James 2:2-4 reads, “For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?”
In James 2:1 we find a prohibitive caution against the practice of showing partiality in our dealings with others – “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.” In James 2:2-4 we find a forceful confrontation against the problem of showing partiality in our very church services. Grammatically, these three verses encompass a single “if-then” sentence that concludes with a confrontational and convicting question. The “if” portion of this sentence covers all of verses 2-3 and can be divided into two parts. First, there is the hypothetical circumstance of verse 2 – “For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment.” Second, there is the realistic case of verse 3 – “And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.” The “then” portion of this sentence covers verse 4 and can also be divided into two parts, for this portion of the sentence asks a two-fold question. First, there is the question of reproving confrontation – “Are ye not then partial in yourselves?” Second, there is the question of sinful cause – “And are become judges of evil thoughts?”
The Hypothetical Circumstance
The hypothetical circumstance that is presented in verse 2 concerned two visitors that came unto the assembly of these believers during a gathering for church service. “For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment.” Each of these two visitors is described according to his external appearance and apparel. On the one hand, the first visitor is described as being “a man with a gold ring” and as being clothed “in goodly apparel.” He was obviously a man of wealth and prestige, inviting public recognition and regard through his attire. He was wearing a gold ring (or even a number of gold rings, being a “gold-fingered” man), which in that day served as a social symbol of an individual’s “upper-class” status. In fact, gold rings served so much as a symbol of high status in that day, that many would rent gold rings for public occasions in order to make a better display of their social status. In addition, this first visitor was wearing “goodly apparel.” Being translated from the Greek adjective “lampros,” which means “that which relates to a lamp,” the adjective “goodly” would literally present a picture of apparel that was brightly shining. Indeed, it would indicate that this visitor’s clothing was luxurious, splendid, gorgeous, expensive, and possibly a fine, pure, glossy white color. On the other hand, the second visitor is described in direct contrast to the first visitor. Yea, he is described as being “a poor man” and as being clothed “in vile raiment.” He was not a man of gold rings, but a man of poor condition. He was not a man of shining, splendid apparel, but a man of shabby, work-stained apparel. Being a man of poor condition, he probably was wearing the only set of clothing that he owned. Indeed, this descriptive indicated a man with cheaply constructed, well-worn, work-stained clothing, and possibly even a dirty, smelly garment. By their appearance, there was a distinct and drastic contrast between the social status of these two visitors.
The Realistic Case
Now, this hypothetical circumstance of these two visitors and of their contrasting status does not present the issue for which these believers required reproof and rebuke. It only set the circumstantial context for that issue. In fact, it is their response to these contrasting visitors that reveals the issue for which these believers required reproof and rebuke. Even so, verse 3 continues the “if” clause with the hypothetical, yet realistic case of their sinful response. Indeed, although this case was strictly hypothetical in its presentation, it did reflect the real behavior of these believers. Thus the realistic case of verse 3 reveals two completely different responses to the two different visitors. “And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.” On the one hand, the response to the visitor with shining, splendid apparel was a response of regard and respect. He was immediately met with special notice and consideration. He was quickly welcomed with admiration. He was quickly treated with favor. Indeed, this regard and respect was specifically motivated by the splendor of his external appearance. Even so, this visitor was invited to sit “in a good place,” in a place of convenience, comfort, and courtesy. It even appears that this visitor in splendid apparel is invited to sit near the speaker (likely, a leader among the church body) among the chief seats of the assembly. On the other hand, the response to the poor visitor, to the one with shabby, work-stained apparel, was a response of disregard and disrespect. With little regard for him because of his poor condition, he was instructed to stand off to the side in some undesirable, out-of-the-way place. Or, he is permitted to sit “under” the speaker’s footstool, that is – to sit on the floor at the foot of the speaker’s footstool. Apparently this representative speaker of the church body himself sat among the chief seats of the assembly, having a footstool of his own. Yet he does not offer up his own seat unto this poor visitor. Yea, he does not even offer up his footstool for this poor visitor. Indeed, this poor visitor of little social status, in direct contrast to the splendid visitor of high social status, is treated as if he as a person, and even as a soul, is not worth much attention at all.
The Reproving Confrontation
Thus verse 4 concludes this scenario with a two-fold question of reproving confrontation and conviction – “Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” This question is constructed with the assumption that the verdict is accurate to the case. Even so, this question was intended to pierce the conscience of these believers for their sinful practice of showing partiality and to move them unto brokenhearted repentance thereof. The first half of the question focuses upon their sinful conduct. Considering how well the hypothetical case truly reflected their real behavior, the confrontational question was asked – “Are ye not then partial in yourselves?” Are ye not then engaging in the practice of partiality? Are ye not then committing the sin of partiality? Indeed, are ye not then committing this sin of partiality in and among yourselves during your very gatherings for church ministry? During the very services of the church, wherein the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, was to be the central focus, the practice of partiality had become prominent. Indeed, by showing preferential treatment during a church gathering in favor of the rich man because of his splendid appearance, they were demonstrating that the glitter and glamour of this present evil world had become far more important to them than the glory of their majestically glorious Lord, for whose very worship they were to be gathered. Instead of being awed by the all-surpassing glory of their majestically glorious Lord, they were being attracted by a gold ring and “goodly apparel.” Instead of receiving individuals upon the basis of their relationship with the Lord, they were receiving individuals upon the basis of their status in this world. They were demonstrating that they had exchanged their trust in the Lord of glory for a reliance upon the benefits of this world. Certainly, such a practice required the repentance of a broken and a contrite heart!
The Sinful Cause
Yet the second half of this confrontational question revealed an even deeper spiritual problem; for this half of the question focuses upon their sinful character. Yea, this second half of the question focuses upon the sinful cause of their sinful conduct – an evil character and attitude of heart. “And are [ye not then also] become judges of evil thoughts?” Now, in this rebuke the prepositional phrase, “of evil thoughts,” does not indicate the individuals whom they were judging. Rather this prepositional phrase indicates the character of those who were doing the judging. They had become judges who were characterized by “evil thoughts.” They had become “evil-thinking” judges. In their heart attitudes and judgments toward others, they had developed an evil standard of thinking. Indeed, their attitude of regard for the rich man and of disregard for the poor man, based strictly upon their external appearance, was based upon the evil standard of thinking that an individual’s value is determined by external considerations rather than by spiritual character. Such is a spiritually false principle for judgment. Such is worldly standard of judgment. Such is a downright evil motive for judgment, being malicious, hurtful, and destructive against others. Is the eternal soul of “a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel” more worthy of salvation than the eternal soul of “a poor man in vile raiment”? Does a possession of this world’s wealth in and of itself entitle a believer to a place of prominence within the body of Christ? On the one hand, if “a poor man in vile raiment” is seeking after the Savior as a lost soul, or is walking after the Lord as a believer, we should not value him even the smallest bit less because of his lowly status. On the other hand, if “a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel” is rejecting the Savior as a lost soul, or is disobeying the Lord as a believer, we should not value him even the smallest bit more because of his high status. Let us ever remember that expensive jewelry and splendid apparel provides no actual evidence concerning the spiritual character and spiritual worth of the individual who wears it. Even so, if we have given our hearts in any manner to this evil thinking of partiality, let us be zealous to repent thereof.