The version from the office today (iBreviary version and, I suspect, the Grail translation):
The threshold of the house of GodI have no idea which is the better translation (the iBreviary is the more poetic of the two but, as the quip goes, beautiful translations are rarely faithful and faithful ones are rarely beautiful). My temptation is to read it as a reminder that the kingdom of God is both already here and not yet; a reminder that we should reject all those who claim to be able to build a better-than-human society here on earth; a reminder that the the least-worst of options is always the best we can expect from human efforts.
I prefer to the dwellings of the wicked.
Someone will no doubt say, and they're probably correct, that the author of the psalm could not possibly have meant that. That's fine with me; I'm comfortable with the notion that writing, any writing but especially scripture, says more than those who composed it realized.
Here's the reading from the Office (NRSV translation not the one used in the Office but for no profound reason):
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged according by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (Janes 2: 12-13)The Office, for better or for worse, gives us these quotes out of context. I don't have the whole Bible in my head or anything close to it. Even when the excerpt is from a favourite book, as is the case above, the exact context eludes me.
My first thought was that if the law of liberty (or "freedom's law" in other translations) gives us freedom in anything, it gives us freedom when it comes to applying mercy. A law is a law, it is not freedom to have a law. You can argue, and I would, that freedom may come as a consequence of having a law but the law itself is not freedom. Is this the sense of it: "We are free to be merciful in judgment and those who are not will receive no mercy"?
Okay, let's look at the larger context. Well, that's a surprise: the larger context is a discussion of favouritism! Showing partiality, it would appear, is to lack mercy. No, the text doesn't say that. I'm just trying to make some sense of it. To side with the rich, that is what showing partiality seems to mean.
Would it be any better to side with the poor? I don't think so. The author of James is probably operating on the, generally safe, assumption that siding with the rich is the most likely abuse. He probably didn't foresee a day when privileged university students would use the plight of the disadvantaged as cynical tool with which to beat others.
Final thought: my Bible's footnote for 12-13 says, "Fearing lawlessness, emphasizes God's law of liberty." I can't even begin to imagine how someone got that reading.
