Last week we looked at verses 1-13 of James chapter 2, and saw the folly of favouritism. As I said then, there was so much in these verses, that it was going to be worth our while in coming back to them today, which is exactly what we’re going to be doing – this time concentrating on verses 8 to 13.

But before we get to those verses, let’s remind ourselves of what James has taught us so far.

In the first 12 verses of chapter 1 he told us that even trials are good for us. They’re good for us because even though it’s possible that things could get worse, not better, there is always hope that he would become better, and therefore more able to deal with the trials he was facing.

Then in verses 12 through 18, he taught us the other side of the coin, that trials can become temptations. Sometimes, he said, trials don’t build us up, trials drag us down. This is because “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed”. Your biggest problem, James says, is you.

Then in verses 19 through 27, he starts to show us how these things can work out in practice. When we’re tested, he says, whether we pass the test will depend on whether our deeds match our words. The true Christian, who passes the test, will be consistent in words and actions. They’ll be people are are Living in the World, listening to one another, without flying off the handle. But they’ll also be people who are Living under the Word. As he says in verse 22 “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” We must stop sinning. And thirdly, James said, they’ll be Living out the Word. True faith, James says is shown in three ways (1) by how we speak, (2) and how we act towards others, and (3) by our personal holiness.

That took us to chapter two, which we considered last week. In those opening verses of the chapter, James deals with The Folly of Favouritism. We looked at the principle (verse 1), the example (verses 2‑4), the errors (verses 5‑7), and the consequences (verses 8 to 13). The principle from verse 1 was very simple: there is no place for favouritism within the church of God. The Christian faith is incompatible with partiality. James then explained why this was the case with an example in verses 2-4. Two men come into the church, one with all the trappings of wealth, the other impoverished and dirty. The rich man is directed towards the best seats, the poor man sent to sit on the floor. We saw how easy it was to be swayed by outward appearance, and even by displays of wealth or importance. How would we respond if Rhodri Morgan or Ryan Giggs or Anthony Hopkins came through the door? Would we be more pleased to see the rich than the poor?

In verses 5-7, James then showed us the underlying errors that caused this attitude. There were two of them. The first error was in verse five, and that is the assumption that those who are look poor, are poor. It was a reminder that the things we value are not always the things that God values. If we judge people by the standards of their clothing or worldly possessions, it is a sign that we are not thinking as God thinks. The second error was shown in verses 6 and 7. Why are you valuing the rich, James asks, when it is the rich who oppress you have drag you into the courts!? They’re not just showing spiritual folly, they’re showing earthly folly, too!

But James is not content with merely showing the errors, because in verses 8‑13, he then goes on to show the consequences of those errors. The first was very simple, and was spelt out in verse 9: “if you show partiality, you commit sin”. The second is spelt out in verses 12 and 13, that those who judge others harshly, will themselves be judged more strictly. If we treat our neighbours with partiality, James says, we are not simply sinning, but we are going resolutely against the second great commandment. We can’t dismiss this as something that doesn’t matter, violating such a great commandment will inevitably have consequences for us. It’s this thought that will become the focus of this morning’s message.

But there’s one more thing to re-cap from last week, and that’s the application that we derived from the passage for ourselves. We looked at recent statistics which showed that almost twice as many people from middle-class areas go to church than they do from poorer areas. One newspaper report said, “working class people in poorer areas felt alienated from a church they perceived to be middle class”. We saw how this problem was one that had blighted the church for centuries, and often it had been necessary for men to radically redress the balance, and reach out specifically to the poor. John Wesley the founder of Methodism, and William Booth the founder of the Salvation Army were two examples we considered. This then led to two points of very specific application for us as a church. The first was the challenge as to whether the welcome and hospitality shown towards myself and Shâron could be matched by all of us in the welcome we show to other visitors, particularly the poor. And the second was whether we could rise to the challenge of invite people who are not like us, as well as people who are like us, to church services. That meant inviting people from every area of Clydach, and not just the areas where each of us lives.

As you can see, when we summarise James’ teaching like that, it becomes very clear about the challenge he is laying at our door. But as we go through verses 8 to 13 again, we’ll see that the challenge of James is not just about how we should treat others, but how we should understand ourselves.

Because these six verses also tell us about the Christian and the law of God. We can split their teaching into three parts. Firstly, in verses 8 and 9 we see the foundations of the law. In verses 10 and 11 we see failure to keep the law, and in verses 12 and 13 we see freedom in the law.

 Firstly then,

Foundations of the law (vv 8-9)

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Here, James tells us three important foundation principles when we consider the law of God.

The first, and most important is that little adjective he uses to describe the law there in the early part of verse eight: “the royal law”. What do you think James means by that?

It’s not really difficult. What are royal robes? They’re robes that belong to and are used by the King. What are royal bedchambers? They’re rooms that belong to and are used by the King. What is the royal law? It’s a law that belongs to and is used by the King.

It’s James’ subtle reminder that the law has found its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, a point to which we will return later. It’s also a reminder that the quotation from Leviticus 19: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” was one that the Lord Jesus himself also quoted.

But most importantly, James wants us to think back to verse 5. There he described those who were Christians as ‘heirs of the kingdom’. How in verse eight he’s showing us how those who in the kingdom should live by the King’s law. The similarity is even more apparent in Greek, as the word for kingdom is basileia, and the word for royal is basilikos.

In other words, James wants us to be show that the law is a law for us – for the heirs of the kingdom. But it’s also a law for God, it’s the royal law.

Did you notice something slightly strange in my last sentence? Let me say it to you again, and see if you can spot it: “the law is a law for us – for the heirs of the kingdom. But it’s also a law for God, it’s the royal law.”

I said that the law is a law for God. But mostly Christians would say that it is a law from God, wouldn’t they? But God’s royal law is different to human royal law. Ancient Kings always thought of their laws as what everyone else should do, and a little bit of that is still apparent today. The Queen is exempt from much of our laws: they apply to us, and not to her. But God takes the opposite approach. His law does not reflect what he demands from us. His law reflects what he gives to us. God is not exempted from his own law, rather God keeps the law, and the law reflects his own character. More than any human laws, the law of God is truly a royal law.

But as well as being royal law, this is also scriptural law. James tells us in verse 8 that it is “according to the Scripture”. Again, it’s important to remember that if we want to understand the law of God, it’s to the Bible that we must turn.

One of the tragedies over the last generation or two is that our law-makers have abandoned the Bible in their thinking as to what is good and bad. But James’ focus here in verse 8, is that Christians (those heirs of the kingdom) should turn to the Bible to find out how we should live. One of the tragedies of those who seek to impose religious law on nations – whether they be Muslims or Christians – is that sometimes those who are most vociferous in support are those who are least likely to be keeping the law themselves.

Yet the scripture James quotes from Leviticus 19 is in the singular, not the plural. He says “you shall love your neighbour as yourself”, not “you shall all love your neighbours as yourselves”. This is a command given first to individuals, and only second to communities. Living amongst people who keep the law will be no protection if we disobey it ourselves. It matters how you live and behave, not how others around you live an behave.

So James has now told us the first two foundations – that the law is royal and the law is scriptural. The third foundation is also there in verse 8, and again, it’s of crucial importance. The third foundation is that the law is fulfilled by love.

Last week we referred back to the words of Jesus which are so important in correctly understanding these things. We read then from Mark’s gospel, but let me today read from Matthew’s account Jesus’ words:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

All the law, Jesus says, can be summed up by two commandments: “love the Lord your God”, and “love your neighbour”. This is one of the most important things in the whole of the Bible, and it’s absolutely crucial that we get this correct. If we fail to do so, then we will not be able to apply any of James’ letter, and we will not even have understand what it means to be a Christian. It is of absolute first importance that we understand the relationship of the law to love, and James’ letter is a wonderful help to do exactly that.

Many people seem to suggest that love is more important than law. These people are often found at the more liberal end of Christianity, and they suggest that it doesn’t really matter what the letter of the law says, the spirit of the law is more important. A tragic example of this would probably be shown in their attitude towards homosexuality. The logic seems to be that homosexuality must be acceptable, because it provides an opportunity to show love. So despite the fact that the law condemns homosexuality, love is more important that this condemnation from the law, so homosexuality must be acceptable, even encouraged. Love, they say, is more important than law.

But there’s another error that James is also looking to correct. If most of those who are not Christians tend to suggest that love is more important than law, the error that most often Christians make is, to suggest that law is more important that love. We would never say this, of course, but we betray our thoughts in other ways. Let me give you an example. If someone habitually drinks, smokes, and occasionally swears, many of us would doubt whether that person can possibly be a Christian. Perhaps we’d be right to do so. Some would go as far as to consider that any who regularly went shopping or watched television on Sundays would probably not be converted, or at best be an extremely weak Christian.

But if we make those judgements without taking into consideration the ways in which people show love to one another, then we’re showing partiality, we’re judging on the basis of appearance, James says. What if the guy who drinks, smokes and swears is actually wonderfully committed to caring for his wife, children and his elderly mother, cuts the grass and hedges of his disabled neighbours, volunteers every weekend at the Salvation Army, and regularly donates large sums from his small salary to children’s charities? What then? If we ignore this great expression of love, and focus on the relatively trivial such as our attitude to drink, cigarettes and Sundays, then we have fallen foul of exactly the outlook that James is looking to condemn, that is those who suggest that law is more important than love.

So it’s vital to understand that James, in-line with the rest of the Bible, is not saying that law is more important than love, but nor is he saying that love is more important than law.

What James is saying is that law-keeping is expressed by love, and that love is expressed by law-keeping. The law tells us how to love, and love fulfils the law. If we ever have to chose between keeping the law and showing love, it merely demonstrates that we’ve not understood the two at all. Keeping the law is showing love, and showing love is keeping the law.

That’s why Jesus says that on these two commandments (loving God and loving your neighbour) hangs all the law. There is no law of God that is not covered by these two commandments. If you keep these two commandments, then you keep the whole of the law. If you fail to do this, as James says in verse 9, then “you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors”.

Before we move on, can I just briefly explain how the law of God relates to the law of the land, because these three foundation principals from James do help us to understand this so much better.

You may have heard on the news last week that a Christian magistrate was recently sacked (and he lost his appeal) simply because he asked not to be put in the position of being forced to place an adoptive child with a gay couple. A generation ago – even half a generation ago – that simply would not have happened.

I think it’s a real tragedy that the laws of this country are moving away from the laws of the Bible. That’s not a political statement, as although David Cameron has made some encouraging noises about Conservative policy and so-called ‘family values’, it’s far from clear that things would be any better under the Tories. But it’s certainly not good that our laws are losing their biblical foundation, and moving towards secular principles. Like most Christians, I’d like to see a return to Biblical principles being reflected in our own statute book.

But you mustn’t misunderstand me, and you mustn’t misunderstand James. I do not want a Christian equivalent of Sharia law in this country, and nor does he. Do you know what sharia is? It is a system of devising laws based on the Qu’ran, and other Islamic texts. Sharia imposes certain behaviours on the population, regardless of their faith, and frequently gives harsh punishments to those who disobey. A survey in February 2006, reported in the Telegraph, said that 40% of British muslims wanted sharia law implement in Muslim areas of the UK. I’ll say again, I do not want a Christian equivalent of sharia law in this country, nor in any other.

Christians cannot, and must not, force the laws of the Bible on others. Unless you want to catapult us back to the time before Jesus changed the world for ever, you shouldn’t want that either.

Let’s remind ourselves of James’ three foundation principles, and you’ll see what I mean. The three foundations are that the law is royal, the law is scriptural, and the law is about love. The first and last are the most important in this context.

Because the law is royal law, it is law that is for the kingdom of God. In the Old Testament that was the nation of Israel, so it was absolutely right that the law of the land of Israel reflected the Scriptures. It was absolutely right that religious law and civil law were intertwined, because the people lived in a theocracy where God was there King. But that is not the situation we are living in, in the New Testament. Jesus came in order that he might be King of all, not just King of Israel. If you have your Bibles turn to John 18:36, and we’ll see what this means.

You’ll see that Jesus told Pilate in John 18:36, that “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Look at what Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world”. This is what James has in mind when he talks of the royal law, the law of the kingdom. But then look at the consequences of that truth, as Jesus sees them. Because his kingdom is not of this world, then He does expect kingdom laws to be enforced in this world. If Kingdom laws were enforced in this world, then his servants would fight, they would defend Kingdom laws.

This, then is what must separate Christianity from both Judaism and Islam. The Christian does not expect kingdom laws to be enforced in this world. Let me say that again, because too often we fail to understand this. The Christian does not expect kingdom laws to be enforced in this world. The Jew expects it, the Muslim expects it, but the Christian must not. The Christian does not expect kingdom laws to be enforced in this world.

That means Christians shouldn’t demand that parliament should do everything just because the Bible says it does. Why should they? And it means that Christians shouldn’t be surprised by the laws of this world don’t reflect kingdom laws.

Why is this? Well James’ third foundation principle explains. Kingdom law, royal law is a law based on love. Now I am not a legal expert, and I’m certainly not an expert in international law. But I think I’m on pretty safe ground when I say that I don’t believe there is a country in the world that demands its citizens love one another. I don’t believe there is a country in the world that tests whether it’s citizens love one another. How could such a law ever be enforceable?

But royal law, kingdom law, is different. Royal law says that our attitudes are as important as our actions. Royal law says “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer”. National law can never (and should never) make such demands.

So Christians should not demand that national law should reflect biblical law for two reasons. First, because Jesus did not demand that, and second because national law can never rise to the heights of biblical law.

And yet…

I said earlier that I think it’s a real tragedy that the laws of this country are moving away from the laws of the Bible. I also said that I’d like to see a return to Biblical principles being reflected in our own statute book. How does that square with what I’ve just said that Christians should not demand that national law should reflect biblical law.

It’s a subtle, but crucial difference. I want to see a return to Biblical principles being reflected in our own statute book because I believe that is what is best for our nation. I believe this country would be a better place if children did not grow up in broken homes, if alcohol wasn’t abused, if children respected adults, if babies weren’t routinely killed, if thousands of teenagers didn’t experiment with sex. In other words, I believe this country would be better if our legal system discouraged divorce and adultery, if our schools knew and taught the difference between right and wrong, if abortion was illegal, if laws against drunkenness were enforced and strengthened, and if the law didn’t encourage promiscuity.

But I’m not so foolish as to think that I have a right to demand these things. Our campaigns must never turn into demands. And I’m certainly not so foolish as to think that laws on their own will change the country. Because, uniquely, Christians understand that love fulfils the law, we know that hearts must be changed, and not just laws. The Christian will never be content with a change in the statute book, he must want to see a change in people’s lives. And that, of course, must mean that political campaigning must take second place to gospel proclamation.

 So there, says James are three foundational principles: the law is royal, the law is scriptural, and the law is about love. parts. So having shows us in verses 8 and 9 the foundations of the law, James can now go on in verses 10 and 11 to show a

Failure to keep the law

It is not surprising that such a glorious law should be hard to keep. I have a Dilbert cartoon on my computer. In the first frame Dogbert tells Dilbert that he’s going to start a discount religion. In the second frame he says that tithing, would only be 5%, and he’d let people sin as much as they wanted. But in the third frame he admits, “the only problem is that I don’t want to spend time with anyone who would join that sort of religion”.

It’s a recognition that the better a law is, the harder it is to keep. So it doesn’t surprise us that the glorious law James has described in verses 8 and 9, is one that is likely to convict us as transgressors.

What perhaps does surprise us is that James tells us in verse 10 that “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” That seems terribly harsh.

If that’s the case, then it shows us we haven’t really understood the foundation principles. That’s why we spent so much time on them. You see, our problem is that we tend to look at the 10 commandments, find the ones we believe we have kept, and give ourselves a mark out of 10: I’ve never committed adultery, I’ve never murdered, so that’s two. My neighbour doesn’t even have a donkey, so I’ll add one for having never coveted her donkey. I hardly ever tell lies, so I’ll add another one for that. Now if I can find one more, that’ll be five, and I’ll have reached the pass-mark of 50%!

And then we read James 2:10 “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.”

But actually verse 11 makes complete sense, doesn’t it? “Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.” Even if we baulk at verse 10, we are forced to agree with and accept verse 11.

When I was younger I remember playing football with my dad in our garden. My dad took a shot which was rather wayward, and sailed through the shed window. “It’s alright!”, he said. I immediately had two thoughts. First, “It” may be alright (whatever ‘it’ is!), but I hope my football’s alright. Second, I bet it wouldn’t have been alright if I’d kicked the ball!

But the point is that whilst I don’t know what my dad was referring to when he say “It’s alright”, I know he wasn’t referring to the shed window, because that was in hundreds of pieces! It was only one shot that had gone astray, but it had completely shattered the window. And James is saying that only one sin will shatter the law.

The reason for this is those foundation principles. You see there are not ten laws of God, just like there weren’t ten windows in our shed. If there had of been, one window would be broken, but the other nine intact. There is one law, and that is the law of God. There is only one window that can be broken, and all sin shatters that window entirely.

It means every one of us has failed utterly to keep the law. Every one of us is just like the adulterer, just like the murderer. Every one of us is a transgressor, a law-breaker, a criminal, a reprobate, a sinner. We can’t saw “we only broke one law”, because there is only one law: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.”

So what a terrible situation we are all in. We’ve understood finally the foundations of the law in verses 8 and 9, but now seen our failure to keep the law in verses 10 and 11.

But now in verses 12 and 13 we see

Freedom in the law

So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

If we’re really to understand the glory of the law of God, we need to understand what James says in verse 12 where he describes the law as a law of liberty.

What a travesty that so many see the law of God as something which holds you back, rather than as something that sets you free. Routinely, all around the world, and particularly in this country, people are turning their backs on the law of God because they want to be free to live as they want, as they think best. And in doing so, they simply find themselves in increasing bondage, and their sins get greater as their desire to find freedom so constantly fails.

So those in the world say, “I want to be myself”. Well, so do I! I want to be myself. But to do so I need to understand that I’ve been made in the image of God, and therefore to be myself means to be like him. It means to be myself means to keep the royal law which he himself keeps. This is why we should want the laws of this land to reflect what the Bible says. Let me read from Alec Motyer:

We are in the image of God; the law is in the image of God. When we bring these two together, we are ‘being ourselves’; we are truly free. God’s law describes the life of true freedom; obedience opens the door into the free life.

It is for this reason that we as Christians never need hesitate to point anyone to the law of God as the true way of life, for it spells out the image of God for the benefit of those who were created in the image of God. It is the true way of life for all. We shall be accused, of course, of seeking to impose ‘our standards’ on those who do not share our convictions, but this is not so. The patient does not refuse the doctor’s prescription, saying, ‘I am not a doctor; he has no right to force his ideas on me.’ With the Bible in our hands we happen to know what human nature truly is, and also the way of life that brings true human nature to full development. In a word, we have on offer what the world wants: real freedom.

But look again at verse 12. This law of freedom is the law by which we will be judged. And we know from verses 10 and 11, and even from our own hearts, that we have failed to keep that law. We have failed to love our neighbours, we have failed to show them mercy. What now is in store for us?

13Verse 13 explains: “For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy.” That, frankly, is of very little comfort to me. I cannot claim to be someone who has consistently shown mercy. I cannot claim to be someone who has always loved their neighbour. By the standards of verses 10 and 11 I have broken, I have shattered that law.

But wait! That’s not all James says. Look again at verse 13: there’s a postscript: Mercy triumphs over judgement?

What? Albert Barnes (no relation) explains:

In the plan of salvation … respect is done to justice, but mercy triumphs. Justice demands, as what is due, that the sinner should be condemned; mercy pleads that he may be saved—and mercy prevails.

And this final statement from James, of course, points us to the cross. Alec Motyer again:

In the cross of Christ justice was fully done, its claims were fully met and God’s mercy to sinners triumphed in the provision of a complete forgiveness and a full salvation. Maybe the very abruptness of his words as he (so to speak) blurts out this great truth shows how James’ own heart was moved at the thought of Jesus, Calvary and the great, eternal acquittal. Thus even before the judgment-seat mercy wins the day. It ‘crows over judgment’. This is our position before God. Judgment looks at our deserts; mercy at our needs. And God himself looks at the cross of his Son.