Chapter nine
Mr. D's Notes on James
James 2.5-8
Copyright 2006
Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the
poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath
promised to them that love him?
"Hearken" is normally translated
"hear" and means to hear with understanding. To perceive what is to
be heard. Something that is of value, something that is useable, something that
should change your life if you hear, perceive and act upon that new knowledge.
It is an imperative, a command, something they are to do, not something that
they are given a choice about.
"My beloved brethren" is a call to brothers
that are very dear to James. One must wonder if he knew some or many of these people
personally. If they came from
"Hath not God chosen the poor" is a question
that aims back to the discrimination between the rich and the poor. Why favor
the rich, for GOD has chosen the poor? If you are going to favor someone, it
would be more sensible to favor the poor - they are closest to God.
How terrible, to go through life favoring the rich and
famous in the hope of gain, only to find out you were supposed to favor the
poor to get gain - well, favoring is wrong in either case, but the logic is
that if you want to favor for gain, wouldn't you favor those closest to the
source of gain?
Not only are the poor chosen, but they are rich in faith
and they are heirs of the kingdom.
Just what kingdom is in view here? Since they are still
waiting for it, it can't be anything past and the only kingdoms left are the
millennial kingdom, and the eternal kingdom. Since they are Jews the millennial
could apply, though they are under the blood and looking now for eternal things
not the earthly kingdom of the prophets.
Some Postmillennialists chafe at this thought. They would
cry that any Jew, no matter what, must be in the millennium. This is due to
their logic or lack there of, in how
They would suggest that any Jew would want to be related
to the millennium, rather than be taken away from it by the blood. The question
I have is that if there is a choice of an earthly kingdom for one thousand
years, and going directly into the eternal state, why would anyone want to make
a stop over in the lesser of places for a thousand years?
"Which he hath promised to them that love him"
is a phrase that teaches a couple of things. Entrance into the eternal kingdom
is based on love of God. There is this one prerequisite - love. This speaks to
the easy believe gospel that many preach today. You can hear some words and
accept Christ, but there must be a love that is begun at that point or there
can be no salvation. The love might be just a seed of what it will blossom
into, but love seems to be a requirement.
Secondly, there will be none in the kingdom that do not love
God. They won't be forced to submit at some time future, they will love Him as
a consequence of what He has done for them.
The question remains, now, that if one has accepted the
Lord but does not show love for Him, are they really saved. I would not want to
judge anyone, but if there is no love, then that person had better give some
serious thought to what he has done in that acceptance of Christ and whether
there was truth in it or a sham.
One that loves not God, no matter if they have accepted Christ
mentally or not is in danger in my mind, of not reaching eternity with God.
Mental assent is not a change of heart by any stretch of truth.
There is one further question from the text. Did God not
choose any rich to be in His kingdom? The test is quite explicit - He chose the
poor of this world. No, it does not mean that only poor and no rich were
chosen. I would assume that He chose the poor in spirit, those that were humble
before Him in His foreknowledge.
The rich man will not be humble before God, unless he has
a realization of whom he is before God. This probably goes for the arrogant
poor man. All must find humility and realize their need of Christ before God
can deal with them, and these are those that were chosen.
God picked the poor and made them heirs. We have no
business relegating them to the lesser seats. Let's look at some of the people
God has chosen.
Paul a persecutor of Christians.
David a sheep herder.
John a fisherman.
Andrew a fisherman.
Simon Peter a fisherman.
Matthew a tax collector.
Stanley Derickson a fisherman and son of a tax collector.
Abraham a seventy year old.
Joshua an army commander.
Gideon a poor person.
Elisha a farmer.
Amos a herdsman.
Micah a simple man.
Ironsides, a bank tellers son.
Billy Graham a farm boy.
D. L. Moody a shoe salesman, a son of a bankrupt mason.
Hudson Taylor a chemist's apprentice.
William Cary a shoemaker.
Billy Sunday a drunken baseball player.
George Beverly Shea an insurance clerk.
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress
you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
"Ye have" indicates James knew the specifics of
what he was talking about. There was a definite problem among the recipients,
and it would seem that it was widespread since he didn't single out a specific
group, but rather seems to address all of them.
How do the rich oppress us today?
a. They make their fortunes from the poor. It has been
reported that Oil companies have made tremendous profits off of the latest
round of gas price raises, and will continue to do so, since the prices are
still high. Profit is the name of the game, but gouging is not.
b. They control politics.
c. They control our thinking to a point through advertising
and products they produce.
d. Since they are what they are, and we the poor of the
world look up to them in our warped world view they cause us to stumble into
covetousness and dissatisfaction with whom and what we are in Christ.
I don't say this to shift the blame from the individual,
but it is rather a fact of life, if you live in
Colossians mentions that covetousness is idolatry. I
recently saw a very heated debate on an inter-net forum as to whether Paul
meant that covetousness was literally idolatry. My view is that he said it was
thus he must have literally meant that it was. Many and varied were the spin
doctors that attempted to make it say other than what it said. Why? Why were
the spin doctors working so hard? The only reason I can think of is that they
don't want to give up coveting.
"Despised" is the verb - they have put action
to their thoughts. They have thought evil things and given action to the
detriment of others. Outward sin might be the more blunt way to put it. This is
the dishonoring, the insulting, and the contemptuous actions of a believer
toward a poor believer. Neat church to have to attend as a poor person isn't
it. Today we can roam from church to church till we find one we can feel
comfortable in, but back then there was probably only one or two to go to and
that is what you were stuck with.
They despised the poor. How does that translate into our
own generation? No American is poor in comparison to some in the third world
countries, but how would you class a poor person today - how would you describe
them?
Receiving food stamps.
Receiving welfare income.
Receiving house rent subsidies.
Receiving two free meals a day for the children at
school.
Receiving free phone service if needed for some reason,
be it business or personal.
Receiving kickbacks/refunds from the state and federal
government on their income taxes.
Receiving free to low cost medical care.
Receiving free to low cost dental care.
Receiving help with their power bills.
Receiving help with their water and sewer bills.
Receiving free food at the food banks.
Now compare that with some in the third world countries -
receiving nothing and starving to death.
Some comparison! We really don't have "poor" in
our country today, but relative to the rich we class them as poor.
How do we despise the poor today? Some of us are
disgusted with their taking, taking, taking from the system that is financed on
our backs. Some of us think they are lazy and ought to go to work. After all,
that is a Biblical principle.
These thoughts might even be correct, but for us to take
action on these thoughts would be wrong. We ought not to allow their condition
to change how we treat them in the church situation. Indeed, maybe we should
try to get involved in their lives and see if we can assist them into self
reliance. On top of that, they are lost and don't know any better, thus why
would we feel we should act against them. On the contrary, we should act for
them by bringing them to the Lord.
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye
are called?
Back to the rich. It is the rich that blaspheme the name
of Christ. How, might be a worthy consideration.
a. Many verbally, outwardly blaspheming Christ in their
everyday language.
b. They tend not to worry about the poor. They often take
advantage of the poor thus taking advantage of Christ's chosen.
c. They often pollute the celebration of His birth by
commercializing it.
d. They seldom look to the welfare of the poor,
fatherless, and widows.
e. By ridiculing your faith.
f. By making fun of things religious, as the media has
done for many years.
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
What is the "royal law" referring to? A regal
law or the law of the king. Some suggest "thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself" (Lev. 19.18) as the law spoken of here. From the context this is
part of the royal law at the very least if not all of it.
The construction seems to me to show that if we obey the
law, then the love will be the outworking of our fulfilling, thus indicating
that the royal law is actually something else. The fulfilling is a present
tense and the loving is a future tense, again indicating that the loving is an
outworking of the fulfilling.
Verse nine seems to me to indicate the law of the Old
Testament, or some law that is set and that is to be obeyed, and that will
convict us if we don't. At the very least this is a set of commands which cause
us to sin, if unfulfilled, as well as have the capability of convicting us of
our transgressions.
The Old Testament law certainly fits into this set of
requirements. We will see more about this law in the application section.
How do you love that neighbor that sticks a running hose
into your open car window and fills your car with water? How do you love that
neighbor that knowingly blocks your car in so you can't move it? How do you
love that neighbor that knowingly borrows things and does not return them?
Some might suggest that you love them very grudgingly,
but I doubt that is what God meant when He moved James to pen the words.
We should love them as if they have done nothing,
especially if we ever want to witness to them about the Lord that we serve.
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and
are convinced of the law as transgressors.
"Sin" is the same word that is used in Romans
5.12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
James uses the present tense here, something that is
ongoing. Someone once stated that he had never met the Devil so he probably
didn't exist. Someone responded that if you are going the same direction you
never meet.
The least you can come away from this text with is that
we are definitely not to show respect between persons in the church, and that
if we do it is sin. That is enough to cause us to determine not to show
prejudice in the church, no matter what law he is speaking about.
APPLICATION:
1. Some suggest we join into every movement to bring
equality to all. We should uplift the poor in their struggle. Not sure where
you can find Scriptural basis for rebellion to gain equality.
a. Many of these movements are riotous and thus not to be
partaken in.
b. Many of these movements want more than equality and at
times even want superiority - they want it all.
c. Men of these movements set forth as their precepts
things that are not Biblical, thus off limits to the believer.
If a movement is Biblical in all ways, then sure if you
have time and feel led, join in and assist, but remember that your first
priority is your Lord, then your spouse, then your family and then your
employer, after that you contemplate the time you have to commit. Setting any
of these below your "movement" work is wrong.
2. Let's look at this law further and see if we can
determine for sure what James was talking about. It is evident that his readers
knew exactly what he was talking about or he would have explained himself
further. Since these were converted Jews, it would be apparent that they knew
about the Old Testament law for certain. Whether they knew of the extensive
teaching of Christ, would be questionable, since they came to
What law are we speaking of here? The law of love, the
royal law, or the Law of Moses? If you notice the context, it seems to speak of
the Mosaic Law. Verse eleven speaks of the Ten Commandments.
Barnes comments: "If ye fulfil the royal law. That
is, the law which he immediately mentions requiring us to love our neighbour as
ourselves. It is called a "royal law," or kingly law, on account of
its excellence or nobleness; not because it is ordained by God as a king, but
because it has some such prominence and importance among other laws as a king
has among other men; that is, it is majestic, noble, worthy of veneration. It
is a law which ought to govern and direct us in all our intercourse with
men--as a king rules his subjects."
Matthew 19.19 relates to the idea: "19 Honour thy
father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Probably the account of the good Samaritan was an illustration of this
principle of life (Lu
Life Application Bible suggests this is John 15.12
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved
you." They suggest this is the thought of the Lev. 19.18 "Thou shalt
not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." They further suggest
that this is the basis upon which all personal relationships are to be based. I
would tend to agree, but would limit it to Christians, because the lost world
would not necessarily accept a Biblical principle as a principle for their
lives.
I would refine that thought a little and suggest that
Christ was giving a higher application to the love thy neighbor passage of the
Old Testament, and gives special emphasis to the love that we are to have for
one another as believers.
Christ points this principle to its source in the Law.
Matt. 22.37 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the
first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets."
Paul seemed to favor the same line of thinking (not that
we should be surprised at that :-) Rom. 13.8 "Owe no man any thing, but to
love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Gal.
5.14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself."
3. The main thought is, why would you give the rich
priority over the poor - it is not a logical thing to do. The rich are
basically against you, and the poor are the chosen of God.
I don't know, but it seems to me that James is actually
speaking to a middle class of folks that might show preference between two
other classes. The middle class ought to identify better with the poor than
with the rich.
In today's society we have a shrinking middle class and
most are headed toward the poor class rather than the rich class, so logically,
even today it is wiser to favor the poor if you are going to favor, but James
is clear we ought not to favor either way.
4. Constable makes the basic point that if Christ has
given the poor great benefit, why should we deny any benefit in the church to
the poor. You just can't argue with that point - it is plain truth and such a
simple truth, that many must have been missing it among those that James was
writing to - probably many in our own day are missing the same truth.
5. It would be easy to concentrate on doing for the poor
that we are showing partiality to them and not the rich. This ought not to be
true either. The thought isn't one over the other, it is equality for all.
It is evident in the New Testament that it is hard for a
rich person to see past their riches to see the need they have for Christ, yet
that need is there and deserves to be met if they respond to the Gospel.
The thought of witnessing to the rich is daunting to
most. Witnessing in general is daunting to most, but to approach someone of
means seems to be even more difficult for most of us.
Years ago I was told of a television repairman that
worked only in
He drove a Cadillac to the home, carried his tools and
equipment into the house in very nice leather cases. He would carefully remove
items from the TV set and place them elsewhere, then take out a fine piece of
heavy velvet to cover the top of the set.
After his work was done, he made it a habit as he put
away his tools and replaced items on the top of the set, to share the gospel
with his customer. If the person objected he would stop, but most allowed him
to continue. This was his calling - to minister to rich people in the hope that
he could share his Lord with them.
We need to treat everyone equally.
6. I might suggest one application to the above truth in
today's church. Pastors that institute contemporary music without discussing it
with the congregation are in fact showing partiality to those that want this
new music. To stop singing hymns that many appreciate and desire is to shun
part of the congregation. To tell them they are obstructionists, or old fogies,
or a number of other names, is also showing partiality and ought not to be done
in the church in any age.