← Back to sermon library

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.