:26-31). Poverty particularly marked the Palestinian Christian communities that were familiar to James. As early as Acts 11:29, one reads: "The disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea." James, Peter, and John urged Paul to remember the poor Palestinian Jewish Christians (Gal. 2:10). Dark days befell the Palestinian poor people when James wrote his letter. Crises ravaged the peasantry, and depressed wages crushed the laborers. Also, famine ravaged Palestine about AD 46-48. From the first, Jesus had a small number of affluent adherents. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Joanna, and others ministered to the Lord from their substance (Luke 8:2). However, the central appeal of the gospel was to the poor people of the land. Hannah's haunting cry echoes throughout the Bible:

He raises up the poor from the dust,

he lifts the needy from the ash heap,

to make them sit with princes

and inherit a seat of honor (1 Sam. 2:8).

James promised to everyone who hoped as Hannah did that God deliberately chose the poor as "heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him" (2:5). The kingdom of God signifies God's reign which Jesus inaugurated in His first coming. Jesus will consummate God's reign in His second coming when He returns to rule in millennial righteousness. In Luke 6:20, Jesus' first Beatitude seemed to promise the poor people that both now in the inaugurated kingdom and then in the consummated kingdom the poor have a central place. The rich people have an inheritance now. It always is subject to perishing, defiling, and fading influences. In Jesus, the poor have an inheritance which is to come. It is "imperishable, undefiled, and unfading" (1 Pet. 1:4).

W. A. Criswell related a life-changing encounter with the poor that encouraged his downtown church to continue reaching out to all people. Not long after he became pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, he went to the church early one morning. He noticed a group gathered around one of the doorways of the sanctuary. Curious, he worked his way through the crowd. He saw a man on the steps with his hands stretched out toward the church door. The man was dead. He died reaching out to the church in the heart of the city. This caused W. A. Criswell to design a whole spectrum of "Good Shepherd" ministries to reach the neediest and poorest people in the community.

How many other churches have responded to the reach of the poor? Will Campbell observed: Americans are learning to forgive "'black people for being black. What they can't forgive is their being poor.'" Campbell stated that overt bigotry has diminished and that the anger, fear, and hatred that once was directed at blacks has been redirected toward the poor persons who live in the midst of the American dream. They have become an embarrassment rather than an opportunity for ministry; He further stated that for the most part, churches do little to identify with the poor people as Christ did. They gear their programs to reach the middle class and largely ignore the poor. One must ask: What does my church do directly for the poor? James considered concern for the helpless poor persons to be the earmark of authentic Christianity (1:27).

On the other hand, poverty carries no guarantees of spirituality. A. W. Pink maintained: "Worry over poverty is as fatal to spiritual fruitfulness as is gloating over wealth." Poverty more often makes people bitter rather than better. Christian commitment does not flourish in the nation's slums. Both poverty and affluence must be sanctified at Christ's feet. Neither one carries an automatic blessing or a damnation.

Honor for the Dishonorable? (2:6-7)

Christians contradict their calling when they fawn over the rich people and ignore the poor persons. James exposed the inconsistency of favoring the affluent and humiliating the poor. James's readers had "dishonored the poor man" (2:6). They failed to give the poor man the respect or grant him the weight that he deserved.' James stated: "You humiliate the poor" or, "You insult the poor" (Moffatt). In addition to the seating problem (Jas. 2:2-3), the early church humiliated the poor in other ways.

James fumed at his readers' contradictory behavior. The rich people whom they courted oppressed, exploited, and wrongfully sued Christians. Worse than that, they blasphemed Jesus' name. James leveled three charges against the non-Christian rich: (1) They oppressed the Christians because they were poor, Christian, or both. (2) They legally persecuted believers. (3) They blasphemed Christ.

Moffatt translated James's statement: "The [unbelieving, v. 7] rich... lord it over you" (2:6). Such godless, affluent people dominated and exploited the Christians who courted their favor. James's word had a long Old Testament history that referred to the wealthy people's exploiting the poor. Ezekiel insisted that individuals were responsible for the poor. This included their returning the collateral, feeding the hungry, clothing the unclad, and refusing to charge interest (Ezek. 18:7-8). Amos cried out against the brutish urban women of Samaria. They oppressed the poor by hounding their husbands to provide an ever higher standard of living by exploiting the needy (Amos 4:1). Amos even accosted those who could not wait for "church" to be over so they could resume oppressive tactics (Amos 8:4-6). Just as Amos did, James judged Christians who sided with those who oppressed believers. For James, this was little short of siding with the devil.

"The [unbelieving, v. 7] rich... drag you into court" (2:6). Those to whom James's readers gave the best seats in the house returned the favor by dragging the Christians into court. On the pretext of trumped-up civil or criminal charges, the secular rich exploited poor believers. James probably had in mind cases that involved wages, debts, rent, or property. In the local synagogue-courts, the rich unjustly snatched away what little the Christians had.

Behind all the rich people's actions rested a religious motive. James saved the worse accusation until the last. The grasping materialists were guilty of a gross evil. James asked: "Is it not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked over you?" (2:7). His question called for a Yes answer. The rich people spoke irreverently of Jesus. One can imagine that rich Jewish unbelievers angrily denounced Christians as the followers of a cursed criminal. Even in the early Christian assemblies, Christ's enemies probably stood to say, "'Jesus be cursed'" (1 Cor. 12:3). Yet James's readers were giving those people the best seats and were insulting the Christian poor!

Although James did not mention Jesus' name, he wrote of "the honorable name" (2:7). The word translated honorable means beautiful, attractive, noble, and good. Often, that beautiful name was all poor Christians possessed. Robert E. Lee "was approached after the Civil War by the managers of the infamous Louisiana Lottery. He sat in his old rocking-chair, crutches at his side, and listened to their proposition. He couldn't believe his ears; he asked them to repeat it, thinking that he couldn't have heard them aright. They said they wanted no money from him; all they wanted was the use of his name, and for that they would make him rich. Lee straightened up in his chair, buttoned his old grey tunic about him, and thundered, 'Gentlemen, I lost my home in the war. I lost my fortune in the war. I lost everything in the war except my name. My name is not for sale, and if you fellows don't get out of here I'll break this crutch over your heads.'" For some, a good name is all that they have left. James believed that Christians would respond to an attack on Jesus' name. When he wrote that the rich blasphemed Jesus' name, he expected that his statement would motivate his readers to a high degree. More than one's own name, one must seek to honor His name.

All or Nothing (2:8-13)

God's law applies to all people equally. James called attention to the unity and impartiality of the divine law. The law of love mandates concern for everybody, not just those who are considered to be somebodies. To break God's law at one point breaks it altogether, for God's law is a unity. God will not judge Christians on the basis of minute commandments but on the basis of whether a life shows love. The person who refuses to give mercy on the human level will receive no mercy on the divine level.

The King of Laws: The Law of the King (2:8)

Sometimes, James wrote as if someone had interrupted him with an objection. Then, he responded with an argument. The ancient world called this the "diatribe" style. In verse 8, James imagined an objection to his rebuke about partiality. Someone may have argued: You have to love your rich enemies as well as your poor neighbors. I have to show deference to the rich man to keep God's law. This ploy tried to sidestep the real issue. The objector presented a pretext to excuse himself. The devil can quote Scriptures. Today, one would say that James's objector hid behind the Bible.

James responded by agreeing with the priority of love. However, his response contains a degree of irony. My paraphrase would read: If you really intended to keep the royal law perfectly,... you are doing well. James knew that they did not intend to apply the law of love equally.

According to James, "'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" is the "royal law" (2:8). On Tuesday before Jesus' Friday crucifixion, a lawyer asked Him about the great Commandment. The Jews enjoyed debating about the Commandments. The great rabbis usually ranked them in importance. Jesus responded that love for God and love for neighbor topped all laws. Indeed, those commandments summarized "all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:34-40). Jesus had no argument from the Jews when He placed love for God first. Daily, the Jews repeated those words from Deuteronomy 6:4-9. They even bound them on their arms, wore them between their eyes, and inscribed them on their doorposts. But Jesus elevated a more obscure command from Leviticus 19:18 and made it a parallel command to the demand to love God. Regardless of how much people claim to love God, they do not do so unless they love their neighbors.

What did James mean by "the royal law"? Perhaps, he meant that it is the king of all laws. Paul flatly stated: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law" (Rom. 13:8). Elsewhere, he insisted: "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14). If believers master this they have mastered everything that God demands. If they fail at this point, they have failed at every point. The law of love for one's neighbor is pivotal.

"The royal law" also can mean the law of the King. Christians recognize Jesus as God's King Messiah. In His inaugural sermon, Jesus openly claimed to fulfill the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17). To pander to the rich while insulting the poor ignores Jesus' law. In His kingdom, love for neighbor is kingdom law. The neighbor is anyone on any of life's roads who needs help (Luke 10:25-37).

This generation stresses "back-to-basics." Nothing is more basic than the "royal law." Frustrated, angry Christian workers contradict their work. Football coach Vince Lombardi was fanatical about basics. Once, his Green Bay Packers were defeated by an inferior team. At the team meeting, the players had no idea what to expect. Lombardi gritted his teeth and stared holes through one man after another. Finally, he spoke: "'OK, we go back to basics this morning....' Holding a football high enough for all to see, he continued to yell: 'Gentlemen, this is a football!'" That is like telling a piano player, "This is middle C." It is like telling an artist, "This is a paintbrush." Yet, countless Christians and churches need to go back to basics in just that simple way. Business meetings that become verbal brawls, committee meetings that erupt with anger, and Christians who are too busy to stop for a neighbor contradict the "royal law." Christ's people need to get back to basics!

God's Law: Handle with Care (2:9-11)

In shops that deal with delicate china and glass, one often sees the familiar warning: "If you drop it, you bought it." How many objects one breaks makes no difference; to break anything is to pay for the broken item. The high value of precious objects demands payment in full when the objects are broken. The high value of God's law also demands payment in full when it is broken—even part of it.

James wrote that partiality marked one as a spiritual rebel. "Transgressors" are those who step over the line in rebellion against God (2:9). Perhaps James's readers considered their partiality toward the rich to be harmless. James deepened the blackness of their prejudice by listing it with murder and adultery (2:11). What is worse, such partiality made them guilty of breaking God's entire law.

God's law is a unit. Today, the laws of our land brand one a criminal regardless of which law is broken. To break God's law at one point reveals an attitude that could break it at any point. The character of every rebellious act reveals an inner disposition that can rebel even more. James bluntly stated the case: "'Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it'" (2:10). People cannot despise the poor and keep God's favor any more than they can commit murder and still please Him. James certainly did not mean that every sin is the same in its consequences. As Curtis Vaughan observed: "James is not dealing with the extent and degree of guilt, but with its reality. Some sins obviously are more heinous in the sight of God than others." For example, adultery which actually is committed devastates far more than lust devastates. Lust consumes the lustful person. The act of adultery involves the adulterer, his partner in shame, and the betrayed spouses of both persons. Yet, Jesus seemed to attach equal guilt before God to the thoughts of lust and to the acts of lust (Matt. 5:28). Open adultery and hidden lust are unequal in their human consequences; but, they are equal in their damning guilt before God.

Believers must see God's law in the context of relationships. God gave His law as principles for guiding His relationship to His people. When persons break a single item of God's law, they violate their relationship with God. A son may ruin his relationship with his father by petty disobedience or by outright physical injury. In both instances, the father-son relationship has been fractured. Behind James's statement stands the character of the relationship between God and persons. Anything that harms that relationship overturns God's whole law.

Christ did not die merely for sins, but for sin. In His death, Christ reunified by obedience to His father what people broke in disobedience. In disobeying part of the Law, people broke all of it. Christ's death paid the penalty for the whole broken Law. Persons who have broken all of God's law now can know all of God's righteousness through Christ. God's grace more than covered people's guilt and disobedience. Thank God for the truth that John Henry Jowett grasped: "Law says 'Do,' grace says, 'Done.'"

Here Comes the Judge (2:12-13)

In light of God's stern requirements, every believer should live daily in the light of the final judgment. James's choice of words suggests a certainty and a fixed date for God's coming judgment. Every believer will be judged by the "law of liberty" (2:12). That is the law that Moses transmitted and that Christ interpreted. Those who have shown no mercy to others will find no mercy with God. James must have remembered Jesus' Beatitude: "'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy'" (Matt. 5:7). The opposite also is true: Cursed are the merciless, for they shall find no mercy. James had in mind particularly the partiality that insulted the poor (2:2-4). Jesus' parable of the unjust steward vividly portrays God's judgment against merciless behavior. God forgives enormous sins. However, He will not excuse a lack of mercy (Matt. 18:21-35).

If persons stand on their rights with others, God will stand on His rights. The individual who is all claim, demand, and law will meet a God who is all claim, demand, and law. As Thomas Adams quaintly put it: "That which a man spits against heaven shall fall back on his own face."

Lessons for Life from 2:1-13

Take immediate action to identify and to remedy partiality in individual and church life.—You should take inventory of all relationships quietly and slowly. The neighborhood, club, business, and social scene should fall under this inventory. Do you secretly consider yourself to be above some acquaintances and beneath others? Do you turn your back on a person of lesser status in order to court the favor of a person whom you think is important?

Make the church a place where everyone truly is welcome.— When new members are presented, do not judge them by age, dress, or physical appearance. In light of James's stern warnings, believers should go out of their way to welcome those who are not likely to receive a warm welcome.

Believers should be involved directly and personally with the poor.—No one honestly can read the Bible and escape this responsibility. No amount of indirect contributions to church or charity can substitute for personal contact and concern for the poor. Where are the poor in your daily life-style? At what times and in what ways can you help the poor while you maintain their dignity?

Christians must not let church work become so exhausting that they fail to love their neighbors.—Everyone is familiar with the tired, tense church member whose life becomes a contradiction of Christian love. Make sure that the church's work truly is Christ's work.

Personal Learning Activities

1. According to Dr. Gregory, the word "faith" in James 2:1 means (select the correct answer from the list):

□  (1) A body of doctrine.

□  (3) Personal trust in Christ.

□  (2) Faithfulness.

□  (4) Blind confidence.

2. James warned that threatened the fabric of the church. (Choose the proper response from the list.)

□  (1) Immorality

□  (3) Partiality

□  (2) Lawlessness

□  (4) Politics

3. Probably, the early church consisted largely of middle- to upper-middle-class people.

□  True   □  False

4. James called the demand, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," the ______________.

Answers:

1. (3); 2. (3); 3. False; 4. Royal law.

James: Faith Works!.

Related Media
Related Sermons