What does the Bible say about nepotism?

In the Old Testament there are two remarkable cases of abuse of government. Both Eli's sons and the sons of Samuel seemed to have used their place for their own ends, and to corrupt the people. To speak more exactly, they derived their influence from their relationship to Eli and to Samuel. The priesthood was hereditary, the judgeship not; but Eli's fault was that he abandoned his authority to his sons, and did not restrain them when they made themselves vile. (1 Sam. 3:13.) And how often is it the case that relatives are allowed to usurp the place and authority of the one with whom they are connected, and who himself may rightly occupy a position of rule. For him to act would be according to God; but he cannot delegate his responsibility, and if his relatives act in his place, it must not only violate God's order, but it will also, as a consequence, introduce confusion and disorder.

In the Old Testament there are two remarkable cases of abuse of government. Both Eli's sons and the sons of Samuel seemed to have used their place for their own ends, and to corrupt the people. To speak more exactly, they derived their influence from their relationship to Eli and to Samuel. The priesthood was hereditary, the judgeship not; but Eli's fault was that he abandoned his authority to his sons, and did not restrain them when they made themselves vile. (1 Sam. 3:13.) And how often is it the case that relatives are allowed to usurp the place and authority of the one with whom they are connected, and who himself may rightly occupy a position of rule. For him to act would be according to God; but he cannot delegate his responsibility, and if his relatives act in his place, it must not only violate God's order, but it will also, as a consequence, introduce confusion and disorder.

We read that John Mark was his sister’s son. Perhaps relationship made Barnabas partial to his nephew. Natural affection is surely right, and to be without it is a sign of the last times. But we may learn a salutary lesson here, not to allow natural affection to sway our spiritual judgment, nor to influence us in our actions in the things of God. That Paul felt this is seen in his solemn instruction to Timothy, “I charge you before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and before the holy angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one above another, doing nothing by partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21).

These things having been arranged, he says, "I gave my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jerusalem: for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many." (v. 2.) It is not clear, from the words themselves, whether this description applies to Hanani or Hananiah; but we judge it is to the former, for it will be remembered that it was this same Hanani who was used, with others, to bring the intelligence of the state of the remnant and of Jerusalem, which became, in the hands of God, the means of Nehemiah's mission. (Neh. 1) Understanding it so, nothing could more distinctly show Nehemiah's singleness of eye in his Master's service. Hanani was his brother, but he appointed him to this post, not because he was his brother, or a man of influence, but because "he was a faithful man, and feared God above many." In such ways, as well as by the divine directions furnished through the apostle Paul, the Lord teaches us what should characterize those who take the lead among His people; and especially those who occupy places of prominence or care in government. It is not enough that they are men of gift, or position, or influence; but they should be faithful — faithful to God and to His truth, and they should be distinguished by fearing, not men, but God, acting as in His sight, and upholding the authority of His word.

The reader, as a Christian, will see the inconsistency, and weigh the value of what is said to the Church respecting this evil. She is said to hate their deeds, then to allow within them that hold their doctrine. You see that the PERSONS are allowed. But "God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34.) And the Church must be governed by God's Word; she does not make it, she is taught by it. It says, "If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin." (James 2:9.) And "God accepteth no man's person." (Gal. 2:6.) When once there is a departure from a right path, with an assumption of rectitude, the Word of God must, in some form or another, be given up, however much of it may be retained. But for the Church, as well as for individual Christians, there is then no way of recovery but by the Word of God; and if we do not use it as the way of recovery, HE must and will maintain the truth. And the address to Pergamos closes thus: "Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth." It is the unsparing judgment of all evil.

This having respect of persons is not only contrary to the faith of Christ, but even to the law itself which bids us love our neighbours as ourselves. This is called in verse 8 the "royal" or "kingly" law. It sums up in one word that which must be observed by every king who would reign righteously and govern according to God. To have respect of persons is to break that law and stand convicted as a transgressor.

Respect of persons is a violation of love and a transgression of the law that insists on love, as is added in the verse that follows. If a believer be poor, there is no ground in this why he should pander to worldliness, despise his poor brethren, puff up the wealthy, and dishonour the Lord of glory Who has shown us the clear contrary. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich" (2 Cor. 8:9). "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." Weigh Phil. 2:5-9. As our Epistle declares, to have respect of persons is to work sin and to be convicted by the law as transgressors; as the Epistle says, Love worketh no ill to the neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.

They had despised the poor, who were believers and walked in faith, while the rich oppressed them and dragged them before the judgment-seats. These of course were not believers, but mere professors, which again shows the mixed conditions of their gatherings. Furthermore, these rich people with their shameful behavior had blasphemed "that worthy Name" by which they were called, the name of the Lord of glory. This respect of persons was a sin against the royal law: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" "If ye have respect to persons ye commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors." If it is the matter of keeping the law, it must be kept in every detail and the entire law "for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." They were in their consciences still under the law, not having fully seen "the law of liberty" which is the perfect law, flowing as we have learned from the first chapter, from the new nature guided by the Holy Spirit, producing the walk in the Spirit, thus fulfilling the righteousness of the law. James, therefore, appeals to the Ten Commandments as a witness to arouse their consciences. Then he mentions once more the law of liberty. "So speak ye, and so do, as they that be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment shall be without mercy to him that hath shown no mercy. Mercy rejoiceth over judgment." The perfect law of liberty produces mercy in the believer, but where no mercy is shown, no mercy can be expected, but judgment. "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7:2).

But, as a matter of fact, the case that the apostle is putting is not hypothetical. He has to urge upon those he is addressing that they have "despised" the poor. One would judge that this state of things must already have been becoming common, or he would hardly speak of it in this way to the many whom he was addressing: "But ye have despised the poor," he says. And this was all the worse in view of the notorious oppression on the part of the rich, for whom that which was the blessed grace of Christianity was but a mere "strait gate." "How hardly," asks the Lord Himself, "shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" But thus the edge that it had for their consciences only roused them to violence. "Do not the rich oppress you and drag you before the judgment-seats? Do they not blaspheme that excellent name by which ye are called?" "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" was the royal law according to Scripture. In the second table it is plain that it was, in fact, supreme, that which gave the spirit of all the rest. This respect of persons, therefore, was a sin against the law also, for it was the neighbor as the neighbor that it required one to love; and here, it is plain, no earthly distinctions could be of force. If, then, they had respect of persons, they committed sin, and were convicted by the law itself as transgressors. And it was in vain to plead the keeping of other points; they were but questions of detail. If a man were to yield true obedience, it would have to be entire obedience, and a man was a transgressor, therefore, if he violated any one point. It would not do to say, "I am no adulterer," if a man killed his neighbor; and the law was, in fact, now, according to the new covenant which had come in for Christians, if not for the nation, a law of liberty. "I will write my laws," says the Lord, "upon their hearts." A law written upon the heart becomes the nature of the man in whom this takes place, so that there is no slavery in obedience, but delight. And by this law of liberty, plainly, Christians then were to be judged; that is to say, it was to be expected from them that they would answer to the character implied in it; and the lack of mercy shown would necessarily bring down judgment upon the one who showed no mercy; but "mercy glorieth over judgment;" yet they were, in fact, judging the poor man for his poverty.

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 become judges with evil thoughts? If a judge does not judge righteously, then it is inescapable that his thoughts are evil.