to James chapter 2. James chapter 2, the last time we were in James we saw the prohibition against partiality. That's a whole section here in chapter 2, verses 1 to 13. So last time we saw the command in verse 1, the illustration or example provided in verses 2 to 4, and then tonight we'll consider the reasons given in verses 5 to 13.
There are three reasons. A writer gives us as to help us to guard against this sin of partiality, and essentially what that means is the act of showing favoritism to some and neglect of others based on appearance, rank, race, or social status. We also spent a bit of time last time to consider James' doctrine of salvation. You'll know that there are those out there that seek to pit James against Paul.
They teach that Paul taught justification by faith alone and that James taught faith plus works. Verse 24 in chapter 2 is the go-to verse where James says, you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. So I believe it's important for us to have a proper understanding of James' doctrine of salvation. We saw that in chapter 1, verse 18, of his own will, he brought us forth by the word of truth.
And then in chapter 2, verse 1, my brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. So James affirms sovereign grace, James affirms the instrumentality of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. And as we move our way through the reasons tonight, we will reaffirm James' position, specifically with reference to verse 5. But I do want to start James chapter 2 beginning in verse 1.
My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, you sit here in a good place, and say to the poor man, you stand there, or sit here at my footstool, have you not shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 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? But you have dishonored the poor man.
Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For he who said, do not commit adultery, also said, do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What is it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what is it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, you have faith and I have works. Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble. But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God.
You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Well, let us pray.
Opening Prayer
Our Father, we thank you for your Word. We thank you for this wonderful book of James and the emphasis on practical religion. Give us grace and humility to receive with thanksgiving your Word, and give us the power of the Holy Spirit to put these things into practice. Help us, Lord God, to bridle the tongue.
Help us to engage in pure and undefiled religion. And help us, Lord God, to guard against this sin of partiality. Help us to honor you, help us to praise you, help us to glorify your most excellent name. And even now, God, as we rehearse practical religion, as we rehearse your law, we see our own shortcoming and we confess our sins and we would pray that in your faithfulness and justice you would cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
How we thank you for the gospel of our salvation, how we thank you for the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, not as a reason to promote sin, but that when we do sin, we have an advocate with the Father, even Christ the righteous. Be with us now, we pray, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Introduction
Well as I said, a few weeks ago we considered the particular prohibition against partiality. God wants His people to be those who are gracious and kind and loving and do not engage in favoritism toward others based on things like appearance, rank, race, or social status. And we see the prohibition specifically in verse 1. My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality.
The illustration in verses 2 to 4, very straightforward, very clear, very easy to grasp. If two men come in, one dressed in fine apparel, the other not so fine, and we say to the fine apparel wearing man, sit up front, and we say to the dirty man, sit in the back, we have indeed engaged in partiality and have become judges with evil thoughts. Now James will offer up three reasons why we ought to guard our hearts against this particular sin, or three arguments as to why this is an ungodly activity. And we'll break them down this way.
There's first a soteriological argument in verse 5. Kids, soteriology simply means the doctrine of salvation. It's an argument based on God's saving purpose and plan. That's verse 5.
Secondly, there is a practical argument in verses 6 and 7. And then thirdly, there is a theological argument in verses 8 to 13. More specifically, we might call it a nomological argument. A nomology is simply the doctrine of the law.
James appeals to the law of God as an argument against us showing the sin of partiality or engaging in the sin of partiality. We might also call it the decalogical argument. I quite like that one myself, the decalogical in verses 8 to 13.
Argument One: Sovereign Election
But note in the first place his soteriological argument. Remember, James teaches salvation by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and there is a repeated emphasis of that here in verse five. 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? God chose the poor of this world to be rich in faith.
He didn't choose them because they were rich in faith. He doesn't look down the tunnel of time and see the faith commitment of some, and by foreseeing this, God then chooses them. No, their faith, the fact that they believe the gospel, our faith, the fact that we believe the gospel, is because of sovereign grace. It is because of election.
It is because God has chosen. And when he says the poor of this world, he doesn't mean every single poor man. It is not the case that every poor person out there is elect unto salvation. James is speaking in generalities.
He's also not suggesting that no rich man can be saved or that no rich man has been chosen for salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. James' argument is similar to what we find in 1 Corinthians 1. 1 Corinthians 1, the Apostle Paul highlighting the glory of the gospel of free and sovereign grace, the message of the cross that he sets forth in chapter 1, verses 18 to 25. And then he highlights the glory of that message in the recipients. Notice in verse 26, for you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise, according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called.
But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty." This is the same idea. They're not teaching that every poor person is saved and every rich person is damned. But back in chapter 2 at verse 5, we ought to appreciate the specific contextual argument. The focus is clear.
Why would you show partiality to somebody that God chose for salvation before the foundation of the world? Notice the language in verse 5. 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? So He underscores sovereign election.
He underscores the gift of faith, and he underscores the granting of an inheritance by God to the elect. And so James' argument is clear. If God has conveyed such blessing upon a poor person in the context of the church, why, why oh why, would you brethren ever exclude him? If he is not good enough for God in the sense that that's why God chose him, but God set His affections upon him, God chose him unto salvation, if that is the case, then we must love him too.
We must approve him too. We must appreciate him too. And even if he is dressed in dirty clothing, he is welcome and entitled to sit in the very front row. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
Have you not shown partiality among yourselves, verse 4, and become judges with evil thoughts? If God set His saving affection upon a sinner, then you are to receive that sinner. You're not to exclude them. You're not to put them in the back of the church.
You're not to put them in a place that does reflect your sin of partiality. John Calvin says, as God honors the poor, then everyone who repudiates them reverses the order of God. So you see, it's a soteriological argument. Do not show partiality because if God has shown mercy, if God has shown grace, if God has set His love upon them, If they are in fact the elect, they are chosen to be rich in faith, they are heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him, if that is indeed the case, then you must receive them.
You must respect them. You must love them. You see the soteriology here. You see the doctrine of salvation.
We need to keep James 1.18, James 2.1, and James 2.5 in our minds as we specifically approach verses 14 to 26. There has been no little controversy over James 2.14 to 26. All hosts or all sorts of people think that there's some sort of contradiction between James and Paul. But if we understand that James' doctrine of salvation is exactly like Paul's, if we understand that James says that people are saved because of God's sovereign election, if the instrumentality is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, if they have been chosen chosen to be rich in faith, then we cannot believe that James is contrary to what Paul teaches.
So, the first argument by way of application to the whole argument is that we need to consider soteriology. If God, in fact, has saved the poor, then we ought to esteem them and care for them and love them. Again, it's not just the poor. It could be black if we're all white.
It could be white if we're all black. Could be Canadian if we're all American, could be American if we're all Canadian. There's no shortage of ways that we can show partiality. There is no shortage of ways that we can keep people at a distance because they're different from us.
There's no shortage of ways that this sin can be perpetuated in the context of the church.
Argument Two: Practical Consistency
Now note secondly the practical argument in verses 6 and 7, but you have dishonored the poor man. You see, James isn't writing theoretical theology or abstract theology. He's not just sort of looking into the context of the church and addressing things that maybe aren't true but, you know, we should be on the lookout for. No, James underscores that this had, in fact, actually occurred.
But you have dishonored the poor man. This demonstrates the necessity of this whole section in verses 1 to 13. As James is dealing with practical religion, he's dealt with the tongue, he's dealt with visiting widows and orphans in their distress, he's dealt with keeping oneself unspotted from the world, all this in the context of being doers of the word. So, James addresses a situation that had been perpetrated in the church.
You have dishonored the poor man. And then note the comparison he draws out. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Now again, I doubt he means every single rich person out there.
James isn't promoting class warfare. James isn't promoting some sort of a society where the one percenters are hated by the 99. He's not doing that. He's speaking in generalities.
And with reference to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, they oppressed the church in the first century. I mean, you just read the book of Acts and you will see that very thing played out time and time again. He says, you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts.
What is James saying? You are acting like the unbelievers. You are acting like the Gentiles. You are acting like the unbelieving Jews.
You are engaged in conduct that is not fitting for a professing Christian. When you oppress, or when you dishonor the poor, or you dishonor the black, or you dishonor the white, or you dishonor the woman, or you dishonor the man, or you dishonor somebody based on something external, you are acting just like the unbelievers that persecute you. You should know better. When this happens to you, you don't like it.
When this happens to you and you're dragged into court and you're oppressed by somebody with means, that is not something that is pleasant. So why in the world would you do it in the church with the people of God Most High, those whom the Lord set His affection on? Those whom the Lord chose to be rich in faith, those whom the Lord chose to be heirs of the kingdom of God most high, why would you take those kingdom citizens and send them to the back of the church? That is not appropriate conduct.
And then James draws out or teases out what does happen when the rich do this to the people of God. Verse 7, do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? You see, the Christians are called Christians because of Jesus Christ. We bear His name.
And so when the rich oppress the believer in Christ, that's an act of blasphemy. I think Peter illustrates this in 1 Peter chapter 4. 1 Peter chapter 4. Very clearly. Notice specifically in verse 14, well, verse 12, we should get the flow of the context here.
Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial, which is to try you as though some strange thing happened to you. Christians don't freak out or, you know, lose it when bad things happen. We do that, don't we? Bad things happen and we just lose it.
I can't believe bad things are happening to me. I wonder if Benny Hinn went that way this past week when the IRS showed up at his house. Why are these bad things happening to me? I'm sure that was a bit of a jolt to his world when the federal agents come looking at your personal accounts or whatever it is that you have to be examined.
But we're not supposed to be surprised in suffering. I don't know where you found it in the Bible that says, once I've come to Christ, my life is to be hunky-dory. My life is to be a bed of roses. I'm supposed to be wafted into the heavenly places, bluebirds attending me, rose petals on my path, no problems, no trials, no hardships, no whatsoever.
Peter's just the opposite. Don't think it's strange concerning the fiery trial, which is to try you as though some strange thing happened to you. What do you expect? You represent Christ in a world that hates Christ.
Isn't this Christ's argument in John 15? If the world hated me, they're certainly going to hate you. Insofar as we're faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, we will find ourselves opposed. Paul says it in 2 Timothy 3.12, all those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
So what's James's point, Peter's point with reference to trial and tribulation? You should expect it. You live as the blood-bought children of God in a world that is contrary to God. You ought not to be surprised when they are contrary to you." Notice what he goes on to say, verse 13, "'Rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy.'" You see, Peter's argument here is completely contrary.
Don't be absolutely freaked out when trials come. Don't, you know, go and hide under a rock, but rather rejoice, exult in it, delight in it, not because you have some sick fascination with suffering, but that Acts 5.31 ethos, when they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus Christ, when the disciples were beaten for their association, for their preaching of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. Peter goes on to say in verse 14, if you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part, He is blasphemed, but on your part, He is glorified." You see, that's the sentiment in James 2, 7.
When the rich oppress the unbeliever and drag them off into court, it is certainly an act of aggression toward the people of God, but it's an act of blasphemy. It is an act of absolute arrogance against the high King of heaven. So back to James chapter 2, we see the practical argument very clearly, very simply, is don't act like an unbeliever. Don't act like an unbeliever.
You don't like it when they oppress you, you shouldn't oppress others, especially, not that it's okay, you know, in the city square, but especially in the church. You remember, that's what James is writing to. That's his context. That's the assembly, that's the gathering together.
If we can't have solidarity in the house of the living God, if every tribe and tongue and people and nation can't get along out there, they most certainly ought to be able to get along in here. All our differences notwithstanding, the grace of God is sufficient to help each one of us navigate through these particular waters wherein there is differences and different backdrops and backgrounds and ages and, you know, a whole host of things. Brethren, we are not to function as unbelievers who blaspheme that noble name by which you are called by oppressing those in our midst.
Argument Three: The Royal Law
And that brings us thirdly to the theological or the decological argument in verses 8 to 13. And there are five things we ought to appreciate here. I know that when I say that, you think, five things, 40 minutes, probably not. First, notice the commendation of obedience to God's law.
Now, just see how James assumes the validity of God's law throughout this section. You know, the Reformed have identified a three-fold use of the law. The first use is what's called the civil or the political use. That means that God's law is helpful to creation as a whole to restrain the madness of men.
The second use is what's called the pedagogical. Pedagogue meaning child tutor. That means we preach the law to unbelievers to show them their need for the Lord Jesus Christ. And then the third use of the law is called the normative use of the law.
And that simply means this. Christ saves us by grace. God saves us by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We come to the cross.
We're forgiven of our sins. We're imputed with the righteousness of Christ. It is received by faith alone. And as new believers, Christ points us to the Ten Commandments.
Christ points us to the law as the definition of what God demands from His people. Not demands so that they'll be saved. No, we're saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We're saved at the cross, but it's that Decalogue that defines for us what holiness is.
God doesn't leave us to wonder. God doesn't leave us to be creative. God doesn't call upon us to be innovative. God defines for us that conduct that He requires from His people.
And James assumes the normative use of the law. It should function in the hearts of God's people as a standard to inform them what is pleasing to God, what is displeasing to God, what we ought to imbibe and pursue, and what we ought to guard against. James utilizes the law here as a means by which the people of God know where they're at relative to the God of heaven and earth.
Commendation of Obedience
Now notice the commendation of obedience to God's law. Verse 8, if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture. Why does he call it the royal law? Well, the royal law probably means that which belongs to the king.
In other words, it's God's law, and this fits well in context because notice in verse 5, which he, 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? So the king has a kingdom and the king rules by a particular law. This law is royal because it belongs to the king. John Gill defines this law this way, or this sort of adjective, royal.
It is the law of Christ, who is king of saints. And because it is a principle law, the chief of laws, as love to God is the sum of the first and great commandment in the law. and may be called the King of Laws. So love to neighbor is the second and next unto it, and may very well bear the name of the Queen of Laws, and so has royalty in it." So if that commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, if that is the King of Laws, the second which is like unto it It is the queen of laws. It is a royal law.
It belongs to the king, and he calls us to live in accordance with it. Verse 8, if you really fulfill the royal law. Now, James is a realist, and James is understanding of remaining corruption. Again, James, we ought not to press James in a way that James shouldn't be pressed.
As I said earlier, it doesn't mean every poor man is saved. It doesn't mean every rich man is damned. When he says, if you really fulfill the law, he's not talking about unto salvation. He's not talking about justification.
Remember, it's in the context of church and professors living in a manner that is pleasing to God. So James doesn't think that there's actually some being out there that does fulfill the entirety of God's law. He's speaking in generalities, but he is speaking using that royal law as the standard by which our conduct is to be informed. Notice, if you really fulfill the royal law according to Scripture, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The content of the royal law for James in this passage is Leviticus chapter 19, verse 18. Leviticus chapter 19 verse 15 is the background for James' prohibition against partiality. That is a unit there in Leviticus chapter 19.
The summarizing statement is verse 18, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. The previous verse is probably up to verse, beginning in verse 9 all the way down to verse 18 is the concrete application of how we are to love our neighbor as ourself. We're supposed to be kind. We're supposed to be generous.
We're supposed to be giving. We're supposed to be gracious. We're not supposed to show partiality. So James is summarizing that section, summarizing the entirety of the law, because Jesus says, on these two hang the whole law and the prophets.
So the royal law is commended to us, and those who obey it do well. Isn't that a beautiful thing? You, brethren, I can do well. That's a good thing to hear, isn't it?
As Calvinists and Reform people, oh, we're wretches, and we are. That should never, ever be forgotten. But Christ commends the churches in Asia Minor as much as he condemns them. In Christ Jesus, because we are clothed with a righteousness, an alien righteousness imputed to us, received by faith alone, because the Holy Spirit is at work in us, both to will and to do, for His good pleasure, when we obey those principles set forth in the Decalogue, expounded throughout the rest of the law, we do well.
You want to do well in your Christian life? Do what God says. You want to do well in your Christian life? Obey God's law.
Condemnation of Transgression
Note the second thing we ought to draw out, the condemnation of those who transgress God's law. Verse 9, but if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. Now this is interesting because if you go back to James's example in verses two to four, quite feasibly it could happen that a rich man and a poor man could enter into the assembly. It could happen that the ushers seat the rich man in the front row.
It could happen that the ushers seat the poor man in the back row. And for the most part, most of us may not even notice such a thing. Unless, you know, it's our day to watch the ushers and see how they operate, which I don't think that would be the case. But it is intriguing God sees it, isn't it?
God knows what's happening in the assembling of His people together. God knows when partiality is being perpetrated in His churches. God knows our hearts. God knows the conduct.
God condemns it. Verse 9, if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. The law's function, or one of the law's functions, is to convict the partial. as a transgressor of the law, in the hopes, of course, that he'll repent and flee to Christ and find mercy in that fount that is open for sin and uncleanness.
Indivisibility of God's Law
Now notice, thirdly, in terms of this decalogical argument, the indivisibility of God's law. In other words, it's indivisible. You don't pick and choose. You don't say, well, I want these commandments, but I'm not so into these.
Notice very specifically in verses 10 and 11, for whoever shall keep the whole law. Again, James does not see a creature out there that's doing this. He's speaking as a pastor. He's speaking as a theologian.
He's speaking as a man dealing with sinners. For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." James' point, not to be for a moment, you mean there's somebody out there who keeps the whole law? He is pointing to the integrity, and by that I mean the wholeness and the completeness of God's law, the indivisibility. The emphasis is not, there are persons who keep the whole law, but it's a prohibition against picking and choosing.
See, I don't want to commit idolatry, and I don't want to commit blasphemy, and I'll have a meticulous Sabbath ethic, and I won't be insubordinate to my parents or to governing authorities, and I won't murder, and I won't commit adultery, and I won't steal, and I won't lie, and I won't covet. But you know, when it comes to that poor man, I don't want to sit next to him. I much prefer that the ushers do their job and keep him in the back, keep the riffraff out of my pew. Well, that is actually a violation of the Sixth Commandment.
It is to murder someone. Again, not physically. You're not cutting his throat. Putting somebody in the back of the church ought not to be seen as an act of violence upon them.
But in terms of the law, James says, there is an indivisibility to the law, an integrity of the law. Whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. Calvin says God will not be honored with exceptions, nor will He allow us to cut off from His law what is less pleasing to us. The one who keeps the law but transgresses in one point, it says he is guilty of all.
The Lawgiver Unites the Law
And then notice the integrity of the law or the indivisibility of the law hinges upon the law giver. That's the emphasis in verse 11. For he who said, do not commit adultery, also said, do not murder. Now, if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
That's, again, not to suggest that if you commit adultery, you've murdered somebody. You've murdered somebody, you've committed adultery. The point is, the Decalogue stands or falls as a whole. Let's just say you went out for supper and you ordered the salad, and you took your fork and you dove in and you found a slug in the salad.
How many of you would take the slug out and keep eating the salad? No, there might be some of you. You might want to keep your hands down because the rest of us might think, wow, that's kind of bizarre. That one slug ruins the salad.
You take a drop of poison and put it in a glass of water. Do you try to drink around the poison? No, the water's integrity's been compromised. You may not commit adultery.
But if you commit murder, you've broken the law. That's the point of James in this section. The integrity or the indivisibility of the law hinges upon the lawgiver. Because the one who said, don't commit murder, also said, don't commit adultery.
And if you commit one or the other, you are guilty of violating the lawgiver. So don't be partial towards others because it shows disdain for the law giver. It shows a rejection of and the rebellion against the one who has spoken his law. Alec Motier says, the thing which gives the law its indivisible nature is the character of the God who spoke it.
The argument is tight, the argument is beautiful, and the argument ought to hold with all of us, for he who said, do not commit adultery, also said, do not murder. Now, if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. You can't congratulate yourself or pat yourself on the back for having kept nine of the Ten Commandments. That one means you're guilty of all.
Again, I hope you're understanding conceptually, not everything, you know, not every act has been perpetuated by you, but the integrity of the law. If I break the mirror, And you see that one crack in the mirror. The mirror's broken, isn't it? I mean, it might be a crack that big in an otherwise big mirror, but it's cracked, right?
Those of you who ever drive on the highway, and you get a little rock pebble in your windshield, and it might be that minuscule. Your eye tends to find it, you know, continuously. The windshield's cracked! We don't say, well, 99% of it is intact.
No, the windshield is cracked. The mirror is broken. The cup is poisoned. The salad had a slug in it.
We're not going to eat it. The integrity or indivisibility of God's law is an argument to us all as to why we ought not to be partial. Because the God who said, do not commit adultery, also said, do not commit murder. And I don't think it's any accident that James uses this particular analogy, because this statement, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, ultimately comes back to how we treat others.
It is a murder issue. We are guilty if we are engaged in that sort of partiality.
The Law of Liberty
And then notice, fourthly, the regulation of our conduct by a consideration of God's law. Now, certainly we ought to think about, we want to please God in our Christian walk. We want to honor Christ who loved us and gave himself for us, that whole guilt, grace, gratitude dynamic that the Heidelberg Catechism so beautifully presents. Guilt, grace, gratitude.
We are guilty, vile, helpless sinners. God's grace finds us out, delivers us, and gratitude is the appropriate response. So love to God, love to Christ, gratitude for our God. But James actually says that the law is useful as well for a believer to keep in mind when they conduct themselves in this world.
Notice verse 12, so speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. It's a beautiful statement, isn't it? This isn't a different law. James has been speaking in context of the royal law. identified with the Sixth and Seventh Commandments, so that brings us to Decalogue.
How can the law be a law of liberty? Well, think about it this way. God's law is a reflection of God, isn't it? And we as image bearers are supposed to reflect God.
If we as image bearers were doing what we were supposed to do, the law of liberty would be our joy and delight. It would be the way that we image God, the way that we reflect His glory, the way that we do what we're supposed to do. You see, the law of liberty for the believer who has been freed from bondage and the tyranny of sin and Satan, brought into the light which is Christ, given a new heart, given the Holy Spirit, having that law now written upon his heart, it is our delight, isn't it, to do what pleases God? I don't know.
Yes, it is our delight to please God. This is why it's a law of liberty. We don't want to have any other gods before God because we have God. We don't want to commit idolatry because we have God.
We don't want to blaspheme that holy name by which we've been called because God saved us. We don't want to, you know, desecrate a Sabbath day because it's a blessing, it's a liberty. God commands me to rest. I don't want to dishonor the parents whom God put over me.
No, it's my liberty and joy to submit to their rule and their government. I hope all you kids say that. It's my liberty and my joy to submit to you, father and mother. Kids, if you want to make your parents pass out, try that sometime.
It is my joy and liberty to do what you say, father and mother. Try it. You're never wanting to see the results there. It's our joy and liberty to not murder people, isn't it?
It's our joy and liberty to not commit adultery against people, isn't it? It's our joy and liberty not to be thieves. It's our joy and liberty not to be, you know, liars or covetous. You see, it is a law of liberty.
Those who have taught that the law is just this burden, you know, sort of thing that's a holdover in Reformed theology, but it's better confined to that old covenant dispensation. No. The law of God transcends whatever covenant is in place. It's transcovenantal.
That's the word, right? It's what I was searching for. Transcovenantal. It doesn't matter what covenant is in place.
The law of God applies. Isn't this Jeremiah's point in Jeremiah 31 when he says, and I will write my law on their heart? Is that to be a burden? Is that to be a drudgery?
Is that to say, oh, man, how I hate your law? How does David say, oh, how I love thy law? It is my joy. Brethren, if you don't look at the law as a law of liberty, you've got a different perspective, not only from James, but from Paul.
What's Paul say in Romans 3? After declaring the doctrine of justification by faith, do we then nullify the law? May it never be. Rather, we establish the law.
Again, not as a covenant of works, not as a means by which we try and approach God. There is an unlawful use of the law of God, but there are lawful uses. And if the believer understands that and uses it lawfully, that is a blessed and wonderful thing. So James says, so speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
Certainty of Judgment
And then notice the final observation in this decological argument is the certainty of judgment in accordance with God's law. Verse 13, for judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. I think that's pretty obvious. Judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy.
If you're a merciless wretch, guess how you're gonna be judged on the day of judgment. It's going to be strict and it's going to be severe. Now there it's not talking about, you know, remaining corruption. Those who are without mercy, those who have no compassion, all of us struggle.
I doubt there's anybody in here saying, man, I'm actually good at this one. Did anybody say that when we talked about bridling the tongue? Did anybody pat themselves on the back and say, man, I've mastered the tongue? Again, don't raise your hand, please, because I don't want to say, well, I don't know.
We can discuss that one later. Did anybody here peer on defiled religion in the sight of God and the Father as this, to visit widows and orphans in their distress and to keep oneself unspotted from the world and say, man, I'm doing good with that? Can any of us say, wow, I am the most impartial man that I know. I am no respecter of race or of gender or of color or of social status.
I have mastered this. No, we all struggle. That's why it's written in James 2. That's why the New Testament epistles continue to tell us things.
Because we've got hard heads. We've got remaining hard hearts. And the Lord God speaks truth to us to help us, to sanctify us. The Spirit uses the data of God's Word.
He writes it into our heart. He brings conviction for sin. He brings us to that place of repentance and confession and owning it. So none of us masters this, but with reference to this truism in verse 13a, for judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy.
In God's just universe, in God's moral government, a merciless man will not find mercy on that day of judgment. Keep that in mind. Again, you don't show mercy in the church so that you'll receive mercy. If you show mercy in the church, it's because God has saved you.
It's because God has chosen you to be rich in faith. It's because God has chosen you to be an inheritor of the kingdom of God. It's because God's grace is operative in your heart. So the absence of mercy argues the absence of grace.
And in that case, judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. And then 13b is a tough one. I'm gonna just give you the two positions here. Actually, here's what Manton says concerning that statement, mercy triumphs over judgment.
That's the proper rendering. Some translations put a yet in there or they might put an and, it's sort of connected to, it really is that terse, mercy triumphs over judgment. What does that mean? I mean, on the surface, yeah, mercy always triumphs over judgment.
Mercy always wins. But if judgment here is the judgment of God, and if mercy in context is our expression of kindness to others, what's happening? And this idea of triumph is literally rejoicing. Mercy rejoices over judgment.
It's a tough passage. Manton says, this latter clause, hath been tortured and vexed with diversity of expositions. Just want to say that so that you don't think I'm weaseling out. It really is a tough phrase.
You may figure it out and that quick, please send me an email and tell me what it means. But he says, some take mercy here for God's mercy, others for man's mercy. Now, John Gill takes it as man's mercy. Man's mercy triumphs over judgment.
And I think this is legit in the context. Gill says, that is merciful men who have shown mercy to the poor saints, will not be afraid of the awful judgment, but rather rejoice or glory as the word signifies in the view of it, since they will obtain mercy at that day. And here come ye blessed of my father. And then he cites Matthew 25, right?
Those in Matthew 25 who had done those gracious things to the least of these my brethren, here come ye blessed of my Father. It's a legitimate interpretation. Others understand it as the mercy of God will triumph over the judgment of God. That even believers deserve.
I gotta say at a particular level, I much prefer this interpretation. Motier explains, practical and loving James directs us at the end away from self-questioning to the one thing that is eternally certain. In the cross of Christ justice was fully done. Its claims were fully met and God's mercy to sinners triumphed in the provision of a complete forgiveness and a full salvation.
So what he suggests is that James has been hitting us pretty hard. These decological arguments for as to why we ought to show mercy to those in the church. But James, being a Christian, being a pastor, being a theologian, being a student of the heart, knows good and well that none of us will ever show the kind of mercy and impartiality that is fitting. And so James ends this brief section with mercy triumphs over judgment.
Now, that shouldn't promote license. Well, if God's mercy is going to triumph over his judgment, it doesn't matter how I treat the miserable wretches around. No. But it is a reminder, after having discoursed on the law, that there is gospel.
There is good news. There is Christ. There is a fountain open for sin and uncleanness. Again, at a particular level, I appreciate that God's mercy triumphs over judgment.
Contextually, I think Gil might have the edge, but I leave it with you and I, again, don't like to weasel out and give you two positions and not take one, but such is exegetical task.
Application and Conclusion
Well, in conclusion, the doctrine of soteriology in James. As we approach 14 to 26, let us never forget that James affirmed sovereign grace. James affirmed election unto salvation. James affirms that faith is a gift given by God.
Faith is the instrument by which we come into saving union with Jesus Christ. So whatever James 2.24 means, it does not mean that we're saved by our works. Secondly, we ought to appreciate James' condemnation of the sin of partiality. It was practiced in James' day.
It wasn't abstract theology here. James is dealing specifically with an issue that was in play. Most likely, it's practiced today. As well, it is characteristic of unbelievers, verse 6, and it is a means by which Christ is blasphemed by unbelievers.
I mean, right there, that practical argument should cause us to guard our hearts against such a thing. If my treatment of a believer is similar to the way an ungodly man treats believers, I should repent. Because in that ungodly man's treatment of believers, he is blaspheming the name of Christ. If my conduct can be seen that way, then God, forgive me for my sins.
As well, it is a violation of the royal law. The royal law is identified with the Ten Commandments, the sixth and the seventh word. It's called the law of liberty as well. As well, I would argue and submit that this sin of partiality is probably more likely to be committed in the church than overt violations of the sixth and seventh word.
In some sense, James uses the biggest sort of external sins of the Decalogue. Most of us, as we gather here on the Lord's day, are probably not guilty of having cut someone's throat last night or having had relations with a woman or a man that was not our spouse. Now, I'm not saying that that never happens. If you are inching close to such things in the use of pornography or looking at things that you ought not, stop, deceased, end it, do not pursue such wickedness.
But for the most part, the violation of the sixth and seventh word will not be as overtly demonstrated in the context of the church. This center partiality, however, probably goes on unchecked all the time. We are partial, or respecters of persons in a way that we are not murderers and adulterers. It is a violation of breaking the entire Decalogue.
It is a rejection of the lawgiver himself, and it is an evidence that the one committing it may indeed be a stranger to the grace of God. Because if God has saved us, God has called us with a holy calling, God has given us life eternal, what's one of John's sort of tests that we know if we've passed from death to life? If you have love for the brethren. That's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
If I have love for the brethren, I mean, I got issues, I got problems, I got this, I got that, but if at the final analysis we can say, I love the brethren, that doesn't mean I'm gonna always pal around with the brethren. Doesn't mean me and the brethren are going to go to the mall together. It doesn't mean that, but I have a love for the brethren. The brethren don't all get into my car and, you know, all of us go.
That's not the concept in view. Love for the brethren is measurable. It's demonstrable. Romans 13.
You love the brethren by not murdering the brethren. You love the brethren by not committing adultery with the brethren's spouses. You love the brethren by not stealing from the brethren. It's objective obedience to God's law that is the evidence that we love the brethren.
That doesn't mean, you know, hey, we can go to the mall together and enjoy a coffee or whatever. You know, let's not treat each other, well, I haven't murdered you, so I love you. Well, okay, you know, but a coffee wouldn't hurt either. But you know what, brethren, it may be the case.
The absence of this may be an evidence that the one committing it is a stranger to the grace of God, because those who have been called by God out of darkness into marvelous light love the brethren. And then finally, we ought to appreciate the normative use of the law, that third use of the law. Christians ought to be aware of that threefold use, or three uses of the law. The royal law's applicability to the church is assumed by James.
It's assumed by James. He doesn't say, well, you know, just for the purpose of illustration, I'm going to point you back to the law at Sinai. But, you know, it has no validity for us, only insofar as it's an example. No, James uses the law, just like Paul uses the law.
As well, the reference to the 6th and 7th Commandments identify what royal law is in view. The usefulness of the law in convicting persons is underscored. The law is the law of liberty. In John, chapter 8, verse 34, Jesus says, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
John 8, 36, he says, therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. And that freeness indeedness means the blessed privilege to obey God's law. The gospel does not nullify the law of God. Our confession says the moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it.
Neither does Christ in the gospel anyway dissolve, but much strengthen the obligation. And if there is that normative use, there is that pedagogical use. If you are here tonight and you have not come to Christ, you have not believed the gospel, this law finds you out. There's not a one of us in this place that can say, I've kept the whole law perfectly.
We haven't. That's why we need the gospel. That's why we need the Lord Jesus Christ. That's why we need to come to the cross and believe on Him.
Well, let us pray.
Closing Prayer
Our Father, we thank You for this section in James' epistle. We pray that You would help us to guard our hearts against the sin of partiality, cause us not to be respecters of persons, cause us not to function based on externals, but God, help us to value, to prize, to love the people of God and grant us grace to esteem the saints of Christ. We ask that you would go with us now. We pray that you would guard us and watch over us in this coming week.
Bless again all those in our church that are struggling physically. Bless all of us as we struggle spiritually. Grant us help from on high in the power of the Holy Spirit. And we pray through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.