Albert Barnes Commentary James 2

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter is evidently made up of three parts, or three subjects are discussed:

1. The duty of impartiality in the treatment of others (verses 1–9). There was to be no favouritism on account of rank, birth, wealth, or apparel.

   The case to which the apostle refers for an illustration of this is that where two persons should come into an assembly of Christian worshippers, one elegantly dressed and the other poorly clad, and they should show special favour to the former, and assign to the latter a more humble place.

   The reasons the apostle assigns why they should not do this are:

   1. That God has chosen the poor for His own people, having selected His friends mainly from them;
   2. Because rich men in fact oppressed them and showed that they were worthy of no special regard;
   3. Because they were often found among revilers and in fact despised their religion; and
   4. Because the law required that they should love their neighbours as themselves, and if they did this, it was all that was demanded—that is, that the love of the man was not to be set aside by the love of splendid apparel.

2. The duty of yielding obedience to the whole law in order to have evidence of true religion (verses 10–13). This subject seems to have been introduced in accordance with the general principles and aims of James (see Barnes on James 1:1, the Introduction), that religion consists in obeying the law of God, and that there can be none when this is not done.

   It is not improbable that, among those to whom he wrote, there were some who denied this, or who had embraced some views of religion that led them to doubt it. He therefore enforces the duty by the following considerations:

   1. That if a man should obey every part of the law, and yet be guilty of offending in one point, he was in fact guilty of all; for he showed that he had no genuine principle of obedience and was guilty of violating the law as a whole (James 2:10).
   2. Every part of the law rests on the same authority, and one part, therefore, is as binding as another. The same God that has forbidden murder has also forbidden adultery; and he who does the one as really violates the law as he who does the other (James 2:11).
   3. The judgment is before us, and we shall be tried on impartial principles, not with reference to obeying one part of the law, but with reference to its whole claim. We should so act as becomes those who expect to be judged by the whole law, or on the question whether we have conformed to every part of it (James 2:12–13).

3. The subject of justification, showing that works are necessary for a man to be justified, or esteemed righteous before God (James 2:14–26).

   For a general view of the design of this part of the epistle, see Barnes on James 5:1, Introduction to Chapter 5.

   The object here is to show that in fact no one can be regarded as truly righteous before God who does not lead an upright life. If a man professes to have faith and has no works, he cannot be justified; or, if he has real faith, it will be shown by his works.

   If it is not shown by works corresponding to its nature, it will be certain that there is no true religion, or that his professed faith is worth nothing.

   The “standpoint” from which James views the subject is not that faith is unnecessary or worthless, or that a man is not justified by faith rather than by his own works, in the sense of its being the ground of acceptance with God. In other words, the place where the apostle takes his position, and which is the point from which he views the subject, is not before a man is justified, to inquire how he may be accepted by God. Rather, it is after the act of justification by faith, to show that if faith does not lead to good works it is “dead,” or is of no value. Therefore, in fact, the evidence of justification is to be found in good living, and when this is not apparent, all a man's professed religion is worth nothing.

   In doing this, he:

   1. Makes the general statement, by a pointed question, that faith cannot profit—that is, cannot save a man—unless there are also works (James 2:14).
   2. Appeals, for an illustration, to the case of one who is hungry or naked, and asks what mere faith could do in his case, if it were not accompanied by proper acts of benevolence (James 2:15–17).
   3. By a strong hypothetical case, says that real faith will be shown by works, or that works are the proper evidence of its existence (James 2:18).
   4. Shows that there is a kind of faith that even the demons have regarding one of the most important doctrines of religion, and which can be of no value, demonstrating that it cannot be by mere faith, irrespective of the question of what sort the faith is, that a man is to be saved (James 2:19).
   5. Appeals to the case of Abraham, showing that in fact works performed an important part in his acceptance with God; or that if it had not been for his works—that is, if there were no evidence that he was justified, or that his works were the proper carrying out or fulfilment of his faith (James 2:20–24).
   6. Shows that the same thing was true of another case recorded in the Old Testament—that of Rahab (James 2:25); and then observes (James 2:26) that faith without works would have no more claim to being true religion than a dead body, without a soul, would be regarded as a living man.

My brethren. Perhaps meaning brethren in two respects—as Jews, and as Christians. In both respects the form of address would be proper.

Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is the distinguishing thing in the Christian religion, for it is this by which man is justified, and hence it comes to be put for religion itself. (See Barnes on 1 Timothy 3:9).

The meaning here is, "Do not hold such views of the religion of Christ, as to lead you to manifest partiality to others on account of their difference of rank or outward circumstances."

The Lord of glory. The glorious Lord; He who is glorious Himself, and who is encompassed with glory. (See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 2:8).

The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord should be in no way dishonoured.

With respect of persons. That is, you are not to show partiality to others on account of their rank, wealth, apparel, etc. Compare Proverbs 24:23; Proverbs 28:21; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Psalms 40:4.

See Barnes on Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 to see the subject explained.

For if there come unto your assembly. The marginal note, consistent with the Greek, is synagogue. It is remarkable that this is the only place in the New Testament where the word synagogue is applied to the Christian church.

It was probably used here because the apostle was writing to those who had been Jews. It is presumed that the word synagogue would have been naturally used by the early converts from Judaism to designate a Christian place of worship or a Christian congregation. It was probably used in this way until it was superseded by a word that Gentile converts would have been more likely to use and which would, in fact, be better and more expressive—the word church.

The word synagogue (sunagwghn) properly refers to the whole congregation, considered as assembled together, regardless of whether all were truly pious or not. In contrast, the word church (ekklhsia) would refer to the assembly convened for worship as called out—referring to the fact that they were called out from the world and gathered as worshippers of God—and was, therefore, more applicable to a body of spiritual worshippers.

It is probable that the Christian church was modeled, in its general arrangements, after the Jewish synagogue. However, there were obviously some disadvantages in retaining that name as applicable to Christian worship.

It would have been difficult to avoid the associations connected with the name synagogue. Hence, it was better to adopt another name free from this disadvantage, onto which could be grafted all the ideas necessary to connect with the concept of the Christian organization.

Hence, the word church, which was not subject to such objections as the word synagogue, was soon adopted and ultimately prevailed. However, this passage shows that the word synagogue would still be used in some places, and for a time, to designate a Christian congregation. We would express the idea here by saying, "If a man of this description should come into the church."

A man with a gold ring. This is indicative of rank or property. Rings were common ornaments for the rich, and probably then, as now, for those who desired to be esteemed rich. For proof that they were commonly worn, see the quotations in Wetstein, in loc.

In goodly apparel. This means rich and splendid dress; the term “goodly” can also signify “gorgeous” or “splendid.” Compare Luke 16:19.

A poor man in vile raiment. The Greek word used here is filthy, foul, meaning sordid, shabby clothes. The reference here seems to be not to those who commonly attended public worship, or who were members of the church, but to those who might accidentally drop in to witness the services of Christians. See 1 Corinthians 14:24.

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing. This refers to when you show him superior attention on account of his rich and fine apparel, giving him a seat by himself, and treating others with neglect or contempt.

Religion does not forbid proper respect for rank, office, age, or distinguished talents and services. However, even in such cases, it does not require us to feel that such persons have any special claims to salvation or that they are not on the same level as all others as sinners before God. Religion also does not forbid a man who has the means to secure a suitable pew in a church from doing so.

But it does require that people be regarded and treated according to their moral worth, not their external appearance. All should be considered, in fact, on the same level before God and entitled to the privileges that come from worshipping the Creator.

A stranger coming into any place of worship, regardless of his rank, dress, or complexion, should be treated with respect. Everything possible should be done to win his heart to the service of God.

And say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place. The marginal note (from Greek: well, or seemly); that is, in an honorable place near the pulpit, or in some elevated place where he would be conspicuous. The meaning is, you treat him with special signs of respect on his first appearance, merely from the indications that he is a rich man, without knowing anything about his character.

And say to the poor, Stand thou there. This means without even the civility of offering him a seat at all. This may be presumed not often to occur in a Christian church; yet it practically does sometimes, when no willingness is shown to furnish a stranger with a seat.

Or sit here under my footstool. Perhaps some seats in the places of worship were raised, so that even the footstool would be elevated above a lower seat. The meaning is, that he would be treated as if he were not worth the least attention.

Are ye not then partial in yourselves? Among yourselves. Do you not show that you are partial?

And are become judges of evil thoughts. There has been considerable difference of opinion regarding this passage, yet its sense seems not to be difficult.

There are two ideas in it. One is that by this conduct, they showed they took it upon themselves to be judges—to pronounce on the character of men who were strangers and on their claims to respect, ; the other is that in doing this, they were not guided by just rules, but did it under the influence of improper "thoughts."

They did this not from benevolence, nor from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character, but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honour to men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real worth.

The wrong in this case was in their presuming to "judge" these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction, and then by doing so under the influence of such an unjust rule of judgment.

The sense is that we have no right to form a decisive judgment of men on their first appearance, as we do when we treat one with respect and the other not; and that when we make up our opinion about them, it should be by some other means of judging than the question of whether they can wear gold rings and dress well, or not.

Beza and Doddridge render this, "You become judges who reason ill."

That is, "judges of evil thoughts," or "judges who reason ill."

Hearken, my beloved brethren. The apostle now proceeds to show that the rich, as such, had no special claim on their favor, and that the poor in fact might be more entitled to esteem than they were. For a view of the arguments by which he does this, compare the analysis of the chapter. (See Barnes on James 2:1)

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? Those who are poor as far as this world is concerned, or those who do not have wealth. This is the first argument the apostle suggests why the poor should not be treated with neglect. It is that God has had special regard for them in choosing those who would be His children. The meaning is not that He is not as willing to save the rich as the poor, for He has no partiality; but that there are circumstances in the condition of the poor which make it more likely that they will embrace the offers of the gospel than the rich; and that, in fact, the great mass of believers is taken from those who are in comparatively humble life. (See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 1:26–28)

The fact that God has chosen one to be an heir of the kingdom is as good a reason now why he should not be treated with neglect, as it was in the times of the apostles.

Rich in faith. Though poor in this world's goods, they are rich in a higher and more important sense. They have faith in God their Saviour; and in this world of trial and of sin, that is a more valuable possession than piles of hoarded silver or gold. A man who has that is sure that he will have all that is truly needful for him in this world and the next; a man who does not have it, though he may have the wealth of Croesus, will be utterly without resources concerning the great needs of his existence.

"Give what you will, without you we are poor;
And with you rich, take what you will away."

Faith in God the Saviour will serve more purposes and achieve more valuable outcomes for humanity than the wealth of the Indies could; and this the poor may have as well as the rich.

And heirs of the kingdom, etc. Margin: that. (See Barnes on Matthew 5:3)