Wednesday, Nov. 14

To download an audio version, click here.


If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!  - James 2:8-13

Throughout ch. 2, James makes it clear that the Christian faith is incompatible with favoritism.  This means that in our service, in our worship, in our witness, and in all of our life as a church family, we must manifest the principles of the gospel.  James states from the outset that the Christian faith is utterly incompatible with petty favoritism and shallow prejudice.

James uses several terms for this in this passage in order to indicate what kind of behavior he’s talking about. In verse one, he speaks of personal favoritism, in verse three, he speaks about paying special attention to some while ignoring others. In verse four, he talks about making distinctions. In verse nine, he speaks about showing partiality, and in verse thirteen he even uses the language of showing no mercy towards the person.  All of these are the words that he uses to indicate the kind of behavior that is a fundamental and functional denial of the Christian faith.  

So, we’d better ask, “What is that? What does he mean by personal favoritism?”

Well, let’s start off with what he doesn’t mean first. What does James not mean by personal favoritism?  Well, among other things, he doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to make appropriate distinctions. It would be totally wrong to condemn, let’s say, an usher who met an elderly person at the door who was on crutches or in a wheelchair and at the same time a healthy nineteen year old strapping lad was coming in, there would be nothing wrong with that usher bringing that person who was older and infirm into a convenient place to sit during the service.  

James doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t show due deference to people. If the President of the United States showed up in worship or the governor of the state showed up in worship, there would be nothing wrong with us showing a due deference to such people as God has put in authority over us (Romans 13).  James is not arguing about some sort of radical egalitarianism here that wipes out all social distinctions and says that you cannot show due respect to people in authority. That’s not James’ point.

What does he mean, then, by personal favoritism? What does he mean by partiality?  He means this: he means a self-serving discrimination based upon shallow externals that fails to recognize the dignity of each human life and the glory of the God who made them.  

James does not say that this kind of prejudice is in bad taste, or that it is not a very good idea for Christians, he says that it is SIN! (I know he didn’t use all caps, but I just wanted to make the point).  We are naturally blind to our own prejudices and partialities.  James is showing us that we are kidding ourselves if we think that we are good Christians because we go to church and give money to the poor and avoid the “big sins”, but we judge and discriminate against people in our own hearts.  

Father, protect us from the sin of prejudice and favoritism.  Help us to see people the way that you see them.  We thank you that you are not a partial God, and that your mercy triumphs over judgment through Jesus Christ.  - Amen.

Jeff Frazier

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Why does James use Adultery & Murder as the two sins to prove that we are all guilty of the whole law?? Wow. I imagine adultery was prevalent back then, like it is today... but I am surprised that he puts murder up against it, as if those who don't commit adultery (and think they're superior for it!) would still be guilty because they've committed murder. Hmmm...was murder more common back then?