Bible Commentaries

II.

(1) My brethren.—The second chapter opens with some stern rebukes for those unworthy Christians who had “men’s persons in admiration,” and, doubtless, that “because of advantage” to themselves. (Comp. Jude 1:16.) The lesson is distinctly addressed to believers, and its severity appears to be caused by the Apostle’s unhappy consciousness of its need. What were endurable in a heathen, or an alien, or even a Jew, ceased to be so in a professed follower of the lowly Jesus. And this seems to be a further reason for the indignant expostulation and condemnation of James 2:14. Thus the whole chapter may really be considered as dealing with Faith; and it flows naturally from the foregoing thoughts upon Religion—or, as we interpreted their subject-matter, Religious Service.

Have (or, hold) not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with (or, in) respect of persons.—“Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” wrote St. Paul to the proud and wealthy men of Corinth (2Corinthians 8:9), “that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich;” and, with more cogent an appeal, to the Philippians (James 2:4-7), “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves: look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God”—i.e., Very God, and not appearance merely—nevertheless “thought not His equality with God a thing to be always grasped at,” as it were some booty or prize, “but emptied Himself” of His glory, “and took upon Him the shape of a slave.” Were these central, nay initial, facts of the faith believed then; or are they now? If they were in truth, how could there be such folly and shame as “acceptance of persons” according to the dictates of fashionable society and the world? “Honour,” indeed, “to whom honour” is due (Romans 13:7). The Christian religion allows not that contempt for even earthly dignities—affected by some of her followers, but springing more from envy and unruliness than aught besides. True reverence and submission are in no way condemned by this scripture: but their excess and gross extreme, the preference for vulgar wealth, the adulation of success, the worship, in short, of some new golden calf.

(2) For if there come unto your assembly (literally, synagogue).—This is the only place in the New Testament where the Jewish word is used for a Christian congregation.

A man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel.—Better, a man golden-ringed, in bright apparel. Roman satirists had much to say upon the fops and dandies of their time, with “all their fingers laden with rings”; some, if we may trust the sneer of Martial, having six on each; and others with heavy gold or light, according to the oppressiveness of the season; no doubt, the fashions set in Rome extended to Jerusalem. “Goodly apparel” is, rather, gorgeous—splendid in colour or ornament; the same two words are translated “gay clothing” in the following verse.

And there come in also a poor man in vile raiment.—Squalid, even dirty, as from work and wear—the exact opposite of the idle over-dressed exquisite.

(3) And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing (or, bright apparel).—Look on him, that is, because of his fine appearance, with undue respect and consideration.

And say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place (or, as margin, well); and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.—The sidesman or elder in charge of the church finds a stall for the person of substantial presence, while anything does for the poor one; but—most considerate offer—he can stand; or, if he prefer it, sit under the great man’s footstool, lower down, that is, on the floor beneath. We know Christ’s words for those who loved of old “the chief seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:6), nor can there be doubt as to their full application now. What is to be urged in excuse for the special pews in churches and chapels, hired and appropriated, furnished luxuriously, and secured by bolt and lock? If in the high places sit the men and women in goodly raiment still, while the poorly clad are crowded into side benches and corners, or beneficently told to stand and wait till room be found somewhere beneath the daintier feet,—how can there be escape from condemnation on the charge which follows?—namely this—

(4) Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?—Or, as the sense, fully expressed, would be: “My brethren, if you acted thus, did you not doubt in yourselves, and become by such false and unfaithful discrimination judges of and in your own evil thoughts? Did you not lose the idea of brotherhood, and become contentious as to supremacy of self and place—serving yourselves while prepared for the service of Christ? The Lord Jesus thought not His equality with God a thing ever to be grasped at, if work for man could be done by self-humiliation. Therefore, although being ‘equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead,’ He became ‘inferior . . . as touching His Manhood.’ And none may turn unmoved from that picture of sublime condescension to the petty strifes of quality and position which profane the Christian sanctuary. Most sadly true is it that in making distinctions such as these between rich and poor, we ‘become of the number of those who doubt respecting their faith;’ for, while it abolishes such altogether in the presence of God, we set them up of our own arrogance and pride. ‘We draw nigh unto Him with our mouth, and honour Him with our lips, but our heart is far from Him; and our worship therefore vain.’” (Comp. Isaiah 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31; Matthew 15:8-9.)

(5) Hearken, my beloved brethren.—With complete change of manner the Apostle writes now as if he were speaking, in brief quivering sentences, appealing to the hearts which his stronger words may not compel.

Hath not God chosen . . .?—There is, then, an election on the part of God. It were folly to deny it. But this passage, like so many others, gives the reason for that choice. “The poor of this world” are His chosen; not merely for their poverty, although it may have been the air, so to speak, in which the virtues which endeared them to Him have flourished most. And these are rich for present and for future. They know Him “now by faith,” and “after this life have the fruition of His glorious Godhead.” “Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). The way thereto for them is nearer and less cumbered than for the rich, if only they fulfil the Scripture (comp. Matthew 6:3), and be poor “in spirit:” then, indeed, are they “heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him.” The world must always measure by its own standard, and consider poverty a curse, just as it looks on pain and trouble as evil. But the teaching of God, declared most eloquently in the life of His blessed Son, is the direct opposite to this. In a worship which demands of its votaries costly gifts and offerings—and every religion tends downwards to such desires—the rich man has a golden pavement to his future bliss. No wonder, therefore, that again and again the voice of the Spirit of God has pointed out the narrow way, and the eternal excellency of truth, and faith, and love, the riches easiest of acquisition by the poor.

(6) But ye have despised the poor.—Better, ye dishonoured the poor man—i.e., when, as already mentioned (James 2:2-3), you exalted the rich unto the “good place” of your synagogue. Thus whom God had called and chosen, you refused. “It is unworthy,” observes Calvin on this passage, “to cast down those whom God lifts up, and to treat them shamefully whom He vouchsafes to honour. But God honoureth the poor; therefore whoever he is that rejects them perverts the ordinance of God.”

Do not rich men oppress you?—Or, lord it over you as a class; not assuredly that this can be said of each wealthy individual. It is the rich man, of the earth earthy, trusting in his riches (comp. Matthew 10:24), who makes them a power for evil and not for good. Here is presented the other side of the argument, used on behalf of the poor, viz., observe first how God regards them (James 2:5), and next, judge their adversaries by their own behaviour.

Draw you before the judgment seats?—Better, Do they not drag you into courts of justice? “Hale” you, as the old English word has it. Summum jus summa injuria—extreme of right is extreme of wrong—a legal maxim oft exemplified. The purse-proud litigious man is the hardest to deal with, and the one who specially will grind the faces of the poor. No body of laws could on the whole be more equitable than the Roman, but their administration in the provinces was frequently in venal hands; and besides, the large fees demanded by the juris-consulti—“the learned in the law”—quite barred the way of the poorer suitors, such as, for the most part, were the Christians to whom this Letter was written.

(7) Do not they blaspheme . . .—To “blaspheme” is to hurt with the tongue, and includes all manner of evil speech; but a more exclusive use of the word is with regard to things divine, and particularly the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31). A moment’s reflection will show, unhappily, that this is alluded to in the text.

That worthy name by the which ye are called?—Better, that good, that glorious Name which was invoiced (or, called) over you—viz., at baptism. “Into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19) had all been baptised who were thus addressed; but most probably the Second Person of the Trinity is referred to here. And it was the scorn and contempt visited upon His Name, which changed the mere abuse and ribaldry into a perilous likeness to the deadliest sin. Most commentators thus restrict the Name here to that of Christ. If their view be correct, the blasphemy would probably be linked with that epithet of “Christian”—then so dishonourable—coined, we are told, first in Antioch (Acts 11:26). But there were far more insulting terms found for the poor and struggling believer—“Nazarene,” “Atheist,” and even worse.

(8) If ye fulfil the royal law.—Better paraphrased thus, If, however, ye are fulfilling the Law, as ye imagine and profess ye are doing, the royal law, according to the Scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye are doing well; but . . . . Mark the touch of irony in the defence which St. James puts into the mouths of his hearers. It were certainly a sweet proof of neighbourly affection, that exemplified in James 2:3. The “royal,” or “kingly law,” is, of course, God’s, in its highest utterance; and may be taken as an illustration of what a law really consists: viz., a command from a superior, a duty from an inferior, and a sanction or vindication of its authority. There is much confusion of thought, both scientific and theological, with regard to this; were it not so we should hear less of the “laws of nature,” and divers other imaginary codes which the greatest legist of modern times has called “fustian.” The sovereign law of love, thus expressed by the Apostle, is one so plain that the simplest mind may be made its interpreter; and the violation of it is at once clear to the offender.