Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of James 2:4
Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
4. are ye not then partial in yourselves?] The verb is the same as that translated “waver” in chap. Jas 1:6 and elsewhere, as in Mat 21:21; Mar 11:23; Act 10:20; Rom 14:23 by “doubt.” Nor is any other meaning, such as that of “making distinctions,” necessary, or admissible, here. “When you acted in this way (the tense assumes that the thing had been actually done) did you not doubt, as others doubt, in your own hearts?” Faith in Christ’s words as to the deceitfulness of riches and the little honour due to them would have kept men from such servility. They shewed by their words and acts that they were half-hearted, or, in St James’s sense of the word, “double-minded.”
judges of evil thoughts?] The construction is the same as that of the English phrase “a man of bad temper,” and is precisely analogous to that rendered “unjust judge” (literally, judge of injustice) in Luk 18:6, and to the “forgetful hearer” or “hearer of forgetfulness” in chap. Jas 1:25. It means accordingly, “ evil-thinking judges.” In acting as they did, men made themselves judges between rich and poor, and with “base reasonings,” or better, perhaps, what we call “base calculations,” gave a preference to the former.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Are ye not then partial in yourselves? – Among yourselves. Do you not show that you are partial?
And are become judges of evil thoughts – There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting this passage, yet the sense seems not to be difficult. There are two ideas in it: one is, that they showed by this conduct that they took it upon themselves to be judges, to pronounce on the character of men who were strangers, and on their claims to respect (Compare Mat 7:1); the other is, that in doing this, they were not guided by just rules, but that they did it under the influence of improper thoughts. They did it not from benevolence; not from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character; but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honor to men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real worth. The wrong in the case was in their presuming to judge these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction, and then by doing it under the influence of such an unjust rule of judgment. The sense is, that we have no right to form a decisive judgment of men on their first appearance, as we do when we treat one with respect and the other not; and that when we make up our opinion in regard to them, it should be by some other means of judging than the question whether they can wear gold rings, and dress well, or not. Beza and Doddridge render this, ye become judges who reason ill.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. Are ye not then partial] . Do ye not make a distinction, though the case has not been heard, and the law has not decided?
Judges of evil thoughts?] . Judges of evil reasonings; that is, judges who reason wickedly; who, in effect, say in your hearts, we will espouse the cause of the rich, because they can befriend us; we will neglect that of the poor, because they cannot help us, nor have they power to hurt us.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Are ye not then partial in yourselves? Either, are ye not judged in yourselves, convicted by your own consciences of partiality, and accepting mens persons? Or, have ye not made a difference? viz. out of a corrupt affection rather than a right judgment; and then it falls in with our translation; Are ye not partial? The Greek word is used in this sense, Act 15:9; Jud 1:22.
And are become judges of evil thoughts; i.e. judges that have evil thoughts, or are evil affected: q.d. You evidence the corruptness of your affections by your thus perversely judging.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. Are ye not . . .partialliterally, “Have ye not made distinctions” or”differences” (so as to prefer one to another)? So in Jude22.
in yourselvesin yourminds, that is, according to your carnal inclination [GROTIUS].
are become judges of evilthoughtsThe Greek words for “judges” and for”partial,” are akin in sound and meaning. A similartranslation ought therefore to be given to both. Thus, either for”judges,” c. translate, “distinguishers of(that is, according to your) evil thoughts” or, do ye notpartially judge between men, and are become evilly-thinkingjudges (Mr 7:21)? The “evilthoughts” are in the judges themselves; as in Lu18:6, the Greek, “judge of injustice,” istranslated, “unjust judge.” ALFORDand WAHL translate, “Didye not doubt” (respecting your faith, which isinconsistent with the distinctions made by you between rich andpoor)? For the Greek constantly means “doubt“in all the New Testament. So in Jas1:6, “wavering.” Mat 21:21;Act 10:20; Rom 4:20,”staggered not.” The same play on the same kindred wordsoccurs in the Greek of Rom 14:10;Rom 14:23, “judge . . .doubteth.” The same blame of being a judge, when one ought to bean obeyer, of the law is found in Jas4:11.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Are ye not then partial in yourselves,…. That is, guilty of such partiality as must appear to yourselves, and your own consciences must accuse you of; or do not ye distinguish, or make a difference among yourselves, by such a conduct, towards the rich and the poor:
and are become judges of evil thoughts; or “are distinguishers by evil thoughts”; that is, make a distinction between the rich and the poor, by an evil way of thinking, that one is better than the other, and to be preferred before him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Are ye not divided in your own mind? ( ;). First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of , to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see 1Co 7:28. “Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?” Cf. Jas 1:6; Matt 21:21.
Judges with evil thoughts ( ). Descriptive genitive as in 1:25. is an old word for reasoning (Ro 1:21). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see Mt 15:19 () and Mr 7:21 () for evil reasonings, and 1Ti 2:8 without an adjective. See Jas 1:8; Jas 4:8 for . They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Are ye not partial in yourselves? [ ] . Wrong. The constant sense of the verb in the New Testament is doubt, except Act 11:2; Jude 1:9, where it means dispute. Compare ch. 1 6. The meaning here is, therefore, that, in making a distinction between the rich and the poor, they expressed a doubt concerning the faith which they professed, and which abolished such distinctions. Hence, Rev., rightly, Are ye not divided in your own mind ?
Judges of evil thoughts [ ] . Better, as Rev., “judges with evil thoughts.” The form of expression is the same as in Luk 18:6, krithv thv ajdikiav, the judge of injustice, i e., the unjust judge. So Jas 1:25, a hearer of forgetfulness. The word thoughts is, rather, reasonings. See on deceiving yourselves (ch. 1 22). Compare Luk 5:21. Their evil processes of thought lead to these unjust discriminations.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) James rhetorically affirms that a poor and shabbily dressed person holding few of this world’s goods may be chosen of God as an agent of the faith (rich or plutocratic).
2) Such a person should not therefore, as God’s servant, be shown disrespect or partiality because of his clothes, Mat 5:3; Mar 12:37.
COURTEOUS TO ALL PEOPLE
A Sunday School teacher was endeavoring to impress upon his class of teenagers to have right attitudes toward everybody. He said, “if we let the Bible criticize our thoughts, we will have the right attitude toward everybody. It will help us to act as Christians should act in all their relationships with others. Now tell me if you understand the truth I am trying to put across to you.” “I think I do,” said a seventeen-year-old girl. “Before I knew the Lord Jesus as my personal Saviour, I used to single out certain people to be nice to. In my thoughts certain people were more important than others, but now I know that, as a Christian, God expects me to be courteous to everybody.”
W. B. K.
EVERYONE A PRIME MINISTER
Dr. Bouden, an eminent surgeon, was one day sent for by the Cardinal du Bois, prime minister of France, to perform a very serious operation upon him. The Cardinal on seeing him enter the room said to him, “You must not expect to treat me in the same rough manner that you treat your poor miserable wretches at your hospital of the Hotel Dieu. My Lord,” replied the surgeon, with great dignity, “everyone of those miserable wretches, as Your Eminence is pleased to call them, is a prime minister in my eyes.”
– Biblical Illustrator
IN CHRIST
In Christ there is no East nor West, In Him no South nor North, But one great fellowship of love Throughout the whole wide earth.
In Him shall true hearts everywhere Their high communion find; His service is the golden cord close binding all mankind.
– Harvest Field
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves ? or, are ye not condemned in yourselves. This may be read affirmatively as well as interrogatively, but the sense would be the same, for he amplifies the fault by this, that they took delight and indulged themselves in so great a wickedness. If it be read interrogatively, the meaning is, “Does not your own conscience hold you convicted, so that you need no other judge?” If the affirmative be preferred, it is the same as though he had said, “This evil also happens, that ye think not that ye sin, nor know that your thoughts are so wicked as they are.” (112)
(112) It is commonly admitted to be an interrogatory sentence: “And do ye not make a difference among (or, in) yourselves, and become judges, having evil thoughts?” literally, “judges of evil thoughts,” it being, as they say, the genitive case of possession. Or the words may be rendered, “and become judges of evil (or, false) reasonings?” or as Beza renders the sentence, “and become judges, reasoning falsely,” concluding that the rich man was good and the poor man bad.
It is said by Beza and others, that διακρίνομαι never means to be judged or condemned, but to distinguish, to discriminate, to make a difference, and also to contend and to doubt. The difference made here was the respect of persons that was shewn, and they made this difference in themselves, in their own minds, through the perverse or false thoughts or reasonings which they entertained. But it appears that these preferences were shewn, not to the members of the Church, but to such strangers as might happen to come to their assemblies.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?Or, as the sense, fully expressed, would be: My brethren, if you acted thus, did you not doubt in yourselves, and become by such false and unfaithful discrimination judges of and in your own evil thoughts? Did you not lose the idea of brotherhood, and become contentious as to supremacy of self and placeserving yourselves while prepared for the service of Christ? The Lord Jesus thought not His equality with God a thing ever to be grasped at, if work for man could be done by self-humiliation. Therefore, although being equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead, He became inferior . . . as touching His Manhood. And none may turn unmoved from that picture of sublime condescension to the petty strifes of quality and position which profane the Christian sanctuary. Most sadly true is it that in making distinctions such as these between rich and poor, we become of the number of those who doubt respecting their faith; for, while it abolishes such altogether in the presence of God, we set them up of our own arrogance and pride. We draw nigh unto Him with our mouth, and honour Him with our lips, but our heart is far from Him; and our worship therefore vain. (Comp. Isa. 29:13; Eze. 33:31; Mat. 15:8-9.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘Do you not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?’
James then makes his point. By doing this they are making distinctions among themselves and are judging with evil thoughts. They are looking from the point of view of the world, not from the point of view of God. And in the assembly of God’s people that was not to be. Outside the assembly one might be the Master and the other a slave. But in the assembly they were both vile sinners, in need of constant mercy.
It should in fairness be pointed out that in many such assemblies the slave might very often be made a bishop or a deacon, while the rich man was simply a hearer and a learner, but James clearly knew of some assemblies where this principle was not followed. But the idea here might be that these are newcomers, and even the slave bishop might sometimes fall into the trap of honouring the rich man who enters the church for the first time more than he was due. That is unquestionably what happens in many modern churches. It is human nature. Perhaps Jas 2:1-6 should be posted up in all churches.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jam 2:4. Are ye not then partial in yourselves, Do you not put a difference, or discrimination among yourselves on those accounts which are foreign to the cause? That this is the frequent sense of the words and , see Act 15:9 where the words are rendered, He put no difference betwixt us and them: and, Jud 1:22 where we read, Of some have compassion, , making a difference.
An are become judges of evil thoughts? That is, Who pass judgment from your own evil thoughts, as considering the rich worthy of respect in judgment, for his gorgeous attire and outward appearance, and the poor fit to be despised for his outward meanness.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jas 2:4 forms the apodosis to Jas 2:2-3 , and rebukes what is blameable in the conduct described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of this verse, according as they explain the verb , and understand as a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take , in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Mat 21:21 , Mar 11:23 , Rom 4:20 , and to give to the verb here the same meaning which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T.; so that it denotes the doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith; see on chap. Jas 1:6 . But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative: Did you not then doubt among yourselves? i.e. , Have ye not fallen into a contradiction with your faith (Jas 2:1 ), according to which external glory and riches are nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them? To this question the second is added, to which the preceding is also to be referred: and became ye not (thus) judges of evil thoughts? This second question indicates the direct consequence of . James calls them , because in their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The genitive is not the genitive of object, [113] but of quality. is here, as predominantly in the N. T. in malam partem (see especially Luk 5:21-22 ), thoughts of doubt ana unbelief; the bad meaning is here heightened by .
[113] Elsner: iniquas istas cogitationes approbastis; Bengel: judices approbatores, malarum cogitationum i. e. divitum, foris splendentium, sed malis cogitationibus sentientium.
Other explanations are as follow:
(1) = separare: then the sentence is interrogative; = (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being either passive: nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati? or middle: nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos? “Do you not separate, divide yourselves among yourselves?” (Lange).
(2) = discrimen facere. ( a ) The verb active ( ) interrogative: nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos? (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hottinger, Knapp). In this explanation = ; Schneckenburger, however, explains = in animis vestris; but then the meaning: discrimen facere, would pass into an act of the judgment, “ statuere. ” ( ) Negative: “Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound judgment) among yourselves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart)” (Grashof). ( b ) The verb passive: dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis discriminati h. e. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia (Oeder).
(3) = judicare. ( a ) The verb active ( ) interrogative: nonne judicastis, deliberastis ipsi? “Are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong this is?” (Augusti). ( ) Negative: non discrevistis justa dubitatione, considerantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non minus, quam diviti (Bengel). Luther combines this rendering with that under James 2 : “And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an evil distinction.” Here also comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: , , , . ( b ) The verb passive ( ) interrogative: Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati h. e. convicti estis? Paraeus; so also Bouman: nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum jam judicati estis animis? ( ) Negative: et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra (Heisen). Differently Cajetanus: haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et paupertate; laying the chief stress on .
(4) = dubitare, to entertain doubts. ( a ) Interrogative: et non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos? et facti estis iniqui judices? “Should you not yourselves have entertained doubts? Should you actually have passed evil-minded judgments?” (Theile). ( b ) Negative: non dubitastis apud animum, ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.
All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a meaning of foreign to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Brckner, de Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the meaning to doubt. De Wette: “Have you not then become doubtful in your faith?” Wiesinger: “Have you not forsaken the law of faith, which recognises only one true riches?” With the reading of B (omitting ) the thought is the same; the interrogative ( ), however, serves for the heightening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pronounce the judgment. The of the Receptus stands as in Mar 10:26 , Luk 10:29 , 1Co 5:2 , with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since in the N. T. no other passage is found where is placed before a question forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with (on 2Co 2:2 , see Meyer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make Jas 2:4 a part of the protasis; see above.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Ver. 4. Are ye not then partial ] , or, “Are ye not for so doing condemned in your own consciences?” Or, “Neither have ye so much as once doubted or questioned the matter within yourselves, whether in so doing you have not done amiss?”
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] (Now comes the apodosis in the form of a question) did ye not (in the case supposed) doubt (such is the constant sense of in the N. T. throughout (reff.), except in two passages, Act 11:2 ; Jud 1:9 , where it means “disputing,” a sense which cannot enter here (on Jud 1:22 , see there). And here, the sense seems very good: ‘Did ye not, in making such distinction between rich and poor, become of the number of those who doubt respecting their faith, ch. Jam 1:6 ? Your faith abolishes such distinction: you set it up in practice. You are not then whole in that faith.’ Various other explanations have been given, which Huther enumerates thus: 1. = “ separare :” thus Schulthess, Semler, Erasm. Schmid, al., with the verb either passive, “Nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti et separati?” or middle, “Nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos?” 2. = “ discrimen facere :” a. the verb active , and that, . interrogative : “Nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos?” so Laurentius, Grot., Wolf, Hottinger, Knapp: thus = : Schneckenburger however gives it “in animis vestris,” and makes “discrimen facere” to pass into an act of individual judgment, “statuere:” . negative : “Then ye have not made a sound distinction in yourselves:” so Grashof: b. the verb passive , “Inter vos ipsos non estis discriminati, N. E. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia,” Oeder. 3. = “judicare:” a. the verb active : and that, . interrogative : “Nonne judicastis, deliberastis ipsi?” i. e. are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong this is? Augusti:) . negative : “Non discrevistis justa deliberatione, considerantia et stimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non minus quam diviti,” Bengel (Luther combines this rendering with that under (2): und bedenket es nicht recht, sondern ihr werdet Richter, und macht bsen Unterschied): here also comes in the explanation of c.: , , . : b. the verb passive : and that, . interrogative : “Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati, h. e. convicti estis?” Parus: . negative : “Et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra,” Heisen. Cajetan, somewhat differently, “Hc faciendo non estis judicati in vobis ipsis, sed estis judicati in vestibus et divitis et pauperis:” laying the chief stress on . 4. = ‘ dubitare ,’ to entertain doubts: . interrogative : “Et non dubitastis apud vosmetipsos? et facti estis iniqui judices?” “Should you not yourselves have entertained doubts? should you actually have passed evil-minded judgment?” Theile: . negative : “Non dubitastis apud animum, ne scilicet quidem hc cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, sed certo apud vos statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.”
The meaning above given is held by Keen, De Wette, Wiesinger, Huther) within yourselves (in your own minds, being at issue with your own faith), and become judges (in the case of the rich and poor; judges of the case before you), of evil thoughts (the gen. is one of quality, like , Luk 18:6 ; , ch. Jas 1:25 ; not an objective gen., as Elsner, “Iniquas illas cogitationes approbastis:” and Bengel, “judices, approbatores, malarum cogitationum: i. e. divitum, foris splendentium, sed malis cogitationibus scatentium.” The evil thoughts are in the judges themselves, and consist in the undue preference given by them to the rich. The same blame, of being a judge when a man ought to be an obeyer of the law, is found in ch. Jas 4:11 . Notice also the parallel containing the same paronomasia, in Rom 14 ; ; (Jas 2:10 :). ( Jam 2:23 ))?
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Jas 2:4 . : “Are ye not divided among yourselves”? The Peshit uses the word , the same as that used in Luk 11:17 . “Every Kingdom divided against itself.” The reference in the verse before us might be to the class distinctions which were thus being made, and which would have the effect of engendering envy and strife, and thus divisions. : the Peshit has the interesting rendering (instead of the usual word for “judge” ), which comes from the root meaning “to divide”. : Cf. Mat 15:19 , : genitive of quality, “judges with evil surmisings,” viz. , of breaking up the unity of the worshippers by differentiating between their worldly status; the writer is very modern! is generally used in a bad sense, cf. Luk 5:21-22 ; Rom 1:21 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Are . . . partial. App-122.
of. Genitive of quality or character. App-17.
evil. App-128.
thoughts = reasonings. See Mat 15:19.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] (Now comes the apodosis in the form of a question)-did ye not (in the case supposed) doubt (such is the constant sense of in the N. T. throughout (reff.), except in two passages, Act 11:2; Jud 1:9, where it means disputing, a sense which cannot enter here (on Jud 1:22, see there). And here, the sense seems very good: Did ye not, in making such distinction between rich and poor, become of the number of those who doubt respecting their faith, ch. Jam 1:6? Your faith abolishes such distinction: you set it up in practice. You are not then whole in that faith. Various other explanations have been given, which Huther enumerates thus: 1. = separare: thus Schulthess, Semler, Erasm. Schmid, al., with the verb either passive, Nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti et separati? or middle, Nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos? 2. = discrimen facere: a. the verb active, and that, . interrogative: Nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos? so Laurentius, Grot., Wolf, Hottinger, Knapp: thus = : Schneckenburger however gives it in animis vestris, and makes discrimen facere to pass into an act of individual judgment, statuere: . negative: Then ye have not made a sound distinction in yourselves: so Grashof: b. the verb passive, Inter vos ipsos non estis discriminati, N. E. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia, Oeder. 3. = judicare: a. the verb active: and that, . interrogative: Nonne judicastis, deliberastis ipsi? i. e. are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong this is? Augusti:) . negative: Non discrevistis justa deliberatione, considerantia et stimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non minus quam diviti, Bengel (Luther combines this rendering with that under (2): und bedenket es nicht recht, sondern ihr werdet Richter, und macht bsen Unterschied): here also comes in the explanation of c.: , , . : b. the verb passive: and that, . interrogative: Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati, h. e. convicti estis? Parus: . negative: Et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra, Heisen. Cajetan, somewhat differently, Hc faciendo non estis judicati in vobis ipsis, sed estis judicati in vestibus et divitis et pauperis: laying the chief stress on . 4. = dubitare, to entertain doubts: . interrogative: Et non dubitastis apud vosmetipsos? et facti estis iniqui judices? Should you not yourselves have entertained doubts? should you actually have passed evil-minded judgment? Theile: . negative: Non dubitastis apud animum, ne scilicet quidem hc cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, sed certo apud vos statuistis id jure ac bene fieri.
The meaning above given is held by Keen, De Wette, Wiesinger, Huther) within yourselves (in your own minds, being at issue with your own faith), and become judges (in the case of the rich and poor; judges of the case before you), of evil thoughts (the gen. is one of quality, like , Luk 18:6; , ch. Jam 1:25; not an objective gen., as Elsner, Iniquas illas cogitationes approbastis: and Bengel, judices, approbatores, malarum cogitationum: i. e. divitum, foris splendentium, sed malis cogitationibus scatentium. The evil thoughts are in the judges themselves, and consist in the undue preference given by them to the rich. The same blame, of being a judge when a man ought to be an obeyer of the law, is found in ch. Jam 4:11. Notice also the parallel containing the same paronomasia, in Romans 14; ; (Jam 2:10 :). (Jam 2:23))?
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Jam 2:4. , nor) If, of Jam 2:2, has its Apodosis in this verse: , , both ye do not discriminate aright, and.- ) Though you make that difference (discrimination) between the rich and the poor, you do not discriminate with just hesitation, consideration, and weighing, that which should have been given to the poor man, rather, or at any rate not less, than to the rich. occurs in an active sense also in Rom 4:20. is used in this passage of James in a good sense. [But Engl. Vers. takes it in a bad sense, and with an interrogation, Are ye not partial?] To this compound word the simple is opposed, which word denotes those who settle any subject definitely. (discrimination) ought to precede (judgment); whereas you omit the former and exercise the latter.- ) judges, approvers of evil thoughts: that is, of the rich, who have outward splendour, but abound with evil thoughts. They who honour the rich man in preference to the poor, do not expressly desire to approve of his evil thoughts; but James puts this interpretation upon their conduct, and lays it to their charge, because the rich man in his pomp is full of evil thoughts. The more common sentiment is presupposed as well known.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
partial: Jam 1:1-27, Job 34:19, Mal 2:9
judges: Jam 4:11, Job 21:27, Psa 58:1, Psa 82:2, Psa 109:31, Mat 7:1-5, Joh 7:24
Reciprocal: Pro 24:23 – It Mar 7:21 – evil Joh 8:15 – judge Act 4:19 – judge Act 10:34 – Of a Rom 14:13 – judge one Jam 3:17 – without
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jas 2:4. Here the writer uses the very word of our definition by saying they are partial. Judges of is rendered “judges having” by The Englishman’s Greek New Testament. The passage means those people had evil thoughts when they were judging or deciding on who should sit where.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jas 2:4. This verse has given rise to a great variety of interpretation, owing to the uncertainty of its correct translation. Are ye not partial in yourselves? This version is hardly correct. Some render the words: Did you not judge among yourselves, by thus determining that the rich are to be preferred to the poor? Others: Did you not discriminate or make a distinction among those who as Christians are equal? Others: Were ye not contentious among yourselves? did ye not thus become litigants among yourselves? And others: Did ye not doubt among yourselvesbecome wavering and unsettled in your faith? The verb in the original is the same which in the former chapter is translated to doubt or to waver (Jas 1:6); and therefore, although it may also admit of the above significations, it is best to give a preference to that sense in which St. James has already used it. Hence, literally translated, Did you not doubt in yourselves? Did you not, in showing this respect of persons, waver between God with whom there is no respect of persons and the world, and thus become double-minded? Did you not contradict your faith, according to which the external distinction between rich and poor is nothing? For to hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect to persons is a contradiction in terms. The Revised Version has, Are ye not divided in your own mind?
and are become judges of evil thoughts? Here also there is an equal variety of opinion. Some consider the evil thoughts as the objects of their judgments, and render the clause: Are you not judges of evil disputationsof such disputations as a strife about precedence would give rise to. But it is best to take the evil thoughts in a subjective sense, as residing in the judges themselvesevil-minded judges; showing themselves to be so by giving an undue preference to the rich. Just as a partial judge may be called a judge of partiality, or, in the same manner, as the unjust judge in the parable is in the Greek called the judge of injustice (Luk 18:6; see also Luk 16:8). Compare Jas 1:25, a forgetful hearer, literally a hearer of forgetfulness. The word here rendered thoughts also denotes reasonings, disputations; and hence some render the clause judges who reason ill; who, instead of calmly acting on principles of equity, are led astray by partiality to the rich.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 4
Of evil thoughts; under the influence of evil thoughts.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:4 Are ye not then partial in {c} yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
(c) Have you not within yourselves judged one man to be preferred over another (which you should not do) by means of this?
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The form of James’ question in the Greek text expects a positive answer: "You have, haven’t you?" The usher made two errors. First, he showed favoritism because of what the rich man might do for the church if he received preferential treatment. He should have treated everyone graciously, as God does. This reflects a double-minded attitude in the usher, thinking like the world in this case while thinking as God thinks in other respects (Jas 1:8).
Second, the usher, who represents all the believers, manifested evil motives in judging where to seat the two visitors. His motive was what the church could obtain from them rather than what it could impart to them. The Christian and the church should seek primarily to serve others rather than getting others to serve them (cf. Mar 10:45).
"Prejudice is an evil that exhibits the character of the one who practices it." [Note: Hiebert, James, p. 139.]