who honour the rich man in preference to the poor, do not expressly desire to approve of his evil thoughts; but James puts this interpre- tation upon their conduct, and lays it to their charge, because the rich man in his pomp is full of evil thoughts. The more common sentiment is presupposed as well known.
5. ’ Anouirurs, hearken) By this address he brings to trial and re- strains rash judges , showing that the presumption ought to be in favour of the poor, rather than the rich. — 6 Qsbg, God) Our judg- ment ought to be in conformity with the judgment of God, even in ceremonies and outward gestures. — i^sX's^aro roiig orru^ovg, chose the poor) They who are chosen, are needy. This description does not include all the poor, nor is it confined to the poor only ; for poverty and riches of themselves do not render any man good or evil ; and yet the poor are in various places pronounced happy in preference to the rich: ch. v. 1. And the terms, wicked and rich , righteous and poor, are generally synonymous. Is. liii. 9 ; Amos ii. 6, v. 12. The rich man, if he is good, renounces his riches ; the poor man, if he is wicked, neglects that which is the advantage of poverty. Many Christians were of the poor, few from among the rich ; espe- cially at Jerusalem, and among those to whom James writes. Comp, the notes on ch. v. 1 and following verses. So also, 1 Cor. i. 27, God hath chosen , etc. — ‘xXovciovg iv rr'nsrzi, zui zXripovo/jjOvg , rich in faith , and heirs) Beza thus explains it : He chose the poor , that they might become rich in faith , and heirs , etc. E. Schmid thus takes it : He chose the poor , who are however rich in faith , to be also heirs , etc. The latter puts asunder two points which are most intimately connected, rich and heirs . The former, contrary to the design of the apostle, places faith and love after election . For James treats concerning the order of election, faith, and love, just as that order becomes known to us : and moreover he thus fur- nishes us with a rule for forming a right judgment respecting the poor ; in which point of view not only faith, but also love, precedes election in the order of our knowledge. The meaning of the apostle is this : God chose the poor , who are mch in faith , and icho are cdso heirs , etc. Whence this argument is derived : u Whoever are rich in faith and heirs, them we ought to acknowledge and treat as chosen by God ; but the poor are rich in faith,” etc. Thus election is so far from preceding faith, that even the inheritance precedes election ; and if wre duly consider the antithesis between He chose , and ye have despised , this conclusion presents itself. Both God highly esteems, and we ought to have highly esteemed,