James 2:4-11 Bible Teaching

VilKommen~

This is CAMPUS
We pray, hear the Word, reflect on our walk, study the Word – then leave – and go out choosing to be Christians or not.

Glad your with us.

So let’s pray.

Music
Silence

James 2.13
March 1st 2015
Meat

Okay so we left off last week where James has introduced to us the idea that we ought not to be respecters of persons based on the outward appearance.

The illustration he uses, of course, has to do with respecting people who appear reputable according to the things of the world and treating them preferably to those who appear failures or suffering by these worldly standards.

In his illustration, a situation that was probably really quite prevalent in his day and age due to a number of factors James wrote:

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

And then in our text for today, he continues with this thought, saying:

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?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Okay. Back to verse 5.

After saying that we ought not give preferential treatment to others he appeals to the illogic of a Christian (in that day) showing preference to a person of wealth, and says:

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?

Admittedly, this passage – if not taken in context of the time, the audience, and the purpose that James wrote it – can be extremely prejudiced toward people who have been blessed with the things of this material world.

So can verses 6 and 7.

This represents part of the problem when we take stances and build attitudes off of them without considering context, audience, and purpose.

So allow at little biblical reasoning, for whatever it’s worth.

First, if we are going to concur with the whole of scripture I think we can reasonably state that believers can have NO OTHER GOD before the True and Living God.

What do we do with our God’s – big G or little? We honor and bless them with our attentions, our time, our devotions, and our love.

The biblical warnings about money, wealth, and riches are there for a very practical reason – they are very, very tough to resist in terms of giving them our time, attention, devotion, and love.

Why?

They provide us – obstensibly – with the very things God wants to provide us with.

In other words if misused money and or wealth can bestow upon us our identity – and instead of it being Christ it might become the identity wealth brings, one of style, power, comfort, peace, and the like.

Money and wealth and how it is used can easily become a counterfeit in this fallen world to what God wants to have with us in the Spirit.

So we have the constant warning.

In addition to granting us status and identity in this world, the demands of money can also consume us – and instead of an eye single to Him we become double minded at best, or altogether devoted to its demands instead of the demands of God.

Humans – especially Christian humans – also seem to possess an uncanny ability to justify the pursuit of wealth AS believers.

We do it believing we can accomplish so much more or so much good the more we have.

This is one of the problems with the physical objective church approach. When we actually allow ourselves to believe that money is required to accomplish the true purposes of God we have made a mistake.

Look at it this way – money is required in this modern world to survive – so whether we are Christian or not – we need it to some extent in our lives.

It’s why we work jobs.

But when we step over the threshold an tie sharing the good news with money, like we do with physical survival we err.

The Good News of Jesus Christ could easily thrive and survive in utter poverty – in fact it has over the course of history.

Being spiritual in nature all it takes is believers to share it.

Recall the message of Isaiah 55:1

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”

There is something really important being said here by God and I think we have overlooked it.

Jesus said in John 4:14

“But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

You know what that says? It says that the water that jesus GIVES is not only free but it continues to spring up unto everlasting life.

So it’s not like it is FIRST given freely and then requires an annual management fee.

It starts off free and continues to thrive free of cost.

“But we’ve got to buy bibles for the world.”

“But we gotta acquire a new building.”

“We’ve gotta feed the poor and care for the widows and fatherless.”

This is all true. But these things can be accomplished when men and women lead of the Spirit choose to act with what God has blessed them with rather than incorporating business models INTO the Church to accomplish them.

Let me give you an example from scripture.

Once Jesus died on the cross two men – not assigned – not apostles – but men of means – one of spiritual wealth and the other of financial wealth – were moved by the Spirit to act – a perform the first ministerial service in the Christian church – they performed a burial.

The first was Nicodemus and the other was Joseph of Arimathea.

This is what John tells us:

John 19:38 And after (after Jesus died) this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Again, who performed this first act of selfless Christian ministry?

Nicodemus, a seeker of truth, a man of religious esteem, and a follower of Jesus.

And then Joseph of Arimathea, a man of means, wealth, who owned the tomb and had the wherewithal to obtain the body of the Lord and properly take care of him.

The text does not tell us they were assigned this. It does not tell us that Jesus arranged it. They had the spiritual and financial means and acted.

My point is to say that the individuals involved chose to act and acted. The way all things – even under apostolic rule – have operated in the church.

The Spirit has to lead is the point. Not the demands of men or institutions and not corporate strategy to use money to do good.

“But Shawn, you have got to be paid. A servant is worthy of his hire.”

Again true. But not by compulsion, law or demand. If people are led to give they do – and what they do by the Spirit is between them and God.

This approach allows me to live by faith that God will care for me and my physically. And if He doesn’t through people in the church, and I need to get an extra job to earn for the family I will – I have.

And so have other people who have taught the word for centuries.

The reason I say all this is to help rid the temptation that exists in believers to think that their focus on money in their individual lives OR the focus on money in the Church can be justified by the good they do with it.

It’s an impossible justification. Jesus clearly said a person cannot serve God and Mammon (or money).

Now, that being said, there are people who are unbelievable Christians whose eyes are single whom God has given them not only the gift of earning but the gift of giving support.

They are not one whit behind a believer who is challenged with poverty and cannot give at all. I stress this point because what we read here tends to suggest that all the well off or rich are bad and all the poor are good.

Let me tell you something – there are a lot of very evil poor people. And there are a whole lot of affluent people with hearts of Gold and hearts that are single.

Okay – all of that in place,

James proceeds HERE (again here) to show that the rich have no special claim on favor, and that the poor in fact might be made more entitled to receiving esteem than the affluent OF THAT DAY.

I think we can agree to this.

We might as a group of varied socio-economic positions make a field trip to the Bel Air country club and get a taste of the point James is trying to make.

There we would be – poor by comparison to the people around us – and in that situation (if there were no Christians there at the Bel Air country club) we might be able to agree that the poor in the room – from an eternal perspective – were in better standing than the rich folk around us, right?

This is the view James seems to be taking, saying:

“Hearken, my beloved brethren,”

AKU-O . . . HEAR ME . . . LISTEN . . .

“Has 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?”

Again, and apparently, in that place and time the poor were being (or had the potential of being) treated with neglect.

And so James is making a case as why this ought not be.

Naturally and contextually he is speaking of the poor in material wealth. We accept this. But the principles he actually shares are applicable to anyone and remain true:

“Has not God chosen the poor of this world (poor in Spirit, poor in self-esteem, poor in pride, poor in appearances, poor in skills or abilities as well as poor in wealth) (but) “rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”

Reading the rest of the verse HOWEVER a person is poor in the world IF they are:

Rich in faith

James suggests that they are heirs of God’s kingdom which he promised to those who love Him.

In other words, notice that being poor (in this case materially but in our day and our purposes it could be poor in any number of ways) is not the only (so called) qualifier but the poor who are RICH IN FAITH and secondly, who obviously love Him as a result of their faith?

Notice also the tie here that James makes between Faith and Love.

Do you see it? Let me re-read what he says once more time:

“Has 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?”

The (NKJV) says:

“Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world [to be] rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?”

I think this tie to faith AND love is often missed when the study of James 2 takes place but right here we have the first evidence of the premise.

So probably more to the point is not so much that God has chosen the poor but that God has chosen the humble and by association the broken as compared to those who find themselves proud and capable through whatever powers the world offers them.

In addition to God chosing such James, as mentioned, says these poor are also, “rich in Faith.”

So we see that even in the comparison having abundance in and of itself is not wrong – its just where our abundance lies.

In other words “being rich” is not bad not matter what area we have abundance but God wants all of His to be rich in one particular manner – in faith.

The comparison is a good one.

In the this world “riches of gold” can go a long away. In God’s heavenly, spiritual economy, richness in faith carries its the weight of actual gold in this world.

The essence of the point can be echoed by Christ’s words in

Matthew 6:19-21 where He says:

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

However God blesses us or tests us relative to earthly treasures one thing is sure – ahead of all the worry and focus over them, we ought to focus on the treasures that we CAN in fact retain into the life after this.

What is the essence of this treasure?

According to 1st Corinthians 13, which says:

1st Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Earlier in chapter one James mentioned the “Perfect law of liberty.” Here is 1st Corinthians Paul mentions that “when that which is perfect is come,” that which is in part shall be done away with, and so I would suggest that the essence of heavenly treasure is only that which will abide, which Paul says are

Faith, Hope and Love – and with love being the greatest.

Heavenly Gold?

Love

It is the currency utilized and employed here on earth that will carry forward and have place on high.

But James does not commend those rich in love here but those rich in faith.

Because Christianity was relatively new faith, at this point in the game had to get legs with the masses before love could become the currency.

As you know I propose that they are inextricably linked in the Christian world and even go so far to say that the faith of a believer will actually determine their ability to love as Christ.

Little faith, little love. If you do not understand the relationship ask me after or in the Q and A.

James now tells us the problem and the reason he is addressing the poor in riches being treated with partiality, saying (in verse 6)

6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

In the first line James presents the reader with a condemnation. And then afterward presents the foolishness in committing such a crime by pointing out:

“Do not the rich oppress you, and draw you before judgment seats” (meaning courts of law – whether civil or religious)?

In other words why are you showing preferential treatment to the rich when they oppress you and take you to be judged?

The poor are not guilty of such actions against you, why would you look down on them in this manner.

I have to admit that this logic really bothers me. It is very utilitarian, very pragmatic and very much based in a position I think speaks in opposition to the approach Jesus seems to take on things.

Maybe I’m wrong but to suggest that the reason for treating the poor better, and not giving the rich preference is all based, it seems, on what benefits them most, not what is right.

Stepping back off my cynical view, I get the gist of the point James is making but in my opinion it still seems like faulty reasoning from the Christian perspective.

The other point is James does not seem to suggest that the rich are oppressing the poor because he says, “you” speaking to the believers.

In all probability they were poor but his reasoning seems to be:

The Rich treat YOU badly, so why do you prefer them over the POOR?

When I say, “treat you badly,” the Greek here is actually pretty expressive (KATADUNASTYO) and suggests strongly that the rich were, “Lording over them, or treating THEM as slaves.

Additionally James say the rich were also “drawing them before the judgment-seats.”

In other words they were the enemies of these converts to Christ, people who persecuted them and were their foes rather than their friends . . . drawing them to court?

James adds:

7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

This is just another argument to show that the rich had no special claim to the honor which they were bestowing on them . . . that, in fact they were actually blaspheming the name of Jesus (the only worthy name on earth) by which, he adds, these believers were associated.

This seems to be the crimes of the affluent against these early believers and James wants to remind them of this.

I think we might suppose that James was speaking specifically of the wealthy Jews. Can’t prove it but it would only make sense – who else would be persecuting these believers and dragging them to courts of law?

Carrying the message into the Christian realm we are relieved to hear James say:

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

I’ve gotta tell you teaching this properly is no simple task.

The reason is James tends to jump back and forth between the Law written in stone, to the law of Liberty (which I think can only be love) to the Royal Law (which he defines as loving neighbor) to The Law of Moses (which he quotes in a few verses) then back to the Law of love.

Properly parsing the text is a challenge and I’ve found myself churning these passages madly over the past few days.

But let’s give it a go – maybe it will be very apparent to you – I hope it is.

In the face of all James has said he provides this summary:

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

To me what is being said is when you choose to love your neighbor as yourself (love, an action, a verb, what James calls The Royal Law) you are doing well – you are showing that you are no respecter of persons but are loving all as commanded.

James quotes the “loving neighbor as self” command here and Jesus made it clear who our neighbors are when He was asked by the scribe:

“And who is my neighbor.”

Remember? He responded by telling a story about a Jew who fell into trouble and a hated Samaritan chose to help him despite the religious and cultural hatred that existed between them.

Remember?

“Who is my neighbor?” and Jesus taught the parable of the Good Samaritan, illustrating (contrary to tradition) that the LOVE delivered by a vile Samaritan toward a hated Jew fulfilled the Royal Law.

It is thought that James calls the love of neighbor the Royal Law not because it comes from God (who is the ultimate Royalty or Noble) but because societies operate best when it is employed rather than when it is ignored and royals (kings, magistrates, sovereigns) are pleased.

The reason I say this is the Greek word for royal is “basilikos” and it relates to kings and earthly kingdoms ran by noble’s rather than laws that come from God.

Nevertheless James says that the fulfillment of this Royal Law is “according to the Scripture.” In this he is obviously citing

Leviticus 19:18 which says: “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.” And possibly even Matthew 19:19 where Jesus quotes it Himself.

So he says, “If you follow this you do well, but

“if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

Now, James has presented us with what he has called The Royal Law.

What is this Royal Law? Love thy neighbor.

And Jesus, when asked: “Who is my neighbor?” showed it is not defined geographically, culturally, or according to religion or beliefs – but it’s whoever is in need.

Got that?

James says, If we do this royal law we do well. Then adds,

“But IF you have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convicted of the (same law – the Royal Law) as transgressors.”

See, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, a Levite and a Priest both passed by the man beaten (he was to them in shambles and seeing this had disrespect for his person).

But the Samaritan overlooked his outward condition (and even the fact that he was a despised Jew) and helped him – showed him love, right?

Had the Levite and the Priest seen a beaten High Priest in his temple vestments laying there at the side of the road they would have done all they could to help.

Why?

Because they would have had preference to his person – and loved (acted) according to their preference.

James here says that if we have “respect to persons” (in terms of the Royal law)

“we commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

I do not for a second believe that James is speaking of the Law written in stone here. He is speaking of the Royal Law which Jesus essentially called, the New Commandment (which again is “love each other).”

If we look at each other with partiality and choose to love only those who please us, James say:

“we commit sin, and are CONVICTED BY (what I think is THE ROYAL LAW) THAT WE ARE TRANSGRESSORS.”

Because these were Christians and there are only two sins Christians can commit – failure to believe and failure to love – I think thus far we have sound reason to believe that the conviction we experience in respecting persons is the conviction that comes by failing to obey the royal law.

But we then come to a couple passages that seem to be speaking of the Law written in stone as James says.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

So far James has been speaking of the Law of Liberty and the Royal Law both of which I believe can be defined as the two Great Commandments –

Love God and Love each other.

But here he seems to introduce the Law written in Stone (the Mosaic law).

Now, I could make a case for the idea that here in verse 10 James is still speaking of love and interpret it this way:

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law of liberty, which is to love God and love others, and yet offend in one point, (in other words fails to love always) he is guilty of failing both to love God and to love man.

I doubt very much anyone would exegete this passage this way but in all honesty looking at the context I CANT see it any other way.

Unfortunately for me, verse 11 seems to take this view and turn it on its head because in eleven James adds:

11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

This passage seems to clearly suggest that James is referring to the Law written in stone. But then he adds in verse 12

12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

James use of the Law written in stone here is supported (even echoed) by Paul when he said in Galatians

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So I have to agree with Luther – at this juncture at least – James is truly a difficult read in terms of biblical consistency and contextuality.

On the one hand his insights on faith and love are some of the most beautiful in the Word – and we are getting to them soon.

But on the other hand he uses expressions that are frankly confusing and paradoxical – especially relative to Paul and his approach.

For instance, IF James is referring to the Law written in stone when he describes them as:

The perfect law of libery OR
The Royal Law

How are we to understand Paul’s writings on the same law, saying

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

OR

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

OR

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

OR

Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

OR

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

That doesn’t sound like liberty to me?

If James isn’t speaking of the Law of Moses but is actually speaking of the Two Great Commandments (as He intimates in verse 8 what the heck does he mean in verse 10 and 11?

I need more time, more enlightenment of the Spirit and so we are going to make another stab at this next week.

Questions/Comments