This paragraph on Servility suits exhortation of Jews incomparably better than that of Christians, among whom not many rich were found for generations. The scene of James 2:2 is the synagogue, best taken in its literal sense; and acts of oppression towards the congregation of God's poor are familiar to readers of the OT. Give up, he pleads, trying to combine with acts of servility the belief in the Lord of Glory. On the theory sketched in the introduction, the name Jesus Christ was added in the margin by an early reader: as the various efforts of translators and commentators show, the words made the sentence almost impossible Gr. when taken into the text. The worshipper in shabby clothes the adjective corresponds to the noun rendered baseness in James 1:21 is contrasted with the gold-ringed man in brilliant clothes (shining white, it would seem): for him there is no room except on the floor. He who can thus judge men by externals comes under the condemnation of James 1:6, for doubt there and divided here are the same word. Piety cannot recognise the guinea stamp only the image and superscription of God: they are judges of corrupt decisions if on such lines they distinguish man and man.
James 2:5 comes directly from the first Beatitude, though Jewish readers might think of OT parallels like those in Psalms 72:4; Psalms 72:12; Psalms 74:19; Psalms 74:21. Mere paupers in the world's eyes, these are heirs according to promise of their Father's Kingdom. Chose is the word that gives the adjective rendered elect; cf. Ephesians 4:4; Romans 8:33, etc. The promise, in the thought of James, was made in Luke 22:29 f.: his Jewish readers might think of Deuteronomy 7:9; Deuteronomy 30:20, etc. He goes on to show that they have little reason indeed for favouring the rich as such: they were so quick to drag poor men into court, for debt especially (cf. Matthew 18:30; Luke 12:58 f.). These rich men need not be Christians, or even Jews: the point is that the pious suffered especially from the rich (cf. James 5:1-6), which makes servility to the rich as such specially foolish. If the poor believers here are Jews, the glorious name named upon you will come from Amos 9:12 the text quoted by James in Acts 15:17 and Deuteronomy 28:10, etc. In James 2:8 we are reminded again how petty are little caste distinctions in the presence of a King. The Roman Emperor was called King in Gr. (cf. Acts 17:7), which makes Imperial the best rendering of the adjective here. The Second Commandment (Leviticus 19:18), like unto the First (Matthew 22:39), was detached even by the Jews; cf. Luke 10:27 for the place which Jesus gave it: His work was to transform the conception of neighbour. The illustration of the solidarity of the Law seems to us almost an anticlimax surely murder is worse even than adultery! But James 4:2 may show that human life was cheap in the (Jewish?) community addressed; and it would be very characteristic of Jews to lay great stress on their superiority to the Gentile world in the matter of purity. A Christian student of Matthew 5:22 would say that the germ of murder was even more easily planted than that of adultery. The Law of Liberty, so far from involving antinomian license, pronounces judgement without mercy on those who show no mercy it is the principle of Matthew 18:35. For the merciful man there is no condemnation (Matthew 5:7).