BIG IDEA:
DO NOT HOLD YOUR FAITH IN OUR GLORIOUS LORD JESUS CHRIST WITH AN ATTITUDE OF PERSONAL FAVORITISM
INTRODUCTION:
David Nystrom: The first chapter of James is in some ways an extended multilayered introduction to the entire letter. With this completed, James now turns his attention to a detailed discussion of one of the major themes already placed on the table, that of wealth and charity. Here he issues a warning against showing favoritism to the wealthy and displaying a belittling attitude toward the poor. Such favoritism mirrored the standards of the surrounding culture and ignored the essentially egalitarian tone of the Christian gospel. It is an obvious example of the failure to “keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (1:27).
Douglas Moo: In this section, James applies many of the key ideas from 1:19–27 to a specific situation: discrimination against poor people within the Christian community. Doing the word (v. 22), ‘the perfect law’ (v. 25), James has argued, includes showing compassion to the helpless (v. 27). By showing favour to the rich and treating the poor with contempt, the believers to whom James writes are acting in direct contradiction to this central demand of God’s law. This paragraph is the first in James that develops a single idea at any length. The prohibition of partiality in verse 1 governs the entire section. Verses 2–4 illustrate the problem James is concerned about, with reference to discrimination against the poor. This discriminatory action is ascribed to ‘evil thoughts’. Two reasons why Christians must shun this sort of favouritism are given in the rest of the paragraph. First, preferential treatment of the rich stands in stark contrast to the attitude of God, who has chosen the poor to be ‘rich in faith’ (vv. 5–7). Second, any manifestation of favouritism is condemned by the ‘royal law’ that demands love of the neighbour (vv. 8–13). Concern with doing the word, interpreted in terms of the law, frames this paragraph (1:25; 2:8–13), suggesting the thematic continuity in subject matter.
Ralph Martin: This section, in fact, brings no fewer than three charges against the readers. First, they are guilty of social snobbery and partiality, which runs counter to the character of God (vv 1–5). Second, they are strangely and ironically shortsighted. In siding with the rich—here, at v 5, the scope of the argument broadens to include the general situation of how rich persons treat the poor—the readers are taking the part of those who are their opponents and oppressors (vv 6–7). Finally, the social malaise and the topsy-turvy situation where misguided Christians actually prefer to play up to their persecuting foes, is given by the author the name of sin (vv 8–13) as he turns the debate to side with the poor. For James sin is regarded as an infraction of the “supreme [lit., ‘royal’] law,” found in Lev 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” When favoritism implies that the poor neighbor is treated with disdain and his social rights abridged, then the community commits active transgression (v 9); and the same law that is broken turns upon the offenders and “convicts” them as “lawbreakers” (παραβάται, v 9, repeated in the singular in v 11: pace Kilpatrick, “Übertreter”; see Note g*).
Craig Blomberg: Christians must not discriminate either in favor of or against anyone because such behavior is inconsistent with God’s choice of the poor, the conduct of the rich, and the law of love. Instead, they must live in ways that anticipate the Judgment Day, demonstrating God’s fairness to all and his grace to believers.
Favoritism Condemned (2:1–13)
- The warning and central thesis: Christians must not discriminate against others (v. 1).
- The illustration of the problem: Christians must not discriminate against the poor in favor of the rich (vv. 2–4).
- The rationale for the warning: Discrimination is wrong for at least three reasons (vv. 5–11).
- It is inconsistent with God’s choice of the poor (vv. 5–6a).
- It is inconsistent with the conduct of the rich (vv. 6b–7).
- It is inconsistent with the law of love (vv. 8–11).
4. Conclusion (the warning restated positively as an exhortation): Christians must act in ways which are consistent with God’s coming judgment (vv. 12–13).
- Remember God’s coming liberation of those who do his will (v. 12).
- Remember God’s coming condemnation of lawbreakers (v. 13a).
- Remember that God’s mercy (liberation) triumphs over his judgment (condemnation) for those who are believers (v. 13b).
John MacArthur: Another attribute of God that is not thought or spoken of so often is His impartiality. Yet that is a serious and recurring theme throughout Scripture. God is absolutely impartial in His dealings with people. And in that way, as with His other attributes, He is unlike us. Human beings, even Christians, are not naturally inclined to be impartial. We tend to put people in pigeonholes, in predetermined, stratified categories, ranking them by their looks, their clothes, their race or ethnicity, their social status, their personality, their intelligence, their wealth and power, by the kind of car they drive, and by the type of house and neighborhood they live in. . .
Therefore, whether it concerns salvation, judgment, discipline of church leaders or ordinary church members, God’s standards are the same. He deals entirely with the soul, the inner person, and with total impartiality. Peter affirms that divine impartiality, reminding believers that “it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’ And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth” (1 Pet. 1:16–17). In other words, if we expect God to be fair and impartial with us, we should be fair and impartial with others, just as we are to forgive others if we expect God to forgive us (Matt. 6:14). . .
Tragically, many otherwise biblical and faithful churches today do not treat all their members the same. Frequently, those who are of a different ethnic background, race, or financial standing are not fully welcomed into fellowship. That ought not to be. It not only is a transgression of God’s divine law but is a mockery of His divine character.
Dan McCartney: Believers, as God’s offspring through the word (1:18), are presumed to exhibit God’s character. God shows no favoritism to those of high societal status, and so his children must do likewise. This equality of people before God is even more evident in the new covenant than in the old, as Jeremiah prophesied (Jer. 31:34).
The first half of James 2 sets the stage for the attack on dysfunctional, hypocritical “dead faith” that James will develop in 2:14–26. Here is addressed a specific problem, hinted at in 1:9–10: wealth can get in the way of genuine faith. Some in the community of believers apparently have been dealing, or have been tempted to deal, with people according to their economic and social status. This makes a mockery of their averrals of faith, for God shows special interest in the poor, and it is the poor who will inherit the reign of God. Indeed, the wealthy are those who typically inhibit and resist the gospel and are persecuting those who have received the word.
The theme of the first half of James 2, on showing favoritism, is announced in 2:1 and then developed in two thought units, the first (2:2–7) focusing on the folly of favoritism, and the second (2:8–13) on its being contrary to God’s commands and character.
George Guthrie: [Logic Flow of the passage]
2:1 A Personal Exhortation: “Don’t show favoritism to the rich!”
2:2–4 A Hypothetical Situation and Assessment
2:5–6a An Appeal to Principle: “God has chosen the poor,” and the Contrast with Wrong Actions: “but you have dishonored the poor man”
2:6b–7 An Appeal to Personal Experience: “the rich oppress, drag to court, blaspheme the Lord’s name”
2:8–11 Two Courses of Action, Hypothetically Stated: Living by the Royal Law and the Contrast with the Sin of Partiality
2:12–13 A Concluding Exhortation and Its Basis: speak and act as those judged by the law of liberty, for mercy is most important
Notice that the structure of this section is very balanced, forming a chiastic pattern of A–B–C–C’–B’–A’. Exhortations begin and end the section. The hypothetical situation of 2:2–4 is balanced with the hypothetically stated appeal to the royal law and the importance of keeping that law. The two center units concern, respectively, God’s favor on the poor (2:5–6a) and the wickedness of the rich (2:6b–7). Through this highly stylized and structured approach, James confronts his readers with a critical aspect of living as God’s people in community: according to the royal law of love, we must not make distinctions between people based on economic status.
I. (:1) CONVICTING COMMAND = DON’T SHOW PARTIALITY
“My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ
with an attitude of personal favoritism.”
Look at other Scriptures: Lev. 19:15; Mal. 2:9; Luke 20:21; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Ephes 6:9; Col. 3:25
John Painter: It makes good sense that reference to faith in the imminently coming judge should be opposed to discriminatory behavior that favors the rich and disadvantages the poor. The call for justice in the Jewish Scriptures was to vindicate the poor against exploitation by the rich. Thus, although no appeal is made to the impartiality of God, that impartiality is assumed in the role of the coming judge, and this awareness is brought against discriminatory behavior (see also 1:26–27). . .
Underlying such favoritism may be the hope that the favor will be returned in some way—something beyond the means of the poor person. Self-interest drives this behavior. The call to impartiality (2:1) apparently involves a refusal to judge/discriminate between brothers and sisters on the basis of power or wealth (cf. 4:11–12). This critique of discrimination in terms of judges with evil thoughts/motives may arise from a vision of Jesus’s exaltation to glory as the imminently coming judge of all, whose judgment they will face without favor or prejudice (5:8–9). It does not imply a judicial setting for the gathering in 2:1–4.
A. Audience = Addressed to Professing Believers
“My brethren“
Alexander Ross: He begins his exhortation by using once again his favorite form of address… and it is very appropriate here, as he is about to deal with a glaring example of the lack of Christian love and brotherhood.
B. Axiom (Issue) = Genuineness of Faith Demonstrated by Conduct Consistent with that Faith
“do not hold your faith”
“with an attitude of personal favoritism.”
Dan McCartney: There can be no separation between the trust component of faith and the faithfulness component, because to trust an authority entails a commitment to it. This is not to turn faith into some kind of work, but to point out that faith is a matter of commitment to relationship, not just the acceptance of some intellective truth
Thus, the fact that some in the community of believers apparently are showing favoritism is a serious breach of their faith and calls into question its viability (as will be expounded more in 2:14–26).
C. Argument = Proper View of Christ Leads to a Proper View of Others
“in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ”
Once we truly see how “glorious” Christ is, there will be no room for distinctions on the human plane because we all pale in comparison to the glory of Christ. Look at how our Lord (in all of His Majesty) treated others and we will see that there is no room for “personal favoritism” on our part. Surely the disciples are not above the Master when it comes to showing compassion to all men without distinction.
Andy Atkins: Partiality is treating a person better or worse than he deserves for selfish reasons.
Baker: “Glory” is best recognized, then, as signifying the presence of God as judge.
II. (:2-3) CASE STUDY CONTRAST – FAVORITISM AND PREJUDICE
A. Favoritism towards the Rich Man in Your Assembly
“For if a man comes into your assembly
with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes,”
“and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes,
and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’”
R. Kent Hughes: The evident assumption in this favoritism was that the rich man was considered to be morally superior, or obviously smarter, more disciplined, more hard-working, and thus a “better man”—more fit for the kingdom.
B. Prejudice towards the Poor Man in Your Assembly
“and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes,”
“and you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,’”
- We tend to judge people on the basis of external appearance and stereotype groupings
- We are impressed by riches and professional success and social standing
C. Leslie Mitton: Apparently there was a shortage of seats, and some of the congregation had to stand or sit on the floor, so that to have a seat at all was a privilege.
III. (:4) CONTEMPTIBLE CONDEMNATION – FOLLY OF SHOWING PARTIALITY
A. Undermining of Christian Unity
“have you not made distinctions among yourselves,”
Alec Motyer: James’ illustration is timeless. It speaks as loudly today as when he penned it. It is still not always easy to know how to accommodate a tramp in a worship-service and it still is easy to assume that wealth gives a commanding voice in church affairs. The sin of partiality is the sin of judging by accidentals and externals and, as James noted, it always bears down on the poor and disadvantaged. . .
We have, in fact, committed a double fault. We have misunderstood our status—as if it were our position to sit in judgment on others; and we have trusted our own judgment—as if, by ourselves, we could make a true and accurate assessment. On the contrary, James teaches by a clear implication that in both status and judgment the Lord Jesus Christ, who is himself the Glory, must reign supreme. As to how we accept others, we must ask how he would accept them (cf. Rom. 14:1, 3; 15:7). As to how we appraise others, we must ask how he appraises them. As to how we act towards others, we must ask how he would act towards them. Our values, priorities and activities must ever be governed by the definition of true glory displayed in the person, conduct and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dan McCartney: James’s addition of the words “among yourselves” brings home that it is not just visitors who are affected by such discriminatory behavior. The very class distinctions that Christian faith is supposed to transcend have insinuated their way into the worship service and into the social fabric of the church.
B. Unmasking of Evil Motivation
“and become judges with evil motives?”
Dan McCartney: James likens discriminatory behavior to that of corrupt judges who are biased or bribed and give rulings in preference to rich clients, and who then justify their rulings by specious reasoning. In the ancient world, as is still to an appalling degree the case in the modern world, the application of justice in the civil and criminal courts quite often was a function of the economic resources and social status of the litigants. But Judaism, and Christianity with it, insisted that God gave real justice; he cannot be bribed (Deut. 10:17), and his judgments are based not a whit on whether the person in the dock is king or pauper, movie star or farmhand (see Job 34:19). Thus, equity is also required of human judges, and inequity is roundly condemned in the OT (e.g., Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19; 27:19, 25; Ps. 82:2; Mal. 2:9). James points out that discriminatory seating is of a piece with the perversion of justice that all too frequently occurs in secular courts, and thus it is an implicit denial of faith in the God who shows no partiality (see 2 Chron. 19:7). Since the following verses bring up the subject of lawsuits that the rich are bringing against Christians, this is a shocking judgment indicating that when believers show favoritism, they class themselves with the corrupt judges who are giving unfair verdicts against them when they are accused in court.
Craig Blomberg: This clause anticipates his later assertion in 4:12 that “there is one lawgiver and judge.” When we attempt to discern people’s value based on external features, we not only try to usurp God’s role as judge, but we fail miserably in the process.
IV. (:5-11) CORRECTING CONFUSED THINKING
A. (:5-7) Our Thinking is Upside Down
- Look at Election — God more often has chosen the poor
a. Pay Special Attention
“Listen, my beloved brethren”
b. Look at God’s Choice — 1 Cor. 1:26
“did not God choose the poor of this world”
1) “to be rich in faith“
2) “and heirs of the kingdom“
Dan McCartney: The “kingdom of God” is in the Gospels a rubric for the content of Jesus’s eschatological announcement that defines his ministry (Mark 1:15; see Ridderbos 1962: especially xi). It is a Jewish term for the expected restoration of God’s righteousness on earth, and it implies also the overthrow of wickedness and the restoring of God’s people to a subordinate sovereignty (McCartney 1994), sharing in the rule of God on earth. The phrase thus summarizes the eschatological hopes of Israel, which the NT writers typically focus on Jesus.
William Barclay (quoting Abraham Lincoln): God must love the common people because He made so many of them.
c. Consistent with God’s Promise
“which He promised”
d. Key = a person’s relationship to God (not their social or economic status)
“to those who love Him“
- Look at Your Own Failure
“But you have dishonored the poor man.”
- Look at Personal Experience — The Rich more often mistreat and persecute you
a. The Rich Mistreat You and Show No Mercy
1) “oppress you“
2) “personally drag you into court“
William Barclay: In the society which James inhabited the rich oppressed the poor. They dragged them to the law courts. No doubt this was for debt. At the bottom end of the social scale men were so poor that they could hardly live, and moneylenders were plentiful and extortionate. In the ancient world there was a custom of summary arrest. If a creditor met a debtor on the street, he could seize him by the neck of his robe, nearly throttling him and literally drag him to the law courts. That is what the rich did to the poor. They had no sympathy; all they wanted was the uttermost farthing. It is not riches that James is condemning. It is the conduct of riches without sympathy.
George Guthrie: How the rich handled the debts, rent payments, and wages of the poor, as well as abuse of the legal system of the day by the rich, are probably in mind. The wealthy landowner could use a poor person’s debt to take land or possessions, charge unreasonably high interest rates, and withhold pay for spurious reasons, all of which were common practices. To make matters worse, their money and social status often enabled the rich to buy off the court system. Thus they could drag the poor before the courts and systematically abuse them.
b. The Rich Persecute You and Blaspheme God
“Do they not blaspheme the fair name
by which you have been called“
John MacArthur: By which you have been called emphasizes the believer’s personal relationship to and identity with Jesus Christ. Every reference to being “called” in the New Testament epistles refers to God’s effectual, saving call, by which He saves sinners (cf. Rom. 8:28–30). The very name Christian means “Christ’s ones,” those who belong to and identify themselves with Christ and have the great privilege of expressing His love and impartiality.
Peter Davids: The blasphemy referred to indicates the reviling of the name of Jesus (whether explicitly or by implication, e.g. “those followers of a cursed criminal”), which was the baptismal “seal” of the Christian. By siding with the rich the church was siding with blasphemers! James has held the worst charge until last.
Craig Blomberg: James points out the ridiculous nature of kowtowing to people who treat the poor in this manner. He does not, however, condemn the rich for being rich; his invective condemns their actions.
B. (:8-11) Our Evaluation of the Seriousness of this Conduct is Warped
- (:8) At Stake is Obedience to the Law
“If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture,
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well.”
Douglas Moo: In the Old Testament, the neighbour (rē’a) means particularly the fellow-Israelite, but Jesus expands the application to include everyone that a person might come into contact with, including foreigners (Luke 10:25–37) and enemies (Matt. 5:44).
John MacArthur: Contrary to what many teachers claim today, Scripture does not teach that we must learn to love ourselves before we can properly love others. Quite to the contrary, it simply acknowledges that it is basic human nature to love ourselves, for “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Eph. 5:29). Because we naturally love ourselves so much—whose mouth we are careful to feed, whose body we take care to dress, whose looks we are concerned about, whose job and career occupy our minds, whose life we are determined to make comfortable and happy—that is the same concern we should have for others. And when we determine to occupy ourselves with such love for others, thus fulfilling God’s sovereign law, we will have no problem with partiality (cf. Phil. 2:3–4).
a. This is a good law
“royal law“
Warren Wiersbe: Why is “love thy neighbor” called the royal law?
- For one thing, it was given by the King. …
- for a second reason: it rules all the other laws. Love is the fulfilling of the law
(Rom. 13:10). There would be no need for the thousands of complex laws if each citizen truly loved his neighbors.
- But the main reason why this is the royal law is that obeying it makes you a king. Hatred makes a person a slave, but love sets us free from selfishness and enables us to reign like kings.
John MacArthur: Royal carries the ideas of supreme and sovereign, indicating the absolute and binding authority of the law. When a sovereign king gives an edict, it is incontestably binding on all his subjects. There is no court of appeal or arbitration. According to the Scripture indicates that God’s sovereign, royal law and His biblical commands are synonymous. What James calls the royal law is, in essence, the sum and substance of the complete Word of God, summarized in Matthew 22:37–40 as perfectly loving God and loving one’s neighbor. Paul says,” Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10; cf. vv. 8–9). When one loves God with perfect devotion, he does not break any of His commands. When one loves his neighbor perfectly, he never violates another person. Thus perfect love keeps all the commands, thereby fulfilling the whole law.
C. Leslie Mitton: that which describes the mode of life expected of those who have entered into the Kingdom of God ( 5:20; 7:21, Mark 9:47, etc.).
Alec Motyer: The royal law is that which comes to us with some special imprimatur from the King. The case for this is strengthened when we recall that the Lord Jesus himself took this law and gave it a special dignity within the whole body of biblical law. Furthermore, this is the sense which best suits the context in James. He has just said that God has made us heirs of the kingdom (hasileia, 5), and now he enunciates the hasilikon-law, the kingdom-law, the law which in a very special sense belongs to the king within whose realm we are privileged to live.
Here, then, is a law which comes to us with all the weight of scriptural authority, but which in particular is marked out as being a special concern of our King, something that is specially suited to him and which comes to us bearing the royal arms upon it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself (8). How very important the last two words are! They are the key to the whole meaning. If we want to know how we are to love our neighbours, then we must ask a prior question: how do we love ourselves? Never (it is to be hoped!) with an emotional thrill; rarely, as a matter of fact, with much sense of satisfaction; mostly with pretty wholesale disapproval; often with complete loathing—but always with concern, care and attention. . .
The opposite of the royal law (8) is partiality (9). They are contrasted as ‘doing well’ and ‘committing sin’. The essence of the royal law is that wherever there is need there is an obligation to extend the sort of love we lavish on ourselves; the essence of partiality is to select the recipients of our care on some ground other than that they are in need.
b. This is consistent with the Old Testament Scriptures
- (:9) Showing Partiality = Breaking the Law
a. “you are committing sin“
No way to sugarcoat the offense
b. “you are convicted by the law as transgressors“
No way to escape the penalty
- (:10-11) The Law is a Cohesive Unity
a. Any Infraction (whether perceived as small or great in your mind) Renders one Totally Guilty Before God
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point,
he has become guilty of all”
C. Leslie Mitton: The extent of guilt may vary, but the reality of it is the same.
William Barclay: The Jew was very apt to regard the law as a series of detached injunctions. To keep one of these injunctions was to gain credit; to break one was to incur debt. Therefore, a man could add up the ones he kept and subtract the ones he broke, and, as it were emerge with a credit or a debit balance.
Douglas Moo: The law, the will of God for his people, is an indivisible whole, and to violate one part of it is to be at odds with all of it. The unity of the law, with the corollary that it had to be observed in its entirety, was a widely held notion.
b. Each Command was Issued by the Same God
“For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’
also said, ‘Do not commit murder.'”
Thomas Lea: The Bible does not say all sins are equal. Stealing a candy bar is not the same as committing adultery. Thinking about murder is not as bad as committing the act. Every sin does bring guilt. It takes only a single sin to make a person a sinner. No act of obedience can compensate for acts of disobedience.
c. Breaking Any Part of the Law Makes You a Transgressor of the Law
“Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder,
you have become a transgressor of the law.”
Dan McCartney: Because the law is a perfect, complete law, selective obedience of it is disobedience. Thus, the one who keeps the whole law save in one respect is a transgressor. This may seem harsh, but at issue is not the totaling up of merits and demerits, where one demerit then wipes out all the merits, but an attitude toward God’s law. Violation of even one of its tenets bespeaks the attitude of the doer toward the law: it is an attitude of rebellion. The unity of the law is based on the unity of the lawgiver (James 4:12), and therefore “disregard to a single point is disregard to the Lawgiver” (Mayor 1897: 86). James’s application here, of course, is first of all that someone who “loves” wealthy people more than the poor is not truly obeying the command of love. However, the principle is more far-reaching. It undercuts any notion that keeping most of the law most of the time has any value at all, and it should give the lie to the theory that James is advocating the acquisition of merit by obedience.
Craig Blomberg; But why these two examples? One answer looks ahead in James, where in 4:2–4 these ideas return, as people “murder” out of envy and are “adulterous” in their relationship with God. Another option is to look at the Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5:21–30, where these are the two laws out of the Ten Commandments that Jesus picks out to expand. Davids adds that murder was “frequently associated with discrimination against the poor and failure to love the neighbor,” which would fit James’s context well. In any event, his point in vv. 10–11 is to show that neglecting the poor transgresses a central tenet of God’s will.
V. (:12-13) CONCLUDING CAUTION AGAINST A JUDGMENTAL SPIRIT TOWARDS OTHERS
A. (:12) Fundamental Standard of Judgment
“So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.”
C. Leslie Mitton: This is the law which operates, not by outward enforcement, but when the love of Christ inwardly constrains. It is part of the freedom of the children of God, which issues in glad and spontaneous obedience to Him, for the sake of pleasing Him who has done so much for them, and in the glad assurance that what He commands is life’s surest guide to deep and lasting happiness.
Alexander Ross: We shall be judged… not so much by the observance or neglect of this or that external rule as by the degree in which our heart and life have been dominated by the spirit of love.
Curtis Vaughan: Those who make a habit of judging others are inclined to forget that they themselves face a day when God will judge them.
David Nystrom: James thus links profession and action (see v. 12). His appeal to judgment is not foreign to the thought of the New Testament. Here is a strong reminder of the true center of the Christian life—the perfect law that is planted within us. It is in actions of self-sacrifice and love for others that the mettle of our faith is demonstrated. In a long passage (Matt. 25:31–46) Jesus makes the claim that the efficacy of faith is demonstrated in acts of mercy (providing for the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the ill-clad, the sick, and the prisoner). For both Jesus and James, in other words, the law that is the fulcrum of judgment is the law of love for one’s neighbor.
Douglas Moo: God’s gracious acceptance of us does not end our obligation to obey him; it sets it on a new footing. No longer is God’s law a threatening, confining burden. For the will of God now confronts us as a law that gives freedom (see also 1:25) – an obligation that is discharged in the joyful knowledge that God has both ‘liberated’ us from the penalty of sin and given us, in his Spirit, the power to obey his will. To use James’ own description, this law is ‘planted in’ us and has the power to save us (Jas 1:21).
John MacArthur: The gospel is the law of liberty because it frees those who place their faith in Jesus Christ from the bondage, judgment, and punishment of sin and brings them ultimately to eternal freedom and glory. It liberates us sinners from falsehood and deception and from the curses of death and hell. Even more marvelously, it frees us to obey and serve God, to live faithfully and righteously according to His Word and by the power of His indwelling Spirit. And it frees us to follow our Lord willingly out of love rather than reluctantly out of fear. In every sense, it is the “royal law” of God (v.8), the divine and wondrous law of liberty.
Alec Motyer: James has so far taught us two truths about the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. First, because it is the royal law, the law that in a special sense belongs to the king, we would wish to obey it—simply because he would specially desire us to do so. Secondly, because it is a command of the law of God, we must obey it. To dismiss it is to dismiss the facet of the Glory of God which it represents; to leave it to others is to say that it is immaterial whether this part of the Lord’s likeness is seen in me. It comes to us as a revelation of God, and with his authority, therefore we must obey it. But, thirdly, it is part of the law of liberty, and therefore we can obey it. . .
Man is made in the image of God. Our true freedom depends on discovering how we can give expression to our true nature. How can we live so as to be like him? James answers this crucial question by his startling expression, the law of liberty. bringing together the two things which people think of as opposites, law and liberty! But, as we have seen, the law is the nature of God expressed in commandments. When we obey his commands, then we are living like him. We are in the image of God; the law is in the image of God. When we bring these two together, we are ‘being ourselves’; we are truly free. God’s law describes the life of true freedom; obedience opens the door into the free life.
B. (:13a) Fallacy of a Merciless Faith — What Goes Around Comes Around
“For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy.”
Dale Allison: James switches from the theme of love to the theme of mercy (and from the second person to the third person). Given his concerns, there is no practical difference between the two virtues: loving one’s neighbor means showing mercy to the poor, and showing mercy to the poor means loving one’s neighbor. Commentators do indeed sometimes wonder why love here gives way to mercy; but the answer is evident. Biblical tradition associates the two divine and human virtues, love and mercy, which in the Psalms often appear in synonymous parallelism. One recalls that the parable of the good Samaritan opens by asking, with reference to the commandment to love in Lev 19.18, “And who is my neighbor?”, and that it comes to its climax by asserting that “the one who showed mercy” fulfilled the commandment.
Curtis Vaughan: We should be very careful in interpreting this statement. James surely does not mean that by showing mercy to man we procure mercy from God. That would make salvation a matter of human merit and would contradict the whole tenor of Scripture. What James means is that by failing to show compassion on our fellow men we prove ourselves to be utterly destitute of Christian character. Christian people are the children of God. They bear his image; they copy His example. It is therefore impossible for them to fail to share in his compassion, to fail to reflect His spirit of mercy. If one does not show mercy, he thereby shows that he has no vital connection with God.
R. Kent Hughes: A deeper terror in James’ words is this: favoritism is evidence of an unmerciful spirit. The merciful do not ignore the poor in favor of the privileged, but reach out to them. James is saying that a life characterized by discrimination and favoritism indicates a damned soul! This is frightening moral theology from the brother of Jesus.
Of course, there is an upside in his final sentence: “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (v. 13b). A heart full of mercy through faith in the mercy of God “triumphs over [literally boasts against] judgment.” A truly merciful Christian heart looks forward to judgment.
The beauty of James’ practical, moral approach to faith is that it cuts through all the religious words and rhetoric. We can fool each other so easily, simply by learning to quote a few Bible verses and slip in some evangelical clichés. We can learn to give a proper Christian testimony and deliver it with apparent conviction, but that does not mean our faith is real.
James is saying that real faith is not indicated only by avoiding the big no-no’s like murder and adultery, but by how we treat people, especially the needy.
Craig Blomberg: Martin warns against diminishing “the severity of this verse,” because “those who fail to demonstrate a living and consistent faith are in danger of facing harsh judgment at the end, for they live as though ethical issues were of no consequence.”
True believers (the ones showing mercy to others) will find God’s mercy in Christ annuls the condemnation they otherwise would have received. The mercy in view in this verse is thus both human and divine. But unbelievers (the ones not showing mercy at all) can look forward only to their just condemnation.
C. (:13b) Fundamental Principle Regarding the Relationship between Mercy and Judgment
“mercy triumphs over judgment“
C. Leslie Mitton: It may, however, well be that though James has felt it necessary to stress the reality of God’s judgment, yet he feels compelled to conclude with a glad acknowledgement that in the end it is God’s mercy which has the last word: It triumphs over judgment.
Douglas Moo: This can be interpreted as a statement about the relative weight of two attributes of God, the point being that God rejoices in being able to overcome his judgment with his mercy. But it is better to take the mercy as human: our showing mercy triumphs over God’s judgment in that it defends us before God’s judgment seat. As Hort describes the image, ‘κρίσις [judgment] comes so to speak as the accuser before the tribunal of God, and ἐλεος [mercy] stands up fearlessly and as it were defiantly to resist the claim.’ Believers, in themselves, will always deserve God’s judgment: our conformity to the ‘royal law’ is never perfect, as it must be (vv. 10–11). But our merciful attitude and actions will count as evidence of the presence of Christ within us. And it is on the basis of this union with the One who perfectly fulfilled the law for us that we can have confidence for vindication at the judgment.
Dale Allison: One suspects (i) that James adopts the traditional sentiment, that divine mercy trumps divine justice, in order to convey that mercy is what matters most and (ii) that the imitation dei is implicit: if mercy carries the day with God, it should carry the day with human beings.
Dan McCartney: 2:13 serves as a bridge verse to the following section, where James attacks the notion that faith without works can avail anything by reminding the readers that the law’s liberating aspect, the aspect that will lead to eschatological deliverance, is bound up with the requirement and blessing of being merciful, even as God is merciful.
John MacArthur: James brings us to the climax of his great argument. Partiality is inconsistent with the Christian faith because the Christian faith is consistent with the nature of God—and God is wholly impartial. Partiality is inconsistent with the purpose and the plan of God in choosing the poor of this world to be spiritually rich. Partiality is inconsistent with loving your neighbor as yourself. Even if it were the only sin a person ever committed, partiality, like all other sins, shatters the entire law of God and makes a person a transgressor, condemned to hell forever. If you come before the judgment seat of God and He sees that you have lived a life that is merciful to others, He will show mercy to you, because your mercy will testify to your saving faith. It will be true in your case that mercy triumphs over judgment. Contrarily, a person who has lived a life devoid of mercy to others will show himself to be without saving faith.