Santiago 2:1-13

James 2:1-1 Chronicles : . This paragraph on Servility suits exhortation of Jews incomparably better than that of Christians, among whom “ not many rich” were found for generations. The scene of James 2:2 is the “ synagogue,” best taken in its literal sense; and acts of oppression towards “ the congregation of God’ s poor” are familiar to readers of the OT. “ Give up,” he pleads, “ trying to combine with acts of servility the belief in the Lord of Glory.” On the theory sketched in the introduction, the name “ Jesus Christ” was added in the margin by an early reader: as the various efforts of translators and commentators show, the words made the sentence almost impossible Gr. when taken into the text. The worshipper “ in shabby clothes”— the adjective corresponds to the noun rendered “ baseness” in James 1:21— is contrasted with the “ gold-ringed man in brilliant clothes” (shining white, it would seem): for him there is no room except on the floor. He who can thus judge men by externals comes under the condemnation of James 1:6, for “ doubt” there and “ divided” here are the same word. Piety cannot recognise the guinea stamp— only the image and superscription of God: they are “ judges of corrupt decisions” if on such lines they distinguish man and man.

James 2:5 comes directly from the first Beatitude, though Jewish readers might think of OT parallels like those in Psalms 72:4; Psalms 72:12; Psalms 74:19; Psalms 74:21. Mere paupers in the world’ s eyes, these are “ heirs according to promise” of their Father’ s Kingdom. “ Chose” is the word that gives the adjective rendered “ elect” ; cf. Ephesians 4:4, Romans 8:33, etc. The “ promise,” in the thought of James, was made in Luke 22:29 f.: his Jewish readers might think of Deuteronomy 7:9; Deuteronomy 30:20, etc. He goes on to show that they have little reason indeed for favouring the rich as such: they were so quick to drag poor men into court, for debt especially ( cf. Matthew 18:30, Luke 12:58 f.). These rich men need not be Christians, or even Jews: the point is that the pious suffered especially from the rich ( cf. James 5:1-Joshua :), which makes servility to the rich as such specially foolish. If the poor believers here are Jews, “ the glorious name named upon you” will come from Amos 9:12— the text quoted by James in Acts 15:17— and Deuteronomy 28:10, etc.— In James 2:8 we are reminded again how petty are little caste distinctions in the presence of a King. The Roman Emperor was called “ King” in Gr. ( cf. Acts 17:7) , which makes “ Imperial” the best rendering of the adjective here. The Second Commandment ( Leviticus 19:18), “ like unto” the First ( Matthew 22:39), was detached even by the Jews; cf. Luke 10:27 for the place which Jesus gave it: His work was to transform the conception of “ neighbour.” The illustration of the solidarity of the Law seems to us almost an anticlimax— surely murder is worse even than adultery! But James 4:2 may show that human life was cheap in the (Jewish?) community addressed; and it would be very characteristic of Jews to lay great stress on their superiority to the Gentile world in the matter of purity. A Christian student of Matthew 5:22 would say that the germ of murder was even more easily planted than that of adultery. The “ Law of Liberty,” so far from involving antinomian license, pronounces judgement without mercy on those who show no mercy— it is the principle of Matthew 18:35. For the merciful man there is no condemnation ( Matthew 5:7).