Respect - James 2:1-14

2:1-9 - The ultimate expression of “pure religion” is to “visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions.” This begs the question, why did Jesus have to command people to take care of these vulnerable members of society, why wasn’t/isn’t it just a natural instinct. Addressing the judgment and aversion to the poor, James explains to the reader that “ye cannot have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and yet have respect to persons.” This doesn’t mean you can’t respect people, it means that we can’t treat people differently because of their race, gender, social status, wealth, etc. This is a concept that has never really made sense to me because I’ve never seen the rich or wealthy or beautiful as better than me or anyone else. I guess this might be a defense mechanism from growing up how I did, I adopted very much an attitude of “you’re not better than me” to anyone who I thought might think that they were better than me. This, of course, was my own issue because not a lot of people made a point of letting me know that I was less than them because my family was poor or because I am female or anything like that. My attitude and circumstances also led to me befriending those who were in similar situations to mine, people who were poor, people of color, I’m a white woman but I’ve always been the racial minority everywhere that I’ve lived except in Utah. In Los Angeles, El Paso, Hawaii, all these places are predominantly non-white, my ex-husband is black, my kids are black, so it’s never occurred to me that anyone could be “less than” someone else simply because of their circumstances. And it’s honestly something that I just can’t understand. The foundation of the gospel is that all are equal in the eyes of God, because if they weren’t then God wouldn’t be just or fair then the whole plan would be frustrated. James asks his readers to consider their reaction to a well-dressed rich person coming into their “assembly” followed by “a poor man in vile raiment.” He asks them which one they would respect and where they would invite the visitors to sit. If there would be a different reaction to the two visitors James suggests that they were acting as “partial judges, and become evil in your thoughts.” And James reminds them that God created “the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?” There is no caveat at the end of this question clarifying that the reward is only for those who love him and are rich. The word “poor” in verse 5 is cross-referenced with several other Bible verses such as Proverbs 15:16 which says, “Better is little with the fear of the Lord than great treasure and trouble therewith.” And Matthew 5:3 which says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” So not only are people not punished by God for being poor, but they actually receive extra encouragement and spiritual blessings. This begs the question, isn’t that just discrimination on the opposite end of the spectrum as God favoring the rich? It might seem that way initially, but all are promised to be “heirs of the kingdom” but we have to be “poor in spirit” in order to be ready to receive that blessing. Those who are physically poor in this life are statistically more likely to embrace the gospel and gain more perceived spiritual blessings due to the state of mind their circumstances put them in. And really, James basically “what’s so great about the rich anyway?” He points out that “rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?” Money, power, etc. how people gain it, maintain it, and lose it can be a complicated web. Why some people are more susceptible to the draw of money and power, why some positions are more drawn to it, etc. There’s a lot that goes into play there psychologically, etc. James notes that the rich trash talk regular people, and again, the whole psychology of rich vs. poor, the characteristics that people in each group can adopt because of their specific circumstances. I’m not saying rich people can’t be righteous, they absolutely can, I think that Melchizedek is a perfect example of that. But there has to be some concerted effort to remain humble, etc. But then again, poor people have their own mental demons to work out to stay on the right path, so I guess we all have our own issues. The IM comments on James’ reference to the “royal law” saying, “’Royal’ means ‘belonging to a king.’ This teaching parallels Jesus’s command to ‘love the Lord thy God’ and to ‘love they neighbor as thyself.’ Those who keep ‘the royal law’ love everyone and avoid showing favoritism.” In order for the “royal law” to be an actual rule, the word “respect” is cross-referenced with Deuteronomy 1:17 which says, “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great.” So this wasn’t some novel concept that no one had ever heard of, equality for all was created under the Law of Moses. 2:10-14 - The IM suggests that perhaps the Christian converts around the areas where James was, were discussing, possibly incorrectly, Paul’s teachings on faith vs. works. We know that Paul discussed his concept extensively for decades through all types of mediums, speaking, writing, maybe interpretative dance, I don’t know. James weighs in here as well, and interestingly confirms exactly what Paul is saying, but sometimes just hearing a concept explained a few different ways is what it takes for people to understand. James points out that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” I didn’t understand this part at first, but what I believe this means is that whoever wants to live according to the Law of Moses as opposed to the law of the gospel, has to keep all points of the law exactly as prescribed, otherwise they are guilty of breaking the whole law. This is a zero sum game, you either are perfect or you are condemned for eternity, those are some high stakes. The person who relies on the Law of Moses “shall have judgment without mercy” because those are the terms that he choose. There is a significant portion of verses 14-21 that have been clarified in the JST. There is the initial question of if a man “say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him?” This might seem like a contradictory question because of course we are saved by grace alone. Works don’t save us because only Jesus has the power to save, so of course faith can save us. The IM comments, “James used the term works in a different manner than Paul, referring to righteous deeds as the natural expression of belief… The Greek text of this phrase contains an article before faith; James meant, ‘Can (that kind of) faith save him?” James was not teaching that faith has no saving power; he was teaching that a passive belief that resulted in no action was not true, saving faith.” The kind of passive faith that James is saying can’t save anyone is the kind that doesn’t want to commit to anything, kind of a hedging their bets type of faith. I remember someone in church once talking about an old war movie they had seen about this soldier who was a complete scoundrel, he did all types of terrible things, then on his last mission he was shot and as he lay dying he did the sign of the cross. The message coming across was that he was saved because of his belief in Jesus as his Savior. That is the type of faith that is afraid of commitment. Perhaps the definition is wrong here. I’m talking about “faith” here like it’s an independent entity with its own discretionary powers of salvation. Faith is simply the trust in the reality of a belief. When we truly believe in Jesus, we believe what he says. There’s a book title that I like, it’s called “Believing Christ” and I think the back of the book describes the message as something like “We say we believe in Jesus, we believe in his ability to save us, now it’s time to believe what he says.” It was at that point that I realized that there’s a difference between believing that the Savior is capable of doing what he says he will do, and believing the words that he speaks. If we believe Christ can save us but that’s it, then we could understandably live in the world of passive faith, where we agree with a concept, but it doesn’t impact who we are or what we do at all.