Jas 2:5 . , : This expression, which one would expect to hear rather in a vigorous address, reveals the writer as one who was also an impassioned speaker; cf. in the same spirit, the frequent , and especially, , Jas 4:13 , Jas 5:1 . : a very significant term in the mouth of a Jew when addressing Jews; cf. Deu 14:1-2 , , cf. Act 13:17 ; 1Co 1:27 . There is an interesting saying in Chag . 9 b where it is said that poverty is the quality most befitting Israel as the chosen people. : i.e. , poor in the estimation of the world; the reading or loses this point; cf. Mat 10:9 ; Luk 6:20 . : “Oblique predicate” (Mayor). In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs , Gad. vii. 6 we read: “For the poor man, if, free from envy, he pleaseth the Lord in all things, is blessed beyond all men” (the Greek text reads which Charles holds to be due to a corruption in the original Hebrew text which reads = ). See, for the teaching of our Lord, Mat 6:19 ; Luk 12:21 . is used here rather in the sense of trust than in the way in which it is used in Jas 2:1 . : the Kingdom must refer to that of the Messiah, see Jas 5:7-9 , and Mat 25:35 , , but not Mat 5:3 which treats of a different subject. It is of importance to remember that the Messianic Kingdom to which reference is made in this verse was originally, among the Jews, differentiated from the “future life” which is apparently referred to in Jas 1:12 , , . There was a distinction, fundamentally present, though later on confused, in Jewish theology, between the “Kingdom of Heaven” over which God reigns, and that of the Kingdom of Israel over which the Messiah should reign. An integral part of the Messianic hope was the doctrine of a resurrection ( cf. Isa 24:10 ; Dan 12:2 ). This first assumed definite form, apparently, under the impulse of the idea that those who had suffered martyrdom for the Law ( Torah ) were worthy to share in the future glories of Israel. In the crudest form of the doctrine the resurrection was confined to the Holy Land those buried elsewhere would have to burrow through the ground to Palestine and to Israelites. And the trumpet-blast which was to be the signal for the ingathering of the exiles would also arouse the sleeping dead ( cf. Berachoth , 15 b , 4 Ezr 4:23 ff.; 1Co 15:52 ; 1Th 4:16 ). According to the older view, the Kingdom was to follow the resurrection and judgment; but the later and more widely held view was that a temporary Messianic Kingdom would be established on the earth, and that this would be followed by the Last Judgment and the Resurrection which would close the Messianic Era. This was to be followed by a new heaven and a new earth. In the eschatological development which took place during the first century B.C. Paradise came to be regarded as the abode of the righteous and elect in an intermediate state; from there they will pass to the Messianic Kingdom, and then, after the final judgment they enter heaven and eternal life. In our Epistle there are some reflections of these various conceptions and beliefs, but they have entered into a simpler and more spiritual phase. That the reference in the verse before us is to the Messianic Kingdom seems indubitable both on account of the mention of the “Lord Jesus Christ” (Messiah) with which the section opens, showing that the thought of our Lord was in the mind of the writer, and because of the mention of the “Kingdom,” and also on account of the direct mention of the coming of the Messiah as Judge, later on in Jas 5:7-9 . And if this is so then we may perhaps see in the words a reference to Christ.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

beloved. App-135.

Hath . . . chosen = Did . . . choose.

God. App-98.

this = the.

world. App-129.

kingdom. See App-112, App-113, App-114.

hath. Omit.

love. App-135.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

5.] Listen, my beloved brethren (bespeaking attention to that which follows, as shewing them in a marked manner the sin of their ), Did not God choose out (in His proceeding, namely, in the promulgation of the gospel by Christ, Mat 5:3 ff.: Luk 6:20. See also 1Co 1:27) the poor (, as a class, set against as a class, below) as regards the world (reff.: or, those who in the worlds estimation are accounted poor; but the dative of reference is most likely here, as in , and the like) rich in faith (i. e. to be rich in faith, or so that they are rich in faith: the words are not in apposition with , as Erasmus, al., but form a predicatory specification of them. , as the element, the world, so to speak, in which they pass for rich, as in ref. 1 Tim.: not as the material of which their riches consist, as in ref. Eph. Wiesinger well says, Not the measure of faith, in virtue of which one man is richer than another, is before the Writers mind, but the substance of the faith, by virtue of which substance every believer is rich. The riches are the treasures of salvation, and especially, owing to the following , the sonship in Gods family. And similarly Calvin, Non qui fidei magnitudine abundant, sed quos Deus variis Spiritus sui donis locupletavit, qu fide percipimus), and heirs of the kingdom which He promised (Luk 12:31-32 al.) to them that love Him?

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jam 2:5. , hearken) By this address he brings to trial and restrains rash judges, showing that the presumption ought to be in favour of the poor, rather than the rich.- , God) Our judgment ought to be in conformity with the judgment of God, even in ceremonies and outward gestures.- , chose the poor) They who are chosen, are needy. This description does not include all the poor, nor is it confined to the poor only; for poverty and riches of themselves do not render any man good or evil; and yet the poor are in various places pronounced happy in preference to the rich: ch. Jam 5:1. And the terms, wicked and rich, righteous and poor, are generally synonymous. Isa 53:9; Amo 2:6; Amo 5:12. The rich man, if he is good, renounces his riches; the poor man, if he is wicked, neglects that which is the advantage of poverty. Many Christians were of the poor, few from among the rich; especially at Jerusalem, and among those to whom James writes. Comp. the notes on ch. Jam 5:1 and following verses. So also, 1Co 1:27, God hath chosen, etc.- , , rich in faith, and heirs) Beza thus explains it: He chose the poor, that they might become rich in faith, and heirs, etc. E. Schmid thus takes it: He chose the poor, who are however rich in faith, to be also heirs, etc. The latter puts asunder two points which are most intimately connected, rich and heirs. The former, contrary to the design of the apostle, places faith and love after election. For James treats concerning the order of election, faith, and love, just as that order becomes known to us: and moreover he thus furnishes us with a rule for forming a right judgment respecting the poor; in which point of view not only faith, but also love, precedes election in the order of our knowledge. The meaning of the apostle is this: God chose the poor, who are rich in faith, and who are also heirs, etc. Whence this argument is derived: Whoever are rich in faith and heirs, them we ought to acknowledge and treat as chosen by God; but the poor are rich in faith, etc. Thus election is so far from preceding faith, that even the inheritance precedes election; and if we duly consider the antithesis between He chose, and ye have despised, this conclusion presents itself. Both God highly esteems, and we ought to have highly esteemed, those who are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom.- , in faith) which has for its object the Lord of glory. To this faith are assigned as a consequence the riches of heaven and of the world to come, even as the inheritance is assigned to love.-, heirs) because sons.- , of the kingdom) The highest dignity.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jas 2:5

GOD’S REGARD FOR THE POOR

Jas 2:5

5 Hearken, my beloved brethren;—Compare statements beginning, in similar fashion, at Jas 1:2; Jas 1:19; Jas 2:1; Jas 2:14; Jas 3:1; Jas 3:10; Jas 4:11; Jas 5:7; Jas 5:12; Jas 5:19. To “hearken,” is to hear with attention. James would have his readers to give special attention to what he was about to write, in view of the practices which he was rebuking. Immediately preceding this is a sharp reprimand; it is followed by this brotherly and tender address, breathing the very spirit of love, interest and concern for those to whom he wrote. These contrasts appear regularly in the Epistle. All of us should give careful attention to these matters. They are as important and pertinent to us today as for those originally addressed. The sins which the sacred writer condemns are no less common now.

did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith,—This question is cast in a form requiring an affirmative answer. That God has indeed chosen the “poor as to the world,” is evident from the fact that far more poor people serve him than do the rich. The Lord has ordained that the poor shall be possessors of the blessings of his kingdom ; and, of this fact he frequently made mention. (Luk 6:20; cf. 1Co 1:26-30.) This, of course, does not mean that the choice was arbitrary and without regard for the character of those chosen ; indeed, the passage declares that those thus chosen are “rich in faith,” a phrase which contrasts their spiritual endowments with the preceding one, “poor as to the world.” The manner in which God chooses people is clearly indicated in 2Th 2:13-14, where it is affirmed that the divine call is through the gospel (which is to all men, Mar 16:15-16), and that belief of the truth, (an act of men) is essential thereto. The poor outnumber the rich among those God has thus chosen simply because the poor are much more likely to obey God than the rich are. This passage does not assert that the Lord chooses people because they are poor; poverty, o.: itself, is not a blessing; nor, is the mere possession of wealth a sin. There are exceedingly good rich men, and extremely bad poor men. The meaning is that the poor are much more likely to be “rich in faith,” than the rich are (who have far greater temptation), and inasmuch as God favors the poor for this reason, we ought not to reverse his order and favor the rich over the poor. The choice should always be made on the ground of richness of faith rather than on the basis of worldly and material possessions. Far better it is to be “poor as to the world,” and “rich in faith,” with the blessings which attend such, than to be possessed of all the gold of Ophir and the cattle on a thousand hills and to be impoverished in faith.

and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?—A second characteristic of those who are “poor as to the world,” but “rich in faith,” is that they are “heirs of the kingdom,” (kleronomous tes basileias, inheritors of the kingdom, those who shall some day receive the blessings thereof by right of descent). To be an heir, in New Testament usage, is to be related to God in such fashion as properly to receive that which descends from a father-son relationship. (1Pe 3:9.) This relationship begins with the new birth (Joh 3:3-5; cf. Col 3:24 ; Eph 1:18; Mat 5:5), and such expressions as “eternal life,” (Mat 19:29), “an inheritance incorruptible,” (1Pe 1:4), and the “eternal inheritance,” (Heb 9:15), are based on this relationship, and they continue and extend the figure thus used. To be an heir of the kingdom is, therefore, to be in that line of descent from God so as to be properly entitled to inherit that which belongs to him, and which he holds for his children.

It is important to take note of the fact that the kingdom contemplated here is not the kingdom set up on the first Pentecost following our Lord’s resurrection, but the eternal kingdom which will result from the abdication of Christ at the end of this, the Christian age. (1Co 15:20-28.) That the kingdom referred to here is the heavenly aspect of Christ’s kingdom is evident from the fact that those who love him, who are rich in faith, and have been chosen, are already in the kingdom which had its beginning on the eventful Pentecost day. (Act 2:1-47.) See Matt. 16: 1820; Mar 9:1; Col 1:13-14; Heb 12:28; Rev 1:9. The kingdom, now in existence, is entered when one becomes a subject of Christ ; the aspect of the kingdom mentioned in our text is that which Christians shall be privileged to enter at the last day, provided they have added to their faith the graces which adorn the Christian character. (2Pe 1:5-11.)

It is this kingdom which God has p101nised to the poor who are rich in faith, though poor as to the world. It is to such that the kingdom of heaven belongs, a fact often asserted and emphasized in the Scriptures. (Mat 5:3; Luk 6:20; Luk 12:32.) However, the future aspect of the kingdom, and the blessings associated therewith, exist only in promise, and it is a perversion of the Scriptures to insist that that which is only in promise is, at the same time, enjoyed in realization. The eternal life which begins with the realization of the promise will be enjoyed only on entrance into the future kingdom. (Mar 10:30; Tit 1:2; 1Jn 2:25′.) Those passages which assert that children of God are in possession of eternal life now (Joh 3:16), must, in harmony with the foregoing considerations, be regarded as teaching that such life is enjoyed in prospect-not in actuality. Life that is eternal never ends. If Christians possess such today, it is impossible for them to lose it,. and thus fall from grace. It is absurd for one to affirm today that one is in actual and literal possession of eternal life, yet concede the possibility of apostasy. How can that which is eternal end! There are more than twenty-five hundred warnings to the saints in the Scriptures touching the possibility of apostasy. One meets such on every page; it is not possible to open the Scriptures without seeing either directly or indirectly this fact taught. For example, “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.” (Gal 5:4.) “And thou Solomon, my son know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for Jehovah searcheth all hearts and under standeth all the imaginations of the thoughts. If thou seek him he will be found of thee; but if thou iorsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.” (1Ch 28:9.)

We may, therefore, from the foregoing premises conclude that (a) the father-son relationship begins with the new birth; (b) those born again enter the kingdom of Christ on earth over which our Lord reigns today, and in which the Spirit dwells; (c) those thus positioned are heirs and, consequently, inheritors of the blessings of the future kingdom; (d) for them that divine inheritance awaits; (e) while on earth and before the consummation of all matters to occur when the Lord returns they are in possession of the promise of these future blessings which, in summary, consist of eternal life; (f) actual realization will be when they are granted the abundant entrance into “the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (2Pe 1:5-11.)

Though these blessings are in promise today, of the ultimate fulfillment thereof, we may entertain no doubt whatsoever, provided we are faithful and persevere to the end. (Rev 2:10.) The promise of God is sure, and on it we may safely rely. (2Pe 3:9.) God is faithful who promised; and, he will not fail us, if we do not fail him! “Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” (Rom 11:22.)

The promise is to those who love him. Here, indeed is the acid test; for it is love for him which prompts to faithful obedience to him: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him ; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. (1Jn 2:4-5.) The phrase, “to them that love him,” is, literally, to those loving him, (tois agaposin auton); i.e., to those who continue to love him, and who evidence this love by faithful obedience to his will.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

world

kosmos = mankind. (See Scofield “Mat 4:8”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Hearken: Jdg 9:7, 1Ki 22:28, Job 34:10, Job 38:14, Pro 7:24, Pro 8:32, Mar 7:14, Act 7:2

Hath not: Jam 1:9, Isa 14:32, Isa 29:19, Zep 3:12, Zec 11:7, Zec 11:11, Mat 11:5, Luk 6:20, Luk 9:57, Luk 9:58, Luk 16:22, Luk 16:25, Joh 7:48, 1Co 1:26-28, 2Co 8:9

rich: Pro 8:17-21, Luk 12:21, 1Co 3:21-23, 2Co 4:15, 2Co 6:10, Eph 1:18, Eph 3:8, 1Ti 6:18, Heb 11:26, Rev 2:9, Rev 3:18, Rev 21:7

heirs: Mat 5:3, Mat 25:34, Luk 12:32, Luk 22:29, Rom 8:17, 1Th 2:12, 2Th 1:5, 2Ti 4:8, 2Ti 4:18, 1Pe 1:4, 2Pe 1:11

the: or, that which, Jam 1:12, Exo 20:6, 1Sa 2:30, Pro 8:17, Mat 5:3, Luk 6:20, Luk 12:32, 1Co 2:9, 2Ti 4:8

Reciprocal: Exo 23:6 – General Lev 5:7 – he be not able to bring a lamb Lev 14:21 – poor Lev 25:35 – thy brother Lev 25:47 – sojourner or stranger wax rich Deu 1:17 – ye shall hear Deu 30:6 – to love the Lord Jos 22:5 – love Jdg 5:31 – them that 1Sa 2:8 – set them 1Ki 3:3 – loved 2Ki 4:2 – save a pot of oil 2Ch 23:11 – put upon Neh 5:5 – our flesh Job 12:9 – the hand Job 22:25 – defence Job 34:19 – regardeth Psa 5:11 – love Psa 9:18 – For the Psa 18:27 – save Psa 31:19 – laid up Psa 40:17 – I am poor Psa 69:36 – they Psa 72:13 – shall save Psa 74:19 – forget Psa 86:1 – for I am Psa 91:14 – set Psa 97:10 – Ye that Psa 106:5 – may see Psa 113:7 – raiseth Psa 119:141 – small Psa 145:20 – preserveth Pro 8:18 – Riches and honour Pro 14:21 – that despiseth Pro 19:1 – Better Ecc 5:13 – riches Isa 25:4 – thou hast Isa 26:6 – General Isa 41:9 – called Isa 56:6 – to love Jer 5:5 – but these Jer 20:13 – for Dan 9:4 – the great Zec 12:7 – save Mat 6:20 – General Mat 13:38 – the good Mat 13:43 – in Mat 17:27 – that take Mar 4:3 – Hearken Mar 10:23 – How Mar 12:37 – And the Luk 1:48 – regarded Luk 1:53 – filled Luk 4:18 – to preach Luk 7:22 – to Luk 14:21 – Go Luk 16:11 – true Luk 16:20 – a certain Luk 18:24 – How Act 2:14 – hearken Act 3:6 – Silver Act 13:50 – honourable Act 26:18 – inheritance Rom 5:17 – shall reign Rom 8:28 – them Rom 12:16 – condescend to men of low estate Rom 15:26 – the poor 1Co 8:3 – love 1Co 11:22 – that have not 2Co 8:2 – their deep Gal 3:29 – heirs Eph 1:4 – as Eph 1:11 – we 2Th 3:5 – into Tit 3:7 – made Phm 1:17 – thou count Heb 1:14 – heirs Heb 6:17 – the heirs Jam 1:16 – my Jam 2:15 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jas 2:5. A man will not be given any special credit in the kingdom of heaven by virtue of his being poor. The conditions of salvation are such that the poor have the same chance as the rich. Moreover, since the conditions require a great deal of humility and sacrifice, the poor generally are the more ready to accept it. In that sense the poor are chosen to be rich in faith. Such richness in faith is what makes them heirs or entitles them to the advantage of the kingdom. This is also according to the promise that has been made by Christ and the apostles.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jas 2:5. Hearken, my beloved brethren. With this verse St. James commences to show the sinfulness of such conduct; and, first, it is in contradiction to the conduct of God.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world; that is, either those whom the world esteems poorthe poor in the opinion of the world; or those who are poor in relation to this worldthe poor in worldly wealth.

rich in faith. Rich in faith is not in apposition to the poor of this world, but the object or intention of Gods choosing themthat they might be rich in faith. Faith is not the quality, but the sphere or element, in which they were rich. These riches consisted in the spiritual blessings which faith procured, and especially in the sonship of believersin the heirship of the heavenly kingdom. The rich in faith, observes Calvin, are not those who abound in the greatness of faith, but such as God has enriched with the various gifts of the Spirit which we receive by faith.

and heirs of the kingdom, namely, not the spiritual kingdom of Christ on earth, but the heavenly kingdom.

which he hath promised to them that love him; the love of God being the essence of true piety. St. James did not require to prove the truth of this statement; the condition of the Jewish Christians of the dispersion, to whom he wrote, was proof sufficient that although there were a few rich among them, yet they were mostly chosen from among the poor. Compare with this the words of St. Paul: God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty (1Co 1:27). And the same statement holds good in the present day. The rich are under far greater temptations than the poor; they are led to trust in uncertain riches, and to seek their good things in this world, to fix their happiness here, and to forget the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him. How hardly, says our Saviour, shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God (Mar 10:23).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

To prevent the growing evil condemned in the foregoing verse, of undervaluing those that are rich in grace, because poor in estate, the apostle in this verse declares how God himself gives countenance to the contrary practice; he confers a threefold dignity upon them; they are chosen by him, they are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven now as if the apostle said, “Are they fit to be despised by you, that are thus highly dignified and enriched by God?” And to stir up their attention to what he speaks, he ushers in his interrogation with this, Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world? &c.

Learn hence, that such as are poor in this world, and disesteemed of men, may yet be chosen of God, rich in grace, and heirs of glory. This he does, to demonstrate the sovereignty and freeness of his grace, and the glory of his wisdom. The first choice that Christ made of persons to be his followers were poor men; and ever since, generally speaking, they are the poor that receive the gospel: God has more rent, and better paid him, from a smokey cottage than from many stately palaces, where men wallow in wealth, and forget God.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Poor Are Often Rich In Faith

The simple truth is that the poor in this world are much more likely to have that rich faith which moves them to obey the gospel call ( Jas 2:5 ). They do not have so much to give up. The rich young ruler wanted to follow Christ and inherit eternal life. However, he went away sorrowful instead of selling all he had and giving the proceeds to the poor ( Mat 19:16-22 ; 1Ti 6:8-19 ; Luk 12:13-21 ). All people are called by the gospel ( Mat 11:28-30 ; Rev 22:17 ; 2Th 2:13-14 ), but the rich seldom accept the call ( 1Co 1:26-27 ).

Peter told Cornelius and those assembled in his house, “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” ( Act 10:34-35 ). Instead of being like God, the scattered Christians had honored the rich while treating the poor despitefully. Yet, it was the rich who crushed Christians. It was the rich who dragged them into court against their will. It was the rich who spoke against the name of Christ ( Jas 2:6-7 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Jas 2:5-7. Hearken As if he had said, Stay, consider, ye that judge thus. Does not the presumption lie rather in favour of the poor man? Hath not God chosen the poor That is, are not they whom God hath chosen, generally speaking, poor in this world, who yet are rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom Consequently the most honourable of men? And those whom God so highly honours, ought not ye to honour likewise? But ye Christians, that know better; have despised , have dishonoured, or disgraced; the poor By such conduct. Do not rich men, &c. As if he had said, You have little reason to show so much respect to them, if you consider what their carriage toward you has been; those whom you court with so much respect and assiduity, oppress , tyrannise over you, and draw Or drag; you before the judgment-seats Are not most of the rich men your persecutors, rather than your friends? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name Of God and of Christ; by which ye are called And which deserves to be had in the highest esteem and veneration by all intelligent beings? The apostle speaks chiefly of rich heathen: but are Christians, so called, a whit behind them in persecuting the disciples of Jesus?

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 5

Rich in faith; to make them rich in faith.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Mr. D’s Notes on James

Jam 2:5-8

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

“Hearken” is normally translated “hear” and means to hear with understanding. To perceive what is to be heard. Something that is of value, something that is useable, something that should change your life if you hear, perceive and act upon that new knowledge. It is an imperative, a command, something they are to do, not something that they are given a choice about.

“My beloved brethren” is a call to brothers that are very dear to James. One must wonder if he knew some or many of these people personally. If they came from Jerusalem, it is quite possible that he was at the very least, acquainted with them.

“Hath not God chosen the poor” is a question that aims back to the discrimination between the rich and the poor. Why favor the rich, for GOD has chosen the poor? If you are going to favor someone, it would be more sensible to favor the poor – they are closest to God.

How terrible, to go through life favoring the rich and famous in the hope of gain, only to find out you were supposed to favor the poor to get gain – well, favoring is wrong in either case, but the logic is that if you want to favor for gain, wouldn’t you favor those closest to the source of gain?

Not only are the poor chosen, but they are rich in faith and they are heirs of the kingdom.

Just what kingdom is in view here? Since they are still waiting for it, it can’t be anything past and the only kingdoms left are the millennial kingdom, and the eternal kingdom. Since they are Jews the millennial could apply, though they are under the blood and looking now for eternal things not the earthly kingdom of the prophets.

Some Postmillennialists chafe at this thought. They would cry that any Jew, no matter what, must be in the millennium. This is due to their logic or lack there of, in how Israel relates to the church. In my mind they do not, they are separate entities and must be dealt with as such.

They would suggest that any Jew would want to be related to the millennium, rather than be taken away from it by the blood. The question I have is that if there is a choice of an earthly kingdom for one thousand years, and going directly into the eternal state, why would anyone want to make a stop over in the lesser of places for a thousand years?

“Which he hath promised to them that love him” is a phrase that teaches a couple of things. Entrance into the eternal kingdom is based on love of God. There is this one prerequisite – love. This speaks to the easy believe gospel that many preach today. You can hear some words and accept Christ, but there must be a love that is begun at that point or there can be no salvation. The love might be just a seed of what it will blossom into, but love seems to be a requirement.

Secondly, there will be none in the kingdom that do not love God. They won’t be forced to submit at some time future, they will love Him as a consequence of what He has done for them.

The question remains, now, that if one has accepted the Lord but does not show love for Him, are they really saved. I would not want to judge anyone, but if there is no love, then that person had better give some serious thought to what he has done in that acceptance of Christ and whether there was truth in it or a sham.

One that loves not God, no matter if they have accepted Christ mentally or not is in danger in my mind, of not reaching eternity with God. Mental assent is not a change of heart by any stretch of truth.

There is one further question from the text. Did God not choose any rich to be in His kingdom? The test is quite explicit – He chose the poor of this world. No, it does not mean that only poor and no rich were chosen. I would assume that He chose the poor in spirit, those that were humble before Him in His foreknowledge.

The rich man will not be humble before God, unless he has a realization of whom he is before God. This probably goes for the arrogant poor man. All must find humility and realize their need of Christ before God can deal with them, and these are those that were chosen.

God picked the poor and made them heirs. We have no business relegating them to the lesser seats. Let’s look at some of the people God has chosen.

Paul a persecutor of Christians.

David a sheep herder.

John a fisherman.

Andrew a fisherman.

Simon Peter a fisherman.

Matthew a tax collector.

Stanley Derickson a fisherman and son of a tax collector.

Abraham a seventy year old.

Joshua an army commander.

Gideon a poor person.

Elisha a farmer.

Amos a herdsman.

Micah a simple man.

Ironsides, a bank tellers son.

Billy Graham a farm boy.

D. L. Moody a shoe salesman, a son of a bankrupt mason.

Hudson Taylor a chemist’s apprentice.

William Cary a shoemaker.

Billy Sunday a drunken baseball player.

George Beverly Shea an insurance clerk.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

2:5 {2} Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the {d} poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

(2) He shows that those who prefer the rich over the poor are wicked and disobedient judges, since God on the other hand prefers the poor (whom he has enriched with true riches) over the rich.

(d) The needy and wretched, and (if we measure it after the opinion of the world) the most degraded of all men.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. The inconsistency of favoritism 2:5-7

James’ three questions in these verses all expect positive answers, as is clear in the construction of the Greek text.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Since God has chosen the poor of this world to be the recipients of His blessings it is inconsistent for Christians to withhold blessings from them (cf. Mat 5:3; Luk 6:20). Really God has chosen more poor people than rich (Luk 1:52; 1Co 1:26). The "kingdom" is probably the messianic millennial kingdom in which Christians will participate with Christ whom they love. [Note: Ibid., p. 141.] This seems clear from the context. The heirs of this kingdom, those who will receive it, are believers (cf. Jas 1:12; Mat 5:3; Mat 5:5; Mar 10:17-22; 1Co 6:9-10; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 11

THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING THE POOR-THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW.

Jam 2:5-10

ST. JAMES is varied in his style. Sometimes he writes short, maxim-like sentences, which remind us of the Book of Proverbs; sometimes, as in the passage before us, he is as argumentative as St. Paul. Having condemned worldly respect of persons as practical infidelity, he proceeds to prove the justice of this estimate; and he does so with regard to both items of the account: these respecters of persons are utterly wrong, both in their treatment of the poor and in their treatment of the rich. The former is the worse of the two; for it is in flat contradiction of the Divine decree, and is an attempt to reverse it. God has said one thing about the poor mans estate, and these time-servers, publicly in the house of God, say another.

“Hearken, my beloved brethren.” He invites their attention to an affectionate and conclusive statement of the case. “Did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom? But ye have dishonored the poor man.” By the humble life which, by Divine decree, Gods Son led upon the earth, by the social position of the men whom He chose as His Apostles and first disciples, by blessings promised to the poor and to the friends of the poor, both under the Law and under the Gospel, God has declared His special approbation of the poor mans estate. “But ye” ( , with great emphasis on the pronoun) “have dishonored the poor man.” With Haman-like impiety ye would disgrace “the man whom the King delights to honor.”

Let us not misunderstand St. James. He does not say or imply that the poor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or that his poverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any more than that the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has declared any preference, it is for the poor, rather than for the rich. The poor man has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live according to Gods will, and to win the blessings that are in store for those who love Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life is perpetually brought home to him, and he is spared the peril of trusting in riches, which is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He has greater opportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike, and fewer occasions of falling into those sins which separate him most fatally from Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is not salvation. Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of reverence, rather than of contempt.

But the error of the worldly Christians whom St. James is here rebuking does not end with dishonoring the poor whom God has honored; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as a class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the reverse, as experience is constantly proving. “Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by the which ye are called?” Unless we consider the “synagogue” mentioned above to be a Jewish one, in which Christians still worship, as in the Temple at Jerusalem, the gold-ringed worshipper is to be understood as a Christian; and reasons have been given above for believing that the “synagogue” is a Christian place of worship. But in any case the rich oppressors here spoken of are not to be thought of as exclusively or principally Christian. They are the wealthy as a class, whether converts to Christianity or not; and apparently, as in Jam 5:1-6, it is the wealthy, unbelieving Jews who are principally in the writers mind. St. James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period (A.D. 35-65) were among the worst oppressors of the poorer Jews, and were of course specially bitter against those who had become adherents of “the Way,” and who seemed to them to be renegades from the faith of their forefathers. It was precisely to this kind of oppression that St. Paul devoted himself with fanatical zeal previous to his conversion. {Act 9:1-2; 1Co 15:9; Php 3:6}

“The judgment-seats” before which these wealthy Jews drag their poorer brethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts, {comp. 1Co 6:2; 1Co 6:4} but are probably the Jewish courts frequently held in the synagogues. The Roman government allowed the Jews very considerable powers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely ecclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic Law penetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was concerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law. Consequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was more secure, and less provocative of rebellion, when the Jews were permitted to retain a large measure of self-government. This applied not only to Palestine, but to all places in which there were large settlements of Jews. Even in the New Testament we find ample evidence of this. The high-priest grants Saul “letters to Damascus, unto the synagogues” to arrest all who had become converts to “the Way”. {Act 9:2} And St. Paul before Herod Agrippa II declares that, in his fury against converts to Christianity, he “persecuted them even unto foreign cities”. {Act 26:11} Most, if not all, of the five occasions on which he himself “received of the Jews forty stripes save one” {2Co 11:24} must have been during his travels outside Palestine. The proconsul Gallio told the Jews of Corinth, not only that they might, but that they must, take their charges against Paul, for breaking a Jewish law, to a Jewish tribunal; and when they ostentatiously beat Sosthenes before his own tribunal, for some Jewish offence, he abstained from interfering. It is likely enough that provincial governors, partly from policy, partly from indifference, allowed Jewish officials to exercise more power than they legally possessed; but they possessed quite enough to enable them to handle severely those who contravened the letter or the traditional interpretation of the Mosaic Law. That the dragging before the judgment seats refers to bringing Christians before Roman magistrates, in a time of persecution, is a gratuitous hypothesis which does not fit the context. It was the mob, rather than the rich, that in the earlier persecutions acted in this way. The rich were contemptuously indifferent. There is, therefore, no evidence here that the letter was written during the persecution under Domitian or under Trajan. Nevertheless, their Christianity, rather than their debt, was probably the reason why these poor Jewish Christians were prosecuted in the synagogue courts by the wealthy Jews.

So far from this passage being evidence that the Epistle was written at a time long after the death of St. James, it is, as Renan has carefully shown, almost a proof that it was written during his lifetime. As regards the relations between rich and poor, “the Epistle of James is a perfect picture of the Ebionim at Jerusalem in the years which preceded the revolt.” The destruction of Jerusalem introduced so complete a change into the situation of Judaism and of Christianity, that it is easy to distinguish a writing subsequent to the catastrophe of the year 70 from a writing contemporary with the third Temple. Pictures evidently “referring to the internal contests between the different classes in Jerusalem society, such as that which is presented to us in the Epistle of James, are inconceivable after the revolt of the year 66, which put an end to the reign of the Sadducees.” These were the times when women bought the priesthood for their husbands from Herod Agrippa II, and went to see them officiate, over carpets spread from their own door to the Temple; when wealthy priests were too fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice without first putting on silk gloves; when their kitchens were furnished with every appliance for luxurious living, and their tables with every delicacy; and when, supported by the Romans, to whom they truckled, they made war upon the poor priests, who were supported by the people. Like Hophni and Phinehas, they sent out their servants to collect what they claimed as offerings, and if payment was refused the servants took what they claimed by force. Facts like these help us to understand the strong language used here by St. James, and the still sterner words at the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state of society the mere possession of wealth certainly established no claims upon the reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning upon rich people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem to St. James to be specially perilous and distressing then.

“Do not they blaspheme the honorable Name by which ye are called?” The last clause literally means “which was called upon you” ( ); and we need not doubt that the reference is to the Name of Christ which was invoked upon them at their baptism; quod invocatum est super vos, as the Vulgate has it. The same expression is found in tile Septuagint of those who are called by Gods name. {2Ch 7:14; Jer 14:9; Jer 15:16; Amo 9:12} Some have suggested that the name here indicated is that of “poor,” or of “brethren,” or of “Christian”; but none of these is at all probable. It may be doubted whether the last was already in common use; and “blaspheme” would be a very strong expression to use of any of them; whereas both it and “honorable” are quite in keeping if the name be that of Christ. The word rendered “honorable” () cannot be adequately translated. It is the same as that which is rendered “good” when we read of “the Good Shepherd”. {Joh 10:11} It suggests what is beautiful, noble, and good, as opposed to what is foul, mean, and wicked; and such is the Name of Christ, which is called in a special sense “the Name.” {Act 5:41; 3Jn 1:7} Comp. Ignatius, “Ephesians” 3., 7.; “Philad.” 10.; Clem. {Rom 2:13} That the blasphemers are not Christians is shown by the clause “which was called upon you.” Had Christians been intended, St. James would have written “Do not they blaspheme the honorable Name which was called upon them?” That they blasphemed the Name in which they were baptized would have been such an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to indicate it. These blasphemers were no doubt Jews; and St. James has in his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent utterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation. St. Paul alludes to these when he says, “No man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema”; and Justin Martyr writes, “That which is said in the Law, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, confirms our hope which is hung upon the crucified Christ, not as if God were cursing that crucified One, but because God foretold that which would be done by all of you (Jews) and those like youAnd you may see with your eyes this very thing coming to pass; for in your synagogues you curse all those who from Him have become Christians” (“Trypho,” 96.). The text, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” was a favorite one with the Jews in their controversies with Christians, as St. James would know well; {see Gal 3:13} and all this tends to show that he refers to literal blasphemy by word of mouth, and not to the virtual blasphemy which is involved in conduct that dishonors Christ.

His argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of honoring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any dishonor done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the meanness of flattering their own oppressors, and the wickedness of reverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of their own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord.

But, perhaps (the argument continues), some will defend this respect paid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the contrary, simple fulfillment of the royal law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy of respect and honor, yet nevertheless they are our neighbors, and no misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to treat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves like to be respected and honored, and therefore we pay respect and honor to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly, if that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbor as yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he chances to be poor? However excellent your reasons for honoring the wealthy may be, you still do not free yourselves from the blame of showing an unchristian respect of persons, and therefore of committing sin, “being convicted by the law as transgressors.”

The law of loving ones neighbor as oneself is a “royal law,” not as having emanated from God or from Christ as King, still less as being a law which binds even kings, or which makes kings of those who observe it. It is a royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as it is one of those two on which “hang all the Law and the Prophets”. {Mat 22:40} Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as to cover the whole duty of man. Thus St. Paul says of this royal law, “The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” {Gal 5:14} And St. John teaches the same truth in a different way, when he declares that “he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen”. {1Jn 4:20} The expression “royal law” occurs nowhere else, either in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is found in a dialogue entitled “Minos”, which is sometimes wrongly attributed to Plato. It is one which might readily occur to any one as a name for a supreme moral principle.

“Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.” The law is the expression of one and the same principle-love; and of one and the same will-the will of God. Therefore he who deliberately offends against any one of its enactments, however diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of offending against the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but selfishness-not Gods will, but his own. He keeps nine tenths of the law because he likes to do so, and he breaks one tenth because he likes to do so. The fact of his willful disobedience proves that his obedience is not the fruit of love or loyalty, but of self-seeking. If we ask what his character is, the answer must be, “He is a lawbreaker.” These respecters of persons claimed to be observers of the law, because they treated their rich neighbors as they would have liked to be treated themselves. St. James shows them that, on the contrary, they are transgressors of the law, because they pick and choose as to what neighbors shall be treated thus kindly. They keep the law when it is convenient to keep it, and break it when it is inconvenient to keep it. Such keeping of the law is in its essence, not obedience, but disobedience. He who follows honesty only because honesty is the best policy is not an honest man, and he who obeys the law only because obedience suits him is not an obedient man. There is no serving God with reservations. However small the reservation may be, it vitiates all the rest. In order to “fulfill the law” (a rare expression, found only here and in Rom 2:27), we must keep it all round, independently of our own likes and dislikes.

St. James is not here countenancing the severity of Draco, that small crimes deserve death, and that there is no worse punishment for great crimes; nor yet the paradox of the Stoics, that the theft of a penny is as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of virtue is left, and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as in seventy fathoms. He is not contending that all sins are equal and that to break one of Gods commands is as bad as to break them all. What he maintains is that no one can claim to be a fulfiller of the law in virtue of his extensive obedience so long as there is any portion of the law which he willfully disobeys. Why does he disobey in this? Because it pleases him to do so. Then he would disobey in the rest if it pleased him to do so. The motive of his conduct is not submission, but self-will. He is in character “a transgressor of the law.”

Both defects are common enough still, and are likely to remain so. Paying respect to persons, dignities, and positions is a frequent form of meanness, especially in the manner here condemned, of courting the rich and slighting the poor. It is a Christian duty to respect the rank or the office of those whom God has placed in a position superior to ourselves, and it is also a Christian duty to reverence those who by Gods grace are leading lives of virtue and holiness; hut it is unchristian partiality to honor a man merely for his wealth, or to dishonor him merely for his poverty. And, secondly, we are all of us prone to plead, both before the world and our own consciences, the particulars in which we do not offend as a set-off against those in which we do. To detect ourselves thus balancing a transgression here, against many observances there, ought at once to startle us into the conviction that the whole principle of our lives must be faulty. Our aim is, not to love God, or to obey Him, but to get to heaven, or at least to escape hell, on the cheapest terms.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary