An Eternal Kingdom

                                                        Sunday School Lesson                                    

Lesson: II Samuel 7:4-16                                                                                                 
Golden Text: “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever” (II Samuel 7:16).

 INTRODUCTION.  After David became king of all Israel, he moved to build the kingdom.  He captured Jerusalem, defeated the Philistines, and moved the ark to Jerusalem.  It was his desire to build a temple, but God had a better idea.  God’s plan for David is the subject of this week’s lesson.
II. BACKGROUND FOR THE LESSON.  The events of this study occurred when king David “sat in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies” (see II Samuel 7:1).  The beginning of David’s reign had been occupied with wars against Israel’s most immediate threats.  The stronghold of Jerusalem was taken from the Jebusites and David made it his capital (see II Samuel 5:6-9).  He also defeated the Philistines twice (see II Samuel 5:17-25).  Another early endeavor of David was to return the Ark of the Covenant to the heart of his kingdom.  One attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem was aborted because it resulted in the death of Uzzah (see II Samuel 6:1-8).  Once they moved the ark properly (carried by the Levites: Deuteronomy 31:25), amid great joy, David established a permanent place for it (see II Samuel 6:12-19).However, David was still not satisfied.  He thought the ark of God deserved a better dwelling place.He said to Nathan the prophet “I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains” (see II Samuel 7:2).  In David’s mind, curtains, or a tent had been suitable for the wilderness wanderings after the Exodus, but surely a more durable structure would be better now.Besides, God’s house, the tabernacle was embarrassingly simple compared with the luxury in which David lived.The prophet Nathan, no doubt was touched by the sincerity of David’s intentions.Therefore, without consulting God, he hastily gave David the go ahead to build a temple (see II Samuel 7:3).  This is where our lesson begins.  Note:  As we will see later, it’s obvious that Nathan was speaking for himself and not from any divine revelation from God.  Like Samuel before him, Nathan was susceptible to error (see I Samuel 16:6).  This is where our lesson begins.  Like these prophets of old, our pastors and teachers can make mistakes.Unless they allow God’s Word to permeate their thoughts, they can give bad advice.  One of the greatest temptations is to give approval to what sounds logical, workable, or spiritual without investigating God’s thoughts (see Joshua 9:3-27).  Instead of relying on what a person teaches, we ought to imitate the Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so” (see Acts 17:11).  
III. ABOUT DAVID (II Samuel 7:4-9)    
A. Not appointed to build the temple (II Samuel 7:4-5).
1. (vs. 4).  This verse says “And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying.”  The very night after the prophet Nathan approved of David’s plan to build a temple, the Lord spoke to Nathan in a dream and corrected the hasty counsel he had given to David.
2. (vs. 5).  The Lord said to Nathan “Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?”  God addressed David as “my servant,” a title that may seem humbling, but prior to this the title had been given only to a select few such as Moses (see Numbers 12:7), Abraham (see Genesis 26:24) and Caleb (see Numbers 14:24).  Thus, the word “servant” is actually a term of honor.  The phrase “Thus saith the Lord” indicated that this message was not from any human source (see Galatians 1:12).   The first question for David was “Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?”  This question implies that the initiative for building a temple was to come from God Himself and no one else.  It also implies that if a temple was to be built, David was not the person to do it.  However, as we will see in verse 13, God was not opposed to a temple being built, just who would build it.  In His sovereignty, God demanded the right to choose the proper person and time for a temple.  Note:  There were a number of reasons why David couldn’t build the Lord a temple.  One reason was that God didn’t have the need for a temple.  He was satisfied with the tabernacle.  Second, God already had determined who would build Him a temple and it wasn’t David.  Third, it wasn’t time to build the temple for Jerusalem might still be attacked (see I Kings 5:3-4).  The proper time would be during Solomon’s peaceful reign.  The fifth reason why David couldn’t build the temple was because David was a man of war who had shed much blood (I Chronicles 22:8-10). 
B. Precedent of the tabernacle (II Samuel 7:6).  God went on to say “Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.”  The Lord pointed out that until this time He had been satisfied with the place of worship, a tent that He had designated for Himself.  The phrase “since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day” is a reference to the almost 435 years between the Exodus and David’s reign.  During that time, God said He “walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.”  The word “walked” carries the idea of moving about as the Israelites did.  It was also a reminder that He was with Israel during her wanderings.  God’s desire to walk in fellowship with man is revealed all through the Bible, beginning at Genesis 3:8 (see also Leviticus 26:12).  This desire is seen in the incarnation of the Son and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (see I Corinthians 6:19).  The mention of both a “tent” and a “tabernacle” does not mean that God lived in two separate places.  The tabernacle was a tent that could be raised and lowered when travelling or camping.  Note:  God had told Moses at Mount Sinai how the tabernacle should be built (see Exodus chapters 25-27).  Skilled craftsmen followed God’s orders, and before Israel moved on the tabernacle had been finished and dedicated (see Exodus 40:17-33).  The glory of God filled it and accompanied its movements throughout the desert wanderings.
C. God’s silence concerning a temple (II Samuel 7:7).  In this verse, God posed another question for David.  He said “In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?”  God was simply asking David if He had ever asked or commanded any of the tribes of Israel to build Him a “house of cedar?”  The term “cedar” refers to an expensive temple.  God was inviting David to think back to every location in which God had fellowshipped or walked with Israel to determine if God had ever directed anyone to build Him a house.  After thinking this through, David would realize the answer was no.  There is some question about the expression “the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel.”  The parallel passage in I Chronicles 17:6 uses the word “judges” instead of tribes.  However, there is no contradiction here.  The difference is due to the viewpoints of the sacred writers.  The tribes had supplied the nation with judges (see Judges 2:16) and leaders before the time of David.  The words “feed my people Israel” refers to the governing of the nation which was done at one time by judges and then transferred to the tribes to which the judges belonged.  Perhaps the tribes of Israel acted as shepherds through their judges.  In essence, the Lord made it very clear that He had never demanded Israel’s former leaders to build Him a temple.  He had been and still was content with the present arrangement.  Indeed, there would be a time for such a building, but that time had not yet arrived.
D.  A great reputation for David (II Samuel 7:8-9).  At this point, the Lord’s instructions to Nathan for David took a different turn. Nathan was to inform David of something wonderful God had planned for him and his descendants.Verses 8-16 present the Davidic Covenant, an unconditional agreement between God and David, the fulfillment of which depended totally on God’s faithfulness, not David’s obedience.
1. (vs. 8).  God said to Nathan “Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel.”  Again, God addressed David as “my servant” (see verse 5).  As God gave David this special title, He also referred to Himself in a special way as “the Lord of hosts” or Lord of armies. This title emphasized God’s sovereignty and omnipotence.  Here, it’s a reminder that God had the power to fulfill all He was about to promise to David.  God then reviewed all that He had already done for David.  He said “I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep.”  Note:  The sheepcote or sheepfold was usually made of rough stones forming an enclosure to protect the sheep at night, and keep out human and animal intruders.  Normally it had no roof.  Several flocks could be kept in this pen, and one of the shepherds would guard the door or entrance.  In the morning each shepherd would call out his own sheep, for they would know his voice and go to him (see John 10:1-5).  During the day a shepherd would take his sheep to various pastures.  Sheep were always led by the shepherd, but here God said that He took David “from following the sheep.”  This phrase reminds us that shepherds often followed individual sheep in order to give special care while the flock grazed.  David was also promoted from following the sheep “to be ruler over my (God’s) people, over Israel.”  Notice the powerful contrast stressing David’s transition from the lowly position of shepherd to a position of great prominence.  To show the importance of this new position God emphasized it by calling Israel “my people.”  David was now privileged to shepherd God’s flock.
2. (vs. 9).  Still speaking of what He had already done for David, God said “And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.”  A couple of things are mentioned here.  First, God said “I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest.”  God never abandons His own (see Psalms 139:7-10; Matthew 28:20).  God cared for David as a Shepherd (see Psalms 23:1).  Second, God said I “have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight.”  Whether the enemy was the Philistines, the Jebusites, the Amalekites, or Saul, God protected and preserved David while disposing of his enemies.  Third, God said that I “have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.”  David’s reputation had already grown enormously (see II Samuel 5:11-12), but this would continue so that his name would live on as one of the giants of human history.  After almost three thousand years the name David still appears prominently in Israel’s cultural and patriotic emblems.  The name David has its place among the names “of the great men that are in the earth.”
IV. ABOUT ISRAEL (II Samuel 7:10-11)      
A. A place for the nation of Israel (II Samuel 7:10).  God’s covenant with David included more than personal blessings on David.  God said “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime.”  As with His earlier covenant with Abraham, this covenant proclaimed benefits for the entire nation.  God said that He would “appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them.”  The word “plant” involves more than the initial sowing.  Included in the meaning of the Hebrew verb is the work of establishing what has been planted.  The work of planting and cultivating the nation is not yet complete.  Much work remains for a future day (see Amos 9:13-15; Ezekiel 36:33-36).   When God plants Israel, they will “dwell in a place of their own.”  This is a reference to all the land promised to Abram (see Genesis 15:18-21).  Even in Solomon’s day Israel didn’t dwell in all this land; so God’s promises to Abram have yet to be fulfilled completely to this day.  God also said that Israel would “move no more.”  The Hebrew word for “move” means to be “disquieted” or disturbed (see I Samuel 28:15; Jeremiah 50:34).  God promised that Israel’s enemies will not again disturb their land.  Such events as Hitler’s holocaust will not be repeated.  In addition, the Gentile nations, here called “the children of wickedness” will not “afflict them any more, as beforetime.”  This refers to the time before the judges when the Israelite tribes were in a state of disunity and periodic oppression from surrounding nations.  This was as a result of Israel not completely driving out the pagan inhabitants from the Promised Land.  Note:  Israel did enjoy security in Solomon’s day (see I Kings 4:21-25), but later history has shown that wicked men have mercilessly persecuted David’s people.  So, the promise here that God’s people will be planted in their own place and will be free from affliction, no doubt refers to a time still in the future.  At that time, the Jews will be regathered to their land from all over the world, they will accept Christ as their Messiah, and they will finally be able to live in peace (see Ezekiel 39:25-29; Zechariah 10:6-12; Romans 11:26).  The final fulfillment of this verse is yet to come.
B. Peace for the nation of Israel (II Samuel 7:11).  This verse is a continuation of verse 10, connecting the fact that one day Israel won’t be afflicted as she had been before the days of the judges.  God went on to say “And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.”  In other words, God was saying that one day Israel’s enemies will not oppress the nation again as they had done before there were judges and even after God had “commanded (appointed) judges (leaders) to be over my people Israel.”   In addition to this promise, Nathan was to tell David that God said that He had “caused thee to rest from all thine enemies.”  If this phrase is taken separate from the immediate text concerning what God would do for both David and Israel in the future, the words “caused thee to rest from all thine enemies” might appear to refer to the rest from war that David was already experiencing (see II Samuel 7:1).  However, in the Hebrew, the verb “rest” can also refer to a future rest which fits better in the context of this verse.  Therefore, this last phrase can also read “I will also give you to rest from all your enemies.”  Nathan concluded this verse saying to David that “Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.”  Notice the play on words here.  God would not allow David to build Him a house (or temple), but God said He would “make” or build David a “house,” referring to a dynasty.  David had already built himself a house of cedar (see II Samuel 7:1-2).  The “house” or dynasty that God had in mind for David was a royal line stretching out to eternity.
V. ABOUT SOLOMON (II Samuel 7:12-15)
A. The heir (II Samuel 7:12).  Nathan continued to say to David “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.”  God told David that when he died and was buried with “thy fathers” or his ancestors, He would “set up thy seed after thee.”  In other words when David died, God would securely install his heir, who was yet to be born as king.  This child would “proceed out of thy (David’s) bowels” meaning that the child will come from David’s body.  This also indicated to David that the child that would succeed him as king was not one of his present sons.  At this time, David had at least six sons and maybe even nine (see I Chronicles 3:1-9).  Of course this heir would be Solomon (see Kings 2:10-12).  It’s possible that David may have thought that God was speaking about Absalom, his oldest son, for Solomon had not been born yet.  However, the use of the words “shall proceed” refers to a future time and therefore another son.  God said that He would “establish his (Solomon’s) kingdom.”  This has a twofold fulfillment.  This prophecy was fulfilled in a marvelous way during Solomon’s reign for Israel was never as large, wealthy, and renowned as it was under Solomon.  The complete and eternal fulfillment is still to come as we will see in the next verse.   
B. The house (II Samuel 7:13).  Still speaking of David’s heir, God said “He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.”  The “he” here refers to Solomon, David’s son who God said “shall build an house for my name” or a place where God’s name would be honored and glorified.  The “house” refers to the first temple that Solomon was to build.  The temple was, in fact, filled with the glory of God when it was completed (see II Chronicles 7:2-3).  The building of the temple is described in I Kings chapter 6.  It took Solomon seven years to complete it.  In the last part of this verse, God also said “I will stablish the throne of his (Solomon’s) kingdom for ever.”   This appears to indicate that there would always be a descendent of David ruling over all Israel.  However, history teaches us that after Solomon died, the nation of Israel was divided into the Northern Kingdom called Israel, and the Southern kingdom called Judah.  Each nation had their own kings.  David’s descendents continued to rule the Southern kingdom until Jeconiah was taken into captivity by the Babylonians.  He was the last in David’s line to sit on the throne but only over Judah.  There have been no kings of Israel from the Davidic line since the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C. Taking all of this in to account, it would seem that this prophecy has gone unfulfilled.  However, the term “throne” here, does not refer to a physical throne, but to the authority to rule.  The Hebrew word translated “throne” simply means “a seat of honor.”  Therefore, the expression “stablish the throne of his (Solomon’s) kingdom for ever” means that the Davidic authority and kingdom rule over Israel shall never be taken from David’s descendents.  Note:  Regardless of how many kings rule over Israel, the right to rule will never be transferred to another family, and it is designated for eternity.  Although there is no Davidic king in Israel now, the throne will return to David’s Seed when Jesus returns to set up His millennial reign on earth.  At that time the throne will be restored to the Davidic line never to end (Isaiah 11:1-10; Daniel 7:13-14; Revelation 19:11-16).
C. The help for, and chastisement of Solomon (II Samuel 7:14-15).
1. (vs. 14).  Still talking about Solomon, God said “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”  The Lord declared that He would have a father-son relationship with David’s heir, Solomon.  As a result of this father-son relationship, the new king could always call on God for help, but he was never to think that his position was so grand that Yahweh (Jehovah) would not bring judgment against him.  Therefore the Lord said “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”  In other words, God told David that He would chasten his heir if he committed “iniquity” or sin.  God said He would chastise David’s heir “with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”  This means that God would use other nations to discipline Solomon when the need arose.    
2. (vs. 15).  Although God said that He would discipline David’s heir when he committed sin, here God also says “But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.”  When divine chastisement or discipline occurs, it doesn’t mean that God withdraws His mercy.  Under the law, David deserved to die for his many sins, among which were adultery and murder (see Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 35:30-31) yet God extended mercy to him (see Psalms 51:1).  Likewise, God said that He would have mercy on Solomon when he sinned.  As things turned out, divine discipline for Solomon was apparently minimal, at least during his reign, for his kingdom flourished with little intimidation or damage done by foreign nations.   God compared how He would deal with Solomon’s sin with how He dealt with Saul’s sins.  He said that He wouldn’t take His mercy away from Solomon “as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.”  Saul’s death as recorded in I Samuel chapter 31 was ghastly and tragic.  In contrast Solomon, who began his reign well but declined spiritually toward the end of his life under the influence of his many wives, had a peaceful end.  However, Solomon didn’t avoid discipline, for God punished him in an emotional way by letting him know that his kingdom would be split following his death (see I Kings 11:1-13).
VI. ABOUT THE DYNASTY (II Samuel 7:16).    God, through Nathan now gave David a promise.  He said “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.”  The “house” or dynasty and “kingdom” established by God for David, as well as the “throne” serving as a symbol of that kingdom will endure forever.  Solomon had not been born yet, but God promised that his dynasty would not be cut off.  In ancient times such a promise was very comforting because assassinations occurred frequently.  Without the protection of God, no ruler could be sure his line would survive long.  God said that David’s line, his kingdom and his throne would not merely last for a long time, but “forever.”   The only way such a promise could be fulfilled literally was for the eternal Son, Israel’s Messiah to sit on the throne of David.  Someday Jesus will do just that (see Luke 1:32-33)!  Note:  Jehoiachin, according to God’s words (see Jeremiah 22:30), would be the last of Solomon’s descendents to sit upon the Davidic throne, yet Solomon’s royal authority, or the “throne” of his kingdom would endure.  One might ask then, how could one of David’s descendents reign over the future kingdom if he could not be descended from Solomon but still needed the royal authority of Solomon’s lineage?  Jesus, the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (see Luke 1:32-33) solved this dilemma in a unique way.  Through Mary, Jesus was a physical descendent of David through Nathan another son of David (see Luke 3:31).  If Solomon had not been selected king, Nathan had the right to be king.  Through His legal guardian Joseph, a descendent of Solomon (see Matthew 1:6, 16), Jesus received the authority to rule.  
                          
VII. Conclusion.  David had good intentions and a noble ambition.  He wanted to build God a house.  Sometimes, even when our motives are pure and sincere, God may overrule our plans.  God revealed that He didn’t need a house from David.  Instead He intended to establish the house or dynasty of David.  The covenant He made with David would not be nullified.  It was a covenant with eternal ramifications.  A portion of this covenant is yet to be fulfilled.  Humans make promises they cannot or will not keep.  It inspires worship when we realize that our God is totally capable of keeping every promise He ever made.  The promises made to David will be fulfilled completely. We can count on it!

 







 

 

 vv

Control Your Speech

                                                                          Sunday School Lesson
                                            

Lesson: James 3:1-12 
                                                                                             
Golden Text: “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (James 3:10).
INTRODUCTION.  Can you name the muscle in your body that receives more exercise and demonstrates less control than any other muscle?  It only weighs two ounces.  Just open your mouth and say “Ahh!”  There it is; your tongue.  There is no other member of our body that can be used for greater good and for more evil at the same time than the tongue.  One moment we use the tongue to encourage people, then turn right around and use it to cut them to pieces.  In James chapter 1 we are told that one of the key signs of a believer is a person who can bridle his tongue (see James 1:26).  In chapter 3 from which our lesson comes, James returns to the subject of the tongue providing several examples to teach about it, and the importance of controlling it. 
BACKGROUND FOR THE LESSON.  The apostle James, who was the brother of our Lord Jesus, did not become a believer in Christ until after Jesus’ resurrection (see John 7:5; I Corinthians 15:7).  He later became the head of the church at Jerusalem (see Acts chapters 12 and 15 as well as Galatians chapters 1and 2).  As the leader of the church in Jerusalem, James addressed this letter to Jewish Christians who were scattered abroad as a result of persecution.  However, no doubt he received word that many of his readers were having problems which included angry conversation and a lack of clarity about the right way of living as a disciple of Jesus.  In the previous lesson, James dealt with the importance of faith and works or good deeds: how they must go together.  In this week’s lesson, James focuses on the gift of speech and how it can be used for both good and evil and how our speech needs to be controlled.  One way that our speech can be used for good is through teaching. It’s appropriate that James begins the text with an admonition to his readers who teach, for if anyone needs to control what he says, it would be one who instructs others. 

III. SINS OF SPEAKING (Luke 6:1-5)    

A. The danger for teachers (James 3:1).  James began here with a warning to aspiring teachers.  He wrote “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”  The word translated “masters” in this verse is translated “teachers” in other passages (see Acts 13:1; I Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11).  In former times, teachers were sometimes called “masters” or schoolmasters.  The phrase “My brethren, be not many masters” can also be rendered “Let not many of you become teachers.”  Some may take this to mean that teachers should be few in number, but James was trying to stress the seriousness of teaching.  Due to pride, many of James’ readers sought recognition as teachers of spiritual truth not realizing the responsibility that went with it.  Teaching was a highly valued and respected profession in Jewish culture, and many Jewish Christians wanted to become teachers.  Whether serving as a church leader, youth worker, or Sunday school teacher, everyone should take the teaching of the Word very seriously.  This is because as James said, teachers “shall receive the greater condemnation.”  Simply put, this means that teachers will be judged more strictly that those who don’t teach.  Sadly, many teachers fail to realize how important they are to the work of the Lord.  Note:  Although by interpretation, James was addressing those who wanted to teach spiritual truths, we can also apply his words to any teachers.  Through words teachers have great influence over others, shaping lives toward good or evil.  Therefore, they are accountable for measuring their words and controlling their tongues.  All teachers should approach the task of teaching with the highest and holiest motives and efforts.  Devoting oneself to adequate preparation for teaching is essential for quality instruction that is worthy of our Lord.  And whether we are teachers in schools or churches, as Christians we must make sure we prepare properly because we represent Christ no matter who we are teaching.  One may ask why will the judgment on teachers be greater?  Well, Jesus taught the principle of the final judgment that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (see Luke 12:48).   So, no one should be overly eager to teach because the mistakes of a teacher will affect many. 
B. The struggle for all of us (James 3:2).  In this verse James continued to say “For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.”  Like James, we must admit that “in many things we offend all.”  In other words, we all “offend” or stumble in many ways.  We all often fall short of God’s expectations (see Romans 3:23) for we are frail creatures indeed.  Thankfully, God takes this into account (see Psalms 103:12-14).  James said that “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.”  The word “perfect” here means to be complete or mature, not sinless.  James was saying that anyone who never stumbles or says the wrong things is mature and is “able also to bridle the whole body.”  If we could somehow learn to bridle, or control the tongue, we could actually control the whole body and its actions.  The point James is making is that the tongue is the most difficult member of the body to control.  Gaining victory over the tongue is the mark of a person who is “a perfect man,” or spiritually mature in all areas of life.  People who are blameless in every other aspect of life, but whose testimonies are ruined because of their tongues are not yet complete or mature.  Of course, none of us have reached that level of maturity yet.  We all have trouble controlling our speech.
IV. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TONGUE’S POWER (James 3:3-6)      
A. Bridling speech (James 3:3).  James goes on to say “Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.”  Though small, the tongue is powerful.  To illustrate this, James used two examples.  First, he spoke of the “bits” we put in a horse’s mouth to control its movements.  Like the tongue, the bit is small, the horse is large yet the horse’s “whole body” is controlled by the bit.
B. Overcoming momentum (James 3:4).  James’ second example involves a ship’s rudder (an oar-like movable device at the rear of a ship to direct its course).  He said “Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.”   The point here is that ships, though very large, can be driven by “fierce (strong) winds” that threaten to drive them off course and wreck them.  But the ships can be controlled and turned around by a “very small helm (or rudder).”  Through this, the “governor” or pilot of the ship is able to steer it wherever he “listeth” or wants to go. 
C. Careless speech (James 3:5-6). 
1. (vs. 5).  In this verse James gives the point of the two illustrations.  He wrote “Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!”  When we consider the whole human body, the tongue is only a “little member” or organ.   Just as the bit and the rudder have influence out of proportion to their size, so also does the tongue.  It has great power, and often “boasteth great things.”  In this verse, the phrase “boasteth great things” means that the tongue has much power and influence.  It has great power, sometimes boasting of great things and sometimes causing great damage.  To illustrate this, James called to mind a forest fire.  As we know, a forest fire can be ignited from just a tiny spark.  Hundreds of square miles can burn up before the fire is finally brought under control.  So, the tongue can start fires out of proportion to its size.  Note:  Too many people allow their tongues to be the spark that inflames great passion and anger.  Just a word can begin a fistfight or cause relatives to be at odds with each other for years.  Churches have been split because of unruly tongues.  Young Rehoboam lost half his kingdom because of his tongue (see I Kings 12:10-16).  The uncontrollable tongue can do terrible damage.  Satan uses the tongue to divide people and pit them against one another.  Idle and hateful words are damaging because they spread destruction quickly, and no one can stop the results once the words are spoken.  We should not be careless in what we say, thinking that we can apologize later, because even if we do, the scars remain.  A few words spoken in anger can destroy a relationship that took years to build (see Proverbs 15:1).  Before we speak, we should remember that words are like fire---you can neither control nor reverse the damage they can do.     
2. (vs. 6).  James continued to say “And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.”  As fire destroys, so does the tongue.  It is a “world of iniquity.”  In other words, the tongue is a world of evil when considered among the other parts of the body.  Since all that the evil world consists of (see I John 2:16), greed, idolatry, filth, lust, blasphemy, bitterness, pride, and deceit is embodied in the uncontrolled tongue, it “defileth the whole body.”  As one small member, the tongue can defile the entire person.  James also said that the tongue “setteth on fire the course of nature” meaning that the tongue is destructive to the whole cycle of a person’s life, both personal and social.  The last phrase “and it is set on fire of hell” reveals the ultimate source of this destructiveness---“hell.”   Note:  The term “hell” in the Greek is “Gehenna” a place in the Valley of Hinnom where in ancient times it was used for human sacrifice (II Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31), and later the garbage dump of Jerusalem where the fires burned continuously illustrating to the Jews unending judgment upon the wicked.  Jesus used it to picture the place of eternal torment, where Satan and his minions will be punished (see Mark 9:48; Revelation 20:10).  James saw the sins of the tongue as satanically incited.
D. The untamable tongue (James 3:7-8). 
1. (vs. 7).  In this verse James says “For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind.”  In the beginning, God gave mankind authority over creation (see Genesis 1:28).  Human beings are the only creatures intellectually capable of subduing nature.   As a result, James says that “every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed” and has been tamed by man.  The term “tamed” does not mean domesticated.  It means to be brought under control. 
2. (vs. 8).  James goes on to say “But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.  Man has shown that he can tame wild animals, but he can’t tame or control his own tongue.  James said “the tongue can no man tame.”  This is because the tongue is “an unruly (or restless) evil” like a wild animal constantly pacing and never satisfied.  The tongue is also described as “full of deadly poison” like the poisonous fangs of a snake.  The words that we carelessly speak can do immense and irreparable damage to people and relationships.  Note:  James is correct in his assessment that no man can tame the tongue.  However, if this is true, why should we even bother trying to control our tongues?  Well, even if we may not achieve perfect control of or tongues, we can still learn enough control to reduce the damage our words can do.  It is better to fight a fire than to go around setting new ones!  Remember that we are not fighting the tongue’s fire in our own strength.  The Holy Spirit will give us increasing power to monitor and control what we say, so that when we are offended or harmed, the Spirit will remind us of God’s love and we won’t react in a hateful manner.  When we are criticized, the Holy Spirit will heal the hurt, and we won’t lash out.
V. PURITY OF SPEECH (James 3:9-12)    
A. Positive power (James 3:9-10).          
1. (vs. 9).  Still talking about the tongue that no man can tame, James here says “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”  James is saying that it is completely inconsistent for us to “bless” or praise God the Father with the same tongue that we sometimes “curse” or speak evil of men, especially since we are “made after the similitude (likeness) of God.”  In other words, we are made after the image of God.  This is the highest degree of hypocrisy---being “double-tongued.”   To exalt God the Father is commendable, but this outward show of devotion means nothing when with the same tongue we curse people.  We can do this not only by using profanity or invoking curses, but we can also curse people by speaking abusively, or slandering their reputation.  This sin is worsened by the fact that those we curse are created in the “similitude” or likeness of God.  This is what distinguishes us from all other creatures.  How then, can we speak evil of someone who bears God’s image without slandering God also?  Using the tongue for both blessing and cursing is the worse hypocrisy and stands condemned.
2. (vs. 10).  In this verse, James sums up the inconsistency of blessings and cursing coming from the same tongue.  He said “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”  For “blessing and cursing” to come from the same tongue is so contradictory that James added in a gentler tone: “My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”  James’ readers are challenged to strive for maturity, for words reveal what resides within us.  Jesus Himself said that it is not what goes into a person’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out (see Matthew 15:10-20).  When curses and other vile language come forth, they reveal the true condition of the heart.
B. Blessing and cursing (James 3:11-12).  In the final two verses, James asks two rhetorical questions to prove that blessing and cursing coming from the same tongue is a monstrous contradiction that is not even found in nature, where the product is always consistent with its source.
1. (vs. 11).  First James asked “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?”  Of course the answer is no.  We don’t expect to get “sweet water” or fresh water from the same fountain as we would get “bitter” or salt water.  That’s illogical and inconsistent with a fountain.
2. (vs. 12).  The second question James asked is “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.”  Just as we wouldn’t expect to get salt and fresh water from the same fountain, neither would we expect different kinds of fruit to grow on the same tree.  A lot more could be said about taming the tongue, but more words won’t solve the problem unless the words are a prayer for God’s help in controlling our tongues.

 

VI. Conclusion.  Man has been able to do some amazing things, but he cannot control his tongue on his own.  Most Christians are not usually guilty of outright lying.  A more pervasive problem among believers is gossip.  Whenever a choice piece of gossip comes our way, there are several questions we need to ask ourselves before we pass on such information.  First, ask yourself, was I an eyewitness to the deed?  If I was not, I might be spreading a falsehood if I pass on what I’ve heard (see Exodus 20:16).  Second, am I willing to take responsibility for the information I pass on, willing to sign my name under it?  While most people are willing to spread gossip, they are not willing to take responsibility for what they spread (see Matthew 12:36-37).  Third, can I support what I say with the divine requirement of two or three witnesses (see Deuteronomy 19:15; I Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28)?  Without such support, what is said amounts to mere hearsay.  Fourth, am I willing to make this statement in the presence of the person I accuse, giving him an opportunity to defend himself (see Matthew 18:15-17; Acts 24:18-20; Romans 14:10-13; James 4:11-12)?  Fifth, am I motivated by love to spread the information I have (see I Corinthians 13:4-7)?  Most talebearers or gossipers simply want someone else to look bad.  Even if something is completely true, there are many things that are better left unsaid.  Certainly there are true things about all of us that we would not want broadcasted publicly.  There is a truth that was written almost three thousand years ago that still applies today: “A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter” (see Proverbs 11:13).  In other words, a gossiper betrays a person’s confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret.

 







 

 

Show Your Faith by Your Works

                            
                                                                  Sunday School Lesson                                            

Lesson: James 2:14-16                                                                                                 
Golden Text: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26).

INTRODUCTION.  There are things in life that we automatically associate as a pair: peanut butter and jelly, horse and buggy, hand and glove.  James was trying to make a point in that faith and works are an automatic pair.  Our lesson this week reveals the visible sign that proves faith is real.  It is works of love.  Deeds of love fulfill the claim of faith.
THE PROBLEM OF FAITHLESS FAITH (James 2:14-17)
A. A false claim (James 2:14).  James ended last week’s lesson by stating that whoever shows no mercy when judging will also have no mercy shown to him, for mercy triumphs against judgment (see James 2:13). He continues in our first verse by posing a two-part question: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”  The answer is that there is no profit or nothing to be gained.  The first part of this question relates back to verse 13 and mercy which is just another way that James referred to love.  His question was essentially “What good is it my brothers if a man claims to have faith but no deeds?  Can this kind of faith save him?”  The real question becomes is there such a thing as faith that is separated from works, or good deeds?  The “works” James was talking about are expressions of love for God and neighbor that come from true faith.  These are works of mercy, not works of merit.  Note: When someone claims to have faith, what he or she may have is intellectual assent or agreement with a set of Christian teachings, and as such that would be incomplete faith.  True faith transforms our conduct as well as our thoughts.  If our lives remain unchanged, we don’t truly believe the truths we claim to believe.
B. A false profession (James 2:15-16).
1. (vs. 15).  James continued to write “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food.”  He presents an illustration to prove his point that faith must be accompanied by good deeds.  James starts his illustration with a supposition: suppose a brother or sister had no clothing and no food to eat.
2. (vs. 16).  James continued the illustration saying “And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”  Remember, James is writing to Jewish Christians therefore, in the phrase “And one of you say unto them” James is referring to Christians who see this poor and destitute brother or sister in need and instead of helping, they simply respond saying “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled.”  All this believer is doing is offering religious sentiments.  Wishing the destitute person to go in peace and get warmth and food on his own.  This is the same thing as seeing a person in need who we can help and all we do is say, “I’ll pray for you.”  This is an illogical response, because if the poor person could get warmth or food, he wouldn’t be in need of those things.  James then condemns the believer’s response by saying “notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body.”  Instead of the Christian giving the needy person the things he needed for warmth and food, he sends him on his way having done nothing to prove his faith in Christ.  So James poses the question again, “what doth it profit?”  In other words, what benefit is there for either the believer or the poor person is no help is given?  Those who claim to love God, to know the Messiah, and yet who are not driven to show grace to others prove their faithlessness.
C. A false separation (James 2:17).  In this verse, based on what he says in the previous verse, James concludes “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”  James was saying that anyone who claims to have faith in Christ and does not show mercy or love as he described in verse 16, that person’s faith is “dead” or non-existent.  That person is separating faith from works or good deeds.  Likewise, Christians today can be trapped in the same kind of separation of faith from works of love.  What makes this kind of faith “dead” is that it is also “alone.”  Just as there can be no genuine compassion without action (see verse 16), there can be no real faith without service to God and the needs of others.  Note:  We cannot earn our salvation by simply serving and obeying God.  Salvation is, and always has been a gift from God by grace (see Ephesians 2:8-9).  But such actions as serving and obeying God demonstrate that our commitment to Him and others is real.  Deeds of loving service are not a substitute for our faith in Christ; it is verification of our faith in Christ. 
III. THE USELESSNESS OF FAITHFLESS FAITH (James 2:18-20) 
A. The impossibility (James 2:18).  In this verse James says “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”  James presents a hypothetical case to prove that it is impossible to demonstrate faith without works of love.  Someone might say that you have faith and I have good deeds: show me your faith without good deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do.  What James is saying here is that a person who simply claims to have faith cannot show something that is only internal.  However, a person can demonstrate his deeds of love by faith.  True faith is shown by what a person does.  It’s similar to the question of whether love that is spoken but has no outward evidence is really love.  The proof of faith and love is seen by its actions.  What a person believes can change, and even be a figment of their imagination.  But good deeds or good works require effort, and over time will show real character and faith.  A faith shown by works of love cannot be faked, at least not for long.
B. The futility (James 2:19).  Now James attempts to show the uselessness or futility of having a correct belief separated from correct actions.  He wrote “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”  James makes his point that one can have a correct belief in something, but without the proper actions the belief is futile.  In essence James was saying “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that---and shudder in fear.”  The term “devils” refers to demons.  These unseen forces of evil know that there is only one God (see Mark 1:24; 3:11; Acts 16:17), yet no one would consider them to be saved because of their actions.  By interjecting the subject of demons into his argument, James seems to be saying that those with dead faith are more ignorant of reality than the demons.  The demons believe there is a God, but are smart enough to tremble at what lies ahead for them, for their faith is not saving faith---it bears no good fruit.  Note:  An example of this would be when the sons of the priest Sceva started using Jesus’ name to cast out demons, but the demons overcame them recognizing that Jesus and Paul were genuine, but the sons of Sceva were not real servants of God (see Acts 19:15).  If demons have a correct belief of what the message of salvation is and still are workers of evil, no one would conclude that they are saved.  Therefore, James proved that correct belief without correct actions or works is useless.
C. The rebuke (James 2:20).  James continued to say in this verse “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”  In other words, James was saying to his readers, “You foolish (vain) people, do you need evidence that faith without works is useless (dead)?”  The only kind of person who would consider that one can have faith without works is “vain” or foolish, and devoted to selfish living.  The word “vain” here should be seen in the sense of vanity as used in Ecclesiastes 1:2, “all is vanity.”  In this sense vanity means something that appears to be real but isn’t.  So the “vain” man is empty.  Therefore the person who thinks he is righteous before God while being wicked and unloving is empty, senseless, and lacks both knowledge and righteousness.    
IV. THE REFUTATION OF FAITHLESS FAITH (James 2:21-26)      
A. The faithful man Abraham (James 2:21-22). 
1. (vs. 21).  To further make his point that faith without works is dead, James gave some concrete examples his readers would be familiar with.  The first example is given in this verse.  James said “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”  James’ claim that Abraham was “justified (considered righteous) by works” might seem to be contradictory to what Paul taught about faith and works, as well as Genesis 15:6 where it is said about Abraham: “And he believed in the Lord; and he (the Lord) counted it to him for righteousness.”  However, there is no contradiction with Paul or Genesis 15:6.  The “works” James is talking about here refers to deeds of love.  What Paul referred to in Romans 4:1-5 and Galatians 3:6 was regarding keeping the law.  In those verses Paul was proving that Abraham was not saved by becoming an Israelite (by being circumcised).  He was declared right with God before he was circumcised (see Genesis 15:6; 17:9-14).  On the other hand, James was proving something entirely different, that Abraham’s faith was a working faith.  He was willing to show his faith by offering his son Isaac.  Abraham’s righteousness with God came through faith and was fulfilled or completed by his work of love for God.  Note:   At first glance this verse seems to contradict Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”  If we look deeper we will find that James and Paul are not at odds.  While it is true that our good deeds can never earn salvation, true faith always results in a changed life and good deeds.  Paul speaks against those who try to be saved by their works instead of true faith in Christ.  James, on the other hand speaks against those who confuse simple agreement with true faith.  After all, even demons know who Jesus is, but they don’t obey Him.  True faith involves a commitment of a person’s whole self to God.    
2. (vs. 22).  Still discussing Abraham, James here asked “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”  The word “wrought” means to “go together” or “work together.”  In the phrase “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works” James was saying to his readers, “can’t you see that Abraham’s faith and his actions were working together?”  In other words, Abraham’s works and faith worked together and “by works was faith made perfect?”  The word “perfect” means complete.  Works or deeds of love complete our faith.
B. The fulfillment of faith (James 2:23).  James concluded his example of Abraham by saying “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”  The “Scripture” that James says was “fulfilled” is Genesis 15:6 combined with Genesis 22:12-17; II Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8.  The word “imputed” means “to recon” or “to count.”  The Scriptures said that “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”  Abraham had faith in God and that faith or belief was “imputed” or counted for righteousness.  The fact that Abraham believed God is seen in that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac believing that God would raise him from the dead (see Hebrews 11:19).  So, we see that Abraham was declared right, or justified with God in Genesis 15:6, but his faith was completed by his work of love shown for God as he was willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac.  Since Abraham’s faith and deeds worked together, James said that he was “called the Friend of God.”  Abraham was justified by what he did and became God’s friend by his obedience.  Note:   Just as Abraham believed God and was justified (found not guilty), those of us who believe in Jesus are also justified.  This is a promise that awaits completion.  Once our lives are filled with works of love because of our faith, our justification will be complete, and we will have been saved by our works that verified our faith.  That does not mean that our works earned us salvation.  It means that God saves us by making us good or righteous and delivering us from death.  The process is all in God’s hand and is totally by grace (see Ephesians 2:8-10).
C. Justification by complete faith (James 2:24).  Having provided undeniable evidence, James here says “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”  The only conclusion James’ readers could come to was that a man is considered “justified” or righteous by both “works” or good deeds, and “faith” or belief in Christ.  Faith and works are inseparable.  The person who believes works (does good deeds) and he who truly works (does good deeds) believes.  Saving faith in Christ changes a person’s character causing him to do deeds of mercy and love.  False professions of faith include right beliefs, but not the trusting faith of the heart which changes the character and results in deeds of mercy and love.  Note:  We must remember that even though we have been justified (found not guilty and made righteous) by Christ, we will still face the judgment seat of Christ (see Romans 14:10).  In that judgment, we will be rewarded or lose rewards based on the works or good deeds we have done (see Romans 2:6, 10; II Corinthians 5:10).  Our place at that judgment will confirm what James was teaching, faith and works go together.  You can’t have one without the other.
D. An example of complete faith (James 2:25).  In this verse, James gives another example.  He said “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”  Rahab was not a Jew but a Canaanite who lived in Jericho during the time of Joshua.  She was also a prostitute.  Her story was a perfect example for James to use to prove the unity of faith and works.  As a Canaanite, she was doomed to death.  Just as all sinners are under a death penalty, so were Rahab and all the Canaanites who were idol worshippers.  By using the term “Likewise” James was saying that Rahab’s justification was just like Abraham’s.  Rahab, the “harlot” or prostitute was “justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”   This prostitute of Jericho was “justified” or made righteous by her “works” or deeds.  Those works or deeds were identified as performed “when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”  What confirmed her salvation were her actions when she hid the Israelite spies and then helped them to escape Jericho (see Joshua 2:1, 4-5, 15-16, 21).  If she had simply said to the Israelite spies that she believed in God and done nothing to help them, she would not have been delivered (see Joshua 2:7-11).  Her deed of loving-kindness resulted in the Israelites also showing her a deed of loving-kindness (see Joshua 2:12-14; 3:24-25).  Rahab demonstrated her faith with the right actions, and the Israelites recognized genuine faith.  She demonstrated faith in God’s purpose for Israel, and that faith accompanied by her good deeds done to the spies resulted in her and her family being saved from destruction.  It should be noted here that Rahab is listed among the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11:31, and also became an ancestor of Jesus, for she is found in the genealogy of Jesus (see Matthew 1:5).
E. A final illustration (James 2:26).  In our final verse James says “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”  Here James uses the body as a final illustration of how faith and works go together.  The phrase “as the body without the spirit is dead” compares a faithless faith with a body after the spirit has left it.  It is no longer alive.  A person’s spirit is life.  The deeds of mercy that people of faith do are the very life of the gospel message.  A believer without works of love and mercy is like a dead body.  He has not truly been begotten by the word of truth (see James 1:18).  Thus he has not received life.  That person must repent and live out his faith by his deeds (see Isaiah 1:16-17), then his justification will be complete when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ.   
                          
V. Conclusion.  We must be careful when judging faith in others for a couple of reasons.  First, it takes time for real faith to show itself.  As a tree needs time to produce fruit, so it may be the same with a professing believer.  Second, not all works or good deeds are done in public and therefore may be invisible to others.  Christians are not supposed to blow their own horn, thereby bringing attention to their good deeds.  Then again, many deeds by their very nature are in the open for all to see.  The important thing is to be sure we are trusting Christ for salvation and doing good deeds because of it.  Our lesson has taught us that faith and works go hand in hand.  They are an inseparable team.  Unproductive faith is useless and does not save.  May faith and works be evident in our lives to bring about change in others.
 







 

Avoid Showing Favoritism/Treat everyone equally

                                                                      Sunday School Lesson

                                
Lesson: James 2:1-13
                                                                                                 
Golden Text: “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well” (James 2:8).

INTRODUCTION.  Have you ever noticed that it takes only a couple of seconds to form an impression of a person and twenty years to change that impression?  We all tend to quickly take a look, examine our feelings, and come up with an evaluation.  Judging and showing partiality are major problems with all people, and especially with believers.  Living in God’s kingdom requires that believers make some major adjustments in the way they treat others.  Too often we give in to worldly pressure to value people according to wealth and rank.  Churches forsake poor neighborhoods, shun persons from unsavory backgrounds, and refuse to condemn sins of greed and injustice.  This is why James had to give the instruction found in this week’s lesson. 

BACKGROUND FOR THE LESSON.  In this week’s lesson, James addresses what appears to be a very specific problem among the Jewish Christians living outside the land of Israel, due to the Diaspora or scattering of the Jews.  The problem that James was addressing occurred when these believers met in their gatherings or worship services.  It was a severe problem---the showing of partiality or favoritism.  James’ words in our text seem to be rooted in the laws of Exodus that were against all partiality in judgment.  No one was to be partial toward the poor or against the poor (see Exodus 23:3, 6).  Therefore, James made the startling statement that opens our lesson.
III. UNLOVING PARTIALITY (James 2:1-4)      
A. Faith and partiality (James 2:1).  The startling statement that James begins with was “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”  This statement was startling because in the Greek this verse reads “My brethren, do not with respect of persons have the faith.”  In other words, James was saying that we are not demonstrating faith in our Lord Jesus Christ if we show “respect of persons” or favoritism.  This is the sin that James is condemning.  The words “respect of persons” literally means “receiving of faces” or to “look at a person’s face.”  The idea is that the focus is on what the person looks like instead of the person, resulting in an uninformed judgment.  To have “respect of persons” really means giving more respect to one person than another because of outward appearance alone.  When James said “have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” he was appealing to his readers not to allow their faith in Christ to be contaminated by acts of favoritism.  Such acts are inconsistent with faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, because He never showed partiality.  Jesus is also described as “the Lord of glory” because just as God’s glory was seen visibly by His people in the tabernacle and the temple, God’s glory was now personified in Jesus Christ.  This presents us with a question.  If Christ is our glory why do we glory in others?  By showing favoritism, we exalt men and detract from Christ.
B. Inequity in the assembly (James 2:2-3).
1. (vs. 2).  In this verse James begins to give an illustration of his command in the previous verse.  He said “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.”  James may be giving a hypothetical illustration, but he could also be stating something that had actually happened.  James pictured two men who come into the “assembly.”  The Greek word translated “assembly” can also be translated “synagogue.”  Since these were early Jewish Christians, they may still have been worshipping in synagogues.  The two men who enter are no doubt strangers, and the regular worshippers know nothing about them except what they see at that moment.  The first one introduced is a man “with a gold ring, in goodly apparel.”  The words “with a gold ring” literally mean “a gold fingered man” indicating that he could have had on more than one ring to show his status.  The “goodly apparel” refers to fine clothes, or clothes that were openly brilliant and splendid.  This man had all the marks of being wealthy.  To the same service came “also a poor man in vile raiment.”   This second man had no money and his clothing was “vile” or disgusting.  It’s hard to imagine a greater difference in appearance than these two men.
2. (vs. 3).  James continues his illustrations saying “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 congregation is faced with a moral test, and they fail it miserably.  Quickly sizing up the rich man, someone in the assembly has “respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place.”  Based simply on what they see the people give the rich man special attention and leads him to a choice seat.  The poor man receives no such respect.  Someone tells him to “Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.”  The poor man is told to stand in a certain spot, or sit down on the floor.  Both options given to the poor man are equally degrading.  He may stand in an inconspicuous place where he can’t be seen, or sit on the floor by the footstool of the one speaking to him.  It’s noteworthy that the one speaking to the poor man not only has a good seat, but a footstool as well.  Yet he doesn’t even have the courtesy to let the poor man sit on the footstool!  The poor man is unwelcome based on his appearance alone.
C. False judging (James 2:4).  James now drives the lesson home by asking a question that expects a positive answer---an answer that will condemn his readers’ actions.  He asked “Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?”  James was saying that when we are “partial” or showing favoritism, we also “become judges of evil thoughts.”  In other words, those making distinctions between rich and poor in their midst, have set themselves up as critics who pass judgment on the basis of unjust reasoning---outward appearances.  No doubt they reason that the rich can add wealth and prestige to their church, but the poor can’t.  As a result they treat them differently.  This is unjust!  Christ receives all people equally, but the ones James is writing to are unwilling to do the same.  Note:  It’s easy for us to see the injustice of what James’s readers did.  But we are prone to the same sin.  Wealth is not the only criterion by which modern churches make unjust distinctions.  Discrimination is just as often on the basis of education, age, race, nationality, gender, or marital status.  God only makes spiritual distinctions, and by these we must be bound.  But all other distinctions have no place in the church.  
IV. RICH POVERTY (James 2:5-7)
A.  The blessing of the believing poor (James 2:5).  Now James says to his readers, “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?”  James called on his readers to “hearken” or to listen and pay attention.  As his “beloved brethren” they had his affection.  With a question that required an affirmative answer, James challenged his readers to think.  First, he asked “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith?”  There is some mystery surrounding God’s choice of the poor, for Scripture does not teach that He chooses people on the basis of social class.  But it is true that a higher number of poor than rich are believers (see Matthew 19:23-24; I Corinthians 1:26-29).  Ironically, the “poor of this world,” meaning those who are poor by man’s standards, are often “rich in faith” or filled with faith.  Their very poverty drives them to trust God more deeply.  The rich man has no need to question how his bills will get paid or where he will get his next meal.  The poor man however, has to learn to depend on God.  The poor man trusts that God will supply his needs.  Even though he doesn’t know how or when, he still believes.  The poor who are “rich in faith” are the ones who have become “heirs of the kingdom which he (God) hath promised to them that love him.” Their rich faith is accompanied by pure love for their Redeemer, and He honors them with an eternal inheritance (see Luke 6:20-23).  We should be mindful that not all poor people gain this inheritance, and not all rich people will miss it.  However, the poor are more likely to have the faith and love to enter God’s kingdom, while the rich have a tendency to rely on themselves, making it much more difficult to honor God.
B. The behavior of the unbelieving rich (James 2:6-7).
1. (vs. 6).  In this verse James argues that impartiality is not only unjust, but also illogical.  He said “But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?”  If James’ readers realized that God chooses the poor of this world who are rich in faith, then it would be illogical to dishonor the poor.  This is the meaning of “ye have despised the poor.”  It is even more illogical to honor the rich because James asked “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?”  This question points out two separate evils or sins.  One is social oppression.  The word for “oppress” is used in the Old Testament to show the exploitation of the poor (see Jeremiah 7:5-7; Amos 4:1-2).  The second evil that the rich were guilty of was persecution of believers, here described as being brought “before the judgment seats.”   How ironic it is that the people being honored in the assembly by believers were the same ones prosecuting them in court for their faith.  It may be that some believers hoped that by flattering the rich, or those who were persecuting them, they could turn away their opposition.  However, such thinking would be unworthy of Christ, and it is a technique that’s bound to fail.
2. (vs. 7).  Here James asks another question to show how illogical it was to honor the rich.  He asked “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”  This question makes it clear that the rich people that James’ readers were honoring were unbelievers.  They were wealthy Jews who had rejected Jesus and were intent on exterminating His followers.  The term “blaspheme” means to slander or to speak evil of someone.  James said that the rich who were being honored were blaspheming, or slandering that “worthy name by the which ye are called.”  Of course that name is Jesus, the name by which we are all called to be Christians.  Since the very One who gave meaning to his readers’ faith was being blasphemed, it made no sense to James that they honored those who were doing it.  It should make no sense to us either.
V. LAW-KEEPING LOVE (James 2:8-13)
A. The proper interpretation of the law (James 2:8).  Here James wrote “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.”  Although many of James’ readers were showing favoritism to the rich just because they were rich, in this verse James indicates that it is also possible that some people honored the rich out of sheer love for their neighbor.  In this case they would be fulfilling “the royal law according to the scripture.”  This is a reference to the latter part of Leviticus 19:18, which is “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”  James referred to this part of the law as “the royal law.”  It might be called this for at least two reasons.  First, it was emphasized by Jesus, the King of kings (see Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31).  Second, it is a law above all others with regard to human relationships.  Paul told the Romans that one who loved his neighbor was fulfilling the entire law relating to one’s fellow man.  He wrote that “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (see Romans 13:10).     
B. Transgressors (James 2:9-10). 
1. (vs. 9).  James goes on to say “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”  The phrase, “have respect to persons” means to show favoritism.  James is saying that if we are respecters of persons, or showing favoritism, we “commit sin” because we are “convinced (convicted) of the law as transgressors.”   In other words, we are convicted by the royal law of love and become “transgressors” of that law.  The word “transgressors” refers to lawbreakers, those who deliberately cross over a prescribed boundary or limit.  That person knows the boundary or limit, but defies it anyway.  In this case he or she ignores the law’s prohibition against partiality (see Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19); so the royal law testifies that the person is a transgressor or law breaker.
2. (vs. 10).  In this verse, James forms a conclusion saying “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”  The law is God’s moral standard.  As such, it must be taken as a whole, not in parts.  Being very good in one area of morality does not compensate for falling short in another area.  Someone might argue that showing partiality is only a small breach of the law.  But James answered saying that even if a person keeps “the whole law” or all of God’s Word, but breaks just “one point” he is guilty of breaking all the law.  Obedience to many laws cannot atone for breaking one law.
C. Priorities (James 2:11).  To further prove his point, James said “For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”  James declared that the reason why breaking one law is the same as breaking them all is because all of it comes from One Lawgiver.  To disobey any part of it is to violate His will and reject His lordship.  James declared that the One who said “Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.”  Since the same God who forbade adultery also forbade murder, if a person commits murder but not adultery, he or she is still a “transgressor of the law.”  Therefore, whoever commits one sin, but not the other is still guilty, because he or she has crossed the boundaries set by God Himself.
D. The law of liberty (James 2:12-13).
1. (vs. 12).  In this verse James said “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”  The phrase “So speak ye, and so do” means that our words and our actions should pass the scrutiny of being “judged by the law of liberty.”  The “law of liberty” refers to all of God’s Word, especially the gospel message which brings liberty to those who receive Christ (see John 8:32).  When believers stand before the judgment seat of Christ, our words and actions will be judged by the Holy Scriptures (see II Corinthians 5:10).
2. (vs. 13).  In our final verse, James says that two outcomes of God’s judgment are possible.  He wrote “ For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”  The first outcome of judgment is that the one who passes judgment on another without showing mercy will receive no mercy when he or she is judged.  “Mercy” is pity or compassion for someone who is in misery.  As Jesus pointed out, those who show mercy will themselves “obtain mercy” (see Matthew 5:7).  The point is that anyone who has lived a merciless life has placed themselves outside God’s mercy.  The second outcome of judgment is that “mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”  This is a picture of mercy glorying in its triumph over condemnation at the judgment.  The point James is making here is that the one who has received mercy in Christ (see Ephesians 2:4-5) and then practiced it toward others will be victorious at the judgment.  They will have no need to fear (I John 4:17-18).

                      
VI. Conclusion.  The image of Christ becomes apparent in a Christian community in which everyone is treated with equal respect and compassion.  That image becomes obscured in a fellowship where such factors as wealth or poverty affect the way members are treated.  As Christians, we should not patronize the rich or discriminate against the poor.  In Christ, believers are on equal footing regardless of such factors as race, culture, and economic status.  In this week’s lesson, James teaches that showing partiality on the basis of external appearances is a serious matter to God.  He receives all who come to Him through faith in Jesus Christ.  Can we do any less?