John Calvin Commentary James 2:8

"Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:" — James 2:8 (ASV)

Now follows a clearer explanation, for he expressly points out the cause of the last rebuke: they were excessively attentive to the rich, not from love, but on the contrary, from a vain desire to gain their favor. And it is an anticipation by which he countered an excuse from the other side.

For they might have objected and said that he who humbly submits himself to the unworthy ought not to be blamed. James indeed concedes that this is true, but he shows that it was falsely pretended by them, because they showed this homage not from love to their neighbors, but from respect of persons.

In the first clause, then, he acknowledges as right and praiseworthy the duties of love which we perform towards our neighbors. In the second, he denies that the ambitious respect of persons ought to be considered of this kind, for it differs greatly from what the law prescribes. The hinge of this answer turns on the words “neighbor” and “respect of persons,” as if he had said, “If you pretend that there is a sort of love in what you do, this may be easily disproved; for God commands us to love our neighbors and not to show respect of persons.”

Besides, this word “neighbor” includes all mankind. He, then, who says that a very few, according to his own fancy, ought to be honored, and others passed by, does not keep the law of God but yields to the depraved desires of his own heart. God expressly commends to us strangers and enemies, and all, even the most despised. To this doctrine, the respect of persons is completely contrary. Hence, James rightly asserts that respect of persons is inconsistent with love.

If you fulfill the royal law. I take the law here simply as the rule of life; and to fulfill, or perform it, is to keep it with real integrity of heart and, as they say, completely (rotunde); and he contrasts such keeping with a partial observance of it. It is said, indeed, to be a royal law, as it is the royal way or road, meaning plain, straight, and level, which, by implication, is contrasted with winding side-paths and detours.

However, an allusion is made, I think, to the slavish obedience they gave to the rich, when, by sincerely serving their neighbors, they might not only be free men but also live as kings.

Secondly, when he says that those who had respect of persons were convinced, or reproved, by the law, the law is taken according to its proper meaning. For since we are commanded by God to embrace all people, everyone who, with a few exceptions, rejects all others, breaks God's bond and also inverts His order, and is therefore rightly called a transgressor of the law.