From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth,
Jr. © 2014
[Page 412]
Chapter 2A:
Overview: How the Themes are
Developed
First Test of Our Faith:
Favoritism Based Upon Economic Status
(2:1-13)
All Visitors to Church Services
Should Be Treated with Respect
(2:1-4)
[Page 413]
ATP text: 1 My comrades, do not hold the
faith of our Lord Jesus—
the Anointed One and the Master of glory--and
treat some better than
others:
2 For if there should come into your religious assembly a man
with
expensive gold rings and in the finest of
apparel, and there should come in at
the same time a poor one in shabby attire, 3
and you pay special respect to the
one wearing the fine clothes and say to
him, "Sit here in one of the best
places," while saying to the poor
person, "You can stand over there," or, "Sit
down on the floor by my footstool," 4
have you not shown unjust partiality
among yourselves by making judgments out of
twisted thinking?
Development of the
argument:
The Social Setting: Individual Status.
The first seven verses—which we divide into
two sections--deal with the respect sure to be shown a wealthy visitor to the
meetings of the church and contrasts it with the lack of consideration
manifested toward the poor person. That
was not inevitable, of course, but given the societal expectations and
assumptions of the day, it was far more likely than not. Far more.
[Page 414] Even
in our own day and age, social snobbery toward those further down the economic
totem pole is far from unknown. No one
would think of telling them not to come, but to encourage them to do so
isn’t likely either.
Sometimes it is assumed that the well-to-do
visitor was a Christian[1] and
perhaps even a member of the church where the scene takes place. There is nothing in the text that requires
such an approach and James’ critique makes equal sense whether the person was a
believer or not and whether a local member or not.
Modern concepts of
“class” did not exist in the ancient world, but it was well aware of how
different individuals fell into distinct niches within the over-all
framework. Carolyn Osick and David L.
Blach provide a useful introduction to the subject that will help us better
understand the environment within which James wrote,[2]
Ancestral ways were best, elites held
tightly to their control of power and economic resources, and the socially
privileged and disadvantaged tended to remain so. Yet the possibility for change and
advancement was present through acquisition of wealth but, more important,
through enhancement of status. As in any
society, the two were not unrelated.
But still, such a possibility for status
enhancement operated within limits. No
matter how wealthy, a freedman, for example, would gain status vis-à-vis other
less wealthy freedmen and perhaps freeborn persons of modest means, but would
never attain elite status—though his son or grandson might. . . .
[Page 415] [T]here was in this pre-industrial agrarian
society no middle class: [i.e.,] an
economically independent majority of moderate to leisured economic levels whose
social status follows from economic status.
This does not mean, however—a conclusion that is sometimes facilely
drawn—that there were no economic levels between wealthy aristocrats and the
abjectly poor, nor does it mean that there were not some impoverished elite
families and some who rose from abject poverty to comfortable means.
On the contrary, there seems to have been a
good amount of variety in economic status in urban life, though the vast
majority must have lived in abject poverty.
The point is that neither class nor status was completely connected
to economic level. Class was
ascribed at birth, and status, a much more elusive concept, was a combination
of birth, wealth, and personal and family achievement. . . .
It is in the middle levels . . . between
the elites and those of no status at all, that most early Christians are to be
located: urban artisans, merchants,
traders, slaves, freedmen and freedwomen. . . .
In other words, wealth
guaranteed one’s recognition of being well-to-do, but it did not automatically
create an aura of “specialness” . . . of personal superiority . . . of
higher status . . . as anything but an act of good fortune in parentage or
investments. For example, brazen
exploitation of others to increase one’s wealth didn’t reduce that new wealth
by one denarius, but it did tarnish your personal status / reputation.[3]
[Page 416] To make things even more complicated
for us, even within the economic elite, there were subdivisions. An estimated 9 percent of the population were
in the local “civic elites” at one point or another. At estimated 1% were of the “imperial elite”
that represented the Roman governing
class,[4]
though segments of that, at any given time, would be scattered throughout the
Empire. Obviously since “
So in a given community, you might well
have members of two very different elites, but all with superiority and
perceived status being claimed over the bulk of the rest of the population—not
to mention varied non-elites who were also perceived as superior
to everyone else. Think of your traders
and artisans and others with recognized special skills.
In such a rigid
hierarchical society, the reception of those crossing a wide variety of
societal lines into a joint fellowship represented a dramatic break from
societal custom. The problems around the
Lord’s Supper becoming either a feast or an embarrassment to those lacking
resources (1 Corinthians
We are not informed where
on the social totem pole the wealthy individual described by James actually
stood. However what is described
are the visible accoutrements of wealth that would assure everyone that
he belonged toward the upper part of the spectrum: the type of quality clothing and multiple
hand ornaments—note the plural (in many translations) of “rings” and, hence,
that he was far beyond having merely one.
Note also the fact that they were all of “gold” and nothing
inferior.
[Page 417] Today
we might express the same idea by saying that “he acted and dressed like a
Madison Avenue executive and had all the electronic ‘toys’ such folk routinely
carry with them.” It doesn’t tell us exactly
where he stands in the socioeconomic totem pole, but that it is still “up
there” compared to us. This ancient
equivalent clearly fell into a certain societal “niche” and was treated on that
basis—not on the basis of himself,[5]
either spiritually or from the standpoint of personal earthly accomplishments. He looked like he belonged in a certain
category and there he stayed—period.
Our reference to a “Madison Avenue
executive” appearance is an especially useful comparison since the vast bulk of
those with that kind of appearance are neither from
Inevitably, the Jews would imitate foreign
fashions of costume along with other foreign customs; witness, for example, the
sartorial vocabulary of the Talmud, especially Shabbath (120a), where a
full list of articles is given with their Greek name. The Talmud tells us that the stola
that a Jew wore was a long mantle of fine material girded under the breast,
striped, often with gold embroidery, and very costly, priced at one hundred
minae (Shabbath, 128a). . . .
From the Romans, too, the Jews probably copied the wearing and renting
of rings, a symbol of social status or ambition, especially for the newly
rich.
[Page 418]
The Social Setting: Group Status.
The class background of the congregation
itself is not stated, but one would assume a cross-section of those further
down the societal recognition ladder.
Deference and going out of one’s way was both expected and--recognizing
they were in the presence of their “betters”--normally given.
However, if someone less blessed in things
of this world than these lower echelon individuals came in, well—he would be
let in. But in their own way,
even they might feel more than a touch of snobbery toward him or her. They might not have much, they might not have
much in the way of status and recognition, but they still had more than
this stranger did.
The social reality in that age virtually
guaranteed such a disparity in attention and action. Hence the author critiques the attitude on
grounds that would apply to everyone regardless of where they might
stand in that societal totem pole, both “below” some and “above” most
others. He does this by providing examples
so extreme of both the poor man and the rich that virtually anyone could see it
was blatantly wrong.
[Page 419] It should be remembered that the
issue here is not the good or evil of either member or visitor. By the text’s very silence, that is laid
aside as an irrelevancy to what James wants to talk about.[7] Instead the issue is how Christians should
react to them in their religious assembly, especially when both were in the
assembly at the same time.
Analysis of the
text.
James begins by rebuking the idea of
“hold(ing) the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” with snobbery (2:1). Retaining the KJV’s traditional “faith of” is
common (ASV, ATP, BBE, NKJV,
“Faith in” makes it clear that the subject
is faith placed in a particular person (Christ); “faith of” permits it to be
used of that which is taught by that Person and that which was
manifested by that person in His behavior.
The distinction means little in “real world” terms: If faith “in” the person of Christ requires
rejecting social snobbery then embracing the faith system of His
requires rejecting such ill-treatment as well.
In other words, the two approaches
ultimately overlap into a unity rather than a rigid distinction. (Cf. the debate about “doctrine of Christ” in
2 John 9 being the doctrine taught by or the doctrine about
Christ. The two concepts ultimately have
at least a major overlap, making the division into two strictly
alternative scenarios an unviable proposition.)
[Page 420] The
object of that faith is “our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is far from uncommon to use the term
“Jesus Christ” as if it were all part of the formal name, when only “Jesus”
actually is. Sometimes even the term
“Lord” may be unnoticedly used as if it were part as well. Actually “Lord” refers to His position of
authority and position—over His people in particular[8] and,
ultimately, over the entire creation.
Since it is His people who are being written to in an effort to convince
them to reform their behavior and since it is only they who openly embrace His
will, it is His acknowledged authority over them that is being invoked.
As if that were not enough, James also
alludes to the fact that He is the “Christ,” the Anointed, prophesied one of
old—the Messiah.[9] The Jewish people had long been looking
forward to His coming. Since Christians
acknowledge, in Jesus, that He had come, their willingness to act upon
His demands would be a practical test of how deep that faith actually went.
Invoking the description of Him as being
“of glory” or (with the translator’s addition, to show the meaning) “the Lord
of glory,” may be explicitly invoking the Old Testament description of Deity as
glorious in His nature and dealings with the human species--either as a title of
Jesus or simply as an allusive supernatural appellation to remind them just how
important a figure their Jesus actually is.[10] It reinforces the absolute need to obey Him
rather than find an excuse not to.
[Page 421] Having
invoked the “ultimate authority” that can be brought to bear, James implicitly
uses the concept of pleasing Him as a reason for them to change their
behavior and attitude toward the upper echelon.
Their inclination to act “with partiality” naturally suggests “with an
attitude of personal favoritism” (NASB); “treat some people better than others”
(ATP).
But there is actually little “personal”
about it. James is discussing what
they are—their earthly economic status—not the fact that they are a friend or
an important person. Any person
of such a status would be given special treatment and that actually made it a
more significant reality than purely personal favoritism. That could ultimately be worked
around, but a system in which every person of that particular type was
treated with that special attention indicated a problem that was not going to
disappear without conscious attention of one and all.
Hence James addresses the congregational
members of the various churches who receive his letter and implores that they
not engage in class favoritism in their assemblies together. Note that, even though neither the term
“church” is not invoked, he clearly has in mind just such a setting. This is a fine example of necessary
inference: the text simply makes no
sense without it.
James describes the church visitor as one
of considerable status as manifested in wearing “gold rings” and “fine
apparel.” (2:2). The various
translations vary as to whether it is “gold ring” singular or “gold rings” plural. If we accept the latter approach it magnifies
their status that much more. They did
not have modern technological toys to [Page 422] display their wealth back then, but the
conspicuous display of gold served that purpose quite well. As did the quality of their clothing.
The poorer person is identified several
ways. First by the very term “poor” to
describe him. A Greek term is used
indicating that he is not merely poor, but very poor, among those whose
survival was most dicey.[11] To use the modern expression, “at the bottom
of the hay stack.”
You can judge this by his attire. Not just the lack of gold ornamentation but
clothing that is clearly far from the best.
Our contemporary translations sometimes depict it as unclean garments
(“filthy,” NKJV; “dirty,” BBE, ISV, NASB).
One commentator suggests the translation “wretched” to describe their
inadequacy.[12]
With the odor of insult that would easily
convey, it is hard to imagine even the poorest person wearing such to a
religious service—Christian or pagan--unless they had just left work or were in
such dire circumstances that made it unavoidable. After all, even the poorest normally try to
stay clean even if the practicalities of the situation make it primarily for
special occasions.
On the other hand, if this man is poor
enough, even that luxury may be denied him.
Blomberg and Kamell speculate that this person might well have been
reduced to only one pair of outer wear.
And that would make it extremely easy for it to be visibly unclean as
well.[13] Not to mention the problem of personal odor
that might well accompany the attire under such circumstances.[14]
In such a situation, even offering the
person the opportunity to set on the floor next to you might be regarded as
extraordinarily generous.[15] And in that context it would
be—but clearly not generous enough. As
one commentator rightly observes, “James is not making it easy for his
readers.”[16]
[Page 423] He is
even going to make it an understandable behavior that needs to be
altered. One that will tempt even many
of the poorer themselves to be sympathetic—though not happy--at what is
happening.
Other translations preserve the possibility
of the attire being a step or so above this extreme. Indeed, renderings along the line of
“worn-out clothes” (CEV) and “shabby clothing” (ESV, NIV, RSV,
The late twentieth century practice of
selling clothes at high prices and name brands that look worn out and
shabby would have totally flabbergasted the minds of ancient poor and rich
alike as being nothing less than utterly insane. To them you looked poor if you were
poor; there was no element of snobbish “make believe” to it. They knew the reality.
Regardless of how extreme one draws their
situation, this attire would still make them visibly “inferior” to the
wealthier visitors. How should they be
treated when both types arrived at the same time or when either arrived on
their own? Our text tells us that the
visibly prosperous were given a seat while the poorer might be offered a choice
between standing (in a corner?) or sitting on the floor next to someone’s
footstool (1:3). The fact that there
was a seat available to give to the prosperous individual shows either:
That space was available but no one thought
the poorer elements were worthy of such courtesy.
[Page 424] Or
that someone gave up their own seating for them—making the contrast in
treatment even more extreme.
Either way the “social betters” got the
recognition and the “lower class” was permitted—well, to stay. They at least wouldn’t be cast out. Of course if you make them feel uncomfortable
enough they might not bother to come back either. Formal oppression is not required to chase
people away; just enough disrespect and discourtesy.
To give a more modern example. John Wesley founded the
One historian records how in 1846 Will
Booth, who ultimately founded the Salvation Army, gathered a group of the
poorer to attend services with him and the reaction of the Methodist minister,[17]
To his dismay the Rev. Dunn saw that young Booth was actually ushering
his charges, none of whose clothes would have raised five shillings in his own
pawnshop, into the very best seats: pewholders’ seats, facing the pulpit, whose
occupants piled the collection-plate with glinting silver.
This was unprecedented, for the poor, if they came to chapel, entered
by another door, to be segregated on benches without backs or cushions, behind
a partition which screened off the pulpit. Here, though the service was audible,
they could not see – nor could they be seen.
[Page 425] Today,
of course, things are done far more discretely and less brazenly. But we moderns are just as capable of giving
a cool, aloof, and distant reception that conveys the impression, “Wouldn’t you
really prefer to be somewhere else?”
For some, its because they don’t have the foggiest idea how else to act
friendly and make folk welcome. (I’ve
worshipped at such places.)
For others, you are simply “different” and
they have no interest in accommodating themselves. Yet for churches in some neighborhoods, is
there a doubt the brazenly different reception patterns James’ pictures, would still
find a modern equivalent? Enthusiastic
embracing or cool, distancing restraint and stand-offness?
What those acting this way were doing is
censured under two headings (2:4):
First, they had “shown partiality among
yourselves.” They were making
preferences upon the basis of naked economics and not upon the basis of
behavior, of character, and of actions.
The latter show what you really are; your attire and “class” only
exhibit what you have the money to claim to be.
The second problem was that such behavior
made them “become judges with evil thoughts.”
In other words, the problem wasn’t really with the poor and—in the
current context—the problem wasn’t even with the well to do who had come to
visit. The problem was with the members
and how their minds reasoned. There
was something fundamentally wrong with how they were making their value
judgements on such matters. (Also see
the Problem Texts chapter.)
A caution:
You will notice that James in no way encourages the prosperous to
be treated shabbily. Then one would be
guilty of the same sin being committed against the [Page 426] poor—but in reverse. What was being sought was honesty and purity
of the standards being applied. None
being favored and none being censured without cause.
In this short section James turns upside
down the entire core “value” system of Gentile society—there was a fundamental
error at its heart. Patrick J.
Hartin argues the matter this way, “James reverses the honor / shame code that
is the foundation for Greco-Roman society of the day. In that world honor was given above all to
the patrons, the rich and the powerful. Now in God’s society it is the poor to whom
honor is to be shown.”[18]
Likewise today when we challenge the
secular world’s dominant, politically imposed view that all sexual behaviors
are morally neutral and equivalent and not to be censured in any manner (usually
with the caveat of “willingness” being involved and not being with a minor), we
are opposing a view almost as pervasive for it permits anything and
everything—virtually, since the limitations can easily be undermined by
self-serving caveats.
Yet opposition in both cases was essential
to have God’s people the kind of chosen elect that He wished them to be. It was not a denial of the this world
advantages, but an effort to seek next world approval, since our tenure in the
here and now is always shorter than our duration in the unseen world that is
yet future.
Unfortunately what James has been seeking
has been twisted into something different:
he wished that “God’s society” (i.e., the fellowship of God’s
people) to have this mind frame. He
was not laying down a political reform agenda as his words have often been
twisted into. With the expansion of
the borders of God’s spiritual kingdom [Page 427] throughout the world, this would have an
inevitable “spill over” effect on the wider society, but it would be the indirect
result rather than the targeted goal adequate to itself. If one can get God’s own people to treat each
right is that not sufficient “modern miracle” for any age?
Furthermore, James’ message is not that the
well to do should be ridiculed or despised or hated or destroyed, but that the
kind of treatment we give them is proper toward the poorer classes as
well. Nor is it an implicit message to
treat the well to do disrespectfully.
The poor were already being treated that way; changing the target to the
wealthier would be to commit the same sin—but against the reverse
target. What his point really is is to
strive to treat one and all fairly and equitably. And, yes, that can be as draconian a
difficulty in our age as in theirs.
Common Sense Cries Out
That the Wrong People
Are Being Given Preference
(2:5-7)
[Page 428]
ATP text: 5 Pay attention, my beloved
comrades: Has God not also
chosen the poor in things of this world to
be abundant in faith and to have a
share in the kingdom which He promised to
everyone who loves Him? 6 But
you have shared in mistreating the
poor. Is it not the rich who take advant-
age of you and forcibly drag you before the
courts? 7 Do they not defame
and insult that splendid name by which you
are called?
Development of the
argument:
The kind of behavior he describes appears
to have been quite common. Otherwise we
would have expected some specific “limiting language” to rein it in. In other words he deals with this because he
recognizes that it will represent a situation virtually everywhere the church exists.
What Christians were
forgetting was that God had the poor especially in His mind in spite of their
lack of earthly status. In the current
life He offered them the opportunity to be “rich in faith [ATP: abundant in faith]” (2:5) rather than wealth. It did not require status, inherited
position, or estates to be such. It
required a commitment of the heart and soul.
Something that was clearly within their limited earthly resources. God didn’t demand of them what they did not
have but a resource they could develop.
[Page 429] This commitment James characterizes
as “love (for) Him” and promises that they will be “heirs of the kingdom” which
Christ promised to people like them—people who would “love Him.” He turns the world’s standards upside
down. The wealthy are to be imitated
because they have everything? No, the
righteous poor are to be imitated because they have everything
that is of abiding importance--the kind of “love (for Him)” that makes one
worthy of an esteemed place in the next world.
The Grand Reversal of Position:
not so much the poor in place of the prosperous and rich, but the
spiritually and morally upright in place of the unconcerned and dissolute.
James hurls a general
indictment at his Christian readers / listeners: “You have dishonored the poor man”
(2:6a). They had assimilated the biases
of their social “betters” and adopted them as their own—even though they had
little or nothing to share with them in the first place! Indeed, they would have been lucky to escape
contempt in their eyes as well.
“Dishonored:” That certainly conveys the idea of the root of
the problem being within us rather than them. We have “insulted” them and some translations
prefer that as the rendering (NIV) or select the equally condemnatory, “you
show no respect to poor people” (God’s Word).
The result of such behavior is selected as the translation by the
English Standard Version, “You have humiliated the man who is poor.” He has done you no wrong, but to use the
modern idiom, “you have rubbed his face in the mud.”
If judging by a
spiritual standard is not sufficient to reveal the inadequacies of the wealthy,
then look at it from the temporal standpoint.
Their money and influence is certainly nice. Their ability to influence events and not to
have to worry about much that [Page 430]
preoccupy others is not to be dismissed either. But can we go much further than this in
speaking kind words and look upon them as exemplary solely because of their
status?
Why should the wealthy be kowtowed
to? Was not the vast bulk of
contemporary oppression Christians were receiving the result of the actions of
the rich (2:6-7)? Today we would
probably express it: What have they
actually done for you? Or: What evil haven’t they done to
you?
The actual nature of the oppression is left
unstated, perhaps because James is not concerned with the exact form of
it, as with its actual existence.
Injustice has a thousand faces that only share the name in common. Whether it’s a cobra that bites you or some
other poisonous snake, you are equally dead.
Similarly you are being treated unjustly even if the specific excuse may
vary.
Commentators often assume that the
oppressions grow out of a major shift in economic affairs in the geographic
The wording of verse 7 seems to imply that
the indictment refers not just to the railroading the less powerful are always
in danger of encountering, but explicit religious hostility as well: “Blasphem(ing) that noble name by which you
are called” certainly indicates that their religion was being assaulted as
well. This could work two ways: since you are worthy of contempt because of
your poverty, your religion must be worthy of derision as well . . . or since
your religion is so unworthy of respect why is it any surprise that everything
else about you is the same?
[Page 431] The description
of the rich as those who “drag you into the courts” (2:6) applies to the fact
that the government rarely acted directly against individuals because of their
beliefs. Except during sporadic bursts
of official persecution, the government relied upon private individuals to
lodge accusations before the courts.
Those with the most opportunity for such mischief--and the economic
resources to back it up--were the well-to-do.
But the direct reference is almost
certainly to alleged violation of agreements or contracts or the open
commission of supposedly criminal acts. Even
in such cases it was you versus your accusers and it would rarely be the
government actually prosecuting you.
Hence it would be up to your accusers to be sure the accused show
up. You are dirt poor and they have the
money to hire thugs to bring you in: “drag
you into the courts” surely happened many a time—quite literally.
Unjustified Preference
Violates God’s Law of Love
(2:8-11)
[Page 432]
ATP text: 8 If you live by the royal law
found in Scripture which says,
"You shall love your neighbor as
yourself," you do excellently. 9
However if
you treat some better than others, you
commit sin, and are convicted by the
law as violators: 10 For whoever obeys the entire
law--yet fails to do so in
some one specific matter--is guilty of
violating the entire Divine code. 11
To
illustrate:
the same one who instructed, "Never commit adultery," also
required, "Never murder." Now if you avoid adultery entirely, but
commit
murder, you still have become a
transgressor of what law demands.
Development of the
argument:
Believers had a very specific reason to
shun such behavior: they of all people
knew the obligation to love others (2:8-9).
James specified that this commandment was “according to the Scripture,”
i.e., it was found in the Scriptures.
Notice that they accepted the authority of
the written word and because they accepted that Divine revelation was embedded
in written form, a vital precedent was set for what came through the
apostles and prophets of Christianity:
As a result of this, the intentional publication and circulation of
the gospels and epistles from those regarded as inspired was inevitable. The idea of an authoritative Divine Word
existing permanently [Page 433] in a
non-written form flew in the face of the pattern they had come to anticipate
from the Old Testament. How could their
prophets act any differently in committing the revelation to written form?
Exalt “love” as highly
as one might, just what is love?
The very text James chooses to quote on the subject tells us what is at its
core, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The standard should be how we treat
ourselves. And unless one is one of
those strange folk who go around and engage in self-flagellation with a whip,
that is a high standard in itself.
Oddly enough, we may
find here the reason for the excess venom some show toward others: they are reflecting the attitude of deeply
rooted self-hatred. In their cases they
are “Hating their neighbor just as themselves.”
In such cases of self-loathing, the person must work just as much on
getting their self-attitude right as that expressed toward others.
There is no reason to mention this explicitly
for most folk know full well that self-love comes naturally—at least for the
bulk of people For example: you are hungry, you want to eat and not
starve. The challenge arises in coming
to accept that others have legitimate needs that are just as important as your
own and theirs need to be met as well.
Love excludes partiality,
argues James (2:8-9). Hence if one
practices such, one is guilty of “sin” and is “convicted by the law as
transgressors.” We naturally think of
“convictions” as something that occurs after a trial, but here our fellow man
is not judging us—the law itself is judging us. We can rationalize our behavior away, but the
condemnation from the law still exists whether we are willing to accept
its verdict or not.
[Page 434] Yet it would be easy to
rationalize one’s way around this duty--if not the principle, at least this application
of it. (Self-serving human ingenuity
knows no end!) Hence James reminds them
that the violation of one part of divine law results in just as much
condemnation as violating any other part (
He selects “adultery” and “murder,” two very different acts[20]—except
when one leads to the other! A one could
get into a lengthy debate between the adulterer and the murderer as to who has
done the “worst evil.” A delightful way
to avoid the sense of personal responsibility, but utterly irrelevant. Either makes one “a transgressor of
the law [ATP: transgressor of what law
demands]” (
These are blatant acts: you
don’t get in someone else’s bed without knowing you have no business there; you
don’t bludgeon someone’s brains out without knowledge that you really wish them
dead . . . or as close to it as you can get without crossing the line.
Many things that are said and done, one can quibble about—a warning
sign in itself, actually. But these acts
are so blatant, that the one who respects God at all has no way to hide the
guilt from himself.
One is a “transgressor” because of what one has done and it is
true in both cases. The unspoken
logic, of course, is that the evils James has been pointing out in their
attitudes and practice are also part of that Divine law that is being
ignored and violated. They don’t leave
blood on your hands. They don’t betray
your sacred obligation to your spouse.
But they are still to be taken with the seriousness they fully
deserve.
So the person who is prejudicial toward one class of society has not
committed an act that he or she regards as particularly important—probably
nothing more than the “normal way of acting in polite society.” But that no way changes the fact that the act
is inherently sinful. No veneer of
rationalizations and justifications in regard to societal “custom” will
accomplish that.
[Page 435] This is not to say that adultery or
killing (the two specific examples cited in verse 11) do not have greater consequences
than not manifesting proper respect toward all visitors to church worship. The point is that since the principles of Divine
law prohibited all three forms of conduct, one would still be condemned even if
one had a spotless record concerning the other matters.
By doing this, James assails the concept of
“bookkeeper morality” in which one feels free to violate one’s moral concepts
on a specific subject because the remainder of life is so “outstanding.” The irony?
The self-perceived general good character, on the psychological level at
least, becomes precedent for the behavior that compromises that good
character.
James also strikes a
blow at the closely related concept that because we are obeying some
commandment of God, it is all right to violate some other commandment. After all, it is “necessary” to do so in
order to make sure that the preferred commandment is carried out and obeyed.
Wouldn’t burning down
the distilleries assure that drunkenness would be eliminated—or at least
drastically reduced? Kill enough
abortionists—who commit “legal” genocide against the human species—and you may
or may not eliminate all abortion, but you are surely going to drastically
reduce the number! Occasionally someone
will make an effort at “terminating” some particular abortionist; if we studied
the Prohibition movement closely, no doubt we’d pop up with at least a case or
two of distilleries “mysteriously” being destroyed.
[Page 436] It’s the way people are when their
“idealism” outruns their common sense and the obligation to respect the remainder
f God’s law as well: eliminate a problem
or evil at all costs. And we do mean all. Paul would have thought adversely of such an
idea: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound?” (Romans 6:1) “What then? Shall
we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! (Romans 6:15). Or, as God’s Word renders the last two words,
“That’s unthinkable!”
Oddly enough we have a
specific example of how obeying one commandment—or thinking we do—can drive out
all compunctions of common decency and integrity and obedience to the other
commandments . . . commandments that
have to be driven over into the dirt to get our way. An intriguing case can be made that we find this
happening in the case of the judicial murder of Jesus![21]
All of us have favourite commands that we
believe we keep, and particular sins which we hate. The high priests Annas and
Caiaphas had one pet commandment, the third, "You shall not misuse the
name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guilty who misuses
his name" (Exodus 20:7). They were
determined to nail Christ to the cross on the strength of that broken
commandment.
They claimed that Jesus of
I would not be so
willing to concede that favoritism even toward the Third Commandment played any
genuine role in their decision. I am
inclined to think of it as simply “proof texting” of the worst kind—finding a
scripture that can be bent to fit whatever we are criticizing. But perhaps I judge them too harshly, for
even the evil men of society often think they are serving some unquestionable
good that justifies their excesses.
Divine Judgment on Our Behavior
Is Inevitable
(2:12-13)
ATP text: 12 Therefore always speak and act
as those who will be
judged by liberty’s law. 13 Judgment is without leniency to
the one who has
given no mercy. In God’s sight mercy triumphs over deserved condem-
nation.
[Page 438]
Development of the
argument:
The commandment to “speak” and “act” as
one’s facing judgment “by the law of liberty” carries with it the inherent idea
of ongoing behavior. Of what
value is an erratic course?
Both “speak” and “act” are in a Greek tense
that stresses the continuing nature of these actions: “be constantly speaking,” “always be
acting.” And the Greek text puts even
more emphasis on the need for Christians to regulate their conduct with an eye
on the judgment to come; literally rendered, it says, “Speak in such a manner
and act in such a manner as those who are about to be judged by the law
of liberty.”[22]
To youth, death is a
fable for other people. Until age or
tragedy catches up with them and they discover it applies to one and all. Any person of any age can discover that
reality at any hour of the day or night.
Hence James’ caution that they should remember that they “are about
to be judged by the law of liberty.”
[Page 439] To separate what we say (speak) and
how we behave (act) would be like owning an automobile that runs only half the
time. It wouldn’t do much good, would
it? Hence the ISV is wise when it
inserts what is implicit, “You must make it your habit to speak and act
like people who are going to be judged by the law of liberty” (or, as in the
ATP, “Therefore always.”)
A “law of liberty
[ATP: liberty’s law]” (
Yet law can codify liberties too, to
either create them or to assure that their existence are recognized. In the latter sense, think of the Bill of
Rights, the first ten amendments to the
In the current
context, “law of liberty” stresses the fact that Divine law has liberated us
from the confines of human class prejudice—or at least should. (Being the law of love [verse 8], it
liberated us from anything else that stands in the way of united service to
God.) Such it is intended to do. It sets us free to recognize others not on
the basis of what element of society they come from but on the basis of what
they are and how they act.
The “judgment” that is
coming will be judgment “by the law of liberty.” (
[Page 440] Hence its Divinely revealed
provisions collectively constitute an authoritative body of “law.” It was set up this way so we can know just
what is expected and what is condemned, so we aren’t functioning
in a knowledge vacuum.
And to make sure that
it isn’t regarded as mere guess work and easily ignored provisions, we are
reminded that it comes with “judgment” attached: Whether you violate it or adhere loyally to
it, you face a Divine evaluation of your choices. Otherwise the words of “law” become but
hollow pleas and admonitions.
A time of accountability is required to
raise law above what can be casually dismissed.
Our “values free society” abhors such a concept for the standards of
behavior revealed in Divine law threatens its vain claim to “liberate” us from
all inhibitions and restraints. In them
are amply fulfilled—yet again—the words of 2 Peter
And with the creative debasement of the
meaning of the
But Divine “judgment” ultimately comes
however much rebellious humankind dismisses the very right or power of God to
stigmatize any activity pleasant to their hearts as evil and sin. It is as vain to run from that censure as to
run from death. Both “judgment” and
death always win when all is said and done.
[Page 441] The kicking off point in verse 1 was
favoritism for the richer elements of society.
It is in that light that the final words of the section should be
interpreted--though having a much wider application as well, of course: “For judgment is without mercy to the one who
has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over
judgment.”
In effect, James is
saying: “You’ve shown no mercy in your
treatment of ‘lesser’ people. How is the
Ultimate Holy One going to evaluate you who, really, is lower than that
lowest one? On a moral and spiritual
level you are at least no better that he is on a social and temporal
one. You’ve shown how you think ‘lesser’
folk should be treated. So what
treatment do you now deserve?” A
very scary train of thought that he’s set in motion.
Depending
upon the degree of rigidity in a given society, the demand that we grant
“mercy” to others can be a difficult principle to embrace! It destroys the social conceits of the
day. Yet without mercy where would even
the more prestigious individual who is a Christian actually be—the one who, in
earthly terms, has no need to “cut slack” for anyone? In “this world” terms, perhaps he gains
nothing; but in “next world” terms the opposite is the case.
It has been suggested, with considerable
validity, that the ultimate example of judgment yielding to mercy is found in
the cross, that opened the door to forgiveness for all of us—rich and poorer
alike,[23]
[Page 442]
The cross of Christ is not the
triumph of justice—
The cross is where we do not get
what we deserve. The cross is where
judgment is passed over in favor of forgiveness so that the whole world might
be reconciled. The cross is where
justice is reinterpreted by mercy in order to be redefined as reconciliation. .
. . The cross is the place where “mercy
triumphs over judgment” (James
If that is so for you
and I, should we not be equally willing to meet the far, far lesser demand of
treating others with restraint and kindness?
Second Test of Our Faith:
Relying on Convictions Alone to Save Us
Rather Than the Necessity of Living By Them
(2:14-26)
[Page 443]
The Example of Wishing Well for the Destitute
But Doing Nothing to Help Them
(2:14-17)
ATP text: 14 What does it benefit, my
spiritual comrades, if someone
insists “I have faith,” even though there
are no actions to accompany it? Can
such “faith” save? 15 If a brother or sister is
without adequate clothing and
lacks daily food 16 and one of
you says to them, "I wish you well; may you be
clothed and have plenty to eat!" but
you do not provide them the things
which are essential for the body’s welfare,
what does it benefit? 17 Thus
intellectual commitment standing alone, if
it does not have actions to mani-
fest it, is dead.
Development of the
argument:
[Page 444]
In the last section of the chapter, the
emphasis shifts to the need to carry out in actual behavior the convictions
that one holds intellectually. James
insists that faith is not merely something believed in the mind, but something that
must mold our relationships and behavior toward others as well.[24] The specific example used to illustrate the
point is that of the brother or sister who “is naked and destitute of daily
food [ATP: is without adequate clothing
and lacks daily food]” and the folly of merely telling them that one hoped that
their problems would soon be resolved (
The underlying argument, however, touches
upon a wide variety of other matters as well—it has an obvious application to
the theme of inequitable treatment of visitors in whatever form it takes: if you know this problem exists, you have an
obligation to do something about it.
Hence both illustrate that faith must consist of both right belief and
right behavior.
As humans we develop
our sets of preferences: Some love the
biggest church they can find; others are most comfortable in places of under a
100 or so maximum in attendance. Some
feel most comfortable in a very formalistic approach to worship in which the
routine comes preprinted and recycled every certain period of time. Others feel most at home with a minimally
structured service which will routinely differ from one Sunday to another. None of these is inherently wrong, though all
can be abused into something undesirable.
[Page 445] In James’ situation the alternatives
regard two behavioral choices that would exist within any size
congregational body: an intellectualized
faith in which what we know is all that is required to prove we have
faith . . . versus the faith that finds proof of its existence by what we do
in our interactions with others. James
throws out the blunt—and startling—challenge of whether that kind of “faith”
can really save anyone (1:14).
Its rather like having a lifesaving vaccine
in our laboratory vials and being so proud of ourselves and our achievement—but
never going out and actually using the vaccine. Of what benefit would it be?
To illustrate he
provides an extreme case. Here we have a
brother or sister who “is naked” (
Far more likely he means a person who is virtually
in that situation: one who has extremely
worn out garments (“ill-clad,” RSV, or “poorly clad,”
We have something similar to the kind of
situation depicted in the judgment scene in Matthew 25:36: “I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick
and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” God’s Word translation has it, “I needed
clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.”
[Page 446] The
description of naked might also be applied to a person with an inner garment
on—such as Peter while fishing in John 21:7.[26] But this would hardly be a way a person would
appear in a public setting of town or at a place of public worship. Hence the run down and worn out
interpretation makes the greatest sense.
On the other hand—since James is determined
to make this as powerful a case as he can, perhaps he even has in mind such an
extreme case as would escape public censure—think of the man on the Jericho
road who was robbed and stripped naked (Luke 10:30). If he had managed to stumble into a public
place there would have shock but not outrage because of the circumstances.
Or perhaps he flat doesn’t care and simply
wants to use as vivid a word picture as he can conjure up and isn’t worried at
all about in what circumstances it might occur.
His only concern is to shatter the illusions of his readers. Having depicted them without anything at all,
he throws out the challenge: How are you
going to react. Remember that both the
hunger and the nakedness are inescapably immediate concerns,[27] not
theoretical ones. They are not ones that
may occur—somewhere, sometime—they are something happening right in front of
them.
Also note that these folk do not seem to be
depicted as if strangers; they are depicted as if members of the congregation
and those that the observers have come in contact with before. So determined are these folk to separate
mental belief from living belief, the overtone of the argument would be,
“Would even this extreme of personal collapse move you to action? Whatever distress they have had before, now
it has reached catastrophic level!”
[Page 447] Their second problem is being
“destitute of daily food” (
It has been estimated that as much as 10%
of the population in any given place at any given time could be either
extremely sick (with survival uncertain) or barely surviving on their available
food.[28] (Also see the Problem Texts chapter for
further comments on both the nakedness and the lack of food.)
The New Testament
often uses “male” language to accommodate both genders—think the use of
“brother” in particular. Here James goes
out of the way to specify both genders.
The reason may be that he is dealing with such extreme excuse makers that
they would be far from unlikely to use the lack of explicitly female
language to at least escape from that particular criticism.
In the “real world,” of course, women with
no local male surviving kin to assist them, were particularly vulnerable to
economic destruction due to lack of economic opportunities and were easily
thrust into even rockier economic distress than males.[29] Extreme poverty is an equal opportunity
destroyer and James was not going to let his readers escape that reality.
Faced with such
individuals, the person who thinks inner conviction is enough has two
choices: do something to help or wash
their hands of it. He does the latter—but,
politely, notice, politely, as he extends his best wishes: “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled” (
[Page 448] This
sounds more than expressing best wishes; in a first century Jewish setting it
echoes like a kind of blessing / prayer that things work out well for
them. (Scot McKnight observes that “this
may be over-interpretation but, if so, not by much. . . .”)[30] And having prayed for their well being, what
does the person actually do—nothing!
Now this is toward a “brother or sister,”
not John or Jane Q. Nobody who he would not be expected to have as much
interest in. This is kin,
spiritual kin. This would be considered
as despicable behavior toward physical brothers and sisters. Does it become virtuous because these are
“just” spiritual relatives?
James doesn’t choose this line of
attack—though the implication could hardly be avoided. He hits on the utilitarian aspect instead: “What does it profit [ATP: what does it benefit]?” (
And because it has accomplished
nothing, if all they can claim is faith, standing alone, then, yes, I suppose,
he does, in a sense, have faith.
But it is “dead” faith, not a living faith (
Since Christianity is rooted in faith in
God and Christ, James’ criticism is little short of denying that one has faith
at all. At the absolute minimum it means
that one does not have meaningful faith.
And if that is lacking, how can they truly be counted among the
saved? Or, to be kinder, remain among
the saved?
[Page 449] Some
have found in the example a case of dark humor.[31] After all, the situation is inherently
absurd--to act as if the words alone would be enough to satisfy God. Yet whenever we try to rationalize our
way around doing what we know is right, aren’t we inadvertently mocking our own
pretense at religious dedication?
Only the Foolish Think They Can Successfully
Separate God Ordained Behavior
From Faith in God
(2:18-20)
ATP text: 18 But someone will object,
"You have faith but I have
works in its
place." I respond: Show me your commitment without your
actions, and I will show you my convictions
through my actions. 19 You
believe that there is only one God. You do admirably in believing this. On
the other hand, even the demons
believe--and tremble with fear! 20 Do
you
want to be shown further evidence, O
foolish person, that convictions without
expression in behavior is devoid of all
life?
[Page 450]
Development of
argument:
(For more on
James presents an objection that must have
been heard many times as one individual argued in behalf of faith and another
tried to argue for a different path to salvation through works in its
place. The essence of his argument is
that it simply can’t be done; they can’t be separated.
James doesn’t quite come out and challenge
the salvation of those who desire to rely upon the faith element alone. But he immediately argues that, “You believe
that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” (2:19). But if all one has is demonic style faith,
isn’t that really saying you don’t have genuine faith at all—“genuine”
in the sense of what faith is supposed to be? (Can a more sarcastic[32] or
ironical[33]
praise be given?)
Obviously that demonic level of faith is not belief that
merits praise. It is a “faith” that only
produces horror at one’s guilt, perhaps, and how one is utterly deserving of
Divine retribution. Think in terms of
the common remorse reaction to the colonial American preacher’s famous sermon,
“A sinner in the hands of an angry God.”
[Page 451] It is
not the faith of a person forgiven—for that should produce joy or, at least,
tranquility. It is the faith of a person
who wants to stand forgiven and not do anything to merit it beyond
being there.
It is the faith of a person so disturbed at
the thought of deserved guilt that he “trembles,” rather than going any
further. And thinks that will be quite
enough. He “fears God,” does he not?
The kind of person who never moves on to
full obedience so he or she can rejoice in God because of the salvation that has
been accomplished. “Trembles” is an
intense word: “The word ‘tremble’ means
more than just slight shuddering; it refers to uncontainable, uncontrollable,
violent shaking from extreme fear.”[34] In the LXX it is found, among other places,
in Job 14:15, where NETS renders it:
“And a spirit came upon my face, and my hair and flesh quivered” or as
the Orthodox Study Bible prefers it, “And my hair and flesh shook with
fear.” Our modern idiom for this would
likely be “the hair standing on end.”
It’s hardly likely to literally happen; but we all know what it means.[35]
Oh, they accept faith intellectually but
they aren’t about do one single thing to change.[36] It’s rather like folk today who think because
they are theists they must be acceptable to God; surely Deity would never
impose those unpleasant rules on such folk as them! (For additional thoughts see the Problem Texts
chapter.)
James doesn’t challenge that such
Christians began with the intention of having genuine and
complete faith. Instead it mutated. They faltered and failed when it came to the
test of applying faith to life.
Without doing so we only have a half-faith, so to speak. A faith that may guide our convictions but
not our behavior. Think of an engine
that only half-works. How long will it
be of any value?
[Page 452] Or,
perhaps, another way of saying it:
having twisted the concept of faith into the channel of mere convictions
when it was intended to control all of life, haven’t we choked the life force—the
power--out of it? God intended for faith
and behavior to be interlocked and one to lead to the other (
The potential of faith dies even
when the intellectual component limps onward—at least for a while. For James’ argument to have validity, it
would be impossible for him to concede that the “faith” that remains is
anything more than profession without substance. Has he not vigorously insisted that it is
useless and if it is that useless what could one have left than
an idle shell pretending to be much more?
Most translations have retreated from the
traditional closing of “is dead” (KJV, NKJV, Young, and many others) to the
Westcott Hort Greek critical text’s preferred “useless” (CEV, GW, Holman, NASB,
NIV, TEV, NLT) or the equivalent “of no use” (BBE). Philip W. Comfort sees this as an intentional
variation to drive home the author’s underlying truth through different
language: “James argues that faith
without the demonstration of works is not only dead (
Basically synonymous with “useless” is
“worthless” (ISV,
[Page 453] Aside: Why did the demons “tremble?” Because they recognized that their defiance
of God merited them Divine wrath.
Demons knew full well that their lack of change earned them the
completeness of Divine retribution.
Or as the demons themselves are quoted in
the gospels, “Let us alone! What have we
to do with You, Jesus of
To have someone who has no more faith than
the demons did confess faith before others was so appalling--and embarrassing--that
Jesus refused to permit them to talk further (Luke 4:14). In their own, lesser way, were not the
Christians James addresses relying merely on what they knew intellectually . .
. and be undermining the Lord’s credibility as well?
[Page 454]
History’s Vindication:
Abraham Was Made Acceptable by His Works
Because They Manifested His Faith
(2:21-24)
ATP text: 21 Was not Abraham our ancestral
father counted just due
to his actions--when he offered Isaac his
son as a sacrifice on the altar? 22 You
can see that faith was working together
with his actions, and by actual
behavior intellectual commitment was
perfected. 23 In this the
Scripture
came true which says, "Abraham
believed God, and the result was credited
to him to obtain Divine
approval." So he was called the
friend of God. 24 You
see then that a person is made just by
actions, and not by intellectual convict-
ions standing alone.
Development of
argument:
To establish that faith is to produce
behavior, James cites the scriptural example of Abraham, the father of the
Jewish nation. He was “justified by
works [ATP: counted just due to his
actions]” by offering his son (
The specific goal in mind is his being
counted righteous because of his faith, as Scripture states (
Hence this example justifies James’
assertion that to be “justified” requires behavior motivated by faith and that
our faith, standing alone, falls short of acceptability to God (2:24).
Now the event of
offering his son occurs in Genesis 22 but already in Genesis 15:6 we
read, “And he believed in the Lord, and He
accounted it to him for righteousness”—referring to God’s pledge that through
his wife he would have a vast number of descendents even though he was still
childless (verses 1-5).
Some have used this to
prove a profound gap between what Paul and James believed in regard to
obtaining salvation. Some deal with this
by arguing that Paul deals with initial salvation while James is dealing
with how one proves the presence of that salvation and faith . . . by
one’s faith-motivated actions.[40] Without those works one has given the lie to
one’s claim to have faith.
(The advocate of salvation by faith alone
is still stuck, however, with a repugnant situation: faith wasn’t enough to save one and
if—somehow—it was, then one has repudiated any claim to its continuance
by one’s inaction. In short, more than
bare bones faith is necessary; it needs to be “embodied” within a framework of
behavior and conduct, i.e., “works.”)
[Page 456] James himself takes care to stress
that he is not teaching a salvation by works independent of faith in the
very next verse, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by
faith only” (1:24). He in no way denies
that faith is essential, but just that “faith only,” by itself, will never
produce the desired result. There is a
profound difference between those two statements.
Note again that pivotal word “only;” he is
teaching that both are essential.
Works are required to validate the faith and faith is required to
validate the works.
It should also be noted that James does not
say that the near sacrifice was “accounted to him for righteousness” but that
it was what motivated him being called “the friend of God.” Its relationship to the other was caused by
the obedience being a fulfillment--“note the “fulfilled” in the text--of that
earlier belief and righteousness.
Our human experience is certainly parallel: Not every one we count as of good character
(“righteous”) is one that we count as our “friend.” In human affairs that differentiation may make
little practical difference since we can function together quite well even if
the relationship never enters the “friendship” range, but in dealing with God
both need to be present to have an acceptable and desirable bond.
Indeed, can one imagine redemption without
both being present? Hence redemption
hinges upon the presence of redemptive faith—and if you will pardon the unusual
expression—redemptive works to complete that faith as it should be.
[Page 457] To
truly “believe God” and have it “accounted to him for righteousness” one must complete
the process of belief by one’s behavior and thereby become / prove oneself to
be . . . in fact as well as words . . . a “friend of God.” Conceptualize it as a two piece jig-saw
puzzle that is blatantly incomplete when only one piece is available; add in
the second “piece” and it becomes a complete and total whole.
Gentiles Were Made Acceptable to God
the Same Way:
The Example of Rahab
(
ATP text: 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the
prostitute also made just by
her actions when she welcomed the
messenger-spies and sent them out of the
city safely another way?
Development of
argument:
[Page 458]
Since Abraham is par excellence as
authoritative an example as a Jewish Christian could possibly hope to find from
the Old Testament, it would seem unnecessary to go anywhere else. Yet James then introduces the example of
Rahab. Perhaps he does this because his
illustration had referred to “a brother or sister” who stood in need (
Rahab demonstrated how even a non-Jew could
be accepted by God if she believed in Him and acted on that faith. No one made her hide the spies, but
she was convinced that their God would give the victory and therefore hid them
and helped sneak them out of the city.
This behavior made her “justified by works”
(2:25)—not works in itself and standing alone, but works growing out of her
faith. If she did not have a determined
faith why in the world would she risk the immediate danger of execution by her
own government by hiding the spies?
Clearly she had faith that what they said would be the way things
would ultimately work out.
So faith she had. But, like Abraham, combined with
“works.” In her case, combined with the
works of hiding the spies and sending them out unexposed.
From the standpoint of
the future, they were “spies”—they were surely there to discover the weak
points and strengths of the city, their mind-frame (which would argue how
determinedly they would hold out against a siege), and their resources (which
would determine how long they could hold out). They were also messengers.
[Page 459] This might
mean that there is an untold aspect to the Old Testament narrative: that they started the rumor in key places
that the invading Israelites were near. Psychological warfare in other words.
Whether they had any advance indication of
who they would seek out in the city--it seems unlikely--when they told their
story to Rahab they certainly functioned as messengers in that context as well.[41] Furthermore, when they left the city to
report back they were messengers bringing the wanted news back “home.”[42]
Conclusion:
Faith Without Manifestation in Behavior
Is Nothing but Dead Faith
(
ATP text: 26 So then, just as the body
without the spirit is lifeless, so
also faith without actions to express it is
just as dead.
[Page 460]
Development of
argument:
Applying the principle demonstrated through
Abraham and Rahab, James ends the chapter with the pointed reminder that faith
without works of proper behavior is nothing short of a dead faith. This time he makes the assertion even
harder: Behaviorless faith is just as
dead as “the body without the spirit is dead” (
Make that dead in
past, present, or future senses, but the very fact that he is imploring them to
change argues that they aren’t beyond being salvaged. Before they had blinded themselves to
reality. Now their “blinkers” have been
removed. The challenge to them now is to
behave accordingly and rebuild their faith.
But, oddly, change in a good direction is often the hardest
challenge any human being ever faces.
Notes
[1] Plumptre, 66.
[5] Gil Rugh,
“Bible Study Notes: Show No
Partiality—James 2:1-7.” 1977-78,
abridged. At: http://www.biblebb.com/files/gr763.htm. [June 2012.]
[6] Adamson, James:
The Man, 252.
[7] Alicia Batten (Friendship, 74) believes there
is an implicit criticism of the rich man:
“This image of a man decked out in gold rings and luxurious clothes may
recall a stock character from satire, such as in Lucian’s Nigrinus, in
which rich men flash their rings expecting praise and bows from others (Nigr.
21). These inappropriate displays of
wealth by the affluent were understood to be distasteful even in
[9] Ibid., 137.
[10] For a brief discussion of both possibilities, see
Ibid., 137.
[11] Blomberg and Kamell, James, 108.
[17] Richard Collier, The General Next to God, a
history of the Salvation Army, as quoted by Johnny Hunt, “Judges with Evil
Thoughts.” At: http://sermons. pastorlife.com/ members/UploadedSermons/sermon_2503.pdf. (Page 2) [June 2012.]
[20] For a
concise survey of reasons that have been suggested that these two actions are
singled out in particular, see J. Harold Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of
James (Dallas, Texas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics, Inc.: 1993),
91.
[21] Geoff Thomas, “James 2:8-13: God’s Royal Law Gives Freedom,” June
1998. At:
http://www.alfredplacechurch.org.uk/Sermons/james12.htm. [June 2012.]
[22] Moo, 116.
[23] Brian Zahnd, Unconditional? The Call of Jesus to Radical Forgiveness
(
[24] Colson,
27.
[25] Blomberg, and Kamell, James, 130.
[26] These passages are given by McKnight, James,
230.
[27] Hartin, James, 150.
[29] On the general line of this paragraph, see Ibid.,
130.
[30] McKnight, James, 231.
[31] Ibid, 229, calls it “a comic example,” but I think
our terminology of dark humor fits better.
[32] Cf. Blomberg and Kamell, James, 135.
[33] Hartin, James, 152.
[34] Blomberg and Kamell, James, 135.
[35] Hartin, James, 150.
[36] Blomberg and Kamell, James, 135.
[37] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and
Translation Commentary (
[38]
Greenlee, 109.
[40] Blomberg and Kamell, James, 136 and note 59,
page 136.
[41] McCartney, 171.
[42] See
Greenlee, 118, for a discussion of the relevancy of the “messenger” terminology
to the actual situation.