Subverting the Royal Law

Subverting the Royal Law; or, Respect of Persons

James Duvall, M. A.

Big Bone, Kentucky

And it came to pass . . . that Evil Merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; and he spake kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon.

2 Kings 25.27-28.

It is in the power of kings to advance those whom they will and to put down others. This, in the Old Testament and other ancient writings is called "lifting up of heads," or sometimes, lifting of faces. We find this arbitrary preference of the monarch in the treatment of Pharoah of his servants. Joseph told the cupbearer that within three days shall Pharoah lift up thine head and restore thee (Gen. 40.13), to the baker he said: within three days shall Pharoah lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree. There is no indication that Pharoah was treating each according to his deserts; rather he sent and decreed the fate of each as it pleased him. This is truly respect of persons. It was as prevalent in the ancient world as in our own. This is the way of the world; every man would be king or dictator in at least his own circle.

Yet we are told that with God, the King of all kings, there is no respect of persons (2 Chron. 19.7). In the passage Jehoshaphat is admonishing the judges not to respect persons or take bribes. This is according to the Law. (Lev. 19.15) The Wise Woman of Tekoa reminded David that God does not respect any person (2 Sam. 14.14). Proverbs 24.23 says: It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. This is repeated in 28.21, and there we are told why: To have respect of persons, is not good: for, for a piece of bread that man will transgress. We may not transgress for an actual morsel, but we will do so for some material advantage, and that is the point. We find this truth repeated many times in the New Testament. Romans 2.11: for there is no respect of persons with God. See also Gal. 2.6; Eph. 6.9; Col. 3.25; 1 Pt 1.17.

In James chapter 2 we are told respect of persons is a sin; 2.10 says if one kept all the law and offended only in this point he is guilty of the whole! It is not possible to offend against members of the body of Christ and to remain doctrinally "sound" on church truth. This I will endeavor to illustrate more by the Bible later on. To have respect of persons is to offend against the Royal Law, laid down in Lev. 19.18, and reasserted by Jesus: to love your neighbor as yourself. On this level it is a personal sin. There is a respect that is good, but this is not respect of persons. Lamentations 4.16 says the Lord was angry and regarded not the people of Israel because they did not respect the priests and favor the elders. We are commanded to obey those who have the rule over us. We are to respect the aged, parents, and ministers of the Lord. But this is not respect of persons; and when these, especially ministers, engage in respect of persons they bring contempt upon themselves, and reproach upon the Lord's name. This is included in the sins mentioned in the verses before (Lam. 4.13-15).

False equality does not guarantee there is no respect of persons. The story is told in the ancient writer Herodotus how he asked an Asian tyrant the secret of his rule. This man walked over to a nearby field of grain, and with his cane began to lop the heads off any stalk that happened to be higher than its fellows. The meaning he meant to convey, of course, is to allow no one to gain any special eminence. It must be a terrible society in which no one is allowed to excel. Every one must be no better than anyone else, and besides this, no one else can be on an equality in any form, say intellectually, or in the esteem of the other citizens, with the tyrant himself. Is it not better to allow each person to excel in what he is best at? God gives gifts to individual Christians as it pleases him, and not in equal distribution.

The attempt at false equality is often tried in Churches. On pretense of keeping everyone equal the leadership destroys any possible opposition to its own influence. In this manner the more spiritual element of the Church is not granted any office or position so that those who have assumed power can maintain their superior station. The Bible says 1 Cor. 12.28-29: God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers . . . Are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers? The answer here is no. All are not prophets and teachers; but if God sets them in this position as deacon, preacher, pastor, or teacher, one lops them off at his own peril. Instead we are taught to prefer one another (Rom. 12.10). The Bible teaches we are not to lift up ourselves. Psalm 3.3 says, Thou, O Lord, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. See also Ps. 27.6. James 4.10 says to humble yourself in God's sight and he will lift you up. Though we should prefer others to ourselves, we must not prefer them to each other. To prefer certain members to others is a sin against the idea of what a church is designed by God to be, a fellowship.

James 2.4 says of those who respect persons: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? The English here, like the Greek, should be interpreted to mean judges with evil thoughts. Elizabethan English did not require the preposition "with" in such a construction to remain clear. To respect persons based on assumed wealth, attractive apparel, or a perceived threat to your own position is not to judge evil thoughts, that is in others, but to be full of evil thoughts in your own attempt at judgment. But note the Biblical principle: If there is to be a judgment, Paul says, let the least esteemed do the judging! (1 Cor 6.4).

One cannot remain doctrinally sound concerning the church, and maintain the false judgment which is always inherent in respect of persons. This was the error of Rome, with her hierarchy, orders of clergy, and Nicolatianism, or lording it over the people. Here is a list of their holy orders taken from Cathcart's The Papal System (1872): Metropolitans, Patriarchs, Inferior Clergy, Deacons, Archdeacons, Deaconesses, Sub-deacons, Acolytes, Exorcists, Lector (Reader), Ostiarii (Doorkeepers), Psalmistae (Singers), Copiatae (took charge of funerals), Parabolani (took care of sick), Cardinals, and of course the Pope. Orders are in fact a sacrament in the Roman church. The only New Testament office listed here is deacon, and even that has been perverted, for how, according to the Bible, is this office to be related to that of sub or archdeacon? These orders are the institutional variety of the sin of respect of persons.

In the aristocracy of Grace the first shall be last. He who would be the master must, like the Master, become a servant. Respect of persons destroys the unity of the body. James 4.1-7. Covetousness, especially in the form of lust and jealousy, which is at the root of respect of persons, is spiritual adultery. The same idea is stated in a slightly different form in Col. 3.5: covetousness, which is idolatry, is listed in the same verse with sexual sins which we are to mortify, or kill. This leads us to become an enemy of God (James 4.4). Failure to heed the Royal Law is respect of persons and must lead to disunity in a Church: Galatians 5.14-15: . . . thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and devout one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This is the worst sin that can be committed against the body. The figure of a body with Christ as the head and every member fitly placed as a lively stone in a coherent whole, is destroyed. The structure of a Church as a democracy of members under the headship of Christ is destroyed.

If the government of a church is changed in this unscriptural manner -- against which the Bible specifically warns -- then arguments over the nature of the church, the nature of church authority, church perpetuity, and church practice must ensue. This we hear of much among churches, pastors, and members today. As members within churches jockey for position, the unfortunate, who often must move on, become pawns in a game in which pastors play politics, churches vie for members, and pastors form ranks among themselves. It is true that everyone keeps up religious pretenses, uttering long prayers for unity, cooperation, and doctrinal purity. But when the plea for unity comes, as it often does, from the same mouth that caused the schism, the hypocrisy is evident. Psalm 109.2,4,7: The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me . . . but I give myself to prayer . . . and let his prayer become sin. We are told by the world today to respect every man's prayer. It is true that we have no right to interfere in the worship of others. They have the civil right to pray as they like. Still this must not blind us to the fact that prayer can be sin, and that this is true of most prayers that are offered. Proverbs 28.9 warns us: He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law -- and surely this includes the Royal Law -- even his prayer shall be abomination.

Before we reach our conclusion we might remark that just about everyone likes some people better than they do others. This in itself may not be all bad. Some people are easy to like, some difficult. There are people with whom we share interests, or similar vocations; and not everyone makes a good fishing partner. On the worldly level we can accept this as a matter of course, as long as our preference for some people does not amount to discrimination of others. He who tries to be an equal friend to everyone, can never be a best friend to anyone, and cannot be truly close to anyone. Jesus had his inner circle; John was the disciple Jesus loved. This does not mean he did not love the others -- maybe John needed more love than Peter, the husky fisherman. We are to understand, I think, that this inner circle loved Jesus with a greater intensity than some of the others, and so were admitted to closer intimacy. There is no hint in the Gospels that Jesus was playing favorites. We all know people who don't want to be close to us for various reasons. Sometimes the reason is in us, sometimes in them. But this gives us no right to treat them bad, or indulge the sin of respect of persons.

Often we ignore the social aspect of Church. I do not believe that everyone who is a member of a single church must all be equal friends. Certain people have known each other for years. Families with children of the same age will naturally find each attractive to the other. Two people engaged in the same work, sport, or other interest, will find occasion to eat together, pray together, or encourage one another. On this social level we can form associations, or relationships (a much overworked word these days), of a more or less intimate nature, so long as they do not contradict Biblical teaching. The admonition not to be yoked with unbelievers oncerns business ventures and close friendships, as well as marriage. What we must not do is allow our personal social preferences to enter in to the affairs of the church. It is not that we must not have friendships in the church -- that is in fact where we should form our friendships -- but we must rise above these friendships in judgment, in voting, in counsel. We should judge righteous judgment being led of the Spirit.

So-and-So must have an office in the church because he is my friend, or perhaps worse, a relative. We shun Mr. Small because Mr. Big detests him. These are the kinds of things we must avoid, must in fact speak out against. Within the churches the rules of the kingdom are in full effect. I like Mr. Happy, he cheers me up, but Mr. Graves has spiritual understanding; he is sober, he makes me uneasy over my lightness and frivolity. Still he should be a teacher rather than the man who sets me at ease. A church works in unity to promote righteousness, uncover sin, preach the Gospel, teach all nations, and distribute the offices of the church according to God's preference. This should be done as indicated by spiritual gifts and insight, rather than according to the carnal preferences of humans.

A Church that works in unity, neglecting not the gift of any (1 Pet. 4.10), will be in a position to detect those who are truly not of the body. Paul speaks of the false brethren who came in to spy out the liberty of others (Gal. 2.4-6). Yet he was immune to their wiles because he had no respect of persons. But of these, who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person), for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me. And that he really followed this course is evident from the fact that a few verses later we find that he withstood the Apostle Peter to his face, verse 11: because he was to be blamed.

What was the sin of Peter? Frustrating the Grace of God in transgressing by building again the works of the law which had been destroyed (verse 18); but the occasion of it was the avoiding of Gentiles in respect to the Jews. This was to subvert the Royal Law, and even Barnabas was carried away by the dissimulation. All of the men mentioned here, in deference to Peter, were carried away by this sin. Only someone who refused to be intimidated by respect of persons could have dealt with this situation. Paul withstood Peter to the face, and won him as a brother (2 Pet. 3.15), but even more important is the fact that Peter learnt the lesson: 1 Peter 1.17, 22: And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear . . . . see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.