It is a natural thing to be partial to something that is beautiful in the Lord’s creation. One may have a favorite flower, for example, or a favorite tree and a favorite fruit. To admire power in creation, such as the horse, is also something that comes naturally. However, when it comes to receiving the persons of men, the word of God tells us that we shouldn’t be partial in judgment toward the poor, because of his plight, nor toward the rich and powerful, because of their positions in the world (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17). Righteous judgment holds both classes of people to the same rule. Neither should anyone pervert his judgment by taking a gift (bribe), nor turn a blind eye toward the rich man’s unjust treatment of another person, because of what one might gain in doing so (Deuteronomy 16:19). This is something, with which James took issue in his epistle.
James told his readers that, as followers of Christ, they shouldn’t express their faith with respect of persons (prosopolepsia; G4382). This seems to be a Christian word, together with prosopoleptes (G4381; see Acts 10:34) and prosopolepteo (G4380; see James 2:9). The words neither appear in the Septuagint nor in any other Greek work prior to the first century AD. Therefore, some care needs to be taken in their interpretation, since we have nothing else to compare the word with. The word is also translated as: personal favoritism, prejudice, partiality, flattery etc. according to the particular translation used. However, does James mean to say that showing respect to a person is wrong under all circumstances? I don’t believe this is the case, because, if he did, it would mean that Scripture would contradict itself.
For example, how could one follow James’ command, literally, and still follow what Paul said: “Pay everyone whatever you owe them. If you owe taxes, pay them. If you owe tolls, pay them. If you owe someone respect, respect that person. If you owe someone honor, honor that person” (Romans 13:7)? Obviously, James was speaking of a particular instance where respect of persons wouldn’t be appropriate for a follower of Christ. One of the problems the nascent Church had, which, by the way, continues to this day, is believers had their favorite teachers (1Corinthians 1:12), and I believe this sense should be read into James 2:1-3. We know that Peter and Jude wrote about the same time as James, and they spoke of ‘false teachers’ (2Peter 2:1; cp. Jude 1:3-4). These men arose or were sent out by the Jerusalem authorities after Paul was imprisoned, when he couldn’t deal with the problem personally (cp. Acts 20:28-32). Jesus predicted a time when there would be ‘many’ false teachers working to deceive ‘many’ people (Matthew 24:5), and many would be offended and betray one another (Matthew 24:10), and because wickedness (law breaking) would multiply, the love of ‘many’ would wane, and folks wouldn’t treat one another properly (Matthew 24:12). It was at this time, and for this reason that James, Peter and Jude wrote their epistles.
In the context of James’ words “respect of persons” (James 2:1-3) and the problem with false teachers (2Peter 2:1; Jude 1:2-3), it seems that the false teacher was given preferential treatment over the men, whom the Lord had called for the purpose of teaching and encouraging believers in their walk with Christ. Therefore, James 2:2-3 needs to be understood in this light. The man with the gold ring and the gay clothing expresses the outward appearance of the false teacher. He is a man whose presence seems to demand respect or high esteem (cp. 2Corinthians 11:1-4), while the man of a poor spirit (Matthew 5:3) demands nothing but the privilege of serving (viz. the footstool – James 2:3, the place of a servant).
The man with the gold ring (James 2:2) seems to be claiming he is the true representative of Christ, for rings in the context of the Scriptures were often used to represent the will or the name of the king (cp. Genesis 41:42; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10). Jesus used it to express the prodigal son being given full privileges upon his return (Luke 15:22). In essence, this is what the men from James claimed when they opposed Paul’s doctrine and authority (Galatians 2:12-13; 3:1-3). The dispute, therefore, seems to have been what it has always been in the New Covenant text, the dispute over Christ and the Law. These men were claiming, as Jews, they were the true representative of the Lord, and the Law was given by the Lord and must be obeyed. So, men were saved by Christ through the keeping of the Law, which is actually a contradiction. If a man could keep the Law perfectly he would be saved without Christ (Luke 10:25-28; 18:18-20). Therefore, the James’ readers were divided between these false teachers, rich in themselves, and the local leaders who were poor in spirit. The evil thoughts (G4190, G1261) of James 2:4 refers to that ongoing dispute (cp. Luke 9:46-47) among believers concerning the false teachers (rich in themselves) and the local leadership (poor in spirit), for partiality was being offered to the preachers of the Law (James 2:4).
Smoodock's Blog 