My brethren, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory, with respect of persons
James names a title and draws a rule from it. Christ is the Lord of glory — so why should fine clothes or shabby clothes decide how we treat a person?
One writer sets this faith apart from every rival system:
The unity of the Spirit keeps all saints in one faith. It is "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" (James 2:1). It is not a blend of the faiths of the world, which is what some professing Christians aim at. It is unique. It is not a development of religious science, nor the outcome of philosophic thought.
Naming Christ this way changes the scale we use to measure people:
On the whole, the world does not judge people by their moral worth. It judges them by their social position and outward appearance. Those who have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, are not to judge one another that way. The man of the world will pay respect to the well-born man with riches and social position. But faith puts us in touch with the Lord of glory. In His presence all men, however high in worldly position, become very small.
Both the law and the spirit of Christianity cut against looking down on the poor:
Chapter 2 sets believers clearly apart: they are not to hold the faith of the Lord of glory while showing favour to some people over others. To despise the poor went against the law. The law treated all Israelites as objects of God's favour. It regarded the people as one before Him, each one a member of the same family. It is also entirely against the spirit of Christianity. That spirit looks for humility. It calls the poor happy. It leads us to seek greatness in heavenly glory, showing that the cross here answers to the glory above. Faith has seen that Lord of glory in humiliation, with nowhere to lay His head.
Another writer starts from what Christ Himself gave up:
Faith recognises the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: though He was rich, for our sakes He became poor, so that we through His poverty might be rich... Suffering for righteousness' sake, and still more for Christ's sake, ought to be precious in our eyes as Christians... But here is a two-fold contradiction of Christ: to slight one man for the clothes that show his poverty, and to honour another for the fine clothes that prove his wealth.
Favouritism has a root and an effect:
Showing favour to some people over others is the instinct of self and the reflection of the world. But it denies Christ in practice. It denies the reality of that close relationship which grace has formed between all who are His.
The same reflex still shows up wherever people gather:
In the world, an appearance of dignity and wealth always gets a person special treatment. It must not be so among those who know the Lord Jesus Christ. It is still a test for us today. What would we do if one person who looks rich and another who looks poor came into a meeting? Would we be as considerate of the one as of the other? And is it so in our daily dealings with people?
One writer turns it into a question, then a command:
James sets the glory and its principles before us as a motive and power for conduct here. Do you have faith — the faith of glory, towards which your steps are heading? Then do not carry on with the spirit of the world. That spirit puts the poor man in the low place and the rich man in the seat of honour! Let the principles of the glory form your ways, so that the spirit of the world may be broken in you.
- One faith. Believers hold "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is not a mixture of the world's religions. It is not a philosophy. It is unique, with a Person at its centre.
- One standard. That Person is the Lord of glory, and in His presence the highest worldly position shrinks to nothing.
- One example. Faith has seen this glorious Lord in humiliation, with nowhere to lay His head. The cross here answers to the glory above.
- One contradiction. Judging people by their clothes is the instinct of self and a reflection of the world. It denies Christ in practice. It denies the bond grace has made between all who are His.
- One test. The rich visitor and the poor visitor still walk into our meetings and our daily dealings. Let the principles of the glory shape how we treat both. Then the spirit of the world is broken in us.
for if there come unto your synagogue a man with a gold ring in splendid apparel, and a poor man also come in in vile apparel,
James sets a scene. Two men walk into the meeting: one in gold and fine clothes, the other in rags. How the room treats them is the test. Does faith in the Lord of glory decide who gets the good seat, or does the gold ring decide?
The Greek word translated "assembly" here is not the usual word for a church gathering. It is the word for a synagogue, a Jewish meeting place:
In James 2:2 the word "assembly" is really the synagogue, or place of meeting… The Greek word used in Acts 19:32 and similar places is ekklesia, the word the New Testament often gives as "church." It means "called out." The church is a people God has called out to Himself from the mass of mankind.
Commentators differ on whether James has an actual synagogue in view. One takes the word as carried over to a Christian gathering, and finds the sting there:
It is easy to understand why the writer used "synagogue" for the people he addressed. He did not mean an actual synagogue. He carried the word over to a Christian company. So it is rendered here as "meeting," the nearest equivalent we have. No one would be surprised at such a worldly spirit in a real synagogue. It was a grief when it passed into a Christian gathering.
The gold ring and the fine clothing are not moral qualities. They are the world's shorthand for a man's worth:
In the main, the world estimates men not by their moral worth, but by their social position and outward adorning. Those who have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, are not to judge one another this way. The man of the world will pay respect to the well-born man with riches and social position; but faith puts us in touch with the Lord of glory. In His presence all men, however high in worldly position, become very small.
Put the gold-ringed man beside Christ Himself. His poverty was never forced on Him:
What was less fitting to Christ than a gold-ringed man in splendid clothing? He was never dressed up in finery, except in the bitter mockery of those about to crucify Him. Yet He could have called all the wealth and grandeur of the world to Himself in a moment, had that suited Him or those who represent Him here below. On high He is crowned with glory and honour, as they will be at His coming. But faith sees the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Though He was rich, for our sake He became poor, so that we by His poverty might become rich.
Where a guest sits looks like a small thing to raise in a letter. That is what makes it a test:
The testing of this may seem at times minute. If you put the poor man in a poor place in your synagogue, how can you have recognised the glory of the Lord of glory? It is a question of faith, and where does faith see poverty or riches?
The same test still stands in any meeting today:
In the world, wealth and standing always win a person special treatment. It must not be so among those who know the Lord Jesus Christ. It is still a test for us today: what would we do if a rich-looking visitor and a poor-looking one came into a meeting? Would we be as considerate of the one as of the other? And is it so in our daily relationships with people?
Claiming Christ while playing favourites is empty. Even so, the answer is not to flatten every social rank or to snub the rich visitor:
It is useless to pretend to know our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, when our conduct does not match that confession… James by no means levels all ranks. What he demands is that one should have no preference for the rich.
Honour still has its place in the world outside. Inside, another rule holds:
Scripture does not approve a spirit of disrespect towards the noble or the high-placed. Paul says: pay to all what you owe them — taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed… But among all who bear the Lord's name, we owe one another love. We owe tender compassion to those whom trials and poverty may trap. Contempt for the poor Christian is as far from the mind that was in Christ as anything could be.
- Glory. Faith holds to the Lord of glory. In His presence every impressive man becomes very small.
- Gold. The ring and the fine clothes are how the world prices a person. It counts position and outward show, not moral worth.
- Grace. The Lord they claim to know became poor for our sake. Fawning over fine clothes denies the grace that made us rich.
- Gauge. Where you seat a visitor looks like a tiny thing. That is what makes it a searching test of whether faith or the world is doing the seeing.
- Guardrail. James does not abolish rank or teach disrespect for the great. He forbids preference for the rich, and above all contempt for the poor believer.
and ye look upon him who wears the splendid apparel, and say, Do thou sit here well, and say to the poor, Do thou stand there, or sit here under my footstool
One visitor walks into the meeting in expensive clothes; another walks in wearing rags. James builds his argument on where each man is told to sit, and on the words spoken over him.
The room James pictures is a synagogue. Its "good place" was not a vague courtesy but a fixed spot in the building.
An ark was placed at one end, holding the sacred books. Near this was the place of honour — the "chief seats" that some people wanted for themselves (Matthew 23:6; James 2:2-3, where the word translated "assembly" is "synagogue").
The difference is not only in where each man sits, but in the welcome each one gets.
So a rich Jew would enter their "assembly" or "synagogue" full of self-importance and dressed in all his finery — "synagogue" is the right word. Everyone gave him fawning attention, apparently the Christians as much as the non-Christians. When a poor man entered, they put him in an obscure place without any ceremony.
Ask what the Lord Himself looked like when He walked among men.
What was less in keeping with Christ than a man with gold rings in splendid clothing? He was never decked out in such things, except in the bitter mockery of those about to crucify Him. Yet in a moment He could have summoned all the wealth and grandeur of the world around Him — if that had been fitting for Himself, or for those who represent Him here below.
Where you seat a man shows what you saw when he came in.
The testing of this may seem at times very small. If you put the poor man in a poor place in your synagogue, how can you have recognised the glory of the Lord of glory? It is a question of faith, and where does faith see poverty or riches?
James is not attacking rank itself.
Yet James by no means levels all ranks. What he demands is that no one should have a preference for the rich.
Honour still has its place in the wider world. Among believers, love comes first.
Not that Scripture allows a spirit of disrespect toward the noble or the exalted. "Pay to all what is owed to them," says the apostle Paul, "taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed"... But all who bear the Lord's name owe love to one another. They owe tender compassion to those whose trials and poverty put them in danger of being trapped.
Commentators differ on how strong the closing charge is. Some read it as nothing worse than faulty reasoning in a court case. Kelly disagrees.
Dr. Whitby and others work hard to explain this as the judicial assemblies the Jews held in their synagogues... That reduces the rebuke to partiality in a trial between a poor man and a rich one. Instead, we have here a great principle that applies everywhere, all the more necessary when ease and wealth and luxury began to flow in among professing Christians... What is really meant is an evil moral state, out of all sympathy with our Lord. They made a difference among themselves and became judges of evil thoughts — marked by having evil thoughts, instead of weighing and feeling things in the light of God and His love by faith. It was a worldly mind.
The man told to stand may be the wealthier of the two.
Most of these weak Jewish believers were poor. They had so far forgotten the early fervour of faith that they cringed before the wealthy — even in their assemblies, if a rich man came in. Yet were they not rich in faith, the poorest of them? Were they not heirs of the kingdom which He who chose them promised to those that love Him?
And the test has not expired with the synagogue.
In the world, the look of dignity and wealth always wins a person preferential treatment. It must not be so among those who know the Lord Jesus Christ. It is still a test for us today. What would we do if one clearly wealthy person and one clearly poor person came into a meeting? Would we be as considerate of the one as of the other? And is it so in our daily dealings with people?
- Seat — The "good place" was the recognised chief seat near the ark. The poor man was told to stand, or to sit at another man's feet.
- Sight — The seating exposes what faith is looking at. Faith fixed on the Lord of glory does not see a gold ring as glory at all.
- Standard — This is not the abolition of rank. Honour is still due where honour is due; what is forbidden is preference for the rich.
- State — "Judges of evil thoughts" describes a worldly mind, not just a bad decision. It is an inner state out of sympathy with Christ.
- Status — The man told to stand is rich in faith and an heir of the kingdom. Seat him badly and you have misjudged the wealthiest person in the room.
have ye not made a difference among yourselves, and become judges having evil thoughts?
The gold ring and the shabby clothes now turn into a question, and the question is an accusation. The seating has exposed the heart behind it. The verse brings two charges: making a difference "among yourselves," and judging with evil thoughts. Both land on people who claim to hold the faith of the Lord of glory.
Some have tried to soften the verse into a rule about court cases between a rich man and a poor man. One writer answers that, and points to something far deeper:
This reduces the rebuke to partiality in cases of trials between a poor man and a rich man. It misses the fact that we have here a great principle that applies everywhere. It was all the more needed when ease and wealth and luxury began to flow in among professing Christians… What is really meant is an evil moral state, out of all sympathy with our Lord. They made a difference among themselves, and became judges of evil thoughts. That is, they were marked by having evil thoughts, instead of weighing and feeling things in the light of God and His love by faith. It was a worldly mind.
These people never sat on a bench or gave a verdict. They only decided where two men should sit. The verse still calls them judges, and gives them a name:
Quite natural, of course, according to the way of the world; but quite foreign to the faith of Christ. They might set themselves up as judges of men in this way, but they only proved themselves to be "judges of evil thoughts," or "judges having evil reasonings."
The judge is then measured by the way he judges:
If it is true that we show any preference to one above another, then we are solemnly asked, are we not in ourselves partial, and have we not become judges with evil thoughts? If a judge does not judge righteously, then his thoughts are inescapably evil.
Why does a gold ring impress us at all? Because we are using the world's scale to weigh people:
In the main, the world estimates men not according to their moral worth, but by their social position and outward adorning. Those who have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, are not to judge one another this way. The man of the world will pay respect to the well-born man with riches and social position; but faith puts us in touch with the Lord of glory. In His presence all men, however high in worldly position, become very small.
This is more than bad manners. It cuts at the bond grace itself created:
Respect of persons is the instinct of self and the reflex of the world; but it denies Christ in practice, and denies the reality of that close relationship which grace has formed between all who are His.
The test can look small, but it reaches up to who Christ is:
If you put the poor man in a poor place in your synagogue, how can you have recognised the glory of the Lord of glory? It is a question of faith, and where does faith see poverty or riches?
Christians are not left with no distinctions at all — only with the right ones:
If they made a difference in the assembly between the poor and the rich, they became judges of evil thoughts. Blessed be God, we can live together for heaven and in heavenly things, at least in the church, where true difference consists not in the vanity of this world, but in degrees of spirituality.
- Look. The eye goes to the fine clothes first. The world measures a man by his position and his outward adorning. Faith is not to weigh people that way.
- Difference. Seating one man high and one man low is not good manners. It is a difference made "among yourselves," and a worldly mind at work.
- Judgment. Sort men by appearance, and you have taken the judge's seat. A judge who does not judge rightly is himself a judge with evil thoughts.
- Glory. The gold ring impresses only where the glory of the Lord of glory has been forgotten. Favouring one man over another denies Christ in practice. It denies the bond grace has made between all who are His.
- Test. The one difference that belongs among Christians is spiritual, not social. So where the poor man sits is a measure of your faith.
Hear, my beloved brethren Has not God chosen the poor as to the world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to them that love him?
James has just described favouritism in the meeting. Now he asks the question that settles it: whom has God Himself chosen? His answer overturns the world's ranking. The people with nothing are the ones He makes rich, and the ones who will inherit the kingdom.
One writer looks closely at the Greek phrase here and finds a poverty measured by one standard only.
The true reading, found in the oldest and best manuscripts and adopted by the most recent scholars, is tō kosmō. It appears to be the dative of reference — that is, poor in respect of, or as to, the world. This is a common enough use.
James asks his readers to look at the facts in front of them. The people flattering the rich were flattering the very class that was attacking them.
The rich Jews were mostly the proud opponents of Christ and His people, and they blasphemed His worthy name. God's choice had mainly fallen on the poor. The words of the apostle to the Gentiles in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 agree with this. These chosen poor ones — true Christians — were rich in faith and heirs of the coming kingdom. They fawned on the proud blasphemers and persecutors because they were rich. They poured contempt on the followers of Christ because they were poor. That only proved the blindness and folly of those who acted that way. They looked at both rich and poor with the world's shallow gaze, not with the penetrating eye of faith.
This is not God shutting a door on anyone. Another writer traces the pattern to what people do with the message.
Of course God does not discriminate against the rich. He declares His gospel to all alike. But it is the poor who receive it, while the rich mostly see no need of it. So it is the poor who are blessed by it. And God honours the riches of their faith: they become heirs of the kingdom, for they love Him.
"Rich in faith" is not a consolation prize. Grace turns the low place into a real advantage.
When God calls the poor, grace makes their humble position a decided advantage to them. No bondage is more overbearing than the one "society" imposes on those who serve it. Nothing is more at odds with the Lord of all. He passed judgment on the whole of it by standing outside it all. He ignored all its claims and walked His path of holy goodness to everyone in unswerving obedience. The poor believer sees this, rich in faith, and escapes his class's determination to rise in the world by religious means as by every other way.
The word "heirs" points forward. Its honour is of a different order from the honours people chase now.
The world thinks it an honour to keep company with those who stand high in the kingdoms of this world and its glory. Far greater is the privilege of keeping company with those whom God has called to His kingdom and glory. Even if down here they were only uneducated fishermen, they are going to sit on thrones judging in the kingdom of Christ. It is a far greater honour to be found with them than with the greatest ruler of this passing world.
Some have read the final clause as though it marked out the poor alone. One writer rejects that. Love for God is not the mark of a special class of Christian. It is the mark of the new nature in every believer.
1 John 5:1 shows that loving God and loving one's brother cannot be separated from being born of God. It is essential to the new nature. How dreadful to imagine a believer who does not love God or obey Him! It is precious to know that God has chosen the poor as to the world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. But the verse adds the words "which He has promised to those who love Him". Who except the legal mind would confine that clause to the poor and refuse it to a Nicodemus or a Joseph of Arimathea?
Set against God's choice, the behaviour looks absurd. Poor people were flattering money and forgetting what they owned themselves.
These weak Jewish believers were mostly poor. They had so far forgotten their early warmth of faith that they cringed before the wealthy — even in their meetings, if a rich man came in. Yet were they not rich in faith, the poorest of them? Were they not heirs of the kingdom which the One who chose them promised to those who love Him? What inconsistency, to put on the air of valuing a little money and to close the eye of faith to their own hopes of glory.
The same danger is named as a present one, and not only for the obviously worldly.
This truth needs insisting on in a day like the present, when the money of this world has become the snare of the professing church, and when those who claim to have more light, and to be walking a separate path, are in danger of being attracted by the world's respectability, wealth, and position.
- Chosen — God's choice has mainly fallen on the poor. His gospel excludes no one; the poor simply receive what the rich see no need of.
- Poor — poor by one measure only: as to the world.
- Rich — grace makes the low place an advantage. It frees the believer from society's demand to rise.
- Heirs — the inheritance is a kingdom. Standing with fishermen who will reign there outranks standing with the greatest ruler of this passing age.
- Loving — the promise is to all who love God, and that is everyone born of Him. To flatter wealth after that is to shut the eye of faith on your own hope of glory.
But *ye* have despised the poor [man]. Do not the rich oppress you, and [do not] *they* drag you before [the] tribunals?
The readers had been flattering rich visitors in their meetings, while those same rich people were dragging them into court. James is not describing a possibility but naming something they had already done to the poor.
The scene of the gold ring and the shabby clothes might sound like a made-up example. One writer argues it came from real life. James would not aim such a word at so many readers unless the practice was already spreading.
In fact, the case the apostle puts is not a hypothetical one. He has to press it on his readers that they have "despised" the poor. You would judge that this had already become common, or he would hardly speak about it this way to the many people he was addressing.
In this letter, "the rich" is not a general comment on wealth. It points to a particular group among the readers' own nation.
The rich Jews were mainly the proud opposers of Christ and His people, and they blasphemed His worthy name. God's choice had mainly fallen on the poor... Some fawned on these proud blasphemers and persecutors because they were rich. They showed contempt for the followers of Christ because they were poor. This only proved the blindness and folly of those who acted this way. They saw both rich and poor with the world's shallow gaze, and not with the searching eye of faith.
The readers had suffered at the hands of rich men. That is what makes their favouritism so strange.
He charges them with despising the poor. Of course he does not mean that every one of them was guilty, but it was far too common. Let them think about it: rich men were very often their oppressors, and they had suffered at their hands. Men can criticize the rich harshly for their greed, but not to their faces. In fact the same men will show favoritism to the rich over the poor!
The contempt described here is not only rudeness about seating. It ran from attitude, to action, to the law courts, and it landed on people already easy to accuse.
Standing in open opposition is the haughty contempt that wealth naturally produces... As a class — and that is how our Epistle speaks — the rich were hostile to the name of the Lord, which was everything to the poor who believed and confessed Him. They were heartless toward those whose poverty exposed them to every kind of suspicion and slander, and so to persecution.
The place named is a court of law, not a royal platform. A reference work notes the distinction in the Greek: the word used in some well-known scenes of Scripture is bēma, a raised judgment platform, while here a different term appears.
In James 2:6 the word is κριτήριον.
Most of the readers were poor themselves. They were cringing before money they did not have, while they already held a promise from God.
These weak Jewish believers, most of them poor, had so forgotten the early warmth of faith that they cringed before the wealthy. They did this even in their meetings, if a rich man came in. Yet were they not rich in faith, the poorest of them? Were they not heirs of the kingdom that He who chose them promised to those who love Him? What inconsistency! They gave themselves the air of valuing a little money and closed the eye of faith to their own hope of glory. Yet the least memory of the Lord of glory would scatter those natural thoughts. It would bring back the promise that shows the false glitter of the world for what it is.
James does not ask his readers to pretend that social ranks do not exist. He asks for something narrower.
Human greatness, the lure of wealth, favouring one person over another, despising the poor — none of this fits the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ... Still, James does not level all ranks. What he demands is that no one should show preference for the rich.
- Honour reversed. God chose the poor. The readers shamed the very people God had chosen, and this was a real charge, not a made-up example.
- Honour misplaced. In this letter the "rich" are the proud opposers of Christ and His people. Honouring them meant judging by the world's shallow gaze instead of by faith.
- Honour and hypocrisy. They criticized rich oppressors in private and flattered them in public. The men who had made them suffer got the best seat.
- Honour trampled. The contempt did not stop at seating. The rich dragged poor believers into court, where their poverty left them open to slander and persecution.
- Honour recovered. The cure is to remember the Lord of glory and their own place as heirs. James does not level all ranks. He forbids preferring anyone because of money.
And [do not] *they* blaspheme the excellent name which has been called upon you?
This question closes an argument that began with a poor man in shabby clothes and a seat at the back of the room. James tells his readers to look hard at the people they are flattering. These are the very people who speak against the name they bear.
The verse assumes its readers know which name is meant. The ESV calls it "the honorable name"; older translations render it "excellent" or "worthy." One writer explains that in Scripture a name is not a label but a disclosure of a person.
Someone may ask, What is meant by "THE NAME"? The Holy Spirit makes so much of it in the Sacred Writings, so it is well to seek and gain understanding about this. The Name is that which sets forth Who and What the Lord is. James calls it "the excellent Name which has been called upon you" (2:7). Little by little its wealth is shown in the Old Testament... and so it has come to pass in the Person of our glorious Saviour. The first chapter of the New Testament names Him Jesus—Jehovah the Saviour—and Emmanuel, God with us.
James is not describing a few bad tempers. He is describing the settled attitude of a class. Wealth bred contempt. It reached past the poor believer to the One he confessed.
The haughty contempt which wealth naturally produces breaks out in open opposition... As a class — and this is how our Epistle speaks — they were hostile to the name of the Lord. That name was everything to the poor who believed and confessed Him. They were also heartless toward the poor themselves, whose poverty exposed them to every kind of evil suspicion and slander, and so to persecution.
Set the blasphemers beside the poor believers, and the seating in verses 2–3 makes no sense at all.
In verses 5 to 7 James reminds his brothers what the situation really was. The rich Jews were in the main the proud opposers of Christ and His people, blasphemers of His worthy name. God's choice had in the main fallen on the poor... They fawned on the proud blasphemers and persecutors because they were rich. They showed contempt to the followers of Christ because they were poor. That only proved the blindness and folly of those who acted this way. They viewed both rich and poor with the world's shallow gaze, and not with the penetrating eye of faith.
The gatherings themselves held a mixture of people.
They had despised the poor, who were believers and walked in faith. Meanwhile the rich oppressed them and dragged them before the courts. These rich men were of course not believers. They only professed faith, which again shows the mixed conditions of their gatherings.
Two verdicts stand over the same name, and God's is the one that holds. The wording also hints at when James wrote.
Notice also the expression, "that worthy name by which you are called." The rich Jew blasphemed it. God pronounces it a worthy Name. They were called by it. This seems to show that by the time James wrote, the name Christian had travelled from Antioch to Jerusalem. Antioch is where it was first coined (Acts 11:26). The poor were persecuted not so much because they were poor, but because they were identified with Christ. And Christ was the object of the world's hatred.
Verses 5 to 7 put religious profession on trial. Three questions settle the verdict.
A contrast is then drawn between the way God acts and the way of many who profess to be believers... The great religious profession of the day is thus put to the test. How does it regard the world? How does it treat believers? Above all, what value does it set upon the Name of Christ? Sadly, the great profession shows all its emptiness. It respects the rich, despises the poor, oppresses the believer, and blasphemes the worthy Name of Christ.
The same name rests on us. That turns the verse into a question about our own lives.
There is a voice in this for us. We, too, individually or together, stand identified with the holy name of Christ. Is that name stained because of our failure? Do we commend Him before the eyes of the world? Or does our carelessness, our indifference, burden Him with our sins in the world's eyes because His name is named upon us? He is not visible; we are to be His living representatives, His ambassadors.
- The Name — not a label but a revelation. It sets forth Who and What the Lord is, opened out in Jesus, Jehovah the Saviour.
- Called on you — the poor believers carried that Name. It was everything to them.
- Blasphemed by the rich — as a class the wealthy stayed hostile to that Name. They oppressed the poor and dragged them into court.
- Folly exposed — flatter the blasphemers, despise Christ's own, and you are seeing with the world's shallow gaze, not the eye of faith.
- Worthy still — men blasphemed the Name; God pronounced it worthy. It now rests on us, and we are His living representatives before the world.
If indeed ye keep [the] royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.
James has just described a rich visitor given the best seat while a poor man stands. Now he tests his readers by the rule they claim to honour, and the name he gives it — "the royal law" — raises a question: what makes this one command king over the rest?
The words come from the law of Moses, and they gather up the commandments that deal with how people treat each other. One writer explains why that manward half of the law earns the title "royal":
Verse 8 calls the Scripture "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" the royal law. It sums up the last six of the ten commandments. The first four are no doubt priestly rather than royal in character, for they are toward God. Royal character is the character that bears witness toward men. And real love for neighbors will seek their greatest good. It is impartial, and it wants the purest blessing for the one it loves. If it is only my rich neighbor I love, this is not proper love at all: I expose my selfish motives.
One writer weighs the possible reasons, then gives his own:
The question is — why does he describe it this way? Writers have given various answers. One is that it is the law of the supreme King. Another is that it is "the law which is the king of all laws". Yet another is that it points to the supremacy of love, which governs all in some form or other. But we judge it simpler to read the phrase as pointing to the kingdom of Christ. Under His blessed reign this royal law will be the standard for all, ruling how they treat one another.
Asked directly whether "royal" simply means the law of the kingdom, another writer allowed the connection but not the explanation:
No, and yet it would be that of the kingdom, but that is not the reason why he calls it so.
Whatever lies behind the title, this law reaches further than any other. One writer ties it to the two commands the Lord called first and greatest:
The royal law is the law of love. The Lord could say that to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" is the first and great commandment. He added that the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." To love God and to love one's neighbour is to fulfil the whole law. No one who kept these two laws could break any other law. The law of love is the royal law that governs every other law. To fulfil this law is to do well.
Preferring the wealthy visitor fails the command at exactly the point where the command has no flexibility — the person is to be loved simply as a neighbour:
This was the royal law according to Scripture. In the second table of the commandments it was plainly supreme, the one command that gave the spirit of all the rest. So favouring one person over another was a sin against the law as well. The law required people to love the neighbour as neighbour, and here, plainly, no earthly distinctions could count.
The command was not new when James quoted it. That raises the harder question of ability rather than information:
The third book of Moses had stated that great moral principle for Israel from early days. But where was the heart to prize it? Where was the nature able to carry it out without ever slipping? It is certainly not in the mind of the flesh. That mind is enmity against God, and is really no better for man.
The difference lies not in the command but in the one hearing it:
It is all a question of the heart. The fleshly heart finds the law an insufferable burden. "A new heart" finds it a delight.
Loving a neighbour as yourself uses self as the yardstick. One writer calls that measure perfect in itself, but not fitted to a world of sin:
The law required us to love our neighbour as ourselves. That is a perfect rule where all is right, and it brings mutual and common blessing. But it does not suit a state of sin, and it cannot meet it. We are called to love as Christ loved, and to give ourselves, our lives if needed, for others. The first takes self as the measure, and fits a happy state of things. The second is the giving up of ourselves for need, misery, or want of any kind.
- Royal in reach. The command sums up the commandments about how we treat people. The first four face God and are priestly; loving your neighbour is the royal side of the law.
- Royal in rank. Writers give different reasons for the title. They agree on its weight: this law governs every other law, so keeping it keeps them all, and to fulfil it is to do well.
- Royal to all alike. The law says neighbour, not rich neighbour. Earthly rank counts for nothing, so seating the wealthy above the poor breaks the very rule you claim to keep.
- Royal needs a new heart. The principle stood in Moses from early days. What was missing was a nature able to keep it. The same law that crushes the fleshly heart delights a new one.
- Royal beyond self. Loving as you love yourself is a perfect rule where all is well. In a world of sin, the measure becomes Christ's own self-giving love.
But if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.
James has just described a meeting. The rich man gets the best seat, and the poor man gets the worst. Now James names that behaviour. The verse turns a social habit into a legal verdict. The very law these readers honoured is the law that convicts them.
Favouring the impressive person can look harmless. Commentators trace the habit to something deeper.
Favouritism is the instinct of self and the reflection of the world. But it denies Christ in practice. It also denies the reality of the close relationship which grace has formed between all who are His. The inspired writer picks out one case he had probably seen himself. He puts it here as if it were only a possibility.
The "if" of the verse does not soften the blow. His readers were already doing this, and the rich they favoured were the ones oppressing them.
In fact, the case the apostle puts is not just a theory. He has to press it on his readers: they have "despised" the poor... And this was all the worse in view of the well-known oppression by the rich. Loving your neighbour as yourself was the royal law of Scripture. Among the commands about our neighbour it stood supreme, and it gave the spirit of all the rest. So this favouritism was a sin against the law as well. The law told them to love the neighbour simply because he was a neighbour. Here it is plain that no distinction on earth could carry any weight.
James uses the word law in more than one way here. One writer sorts the uses out and names the law that convicts.
In this passage there are three descriptions of the law — the law simply, the royal law, and the law of liberty. The apostle points out with great solemnity: "if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." His example of this sin is simple. The best seats in the meeting go to the rich and the worst to the poor. That custom is not unknown today! "The law" he speaks of as broken here is really the ten commandments.
Older translations say "convinced" here. The sense is "convicted", as in a courtroom.
Verse 8 has just called the command to love your neighbour a royal law. Verse 9 shows what that command does to favouritism.
That law sentences favouritism to death. The command to love your neighbour towers above any passing or artificial difference between people. Who or what are the rich, that they should wish it set aside in their favour? And what are poor believers, rich in faith, doing when they ignore it? It is a royal law, says our Epistle. Those who fix the eyes of their heart on our Lord Jesus will not fail to fulfil it. It would be a sad descent to look away from Him in glory, as He is, to the gold-ringed man of wealth.
This rule binds churches, not just single believers. One writer presses it on the Church as a whole.
God shows no partiality. (Acts 10:34.) And God's Word must govern the Church. She does not make that Word; she learns from it. It says, "If you show partiality, you are committing sin." (James 2:9.) Once people leave the right path and still claim to be right, they must give up part of God's Word, however much of the rest they keep.
Favouritism breaks the law of love. Poverty is no excuse for flattering the rich, and the cure lies in the One who moved the opposite way.
Favouritism breaks love, and it breaks the law that insists on love. Being poor gives a believer no reason to court the world's favour. It gives him no reason to look down on poor brothers, flatter the wealthy, or dishonour the Lord of glory. He has shown us the clear opposite. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich"... As our letter says, to show partiality is to commit sin and to stand convicted by the law as a transgressor. Another letter says that love does no wrong to a neighbour, so love is the fulfilment of the law.
- Instinct — Favouritism is no slip of manners. It is "the instinct of self, and the reflection of the world," and it denies Christ in practice.
- Indictment — James is not raising a possibility. His readers had despised the poor, and the law itself stands as witness against them.
- Verdict — The word is "convicted". The ten commandments put the person who plays favourites in the dock as a transgressor, not just as someone with poor manners.
- Impartial God — God shows no partiality. So no church may keep a practice that favours some people over others.
- Remedy — Look at the Lord of glory who became poor. Love fulfils the law that favouritism breaks.
For whoever shall keep the whole law and shall offend in one [point], he has come under the guilt of [breaking] all.
James is writing to people who favoured the rich and brushed the poor aside. To show how serious that is, he refuses to treat God's law as a list of items, where a good score on most of them covers one failure.
James has just called one command "royal" — love your neighbour as yourself. One writer explains what makes a command royal.
Verse 8 calls the Scripture "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" the royal law. This summarizes the last six of the ten commandments. The first four are no doubt priestly in character rather than royal, since they are toward God. But royal character is what bears testimony toward men. Genuine love for neighbors will seek their greatest good: it is impartial, and concerned for the purest blessing of the one it loves. If it is only my rich neighbour I love, this is not proper love at all — I expose my selfish motives.
So favouritism is not a lapse in manners. It breaks the one command that sums up how we treat people.
The sweeping claim of this verse makes sense once you see the law as one whole. One writer shows the difference with a picture.
Nothing could be more sweeping than the statement in verse 10. At first sight some of us might question whether it is right. But we have to remember that the law is one whole, and cannot be divided. An errand boy carrying a basket of bottles may slip and break one bottle in his fall. His employer cannot fairly accuse him of breaking all of them, because every bottle is separate and distinct from the others. But suppose the boy carried the basket hung from his shoulder by a chain. If in falling he also broke one link of the chain, his master could fairly tell him that he had broken the chain.
Why should one failure count against everything? The same God speaks in every command, so each one carries His authority.
Here the law is what crushes self-righteousness. The law is of God, so it cannot be anything but unbending, and it resents every attempt of men to dodge it... If there were true obedience, one claim of God would be as binding as another, and violence would be as hateful to us as corruption. To offend in one point violates God's authority and brings us under the guilt of breaking all... For sinful man to try to gain righteousness by the law, and to stand before God on that ground, is fatal ignorance of self as well as of God.
Verse 11 is James' proof — the One who said "Do not commit adultery" also said "Do not murder."
Many people lean on the hope that a mostly decent record will hold up. This verse closes that door.
The law knew nothing of mercy. Its demands were so strict that it held an offender in one point guilty of all (James 2:10). Some people shelter under the idea that they are not aware of having broken all of God's laws, so they are not exposed to His just condemnation. That hope is empty and deceptive. It is not even reasonable. Think how a man judges his fellow man. Whoever breaks one of the laws of his country has committed an act of rebellion, and so deserves punishment. A man does not need to rob twenty times before a court calls him guilty. If he is proved to have robbed even once, he faces punishment as a lawbreaker. And is God less just than man?
If nothing partial can stand, the verse points us away from ourselves.
Is this not the only obedience that can be acceptable with God? "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." True righteousness must be complete. Everything else is partial, and only "filthy rags." That holds even for giving away all one's goods to feed the poor, or giving one's body to be burned. Here, as everywhere, everything calls aloud for Christ. He is the only One who could undertake such obedience and glorify God.
- One chain. The law is one whole, not a list of separate items. Break one link and you have broken the chain.
- One voice. One Lawgiver stands behind every command. The same God forbade adultery and murder, so offending in one point defies His authority.
- One failure. You need not break every command to stand condemned. No one has to rob twenty times before we call him a thief.
- One target. James aims this at favouritism. Showing special favour to the rich is not a small slip. It breaks the royal law of love.
- One remedy. Only complete righteousness can stand, so the verse leaves us with Christ. He alone could render that obedience.
For he who said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become transgressor of [the] law.
James has just said that a person who keeps the whole law but trips on one point is guilty of all. This verse is his proof. The ban on adultery and the ban on murder came from the same mouth. So why does keeping one of them earn no credit when you break the other?
The weight of the argument sits in three words: "he who said." Both commands come from one authority, not two. So the man who avoids the first sin and commits the second has still defied the same God.
The law is one, though of course expressed in ten commandments: if one link of a chain is broken, then the chain is broken. It is the same God who forbids both adultery and murder. A man may not be guilty of one of these. But if he is guilty of the other, he is guilty of disobedience to the same God: he has broken the law.
Our instinct is to keep a score sheet, item by item. That treats the commandments as separate objects, not as one connected whole.
We have to remember however that the law is treated as a whole, one and indivisible. An errand boy carrying a basket of bottles may slip and break one bottle in his fall. His employer cannot fairly accuse him of breaking all of them, because every bottle is separate from the others. But suppose the boy carried the basket hung from his shoulder by a chain. If in his fall he also broke one link of that chain, his master could fairly tell him he had broken the chain.
A person may avoid most sins because he never wanted them or never had the chance. The one sin he does commit shows where his will stands.
The authority of God is attached to His law. So when God's authority meets the desires of man, and man breaks that law in one thing, he has overthrown the claim of God's authority, and so has broken the whole law… Suppose you had forbidden your child to do three things. He was not inclined to do two of them, or had no chance to. Would his not having done those two make you hold him guiltless? No. You would say he was not inclined to do them, or he would have done them had he found the occasion.
James pairs two very different sins. One is a sin of corrupt desire, the other a sin of violence. True obedience would hate both alike.
Here it is the law that crushes self-righteousness. The law is God's own law, so it must be inflexible, and it refuses every excuse men make… If there were true obedience, one claim of God would be as binding as another, and violence would be as hateful to us as corruption.
Behind the argument lies a comfortable hope that many men carry about the God who gave the law at Mount Sinai.
They imagine that a little sin here and there, now and then, will meet with mild dealing, so that there is no need to be over-righteous… No idea was more insulting to the authority of Him who had spoken at Sinai. None was more destructive of the law itself, which must be inflexible. If it is broken in a single point, righteousness under it is gone, and the honour of the whole is compromised.
If no one passes this test, what standard will we face at the judgment? James answers in the next verse. His answer turns back to the poor man at the start of the passage.
We stand before God and will be judged on the basis of the "law of liberty." That phrase means the revelation of God's will which has reached us in Christ… We stand in the light of the supreme display of God's mercy in Christ, so we are responsible to show mercy ourselves. This brings us back to the matter the paragraph started with. Their treatment of "the poor man in shabby clothing" had not been according to the mercy shown in the Gospel.
- One Speaker. Both commands come from the same God. Keep one and break the other, and you have still defied Him.
- One law. The commandments are links in a chain, not bottles in a basket; snap one link and the chain itself is broken.
- One breach. The sin a person commits shows his will. Where God's authority crosses his desire, he pushes that authority aside, and the whole law with it.
- One standard. God weighs violence and corruption alike. The law will not bend, so the hope of mild treatment for small sins collapses.
- One mercy. We are judged by the law of liberty — God's will made known in Christ. Those who stand in the light of such mercy must show mercy, starting with the poor man in shabby clothing.
So speak ye, and so act, as those that are to be judged by [the] law of liberty;
James has just closed every escape route: break the law at one point and you stand guilty of all. Now he names a different standard for how a believer speaks and acts. He calls it a law of liberty — two words that sound like they pull against each other.
Which law does James mean? One writer finds three laws in this letter. Only the last of them appears in this verse.
He speaks of three laws, or of law in three ways. First, the law as such — here, if you are guilty in one point, you are guilty of all. We have despised the authority of the law God gave, at the very point where lust was active. We are wholly guilty. Second, the royal law of inward perfection: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." That is doing well. Third, the perfect law of liberty that I look into. It is the revelation of the path of the divine nature, which God has made me share in. Revelation shows me the perfection of it; the divine nature gives me the delight in it. I am blessed in the doing of it as a present thing.
A rule only feels like bondage when it cuts against what you want. The phrase holds together because God gives a nature that wants what He commands.
This law stands in contrast with the law of Moses, the law of bondage. What God lays on His child is a law of liberty. How is this? Because the new nature desires above all things to do the will of God. So when He tells us what that will is, the heart goes fully with it. There is of course need of prayer, and of watchfulness against the flesh. Satan may raise as many hindrances as he can muster. But once we know what our Father lays upon us, we judge any reluctance as evil, and we treasure His will as a law of liberty.
Darby illustrates it with a child:
If I command my child to go where he longs to go, and tell him the way, it is obedience — but it is the law of liberty.
One life shows what this nature looks like when it is lived out in full.
The law of liberty is the ruling principle of a new nature, born from the word of God. Christ Himself is the perfect example of this nature. Its standard is a spontaneous, wholehearted, willing obedience.
The verse joins what we say to what we do.
This letter urges speaking and doing, and they cover a very large part of our practical life. But it defines both with care. Each was to suit people who are to be governed by a law of liberty. That law is a principle of the inner man. Those who have no faith cannot read it, for they have no new life from God and no knowledge of His grace.
This law measures us by the life God has put within us. That removes a favourite excuse: the flesh made me do it.
"Judged by the law of liberty," that is, according to the nature which has been communicated to us. This nature is holy. We ought to speak and act in keeping with this nature, and also to judge ourselves. Woe to the man who says, to excuse evil, "I do what I do not want to do," for though the flesh is in us, we owe it nothing.
The light we stand in is fuller, not dimmer. And it takes us back to the failure James opened the chapter with — how they treated a poor visitor.
We stand before God and will be judged on the basis of the "law of liberty." That expression means the revelation of God's will that has reached us in Christ... We shall have to answer as being in the much fuller light which Christianity brings. Being in the light of the supreme display of God's mercy in Christ, we are responsible to show mercy ourselves... Their treatment of "the poor man in shabby clothing" had not been according to the mercy displayed in the Gospel.
- New nature. The law of liberty is the path of the divine nature God has given. Revelation shows how perfect it is; the nature itself gives the delight in it.
- New delight. It is freedom because the command and the desire now run together. The heart goes with God's will instead of straining against it. Prayer and watchfulness are still needed.
- New pattern. Christ lived this nature out in full. So the obedience here is spontaneous and wholehearted, never grudging.
- New scope. Speech and action cover most of practical life. Both are to match an inner principle that people without faith cannot read.
- New test. That nature is our measure, so we judge ourselves first. The flesh is no excuse. And the mercy we received in Christ becomes mercy we show to the poor man.
for judgment [will be] without mercy to him that has shewn no mercy. Mercy glories over judgment.
James ends his rebuke of favouritism with two short sentences. They pull in opposite directions: a warning and a promise. Which one fits you? The answer shows up in how you treat other people.
The verse is not an isolated saying. It answers what James has just said about the poor man in shabby clothing.
We stand before God, and He will judge us on the basis of the "law of liberty." That phrase means God's will as it has now reached us in Christ. We must answer in the much fuller light that Christianity brings. Standing in the light of God's mercy shown at its highest in Christ, we are responsible to show mercy ourselves. Their treatment of "the poor man in shabby clothing" had not matched the mercy displayed in the Gospel. They set themselves up as "judges with evil thoughts," but they would find themselves under judgment.
Why should God be so severe about a hard heart? Because mercy is the very thing His children claim to have received.
Mercy is the source of everything we profess as God's children. So God is angry when it is missing in people who, by grace, claim to belong to His family. Of all people, they are responsible to delight in mercy and to show it in word and action. They live under a law of liberty, not of slavery, and they will be judged by it.
Another writer tests the claim of being forgiven against Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant:
Huge numbers of people claim to have received His pardon. "I believe in the forgiveness of sins" is what crowds say every day. But conduct alone proves whether the grace of God has really penetrated the soul. Where it has, the forgiven person walks thankfully in the spirit of grace towards everyone... People who settle for saying "Lord, Lord," while not doing what He says, will end up in the place of the wicked servant in that parable... Our God will be satisfied with nothing less than reality in those who have to do with Him.
The second half of the verse turns. Older translations read "mercy rejoices against judgment" or "mercy glories over judgment." One writer links that wording to the same expression in Exodus, quoted here from an older version:
"Mercy rejoices against judgment" — the same expression as in Exodus 8:9, "Glory over me."
Notice which word James used:
Notice that the last phrase of verse 13 is not, "Mercy rejoices against justice," but, "against judgment." Divine mercy goes hand in hand with righteousness, and thereby it triumphs against the judgment that otherwise had been our due.
Mercy's boast over judgment is not a floating idea. It has a place where God proved it once for all.
Mercy is God's usual work, the work that suits Him. Judgment is His strange work, though completely righteous, against those who need mercy most and yet despise it — above all when it comes in the Lord of glory. Yet He has shown and proved that mercy in its richest and most moving form: emptying Himself, yes, the true God humbling Himself, to save His ungodly enemies... Beyond doubt "mercy glories over judgment" in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. But are not we who bear His name responsible to have it bright within us?
How God Himself acts before judging sets the pattern for us.
Even God does not judge until He has used every way by which He can righteously show mercy. If that is so, what about us? We are given no position as judges at all, and we have received the immeasurably wonderful mercy of God, though we deserved nothing of the kind.
One writer applies this to those who profess faith:
God delights to show mercy. If we profess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and show no mercy, we are not acting in line with the new nature, which delights to show mercy rather than judgment. Failing in mercy may bring God's discipline on us in the way He governs our lives.
- Received. Mercy is the source of everything a believer professes. It reached us in Christ first.
- Reflected. Mercy received must show. Conduct proves whether grace has really penetrated the soul.
- Refused. Withhold mercy, and judgment comes back the same way: merciless to the merciless.
- Righteous. Mercy triumphs over judgment, not over justice. It walks hand in hand with righteousness, and it won at the cross.
- Restraining. God Himself uses every righteous way of showing mercy before He judges. That leaves the forgiven no seat as judge.