Don’t Act You Age! (I Timothy 4:12)

Who does Paul tell not to let anyone despise his youth? Timothy (I Timothy 4:12)

First Timothy is a letter comprised of ministerial advice from a mentor, Paul, to his protégé, Timothy (I Timothy 1:1-2). Given this content, it is one of three New Testament writings grouped as the Pastoral Epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus). One of the issues addressed is that of age discrimination as Paul instructs Timothy not to let anyone discount him on account of his youth (I Timothy 4:12).

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. (I Timothy 4:12 NASB)

From this account, some Christian organizations have incorporated the term “Young Timothy” into their programming. Paul’s protégé is forever linked with youth, perpetually frozen in time as a young pastor.

Benjamin Fiore (b. 1943) discerns:

II Timothy suggests the same youthfulness in mentioning his mother and grandmother at II Timothy 1:5, the threat of youthful passions at II Timothy 2:22, Timothy’s education, his teachers, and his childhood at II Timothy 3:14-15. In the letters’ concern for preserving the authentic Pauline tradition, Timothy represents the next generation. (Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus (Sacra Pagina), 95)

Few biographical details emerge within First Timothy regarding the letter’s recipient. Elsa Tamez (b. 1950) compiles:

An important figure is Timothy, described as a youth (I Timothy 4:12) ordained by the elders (I Timothy 4:14, 1:18) with stomach problems (I Timothy 5:23), who has the task of easing through the instructions sent to him. (Tamez, Struggles for Power in Early Christianity: A Study of the First Letter to Timothy, xxiii-xxiv)

The admonition regarding Timothy’s age (I Timothy 4:12) does not seem to conform to the rest of the composite sketch First Timothy paints. Jouette M. Bassler (b. 1942) recognizes:

The reference to despising Timothy’s youth [I Timothy 4:12] comes somewhat as a surprise, for the letter has thus far projected an image of him as a mature, responsible church leader. It may simply be one of the numerous personal references that increase the verisimilitude of these letters (see, e.g., I Timothy 1:3, 6:12; II Timothy 1:5). Timothy was known to have been Paul’s younger coworker (Philippians 2:22) and Paul himself had instructed the Corinthian church not to let anyone “despise” him (I Corinthians 16:10-11), though he did not link this problem to Timothy’s age. On the other hand, the words may reflect a difficult issue that the church faced in its early years. The bishops and deacons, unlike the elders...did not have implicit or explicit age requirements (I Timothy 3:1-13). The “natural” subordinate relationship of youth to age could thus be overturned by the appointment of a youthful church member to one of these leadership positions...It was just the sort of situation...that led Ignatius of Antioch [35-98] to admonish the church in Magnesia (Asia Minor) in the early decades of the second century “not to presume on the youth of the bishop, but to render him all respect” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians 3.1). Within I Timothy, however, the reference to Timothy’s youth seems to serve a more literary function, for it anticipates the next section where issues related to groups defined (in large part) by age are addressed. There the natural deference of youth to age is generally upheld (I Timothy 5:1-2) and while older widows are honored (I Timothy 5:9), younger ones are viewed as dangerously flighty (I Timothy 5:11). At the same time, however, “elders” are not beyond rebuke (I Timothy 5:19-20) and, as this verse [I Timothy 4:12] signals, leadership categories can supersede age categories in defining the social order of the church (I Timothy 5:22). (Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 86)

It is not known whether Timothy has actually experienced criticism regarding his age or if his mentor merely anticipates it (I Timothy 4:12). Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) connects:

Paul apparently thought Timothy would encounter the same sort of obstacle he anticipated in the Corinthian church. Although the mandate dimension of this letter (written to Timothy but also for the church [I Timothy 1:1, 6:21) differs from that of I Corinthians (written directly to the church [I Corinthians 1:2]), the closest parallel to the kind of concern expressed here is I Corinthians 16:10-11...The issue of Timothy’s relative youth is not specifically mentioned in I Corinthians 16:10-11, but the possibility that the Corinthian church would scorn or despise him if he were sent in Paul’s place is paralleled in this text in the term “to look down upon” (cf. Titus 2:15). (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 313-14)

It seems unlikely that the author would supply the church a reason to denigrate his charge if it is not already an issue. Doing so might create a problem that does not exist. Thus, in all likelihood, in this instance, age is an issue for Timothy.

Timothy is not to be disregarded because of his youth (I Timothy 4:12). The epistle uses the Greek verb kataphronéō which is translated “despise” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “look down on” (NASB, NIV), “make fun of” (CEV), “put...down” (MSG) or “think less of” (NLT). J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997) renders the word “underrate” (Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 103).

The term is forceful. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) probes:

καταφρονειν, “to despise, treat contemptuously,” can be a strong word, denoting disgust and even hatred. Jesus said that no one can serve two masters; he will be devoted to and love one, and hate (μισειν) and despise (καταφρονειν) the other (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Jesus also says not to despise little children (Matthew 18:10). To the rich Corinthians who were abusing the Lord’s Supper Paul says that by doing so they are despising the church and humiliating the poor (I Corinthians 11:22). Peter describes those who “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (II Peter 2:10). The only other occurrence of the word in the Pastoral Epistles is when Paul tells slaves not to despise their masters because they are Christians (I Timothy 6:2), although καταφρονειν does occur as a variant for περιφρονειν where Paul tells Titus not to let anyone disregard or despise him (Titus 2:15). The strong connotation that καταφρονειν carries helps to explain why throughout the Pastoral Epistles Paul instructs Timothy on issues that Timothy already knows. Since Timothy was meeting extreme opposition, being ignored because of his age, this epistle must carry the apostle’s full authority and transfer that authority to Timothy in the eyes of the Ephesians. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

Jerome D. Quinn (1927-1988) and William C. Wacker (b. 1951) support:

In this letter, “disdain” translates the verb kataphroneitō (contrast the periphroneitō of Titus 2:15 and Jerome [347-420]’s comment in Titum [Patrologia Latina 26.589-90], who says the kata- compound denotes contempt in its proper sense, as when a martyr despises and scorns all the torments inflicted in him as of no account). In the eight other New Testament uses, Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (Synopsis of the Four Gospels §224) as well as Matthew 18:10 (in a context of leadership, a little child, and greatness!) have the verb refer to a person, and in the first examples cited, to “masters” (kyriois), as in I Timothy 6:2...it refers to “masters” (despotas). The uses in Romans 2:4 (of the riches of God’s goodness and I Corinthians 11:22 (the churches of God) are somewhat different, as are Hebrews 12:2 (Christ “despising the shame” of the cross) and II Peter 2:10 (persons despising the lordship or rule of authority of Christ? See Carl Schneider [1900-1977], Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3.632-33). Ignatius of Antioch [35-98]’s Epistle to the Smyrnaeans uses the verb of Peter and those with him who saw the risen Jesus and thereafter “despised even death” (kai thanatou katephronēsan). The three uses in The Shepherd of Hermas, similarly, do not have a personal object (Mandate 7.2 [but note the passive]; 9.10; and 10.3.1). (Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 382)

D. Edmond Hiebert (1910-1995) interprets:

The verb “connotes that the contempt felt in the mind is displayed in injurious action” (Newport J.D. White [1860-1936]). He is not to allow them to push him around because of his youth. (Hiebert, First Timothy (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 85)

Timothy’s age is underscored grammatically (I Timothy 4:12). Aida Besançon Spencer (b. 1947) acquaints:

The cause (your youth) of the negative opinion is emphasized by being placed before the verb (despise) [I Timothy 4:12]. (Spencer, 1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary), 113)

Timothy’s issue is his “youth” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, RSV), that he is “young” (CEV, MSG, NIV, NLT, NRSV), or that he exhibits “youthfulness” (NASB). The term encompasses a broad range of ages.

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) researches:

νεότης, “youth,” occurs in the New Testament elsewhere only in the phrase “since my youth” [Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21; Acts 26:4]. The rich young ruler says that he obeyed the commands since his youth (Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21), and Paul speaks of “my manner of life from my youth [ἐκ νεότητος] spent from the beginning [ἀπ’ ἀρχης] among my own nation” (Acts 26:4). Paul was a youth when Stephen was stoned (cognate νεανίας: Acts 7:58; cf. Acts 20:9 [Eutychus]; Acts 23:17 [Paul’s nephew]; cf. also the cognate νεανίσκος). The phrase ἐκ/ἀπὸ νεότητος, “from youth upwards,” is common in extrabiblical Greek (James Hope Moulton [1863-1917] and George Milligan [1860-1934], 424). The Didache says that “from their youth thou shalt teach them [i.e., sons and daughters] the fear of God” (4:9). These passages show that νεότης can refer to a very young person. Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887], Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] and Roderick McKenze [1897-1937] (1170), moreover cite several references where νεότης refers to young men of military or athletic age (e.g. Pindar [522-443 BCE] Isthmian Odes 8[7].75; Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 4.3; 9.12; Thucydides [460-395 BCE] 2.8, 20). E.K. Simpson [b. 1873] (69) cites several secular references: Aulus Gellius [125-180] (10.28) says soldiers are iuniores “up to forty-six”’ Josephus [37-100] notes that although Antonia “was still a young woman,” she refused to marry; he calls Agrippa “youthful” when he was almost forty (Antiquities 18.6§§143-239); in describing Flaminius Polybius says, “he was quite young, not being over thirty” (νέος ἡν κομιδη πλείω γὰρ των τριάκοντ’ ἐτων οὐκ εἱχε; The Histories 18.12.5; Loeb Classical Library translation). Irenaeus [130-202] (Adversus Haereses 2.22.5) preserves a fragment from The Relics of the Elders that states “But that the age of thirty years is the prime of a young man’s ability, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, every one will allow” (translation J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1889], Apostolic Fathers, 554). (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

George W. Knight, III (b. 1931) bounds:

νεότης (Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21; Acts 26:4) and the related adjective νέος are used of “children, youths, and of men at least as old as 30” (Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887], Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] and Roderick McKenzie [1897-1937] s.v. νέος). The phrase “wife of your youth” (ἐκ νεότητος σου) is used in the Septuagint (Proverbs 5:18; Malachi 2:14) and shows the second category of usage. The third category extends into and somewhat beyond the age of thirty and is evidenced by the following: Polybius [200-118 BCE] (18.12.5) speaks of Flaminius as “young” because he is only thirty, and Irenaeus [130-202] (Adversus Haereses 2.22.5) explicitly says that one could be called “young” up to forty (cf. John Henry Bernard [1860-1927], E.K. Simpson [b. 1873], JN.D. Kelly [1909-1997])...Luke called Paul a “young man” (Acts 7:58) when he was of the same age range as Timothy is now. Timothy’s age, in his thirties (the estimate most would agree on), might seem to be a handicap in the Ephesian community, where some of the other believers and other elders are older. (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 205)

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) adds:

The cognate νεόφυτος, “neophyte,” “new convert” is found in the prohibition that neophytes should not be deacons (I Timothy 3:6), but this refers to spiritual and not physical age. William Mitchell Ramsay [1851-1939] says that the cognate νέος, “new,” was used of fully grown men of military age (The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1913] 41; cited in James Hope Moulton [1863-1917] and George Milligan [1860-1934], 424). Ramsay also mentions the Νέοι, a social club of young men over twenty years old as distinct from the ’Έηβοι (adolescents) and the Γερουσία (“Council of Elders”; “Senate”; “Sanhedrin”; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 2 volumes [Oxford: Clarendon, 1895, 1897] 1:110-11; cited in Moulton and Milligan, 24). Moulton and Milligan (424) cite a passage in which the νέοι are later described as ἀνδρων, “men” (Wilhelm Dittenberger [1840-1906], Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 524 [second century B.C.])...Irenaeus [130-202] (Adversus Haereses 2.22.5) says Jesus suffered when he was thirty [Luke 3:23], “being in fact still a young man.” While there is a problem in using cognates to define related words, the meaning of νέος supports the conclusion that Timothy was in his late twenties to mid thirties. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 259)

Aida Besançon Spencer (b. 1947) contextualizes:

According to the Mishnah, twenty was the age to pursue a calling and thirty for authority (Mishnah ‘Abot 5:21). (Spencer, 1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary), 113)

William Victor Blacoe (b. 1954) augments:

Youth (Greek neotes νεότης) means newness as respecting youthfulness. The Latin translation of this word is “adulescentiam” – from which the English word adolescence is derived. The word referred to “grown up military age, extending to the 40th year.” For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) used this Latin word to describe himself when he was 27 years of age; the word is also applied to Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) when he was 33 or 35 years of age. “We may therefore presume that Timothy was now between thirty and forty.” (Blacoe, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Understanding the New Testament), 74)

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) condenses:

Among the various Greek schemes (more or less detailed) for classifying age groups (e.g. Dio Chrysostom [40-120] 74.10; Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], On the Creation 105; cf. On the Embassy to Gaius 227), a more basic distinction between “young” and “old” existed that placed youth at the age of forty and under (e.g., Irenaeus [130-202], Against Heresies 2.22.5; see also Josephus [37-100], Antiquities of the Jews 18.197; cf. I Clement 21.6-8). See further I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], 239. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

It appears that forty was always the new forty as even in the ancient world this age denoted youth.

The scope of the Greek allows for a Timothy that is older than a present-day literal reading might envision. Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) clarifies:

If, as is probable, Timothy was in his thirties, words such as “young” and “youth” [I Timothy 4:12, 5:1, 2, 11, 14] might give the contemporary reader the wrong impression, since we generally reserve these words for people in their teens and early twenties. (Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (NIV Application Commentary), 165)

Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) agrees:

We need not take Paul’s description of Timothy as “young” [I Timothy 4:12] to picture him as a teenager or a young adult in his early twenties. Acceptable estimates of Timothy’s age could easily place him between thirty and thirty-five years old. Some Christians in Ephesus could chafe at receiving instructions from a man even this young. (Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. [b. 1947], 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary), 137-38)

Though it is impossible to determine Timothy’s age precisely, it has not deterred speculation. Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) records scholarly estimates:

E.K. Simpson [b. 1873] (35-40 years old); Burton Scott Easton [1877-1950], 146 and Raymond F. Collins [b. 1935], 128 (20s); Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979], 34 (30s). (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

In addition to linguistic clues, many have attempted to gage Timothy’s age by piecing together a timeline. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) reconstructs:

Timothy started serving with Paul during the second missionary journey about A.D. 49 (Acts 16:1). Allowing for that journey, the third journey, the imprisonments (including the Roman one), and the time required for subsequent release and time spent in Ephesus (c. A.D. 62)...thirteen years or so had passed. Combined with the fact that Timothy must have been old enough in Acts 16 to have been an effective helper, this suggests that Timothy was now in his late twenties to mid thirties. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) assumes:

“That Timothy must have been thirty to thirty-five is based on the date of his joining Paul (ca. 49-50) and the date of this letter (ca. 62-64)” (Gordon D. Fee [b. 1934], p. 71). “Indeed this particular age [thirty] is stamped as full and complete by the mystery of Christ’s assumed manhood” (Jerome [347-420], Letters, LXXXII.8, p. 173). (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 126)

Dick France (1938-2012) concludes:

At the time of this letter Timothy must have been at least thirty, and it was ten or fifteen years since Paul had recruited him as his associate [Acts 16:1-3]. He was not the sort of ‘recent convert’ mentioned in I Timothy 3:6. But for all his experience he was still a ‘youth’ (I Timothy 4:12) in comparison with at least some of the ‘elders’ over whom he had responsibility, and in a culture which valued the wisdom of age he may well have found it difficult to maintain his authority; indeed some of the people whose teaching he had been appointed to oppose may well have used his age against him. (France, Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 46)

Some of his parishioners have the impression that Timothy is too young (I Timothy 4:12). Though reality may not coincide with the perception, it is still a very real obstacle for the pastor.

The designation of youth is subjective. What is young to some may be old to others. C. Michael Moss (b. 1950) asserts:

Age is relative. The elders at Ephesus, as well as many members there, could very well look at Timothy as a young man. He might, after all, be the age of some of their children. (Moss, 1, 2 Timothy & Titus (College Press NIV Commentary), 92)

John Phillips (1927-2010) illustrates:

Forty is considered old for most professional athletes, yet it is considered young for the chief executive of a corporate conglomerate and very youthful indeed for a president or prime minster. (Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles: An Expository Commentary, 127)

Noticeably, Timothy is young as compared to Paul. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) elucidates:

The words “let no one despise your youth” [I Timothy 4:12] (cf. Ignatius of Antioch [35-98] Epistle to the Magnesians 3:1) do not suggest that Timothy is either very young or a mere babe in the faith...By the time the present letter was written, Timothy was likely thirty-five or thirty-six, which certainly was young in comparison to Paul’s age. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 257)

Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) adds:

The detail is consistent with the Pastor’s presentation of Timothy as Paul’s true son (I Timothy 1:2). Timothy is portrayed as a younger man to whom the ministry of Paul, the old man, has been entrusted. (Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 128)

Timothy may also be younger than many of his parishioners. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) understands:

Timothy was dealing with people whom Paul had personally evangelized many years earlier and who had been leaders in their church for some time. It would have been natural for them to have looked down on any younger person who was correcting them. There is no similar injunction to Titus, who was probably older than Timothy and did not have to deal with this particular problem. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 259)

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) considers:

The sense of the command, “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young [I Timothy 4:12],” may compare his age to Paul’s, or to that of older people in the church over whom he would exercise some delegated apostolic authority. Each possibility would apply, as well as the simple fact that he was standing in for Paul in a situation where anti-Pauline sentiments might have been on the increase. In any case, if the noun translated “youth, state of youthfulness” is a reference to an age group, Timothy would probably have been less than forty years old. Attempts at greater precision are speculative since we do not know his age at the time he was called. But the possibility that “youth” means here simply “younger than me” or “younger than the elders in the church” should not be ruled out. Either way, the parallel in I Corinthians 16:10-11 (Titus 2:15) suggests that Paul’s practice of dispatching coworkers authorized to act in his place (instructing, disciplining) meant putting them into very ticklish ministry situations. In this case, the explicit reference to Timothy’s youth adds the burden of crossing the cultural line of age veneration. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

If Timothy’s parishioners’ definition of youth is consistent with most, it simply means that the pastor is younger than them.

Though the sentiment is often absent in contemporary American society, it is natural to venerate elders. Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) compares:

For a similar description of youth being despised, see Diodorus Siculus [90-30 BCE] 17.7.1; Romans 2:4; I Corinthians 11:22; Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], Theological Lexicon of the New Testament 2:280-84; Carl Schneider [1900-1977], Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3:631-32. The situation faced by Titus, which the similar command of Titus 2:15 addresses, may not be precisely that of youthfulness...Paul’s own insistence on the selection of older leaders (I Timothy 3:6) underlines the potential for disrespect in the case of the younger Timothy. For the veneration of age in Greco-Roman culture and Hellenistic Judaism, see Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], 511-512. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

William Barclay (1907-1978) attends:

The Church generally liked its office-bearers to be people of maturity. The Apostolic Canons laid it down that a man was not to become a bishop until he was over fifty, for by then ‘he will be past youthful disorders’. Timothy was young in comparison with Paul, and there would be many who would watch him with a critical eye [I Timothy 4:12]. When the British politician the elder William Pitt [1708-1778] was making a speech in the House of Commons at the age of thirty-three, he said: ‘The atrocious crime of being a young man...I will neither attempt to palliate or deny.’ The Church has always regarded youth with a certain suspicion, and under that suspicion Timothy inevitably fell. (Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (New Daily Study Bible), 110)

Age’s twin is experience and the criticism against Timothy may reflect a perceived deficiency in this resource as well. Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) suggests:

To be sure, Timothy’s precise age cannot be determined, but perhaps his youthfulness [I Timothy 4:12] refers to a lack of work experience, especially when compared to the absent Paul or even to the elders of the congregation. The Roman world considered apprenticeship and field experience requirements of mature instruction; rather than a reference to chronological age, Paul’s exhortation may reflect concern for an incomplete or inadequate résumé for a congregational leader. The earlier catalogs of virtues were focused on what sort of person leads a sacred household rather than on expertise gained from experience, but even they assumed a level of real-world experience, since virtue is not formed in a vacuum. (Wall with Richard B. Steele [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary), 123)

In all likelihood Timothy has at least a decade of experience. As such, this criticism, if it exists, is more imagined than real.

Timothy is not the first Biblical hero to be underestimated due to youth. Much to his chagrin, Goliath famously undervalues David (I Samuel 17:43-44) and pays for his miscalculation with his life ((I Samuel 17:1-54).

Nor is Timothy the last to be castigated for his lack of years. The problem still persists into the present day. Thabiti M. Anyabwile (b. 1970) admits:

Some pastor search committees will not consider a man younger than age forty. Of course, that would have meant the end of Timothy’s candidacy, not to mention Jesus’s [Luke 3:23]. Then there are those committee members who will look at a young pastor and conclude, “He’s young but we’ll train him and fit him to our tastes.” There are also members of churches who disregard a pastor’s instruction because “he is so young and inexperienced.”...In a million ways youth can be despised. (Anyabwile, Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons, 131)

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) empathizes:

I Timothy 4:12 warns Timothy not to let anyone look down on him because he’s young; he must keep his nerve, and trust that God will be at work through him when he does what he’s been called to do. Some clergy feel the pressure of their youth, not least in the kind of parish where the average age of the congregation is twice their own. ‘We’ve been here in this church for fifty years,’ they seem to be saying, ‘and don’t you try to tell us what to think or do!’ But there are other pressures too, on clergy, not least because most of the time they are not directly responsible to anybody else; nobody is telling them to do these four things this morning, those five this afternoon, and to finish off the rest this evening. Rather, a generalized mass of possible tasks stares up at them from a crowded desk and a flashing answerphone. How many people, faced with all that, will have the courage to obey even the first of Paul’s instructions? (Wright, Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters, 51)

Isaiah prophesies that a “a little child shall lead them.” (Isaiah 11:6 KJV) and, thankfully, there are many biblical examples of youthful leaders. Wayne Rice (b. 1945) catalogs:

We have a treasure trove of biblical heroes to inspire teenagers who want to do something significant with their lives for God: Moses, Joseph, Samuel, Esther, David, even Jesus himself, who at age twelve declared “I must be about my father’s business [Luke 2:49].” King Josiah began his successful thirty-one year reign in Jerusalem when he was eight years old [II Kings 22:1; II Chronicles 34:1]. Joan of Arc [1412-1431] was only nineteen when she was martyred for her faith. There are many examples in history of teenagers who showed remarkable competence and courage as they assumed roles that day are more or less reserved exclusively for adults. And young people today are just as capable, if not more so. (Rice, Reinventing Youth Ministry (Again): From Bells and Whistles to Flesh and Blood, 45)

Though priests had a twenty-five year window between the ages of twenty-five to fifty to serve publicly, this did not prevent anyone from doing great things for God (Numbers 8:24-25). Doug Fields (b. 1962) contends:

Jesus never said, “Take up your cross and follow me when you’re and adult.” The Bible is clearly devoid of any age requirement for serving. God shattered age limits with biblical heroes like David, Jeremiah, and Mary. A sign of a healthy church is one that helps all Christians, regardless of age, to discover their gifts and express them through serving in ministry. (Fields, Purpose-driven Youth Ministry: 9 Essential Foundations for Healthy Growth, 175)

The complaint against Timothy’s youth (I Timothy 4:12) may represent a real concern on the part of the congregation but it is equally possible that it is used for convenience to mask other perceived flaws. Timothy may be facing a problem that many do when following the founding pastor of a church. He finds himself in the unenviable position of following a legend. Regardless of skill level, this scenario presents its own unique obstacles.

All pastorates come with their own intrinsic challenges. His age is just one of the many obstacles Timothy will have to overcome to adhere to his calling. Timothy may have problems, but according to Paul (and implicitly to God), however, his youthfulness is not one.

Why would parishioners resent Timothy’s youth (I Timothy 4:12)? What are the limitations of the young? What should a young person be prohibited from attempting? What are the advantages to being young? How important is experience? How does your church view its youth; is discrimination against youth still an issue in churches? What constitutes young to you? When have young people successfully led organizations? Do you prefer your leaders to have discernible age? What is the youngest pastor you have encountered; did his or her age influence your perception? How young is too young to serve as pastor? Have you ever felt discriminated against because of your age? What can Timothy, and other young pastors, do to deflect criticism?

Timothy must not be intimated by the criticism as the stakes are too high. George W. Knight, III (b. 1931) assesses:

The admonition of the apostle is that Timothy not let this become a factor, since the apostolic instruction and admonition are at stake. (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 205)

Timothy must not only avoid falling prey to the criticism, he cannot believe it to be true. He cannot allow people tell him that he cannot do something which God has called him to do. Youth is not only not worthy of criticism, it is also no excuse for being for being ineffective.

George T. Montague (b. 1929) presumes:

Timothy is to command and teach these things [I Timothy 4:11]. Conforming to the style of the advice-giving letter of elder to younger (like Pseudo-Isocrates to Demonicus), Paul repeats advice given before. It is likely that Timothy needs the boldness that comes from assurance of his authority. In light of his youth [I Timothy 4:12], he may well be intimidated by the older men in the community. (Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 99)

Anthony B. Robinson (b. 1948) and Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) supplement:

Sometimes, but not always, such tentativeness is amplified by a particular personal characteristic that flies in the face of culturally established patterns of authority, where age (as in Timothy’s case [I Timothy 4:12]) or gender (in the case of some women in ministry). Such culturally established markers, Paul indicates, are not to be heeded, because the work and the way of life of the pastoral leader are what matters. (Robinson and Wall, Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for a New Day, 121)

E. Glenn Hinson (b. 1931) pronounces:

Timothy, now in his thirties, should stop hiding behind the excuse, “I’m too young.” He should be an example of believers in all dimensions of Christian life—speech, conduct, faith or faithfulness and sexual purity [I Timothy 4:12]. A weighty expectation! (Watson E. Mills [b. 1939], Mercer Commentary on the New Testament, 1256)

Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) advises:

The importance of the office of teaching is so great that the youthful pastor must learn rightly to resist those who might undercut or demean them solely on the basis of their younger age or limited experience (I Timothy 4:12). When thirty-year old pastors are called upon to guide and teach elders twice their age, they must keep in mind the firmness of their authorization [I Timothy 4:11]. The youth of pastors “will not be despised if they do not by youthful vanities and follies make themselves despicable (Matthew Henry [1662-1714], p. 821). (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 126)

The criticism against Timothy is especially problematic as the issue cannot be immediately resolved. Barring the magic of Hollywood as seen in movies like Big (1988) or 13 Going on 30 (2004), Timothy simply cannot age instantaneously. There are, however, ways in which Timothy can compensate for his youthfulness.

Paul not only acknowledges the problem but also provides some advice as to how to solve it by counteracting the criticism (I Timothy 4:12). The solution is not in words, through public confrontation, but via deeds, providing a good example. Timothy should live a life above reproach.

Timothy, like all pastors, is to be an “example” (ESV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “ensample” (ASV) to his flock (I Timothy 4:12). He is to practice what he preaches. Paul appeals to character which transcends age and credentialing.

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) evaluates:

“Let no one treat you contemptuously because of your youth, but be an example for the faithful in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” [I Timothy 4:12]. Charles J. Ellicott [1819-1905] translates: “Let the gravity of thy age supply the want of years” (61)...On the one hand, Timothy should not allow himself to be despised (cf. similar injunction in I Corinthians 16:11) while, at the same time, he must be a good example. Both sides of the coin are necessary for successful ministry. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 257)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) informs:

Timothy is called to be a typos, a “type” or “example” of faith in words, behavior, love, faithfulness and purity [I Timothy 4:12]. In short, he, like Paul...is to be a moral and theological exemplar of the gospel that he preaches, an embodiment of it. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 258)

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) educates:

To overcome any liabilities associated with youth, Paul urges Timothy to become “an example for the believers” (Titus 2:7). The task of “modeling” was intrinsic both to formal and informal ancient education. Paul assumed this role in relation to Timothy (I Corinthians 4:17) and within the churches (Philippians 3:17; I Thessalonians 1:7; II Thessalonians 3:9), and in these letters to delegates, Timothy and Titus were to do the same (Titus 2:7). Elsewhere it was a responsibility to be taken up by believers in general (e.g., I Thessalonians 1:7), and expected of church leaders (I Peter 5:3). To be a model or set an example meant more than simply presenting a pattern that others were to mimic: “The more life is moulded by the word, the more it becomes typos, a model or mould.” It was a case of living out life as faith in the gospel had shaped it. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314-15)

In doing so, Timothy is to do as his mentor, Paul, has done. J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997) associates:

To offset the handicap of youth, Timothy is invited to be an example to believers [I Timothy 4:12]. This is a truly Pauline touch; the apostle expected the Christian leader to be a model to others (Philippians 3:7; II Thessalonians 3:9). (Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 104)

Aida Besançon Spencer (b. 1947) details:

The manner of responding to negative opinions of his youth was not by speech (reprimanding such views) but by example [I Timothy 4:12]. A typos was a pattern or model “in conformity to which a thing must be made,” an archetype. Paul had already referred to himself as an “example” or prototype (hypotypōsis) of a sinner saved from punishment by Christ Jesus showing compassion toward him by forgiving him [I Timothy 1:16]. Paul has used Timothy as a model in other letters: with himself, of believers who persevere despite suffering and who work [Philippians 1:1, 3:11-19; II Thessalonians 3:7-12]. Paul had sent Timothy to Corinth as a model of someone who shares in Christ’s sufferings [I Corinthians 4:10-17]. (Spencer, 1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary), 113)

In the process of modeling right behavior, Timothy will prove his critics wrong. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) follows:

On the one hand, Timothy is to let no one despise him because of his youth [I Timothy 4:12]. The parallel imperative (I Timothy 4:12b) suggests that the way to do this is to be such a good example that accusations have no credence. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

Benjamin Fiore (b. 1943) bolsters:

Timothy can avoid scorn for his youth by not giving occasion for such scorn. Thus he is to demonstrate personal excellence and be exemplary in his ministry (I Timothy 4:12-16). He is also expected to avoid youthful passions (II Timothy 2:22), unsubstantiated accusations against elders (I Timothy 5:19), prejudice (I Timothy 5:21), and an imprudent selection of leaders (I Timothy 5:22). This advice to a young leader parallels that found in Isocrates [436-338 BCE], Ad Nicocem and Demonicus and in the kingship treatises of Plutarch [45-120] and Dio Chrysostom [40-120] . (Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus (Sacra Pagina), 94)

William Barclay (1907-1978) approves:

The advice given to Timothy is the hardest to follow, and yet it was the only possible advice. It was that he must silence criticism by conduct. Plato [427-347 BCE] was once falsely accused of dishonourable conduct. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘we must live in such a way that all men will see that the charge is false.’ Verbal defences may not silence criticism; conduct will. (Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (New Daily Study Bible), 110)

Paul’s instruction still holds true; it is best to answer criticism with actions. Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) affirms:

Nothing bridges the generation gap in the church like the spiritual maturity of the younger. At a more important level, nothing proves the veracity of the gospel as well as evidence of its life-changing power. (Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus (IVP New Testament Commentary), 109)

Paul is not just content to relay that Timothy ought be an example; he also lists five areas of emphasis (I Timothy 4:12). Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) inventories:

Paul depicts this life by attaching a string of five short prepositional phrases enumerating five of its elements [I Timothy 4:12]. The first phrase, “in speech,” is thought by some to refer to the specific kind of speech involved in preaching or teaching (e.g., I Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9). But while this might be included in the sense of what one professes, alongside of “conduct,” the broader sense of “speech” is more likely. “Conduct,” that is, manner of life, how one lives, was a natural counterpart to “speech” in Greek and Jewish moral teaching. Together they encompassed most of the observable life, and especially for the teacher, the manner of life was to correspond to what was proposed. In Timothy’s case, coherence of speech and behavior was to command the respect of one assigned to represent the apostle and his teaching in the community...The next two qualities in effect repeat the more widely used “speech/conduct” model specifically in terms of Christian maturity. Paul frequently summed up authentic spirituality in terms of “faith” (=belief in God)...and “love” (=the outworking of faith in service.)...Added to this pair is the fifth phrase, “impurity.” In this context, the reference is either to the sexual purity (chastity) required especially of young men (I Timothy 5:2), or to purity of motives. Given the concern that Timothy not give grounds for his youth to be criticized, emphasis on the need for sexual probity is most fitting...Paul calls Timothy to display a balanced and authentic Christian lifestyle. It will not only bear the traditional marks of consistency (speech/conduct), but also the stamp of spiritual coherence (faith/love) from which the opponents had deviated in their teaching and behavior. Any lingering questions related to Timothy’s relative youth were finally to be laid to rest by his refusal to slip into unchaste tendencies of speech, conduct, or inappropriate interaction with members of the opposite sex [I Timothy 4:12]. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 315-16)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) scrutinizes:

If anastrophē [“conduct”] denotes behavior or way of life in general, these terms specify the qualities that Paul particularly wants to be modeled to the community [I Timothy 4:12]. We are not in the least surprised to find pistis [“faith”] and agapē [“love”], for these attitudes are the “goal of the commandment” that Timothy is to proclaim (I Timothy 4:5). More startling is the inclusion of “purity” (hagneia), which in the moral literature is frequently narrowed to sexual purity, or chastity (e.g., Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], On Abraham 98; On the Contemplative Life 68; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 19:331). In Polycarp [69-155]’s Philippians 5:3, hagneia is among the first responsibilities of the young men. Is this another possible allusion to Timothy’s youth? (Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Anchor Bible), 252)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and John J. Pilch (b. 1936) correlate:

The five specific areas in which the leader is to set an example [I Timothy 4:12] correspond to the three symbolic body zones that characterize biblical perception of the human person: speech (mouth-ears), conduct (hands-feet), love (heart-eyes), faith (heart-eyes); and purity (hands-feet). Three-Zone Personality. When all three symbolic zones are mentioned, the author intends to describe a total, complete picture. In this instance, Timothy, that is, the local Jesus-group leader is to be totally perfect in all dimensions of human life and behavior. In this regard, Timothy represents an ideal rather than a real figure, the ideal leader. (Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Deutero-Pauline Letters, 129)

This list is not intended to be exhaustive but does highlight issues that would be especially relevant to a youth. Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) discusses:

The qualities in which Timothy is to excel are those in which youth is so often deficient [I Timothy 4:12]. Yet for that reason they would stand out more strikingly. It would become evident to the Christian believers that authority in the community is contingent on character, not on age. Every young man called to the ministry or any position of authority would do well to heed Paul’s five-fold enumeration here. The first two, speech and life (i.e. manner of life, or behaviour) apply to Timothy’s public life, while the other three are concerned with inner qualities (love, faith and purity) which nevertheless have a public manifestation. (Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 109)

The issues Paul addresses are critical to the rest of the letter. Timothy is being asked to do what his older congregants have failed to do. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) diagnoses:

While in I Timothy 4:6-16 Paul is speaking directly to Timothy, the historical situation at Ephesus is never far in the background; between the lines can be seen a constant comparison between what the Ephesian church was doing wrong and what Timothy should do correctly. Every one of the five qualities enumerated in this verse [I Timothy 4:12] is missing from the lives of the opponents. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 257-58)

In short, Timothy must live better than his adversaries, not stooping to their level.

There are many benefits to this strategy. For one, Paul’s approach incorporates responding positively, not negatively, to criticism. D. Edmond Hiebert (1910-1995) observes:

“But be thou an ensample to them that believe” [I Timothy 4:12]. This positive injunction balances the previous negative. His life is to be such as will such every such adverse reaction about his youth. (Hiebert, First Timothy (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 85)

Paul’s prescription is often counterintuitive. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) and Bryan Chapell (b. 1954) confess:

The natural inclination when our leadership is challenged is not godliness but the opposite—to become defensive and respond with sarcasm or a putdown or to pull rank and become “presidential” (“I’m the chief here!” “Ever hear of the cloth?”) or to become coldly above it all, aloof, or grieved (“How could you ever question me?”). Any young believer (and some old ones too) can easily succumb to such responses. But ministry is thus diminished. (Hughes and Chappell, 1–2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Deposit (Preaching the Word, 122)

Paul’s proposal also focuses Timothy inward, not outward. Timothy cannot control others’ prejudice or their response to his ministry. The only thing Timothy can control is his own behavior. Youth is often the time in life when others’ opinions matter most. Yet Timothy cannot regulate public opinion. He must respond by affecting the only thing he can: his own conduct.

Anthony B. Robinson (b. 1948) and Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) inspect:

“Let no one despise your youth, but until I arrive set a pattern for believers in speech, in public conduct, in love, faith, and purity [I Timothy 4:12].” In other words, pay attention to yourself and to your own way of being in the world. Again, Paul’s emphasis is on self-management, self-awareness, and Timothy’s controlling what he has control over — that is, his own behavior. Sometimes we clergy members get wrapped around the axle concerning the behavior of others. We can point it out. We can offer sound teaching. But we can’t often change other people’s behavior, at least not directly. But what we can change and pay attention to is our own behavior. And sometimes that is our very best point of leverage for supporting change in the congregation: taking responsibility for our own behavior, setting “a pattern for believers in speech, in public conduct, in love, faith, and purity [I Timothy 4:12].” (Robinson and Wall, Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for a New Day, 121)

Paul’s words kill two birds with one stone: he simultaneously affirms Timothy while rebuking the congregation (I Timothy 4:12). It must not be forgotten that in writing, Paul publicly endorses his protégé.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) perceives:

As implied by the plural “you” in I Timothy 6:21, the Ephesian Christians will here this letter read to them though it’s addressed to Timothy. So the command, “No one I to be despising your youthfulness,” is indirectly addressed to them [I Timothy 4:12]. (Gundry, Commentary on First and Second Timothy, Titus)

Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) grants:

These words [I Timothy 4:12] produced encouragement in Timothy himself, but they could also set in order some dissident, fault-finding elements of the congregations. After all, Paul was bestowing his full blessing on Timothy, and he wanted the Ephesians to learn from what the young disciple did. (Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. [b. 1947], 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary), 137)

Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) expounds:

We now discover what is probably a hidden agenda that made it necessary for Paul to write this letter—Timothy’s youthfulness [I Timothy 4:12]. To say, don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, is very likely two edged. It is first of all a word of encouragement to Timothy, because he was in fact a younger man...and perhaps timid (cf. I Corinthians 16:10-11; II Timothy 1:6ff)...But for the same reasons, it is likewise a word to the community, to let them know that, despite his youth, he has Paul’s own authority to command and teach these things (I Timothy 4:11)...On the contrary, not only are they not to look down on him because he is young, but they are to “look up” to him. He is to set (literally, “become”) an example for the believers. That the people of God are to learn Christian ethics by modeling after the apostolic example is a thoroughgoing, and crucial, Pauline concept (see I Thessalonians 1:6; II Thessalonians 3:7, 9; I Corinthians 4:6, 11:1; Philippians 3:17; cf. II Timothy 1:13). (Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Understanding the Bible), 106-07)

Had Timothy verbally defended himself it might have added fuel to the fire and, at least in his critics’ minds, served to prove their point. Instead, Paul, who has seniority over all involved, defends his younger charge.

All Timothy can do is live well and the situation in which he finds himself is one of the hardest times to do so. In the face of criticism, Timothy is hard pressed to behave in a Christian manner. How Timothy responds is part of the modeling that he is called to demonstrate for his congregation (I Timothy 4:12). His actions in these moments will speak volumes.

Is Paul’s interjection into the situation, as a “father” to Timothy (I Timothy 1:2), indicative of Timothy’s being too young for his position? When has someone publicly endorsed you? What young person can you be encouraging? When have you seen someone refuted by compliments bestowed on their opponent? Were you Timothy, how would you handle this unwarranted criticism? How do your typically respond to judgment, positively or negatively? How would the solution be different with another demographic; e.g. how would one respond to the claim of being too old? When are the young an example to all? When do you try to set an example? Is it ever better to respond to criticism with words than deeds?

“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” - John Locke (1632-1704), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, p. 24

Royal Law (James 2:8)

What is the royal law according to James? You shall love your neighbor as yourself (James 2:8)

Partiality is one of the primary topics addressed in The Epistle of James (James 2:1-13). This subject links the two units of the book’s second chapter (James 2:1-7, 8-13). James’ instruction not only argues against all forms of discrimination but cuts far deeper to the core issue: love (James 2:8-13). James asserts that class prejudice is not just indicative of bad manners, it is a violation of “royal law” (James 2:8).

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. (James 2:8 NASB)

Conversely, those who favor the rich sin royally.

James provides his readers with a litmus test to illuminate whether or not they are behaving properly. The reader will be “doing well” if she is loving her neighbor as herself. C. Freeman Sleeper (b. 1933) comments:

The verse ends with a commendation of his audience, in contrast to the condemnation in James 2:6a. If you keep the royal law, he tells them, you do well. (Sleeper, James (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 74)

The approbation is sincere. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) reads:

The adverb kalōs (“well/nobly”) asserts the author’s genuine opinion, in contrast to the ironic use of the expression in James 2:3 and James 2:19 (compare Dio Chrystostom [40-120], Orations 47:25). (Johnson, The Letter of James (The Anchor Bible), 221)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) and Mariam J. Kamell (b. 1978) compare:

James concludes, if you do keep this law, “you do well.” This provides an interesting parallel with the climax of his letter disseminating the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29), the only other writing by James that we have, even secondhand. While the Greek words are different (εὐ πράξετε), the meaning and structure are identical. For James, faith reveals itself in how it is lived. (Blomberg and Kamell, James (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 117)

Each Christian is to love her neighbor as herself. Vernon Doerksen (b. 1936) dismantles:

The singular “you” personalizes the command and makes it an individual responsibility. The term neighbor in the Levitical context was limited to the community of Israel, but in the parable of the good Samaritan Jesus enlarged it to include anyone in need of help (Luke 10:30-37). He also elevated the standard of love from “love your neighbor as yourself” to “love one another, just as I have loved you” (John 15:12; cf. Matthew 7:12). (Doerksen, James (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 58)

David P. Nystrom (b. 1959) recognizes:

The use of “love” in the future tense (agapeseis) colors the phrase as indicative of James’s hope, a command for future action. Showing favoritism that discriminates against the poor places a person alongside those who slander the name of God. This is teaching fully in step with the prophetic tradition in the Old Testament. (Nystrom, James (The NIV Application Commentary), 121)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) and Mariam J. Kamell (b. 1978) advise:

“Neighbor” (πλησίον)...embraces everyone, even enemies, just as Jesus taught (Luke 10:25-37), not merely those close to us relationally, financially, or religiously. James’s use of “yourself” (σεαυτόν) does not promote modern psychologies (before they were invented!) that intentionally enjoin “self-love” before we can love others. Rather, the love commands throughout Scripture assume that people have a healthy, balanced view of self, rather than taking pathologies into account. Otherwise, we can become so wrapped up in trying to love ourselves and always feeling inadequate in doing so that we never turn to loving others. (Blomberg and Kamell, James (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 117)

This saying originates in Leviticus 19:18. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) specifies:

This is a verbatim citation from Septuagint Leviticus 19:18c. There will follow in James 2:9 an allusion also to Leviticus 19:15. Other allusions to Leviticus 19 in James are found in James 4:11 (Leviticus 19:16); James 5:4 (Leviticus 19:13); James 5:9 (Leviticus 19:18b); James 5:12 (Leviticus 19:12) and James 5:20 (Leviticus 19:17b) (Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943], “Use of Leviticus 19”). (Johnson, The Letter of James (The Anchor Bible), 221)

George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) positions:

It is clear from the broader context of Leviticus 19:18 that partiality is tacitly a violation of the commandment to love one’s neighbor. Among other points, this broader context (Leviticus 19:9-18) addresses a number of themes that parallel concerns in James, including concern shown to the poor and alien by leaving parts of a harvest, not profaning the Lord’s name, not defrauding a neighbor, and not holding back the wages of a hired person. Leviticus 19:15 commands not to show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great (or rich). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Hebrews–Revelation (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 235-36)

Many have seen a further, albeit more implicit, connection to Leviticus 19:15. Peter H. Davids (b. 1947) chronicles:

Friedrich Spitta [1852-1924], 67, argues that this particular law is not the point. Rather, “you do well if you keep this law, but [James 2:9] its neighbor passage in Leviticus 19:15, You shall not be partial to the poor, not show favoritism to the mighty, condemns partially and one cannot obey one without the other.” This explanation seems oversubtle, for while James 2:9 refers to favoritism, it does not appear to cite or even use the exact terminology of Leviticus 19:15. It is possible, as Martin Dibelius [1883-1947], 142, suggests that the presence of Leviticus 19:15 was in the back of James’s mind because it may have been connected to Leviticus 19:18 in Jewish parenetic tradition. But since there are no examples of this tradition, although the poem of Pseudo-Phocylides comes close in drawing upon Leviticus 19, such reasoning must remain no more than an attractive hypothesis. (Davids, The Epistle of James (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 115)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) infers:

James certainly knew and made use of the Septuagint of Leviticus 19...He quotes Leviticus 19:18b accurately from the Septuagint in James 2:8. What is more striking is the way that he places this in the framework of partiality in judging, showing a clear allusion to Leviticus 19:15. Furthermore, as in the case of Pseudo-Phocylides, James combines the reference to Leviticus 19 with a citation of part of the Decalogue: “For he who said, ‘do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘do not kill’ (James 2:11), following the order of commandments found in one manuscript tradition of the Septuagint for Deuteronomy 5:17-18 and Exodus 20:13ff. There can be little doubt, therefore, that James was aware of the levitical context of the “Royal Law.” (Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James, 126)

James proclaims that in complying with the love command, one is “fulfilling” royal law (James 2:8). Scot McKnight (b. 1953) defines:

To “fulfill” means (1) to bring to completion (Matthew 7:28, 11:1; Luke 2:39, 12:50; John 19:28, 30; II Corinthians 12:9), (2) to “pay” (Matthew 17:24), or (3) to “observe” or “do” or “keep” (Romans 2:27; James 2:8). Here, “fulfill” is synonymous with “keeps” in James 2:10. Even more it has the sense of doing the Torah completely, which helps set up the emphasis in James 2:10-11 on doing all of the Torah. In fact, one might detect a tone of arrogance, not uncommon in this letter (cf. James 1:19-21, 2:14-17, 3:1-12, 13-18, 4:1-14, 11-12, 13-17), in the descriptions of the community’s actions or claims to do the Torah. (McKnight, The Letter of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 206)

Dan G. McCartney (b. 1950) scrutinizes:

James refers to “fulfilling” or “completing” (τελέω, teleō) the royal law rather than using a more customary expression such as “keeping” or “obeying” it. This verb occasionally is used to refer to fulfilling an obligation, including carrying out the commandments of the law. But given James’s frequent use of the τελε- stem (James 1:4 [2x], James 1:17, 25, 2:8, 22, 3:2), its use here may be a deliberate emphasis of the comprehensive nature of biblical ethics (James 2:10-11). For James “fulfilling” or carrying out the royal law is of a piece with fulfilling or carrying through on faith by works in James 2:22, where law is not set over against faith, but rather law and faith together are fulfilled or made complete by obedient action. Further, James 2:8 connects with the fact that the law is a complete and perfect (τέλειος, teleios) law (James 1:25), and it therefore does not admit to partial obedience (James 2:10), because all parts of the law come from one source (James 2:11). (McCartney, James (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 147)

This usage is rare as a tele- stem occurs with this sense only in Luke 2:39 and Romans 2:27. Even so, the verb fits its context perfectly. Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) and Mariam J. Kamell (b. 1978) establish:

The verb “fulfill” (τελέω) continues James’s pattern of using this root that refers not just to completing requirement, but also to attaining maturity or even perfection. Thus the nuance is not that this law is obeyed in some minimal sense, but rather that it is substantially or even perfectly followed. We might suspect that James is setting us up for a Pauline contrast — of course, no one does actually obey the law this well — but we dare not yet presuppose this approach. (Blomberg and Kamell, James (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 116)

There are also implied eschatological ramifications. Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) interjects:

The importance of the law’s demand for the future is underscored by the formulaic “fulfill” (teleō), which is an eschatological catchword elsewhere in James. That is, hidden within the “royal law” is the promise of future salvation, which will be realized in the coming age for those who obey its law of love. This point will be more fully developed in James 2:12-13, where God’s verdict is based upon the believer’s obedience to Torah – specifically in those situations where the poor and powerless are discriminated against. (Wall, Community of the Wise: The Letter of James, 124)

James emphasizes the love command by attaching the otherwise unnecessary epithet “royal law” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NJKV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “royal rule” (MSG) or “most important law” (CEV). This phrase appears only here in Scripture.

There has been much discussion as to the meaning of this designation. James describes the directive as a nómos, “law”, not a commandment. This word carries weight in James.

William F. Brosend II (b. 1954) traces:

It appears that as James’s argument unfolds, logos is replaced by nomos (law), which is first found at James 1:25, and that for James the two terms are in many ways synonymous and summarized this in the citation of Leviticus 19:18, found in James 2:8, as “the royal law according to the Scripture” – nomon....basilikon kata tēn graphēn (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”) – and thereby extending from word to law to Scripture. The words are of course not entirely synonymous, or there would be no reason to change terms. But it is in keeping with James’s overall style to use them loosely, if not interchangeably. (Brosend, James & Jude (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 53)

Use of this word accentuates the connection to the Old Testament in the passage and the book as a whole. Christopher W. Morgan (b. 1971) observes:

James’s teachings and thought-world are deeply rooted in the Old Testament, including the Law. In fact, three of James’s six Old Testament quotations (all in James 2) are taken from the Law. (Morgan, A Theology of James: Wisdom for God’s People, 25)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) agrees:

James’s entire symbolic world is that of Scripture in all its parts. James’s positive appreciation of the law (nomos) is obvious in his descriptions: it is the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25) and the “royal law” (or perhaps better, “law of the kingdom,” James 2:8). James explicitly cites from the decalogue and insists that “all the law” must be kept. (Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James, 27)

James opts to not add an article to “royal law”. James B. Adamson (1924-2000) discusses:

In his thought and idiom James is nearer to Classical Greek than most of the New Testament writers are. Just as anarthrous sovereign law would suggest to an earlier Greek a law of the king of Persia, “who to him was not “the king,” but “king” without the article, as if it were a proper noun. “The Great King,” so James, as John Wesley [1703-1791] said, might well think of “sovereign law’ as the Law of the Great (Heavenly) King. Law as originating from, and worthy of, a wise king is found in the Old Testament (Dominus regnavit, Psalm 97:1), and also in Greek literature...The curious omission of the article with sovereign law is an effect flowing from the adjective sovereign, which latter word in its Christian connotation is here influenced by the thought and anarthrous idiom of the pagan Greek noun “king.” (Adamson, The Epistle of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 114)

James Hardy Ropes (1866-1933) speculates:

The article is probably omitted because νόμος is treated as a quasi-proper noun...cf. λόγος, James 1. (Ropes, St. James (International Critical Commentary), 198)

The intent of the designation“royal” (Greek: basilikós) is unclear. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) admits:

James 2:8 presents a problem: should we translate “royal/sovereign law” or “supreme law” and thus see James labeling the love command as the essence of the law? (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude, 459)

Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) acknowledges:

The meaning of “royal” as a predicate of the anarthrous “law” remains unclear. Virtually all commentators understand that both the “royal law” and the levitical “love command” are coextensive with the poor, and that their combined use here intends to condemn the community’s preference for the rich (James 2:9; cf. Leviticus 19:15). That is, while its scope includes all persons, in this particular application to “love the neighbor” is not to discriminate against the poor. In this light, perhaps “royal” is a metaphor that implies the singular significance of this single law for any situation where discrimination exists and where it imperils the eschatological salvation of a community. (Wall, Community of the Wise: The Letter of James, 122)

John Painter (b. 1935) inspects:

The word basilikos is used only five times in the New Testament and in three contexts: twice in John 4:46, 49 to refer to a royal official (from the household of Herod?); twice in Acts 12:20-21 to refer to King Herod’s country and robes; and in James 2:8 concerning fulfilling the commandment “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” the royal law according to Scripture. (Painter and David A. DeSilva [b. 1967], James and Jude (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 89)

Sophie Laws (b. 1944) surveys:

The adjective basilikos means regal, or belonging to a king, as in its use of the king of Edom’s highway in Numbers 20:17 and of Herod’s territory in Acts 12:20 (where the noun is understood). Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] comments on Numbers 20:17 that the king’s highway is ‘royal’ because it is his and because it leads to him, and he finds here an allegory of the Law, which the true ‘royal road’ (De Posteritate Caini 101-102; cf. Clement of Alexandria [105-215] The Stromata vii. 73. 5: the deliberate choice of righteousness is the ‘royal road’ which the ‘royal nation’ travels.) In relation to a law, the adjective would most naturally indicate a law promulgated by a king, and is so used of the decree of Artaxeres in I Esdras 8:24, to a law applicable in his kingdom, as probably in the Pergamum inscription quoted by Adolf Deissman [1866-1937] (Light from the Ancient East, p. 362, n. 5). C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] gives examples of the use of the phrase basilikos nomos by Greek political writers to describe a law as given by, or worthy of, a king, and sometimes in relation to the maxim that ‘the law itself is king’ (The Bible and the Greeks, London 1935, p. 39). Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892] suggests that a royal law could be ‘a law which governs other laws, and so has a specially regal character.’ We would then understand Leviticus 19:18 as the governing principle for all precepts (cf. Matthew 22:37-40). However, this strains the meaning of the adjective, which never seems to have been used in the sense of ‘governing’; and Leviticus 19:18 is anyway not appealed to here as key to other precepts but in virtue of its own content and authority. (Laws, The Epistle of James (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 109)

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) deciphers:

The word could also be translated “supreme” or “governing”; and some take it to introduce the following love command. James would then be claiming that his commandment was the specific “law” that governs, or takes precedence, over all others. This interpretation is enshrined in the New Jerusalem Bible translation: “Well, the right thing to do is to keep the supreme Law of Scripture: ‘you will love your neighbor as yourself.’” However, while the interpretation squares well with Jesus’ teaching about the love command, the Greek word used here can probably not bear the meaning “governing or supreme.” This term means “belonging to the king.”...New Testament usage, while sparse, similarly suggests the simple meaning “royal” (John 4:46, 49; Acts 12:20, 21). Even with this meaning, James could intend to identify the “royal law” with the love commandment that follows. But this view has against it the fact that “law” in the New Testament usually refers to an entire body of commandments rather than a single commandment. And the argument of James 2:10-11 would seem to assume this broader application of the term. (Moo, The Letter of James (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 111)

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) determines:

“Royal law” refers (1) to Jesus’ highlighting of Leviticus 19:18 as the preeminent command of all commands, alongside loving God, (2) to this interpretation of the Torah bringing the Torah to its destined completion (James 1:25), (3) to this law of love actually creating freedom for the messianic community, and (4) to the empowering implanted presence of word and Spirit in the messianic community. (McKnight, The Letter of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 206-07)

Some interpreters have closely connected the royal law to an edict given by a king. Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) and Darian R. Lockett (b. 1972) study:

The royal law (basilikos nomos) can refer to being “kingly” in character (Plato [427-347 BCE], Minos 317C; Epictetus [55-135], Discourses 4.6.20; Philo [20 BCE-50CE], Posterity 101-2; 4 Maccabees 14:2), or because a “king” does it, as in “royal custom’ (Xenophon [431-355 BCE], Cyropaedia 1.3.18). (Evans, John, Hebrews-Revelation (The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 273)

That Jesus is the king in question is supported by his own use of the Scripture. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) contends:

This commandment is, above all, “royal” because it is identified with Jesus as his distinctive summation of Torah (see Matthew 19:19, 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14). (Johnson, The Letter of James (The Anchor Bible), 221)

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) concurs:

Walter Bauer [1877-1960] contended long ago that βασιλικός here denoted “royal” because “it is given by the king (of the kingdom of God)” and, since James...just mentioned the kingdom (James 2:5) and proceeds to appeal next to a distinguishable logion Jesu, even if he is quoting Leviticus 19:18 (cf. Mark 12:31 parr.), his position is most likely correct. (Bruce Chilton [b. 1949] and Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], “A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity”, James the Just and Christian Origins, 122)

Though this view has prominent adherents, it is not universally accepted. C. Freeman Sleeper (b. 1933) rejects:

Possibly there is an implicit reference to Christ, the Lord, as an interpreter of the Torah. This is a view that permeates Matthew’s Gospel, but it represents a later development. James does not explicitly claim such authority for Jesus. (Sleeper, James (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 73)

The law could also be deemed royal because all are on the same footing before the king; one is royalty and everyone else is not. The royal law thus creates an even playing field.

Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) relays:

Søren Kierkegaard [1813-1855] insightfully brings together the royal law of neighbourly love (James 2:8), which James employs against showing partiality (James 2:1-4, 9), and the theme of reversal of status (James 1:9-11, 2:5), a theme which Kierkegaard recognizes to be ‘frequently stressed’ in the Bible. Because the commandment to love one’s neighbour requires one to love everyone, whatever their social status, ‘as oneself’, its effect is to make all equal. Neighbourly love is the ‘bond of perfection that knits [the congregation’s] members together in equality before God’. In treating all alike as equal in status before God, love reflects God’s own attitude of impartiality (not respecting persons [Acts 10:34]). Its effect is to elevate the lowly and to humble the exalted...Two further points are notable about the way Kierkegaard develops this theme. One is his sense of this equalizing effect of neighbourly love as strongly counter-cultural. It is directly opposed to ‘the law that rules the world’, which is the law of partiality, treating the wealthy as more important than the poor...Secondly, Kierkegaard sees equality preserved and nurtured within congregational worship, but to be practised also in life outside of the church building. (Bauckham, James (New Testament Readings), 170-71)

Regardless of James’ specific intent in bestowing the label, the general effect of emphasis is undeniable. Peter H. Davids (b. 1947) accents:

This command is no whim and not just simply a law, but part of the law, carrying the king’s authority. This point is made here in the way the command is introduced; later it will be made by showing that to break one command (i.e. this one) is to destroy the whole law. The choice of the commandment is first because it fits the case and second because for James the poor person is the neighbor (cf. Proverbs 14:21; Franz Mussner [b. 1916], 123), for the context makes this point abundantly clear: the poor is elect, a neighbor, in a way the rich is not. (Davids, The Epistle of James (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 114-15)

There has also been significant debate as to what law is being referenced, the specific Scripture in Leviticus 19:18 or the Torah as a whole. Some have argued that the term “law” is too comprehensive to reference a single command.

Patrick J. Hartin (b. 1944) exemplifies:

The Law (nomos) to which James refers is the Mosaic Law in its totality as an expression of God’s will for God’s people. This is supported by the fact that the word nomos is used in preference to entolé: the Law in its entirety (nomos) is meant rather than a single command (entolé). (Hartin, James (Sacra Pagina), 121)

Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) opposes, “There is no difficulty in...applying so wide a term as νόμος to a single precept, since the precept itself was so comprehensive.” (Hort, The Epistle of St. James, 54)

Many have seen the reference as an example of a kelal uperat uperat ukelal (“general for particular”) law: Leviticus 19:18 encompasses the law as a whole, it is a representative sample, the summa of the entire law.

Dan G. McCartney (b. 1950) contends:

The “royal law” refers to the law of God generally, as summed up in the command of love. Some commentators (e.g., Sophie Laws [b. 1944] 1980: 108-9) take “royal law” to refer specifically to the Leviticus 19:18 command, which Jesus made the centerpiece of ethical behavior between humans (Matthew 22:39). And indeed there are several points of contact between Leviticus 19 and James (Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943] 1982; Timo Laato [b. 1963] 1997: 57-59). But James is hardly setting one part of the law over against the rest (James 2:10-11), and “law” (νόμος, nomos) generally refers to God’s instruction as a whole rather than a specific commandment, for which ἐντολή (entolē) is normally used (James Hardy Ropes [1866-1933] 1916: 198). It is better to say that Leviticus 19:18 gives expression to a controlling and central principle of God’s ethical imperative for human conduct (cf. Galatians 5:14) and serves as a framework for understanding its parts. This law summarized in love is “royal” (βασιλικός, basilikos) because it is the “law” of the kingdom (βασιλεία, basileia) of God (Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943] 1982: 401), the kingdom promised to the poor who love him (James 2:5). (McCartney, James (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 147)

Peter H. Davids (b. 1947) adds:

If they fulfil the νόμον βασιλικόν they do well, James states flatly. But what is that law? It is a “sovereign law,” i.e. it has royal authority (Martin Dibelius [1883-1947], 143), but more than that the anarthrous νόμον indicates a particular law with, as Joseph B. Mayor [1828-1916], 90, argues, a stress on its character...Is it not most natural to see a reference to the whole law as interpreted and handed over to the church in the teaching of Jesus, i.e. the sovereign rule of God’s kingdom (cf. Matthew 5)? That would seem more likely than both the parallel Martin Dibelius [1883-1947] cites in IV Maccabees 14:2 and Franz Mussner [b. 1916]’s tempting suggestion, 124, that this refers to the royal rank of this command among the others in the law, although not in the sense of main command as in Matthew 12:31. The use of νόμος instead of ἐντολή makes it appear decisive that the whole law rather than a single command is intended (Victor Paul Furnish [b. 1931], 179-80). (Davids, The Epistle of James (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 114)

Wesley Hiram Wachob (b. 1951) evaluates:

When Martin Dibelius [1883-1947] (1975, p. 142) asserts that the love-commandment is merely presented as “only a part” of the royal law...he understates its significance for our author. In other words, he fails to recognize that James’ performance of the love-commandment is a “new configuration”; for in our unit it is not “only a part” of the law, but also our author’s basic expression for or summary of the whole law (Roy Bowen Ward [1934-2012], 1966b. pp. 138-42; W.D. Davies [1911-2001], 1964, p. 401, note 2; Samuel Tobias Lachs [1926-2000] 1987, p. 107; and Reginald H. Fuller [1915-2007] and Ilse Fuller [b. 1921], 1978). (Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, 121)

There is historical support for Leviticus 19:18 encapsulating the whole law. Wesley Hiram Wachob (b. 1951) researches:

There is more than enough evidence from both Jewish and Christian sources to corroborate the use of Leviticus 19:18 as a summary of the whole law (Rabbi Hillel [110 BCE-10 CE] in Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 31a; Rabbi Aquiba [50-135] in Genesis Rabbah 24.7; see Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 1356-58; and Matthew 5:43, 19:19; Mark 12:31; Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; Didache 1.2; Barnabas 19.5; cited in Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931], 1979, p. 276 note 34). Moreover, “the evidence” as Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931] (1985a, p. 37) correctly observes, “indicates that early Christianity was historically united on the fact that Jesus taught the fulfillment of the Torah in the love-commandment” (also W.D. Davies [1911-2001], 1964, pp. 405-13). Further, as scholars like Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943] (1986, p. 457; cf. Peter H. Davids [b. 1947] 1982, p. 114) have argued, it is probable that the author of James (a “servant of the Lord Jesus Christ,” James 1:1), appropriates “all of Torah” in relation to the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, in the context of an argument that is addressed to Christian Jews and that conspicuously concerns “the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” it is hard to imagine that judgments concerning the poor, the promised kingdom, the royal law, and the love commandment could have been heard without thinking of Jesus’ words and deeds. (Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, 121-22)

Marie E. Isaacs buttresses:

James claims the command to love one’s neighbour, far from being one among many, embodies the whole of God’s Law and hence contains within it the prohibition against partiality. We find in negative form a similar sentiment attributed to rabbi Hillel [110 BCE-10 CE]: “What you hate do not do to your neighbour. That is the essence of the Torah; the rest is commentary” (Shabbat 31a). In the Gospels we find it on the lips of Jesus in its positive, Levitical form (Mark 12:31; Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:27). (Isaacs, Reading Hebrews & James: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 199)

Whether or not James sees Leviticus 19:18 as a summation of the law, the passage is clearly important to the author. Karen H. Jobes (b. 1952) determines:

The search for a unifying theme in James has been elusive. On a surface reading, the letter seems to jump from topic to topic with little continuity of thought or structure of argument. It covers a variety of ethical issues that address concerns of justice and harmony in the community. Most interpreters see the content of James as motivated by pressing issues that either existed in the congregation(s) or that were plausible in that social context. It might be presumptuous even to attempt to state a unifying theme, but it appears that James is very concerned with applying the “royal law.” (Jobes, Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles)

Leviticus 19:18 is a Jewish text and there have been Jewish sources who emphasized it. Even so, Christianity has added its own unique intensification of the passage.

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) footnotes:

One can find numerous parallels in Jewish literature to the importance of loving God or loving others (Testament of Simeon 4:7; Testament of Issachar 5:2; Testament of Dan 5:4; Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], Specialibus legibus 1.299-300, 324), or to the importance of love (Odes of Solomon 41:1-6), but something about Jesus and his followers remains distinct: the connection of Leviticus 19:18 to Deuteronomy 6:4-5. The daily recitation of Shema as followed by Leviticus 19:18 forms that distinction. See Hugh Montefiore [1920-2005], “Thou Shalt Love”; E.P. Sanders [b. 1937], “Jesus and the First Table of the Jewish Law,” 55-73; Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943] (with Wesley Wachob [b. 1951]) speaks of the “abundance of Jewish and Christian sources that corroborate the use of Leviticus 19:18 as a summary of the whole law,” but cites much later rabbinic texts and New Testament and early Christian texts (Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God, 151). The appeal to later rabbinic texts does not count for an abundance of texts for determining whether Jesus’ use of Leviticus 19:18 was simply part of his Jewish context. Methodologically, concluding that Jesus was evidently the one who raised Leviticus 19:18 to a cental location does not make him non-Jewish, nor does it make the other groups of Judaism less Jewish or less loving...It is connecting Leviticus 19:18 to the Shema that makes Jesus’ distinctive use of Leviticus 19:18. (McKnight, The Letter of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 207-08)

Jesus elevates Leviticus 19:18 much like an Oprah Winfrey endorsement (b. 1954) does for a contemporary book. Scot McKnight (b. 1953) traces:

Leviticus 19:18, a text not quoted in Jewish literature from the time of Leviticus until the time of Jesus, was raised a notch in importance when Jesus attached it to the daily recital of the Shema. Thus, Mark 12:28-34...Several New Testament writings, surprisingly quote Leviticus 19:18 in such a manner that demonstrates their awareness of the elevation of Leviticus 19:18 by Jesus. Thus, Paul explicitly makes it the fundamental rule of life (Romans 12:19, 13:9; Galatians 5:14), while Peter edges in that direction (I Peter 4:8) and John explodes into full focus on love (John 13:34-35; I John 3:11, 23, 4:17). It is not without significance that James is the only person in the New Testament after Jesus who quotes both sides of the Jesus Creed: loving God in James 1:12 and James 2:5 and loving others as oneself here in James 2:8. (McKnight, The Letter of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 207-08)

Some have seen a correlation between the “Royal Law” and the “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12). A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) attaches:

One may compare...the Golden Rule as given by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, which is just another way of stating the “royal law” of loving one’s neighbor (τὸν πλησίον σου, one near in need whether in space or not) as oneself, a very high standard for most people. (Robertson, Studies in James, 122)

Don S. Browning (1934-2010) concurs:

It is, of course, a slightly different formulation of the Golden Rule. A variation of the principle of neighbor love is found eight times in the New Testament (Matthew 19:19, 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). Both Jesus and Paul use it as the hermeneutic key to the interpretation of the Jewish law. Louis Janssens [1908-2001] interprets neighbor love as equal-regard in order to make it consistent with the Catholic tradition’s view of love as caritas – a love that balances self-regard and other-regard. He combines formal features of Gene Outka [b. 1937]’s neo-Kantian view of love as equal-regard with certain material theories about basic human premoral goods (the ordo bonorum) that equal-regard organizes and promotes. (Browning, Christian Ethics and the Moral Psychologies, 143)

T.A. Prickett (b. 1934) preaches:

It may be argued that treating the rich man with such respect was simply living out the Golden Rule, which is to love your neighbor as yourself. James says that is fine, but if you do not treat the poor man with the same respect, then you are not responding to the rich man out of love but out of preference. (Prickett, Faith in Ever’day Clothes: Sermons from the Book of James, 28)

Love of neighbor is one of the few topics early Christian writers agree upon and emphasize. Even Paul and James, who have often been pitted against one another, utilize this Scripture.

Sophie Laws (b. 1944) documents:

Paul too quotes Leviticus 19:18 as the supreme command, with no explicit appeal to the authority of Jesus (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14). John, by contrast, attributes a command to love specifically to Jesus, and never uses the Old Testament form of love of the neighbour (though I John 2:7 shows a consciousness that the new commandment is also an old one). It is reasonable to suppose that the prominence of a command to love in many of the New Testament documents is due to its prominence in the teaching of Jesus, even when this is not explicitly acknowledged. If so, it is probable that when James quotes Leviticus 19:18 as scripture he does so in the knowledge that the scripture has received the added authority of Jesus’ use. (Laws, The Epistle of James (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 110)

Though unacknowledged, this marks the only reference to a specific saying of Jesus in the book of James. William R. Baker (b. 1951) band Thomas D. Ellsworth (b. 1955) report:

James did not seem to think it necessary to tell readers that his teaching was grounded in the teaching of Jesus. Mention of “royal law” (James 2:8), suggesting Jesus’ kingdom of God teaching, is the only hint of any kind. Were people so well versed in Jesus’ teaching that it was as obvious to them, as it is to us, who have Matthew and can easily compare the two writings? (Baker and Ellsworth, Preaching James, 5)

Christian life mandates love of neighbor. The verse is foundational to Christianity; it is an essential. Loving our neighbors is what we do.

Earl F. Palmer (b. 1931) summarizes:

James...calls his readers to the way of love, but he describes the love toward the neighbor as “the royal law” (James 2:8). Whatever else he means by this kingly title for the mandate about love, he has succeeded in showing us that love has the royal imprimatur, an imprint that has its source in God’s character. (Palmer, The Book that James Wrote, 51)

Favoritism is a failure of love. To discriminate is to decide who is worthy of love and who is not. Instead we are to love as God loves living a life free from prejudice, discrimination, favoritism.

Do you think that the royal law refers to Leviticus 19:18 or a broader corpus? Could any Old Testament Law represent its whole better? Is it possible to separate loving God from loving neighbor? Were we only to comply with one mandate, which would God prefer, loving God or loving one another? Does obeying the royal law make one royalty? What is your own personal royal law? What does love of neighbor require of us?

Whether James is addressing an actual or hypothetical situation is unknown. The verse begins with a problematic particle (Greek: méntoi) that some prominent translations ignore (CEV, KJV, MSG). When translated, the word is rendered either in the affirmative (“really” [ESV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV]; “indeed” [HCSB, NLT]) or adversative (“however” [NASB] or “howbeit” [ASV]).

Interpreters are as divided as translations. James B. Adamson (1924-2000) introduces:

The first crux here is the meaning of the Greek particle, which KJV ignores; is it adversative, “however” (James Hardy Ropes [1866-1933], C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915]), or affirmative, “verily,” “really” (Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892])? (Adamson, The Epistle of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 113)

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) explains:

A decision is difficult because usage favors the latter rendering while context favors the former. The word in question has an adversative meaning in all seven of its other New Testament occurrences (John 4:27, 7:13, 12:42, 20:5, 21:4; II Timothy 2:19; Jude 1:8). But it is not easy to give James 2:8 an adversative relationship to its context. The best we can do is think that James 2:8 contrasts with James 2:6a: “you have insulted the poor...however, if you fulfill the royal law, you do well.” This connection is pretty distant, however. So, since the sense of “really” or “indeed” is attested for the word, we should probably prefer this alternative. (Moo, The Letter of James (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 110-11)

Peter H. Davids (b. 1947) counters:

The particle μέντοι (the most common -τοι compound in the New Testament, used 8 times) points out that James does not begin a new topic when he uses the argument from the royal law: he continues the discussion of discrimination against the poor by showing that it violates the law of love. The particle appears to bear the force of the English concessive “however” (German aber; Franz Mussner [b. 1916], 123) in a semi-ironic contrast of their actual behavior with that presupposed in this clause, underlying the standard of judgment. (Davids, The Epistle of James (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 114)

One’s perception of this particle is significant as it relates to the tone of the text: were some fulfilling the royal law? “Really” exonerates a portion of the audience. The text considers the possibility that the royal law is being followed, thought the presumption is that it is not.

James B. Adamson (1924-2000) contextualizes:

No sane man could have pretended even to himself that the conduct of James 2:1-4 was a way of fulfilling the law of love. It is not quite so ludicrous to consider the unlikely possibility that “however” could be used in a tenor like this: “If, however, I am doing some of you an injustice, if in fact you do not all behave as in James 2:1-4, if in fact some of you are fulfilling the law of love, well and good: but if not, you are sinning and will suffer for it!” This possibility will be acceptable only if we believe that James is expressly recognizing that among the hearers of his Epistle an appreciable number are not in fact guilty of the sin he has been indicating...James would concede that here, and in the host of other faults he censures in this Epistle (which confirms the picture Jesus gives of the too common insincerity of the contemporary established religion) not all his flock are in the same sad case; but even so we think the other translation is right. It is more apt for an Epistle hopefully...intended for more than an immediate occasion; and the break this made before the transition from delinquents he has been rebuking to Christians in general, and to his statement of the vital choice to be made by us all, is by no means ineffective. (Adamson, The Epistle of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 113-14)

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) defends:

A good translation of James 2:8 can open with “If you really do fulfill the royal law...” James both assumes that the messianic community really is following the royal law and also knows that it does not follow it consistently and that he is about to speak one again to their failures (James 2:9). Once we recognize that “really” in James 2:8 belongs with the messianic community’s salutary practices in James 1:25-27, where a very similar expression occurs (“the perfect law, the law of liberty”), we can see more clearly what James is saying. He wants to remind them of James 1:25-27 in order to get them to move beyond what he has just described in James 2:2-4. Thus, if they really do live as described in James 1:25-27, they will be fine. But James knows better. This verse then sets up the messianic community for one more strong critique about their favoritism. James 2:9 will begin that critique. (McKnight, The Letter of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 205)

Thomas D. Lea (1938-1999) surmises:

Some of James’s readers felt they had been obedient to God in the matter of showing love for the poor and needy. Wherever that was true, James gave credit. If they were really putting God’s law into practice, this was noble and commendable. The command to love our neighbor as we love ourselves is an impossible standard without the power of the living Christ (John 13:34-35). Whenever Christians have applied this standard, it has remade communities, societies, and homes. Whoever follows this life of service will receive the Lord’s commendation at the final judgment (Matthew 25:21). (Lea, Hebrews & James (Holman New Testament Commentary), 283)

The text is certainly corrective and there may even be a tinge of sarcasm: A large portion of James’ audience is clearly not fulfilling the royal law. This is not surprising as the law flies in the face of their cultural norms.

Ingeborg Mongstad-Kvammen situates:

In James 2:8-9 James...shows them that by acting within Roman cultural etiquette, they actually become transgressors of the royal law. They break with Jesus’ commands and understanding of the Law. By acting as Romans they do not live according to the love command which is the fulfillment of the Law and the alternative James gives them. This could mean that the addressees have two major entities to relate to: a) the Christian teaching of the royal law, love your neighbour as yourself, and b) the Roman Empire and Roman etiquette, they transgress against the love command and through this the whole Law, and can be condemned by the Law. (Mongstad-Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James: James 2:1-13 in its’ Roman Imperial Context, 204)

The more things have changed, the more they have remained the same. Class discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in James’ era. Unfortunately, it is as common for the poor to be discriminated in churches as in the outside world. In the Kingdom of God, this should not be the case.

Frances Taylor Gench (b. 1956) informs:

This commandment...is referred to as the “royal law,” because it is the law of the kingdom into which God has called them (see Mark 12:29-31)...Those whom James addresses may very well have argued, as do we, that in attending to the rich they are showing love to their neighbors. And if this is really the case, then they “do well.” But this is no excuse for partiality. If in attending to the rich, readers discriminate against the poor, then they “commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9). They have not understood that the poor person whom they dishonor is also a neighbor and that “acts of favoritism” place them in violation of the biblical commandment to love. (Gench, Hebrews and James (Westminster Bible Companion), 101)

Kurt A. Richardson (b. 1957) pronounces:

This royal law belongs to the heirs of the kingdom (James 2:5). Under this law there should be no acts of favoritism to anyone. All alike should be equal recipients of the love that is due them. Neighbor love in Scripture is directed to everyone in close proximity to each believer, without distinction. Whether or not the “neighbor” is a believer in Jesus, that one is to receive the same love. If favoritism is going to be avoided and the righteousness of God promoted, James recalled the love that serves everyone in need regardless of their religious commitments...This point in the teaching of Jesus was meant as the supreme antidote to favoritism and hypocrisy. No one is outside the boundary of neighbor love, not even the poor and unlovely, indeed especially not them. When this royal law of neighbor is obeyed, no more excellent deed can be done. In this actively loving way, and in this way alone, the rich believer and the believers who enjoy life above the poverty line can overcome the stumbling blocks to their faith. When this command controls what is meant by being a “doer of the law,” every other command is effectively fulfilled. The old adage that a Christian cannot “do well” without “well doing” rests on the pointedly defined royal law: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Surely Paul’s meaning in Galatians 5:6 correlates well here: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” (Richardson, James (New American Commentary), 119-20)

Love of neighbor should be exhibited in action. George M. Stulac (b. 1944) applies:

Loving your neighbor as yourself means treating others’ concerns as important as your own. Therefore followers of this law will seek the common good rather than personal good. Imagine a church committee meeting in which one person presents an idea of what should be done about a particular issue. A second person disagrees. The first person, because she is a follower of the royal law, responds not by arguing her own idea but by helping the group fully hear and understand the other person’s proposal. Love brings a desire to protect each other’s interests. (Stulac, James (IVP New Testament Commentary), 102)

Richard J. Foster (b. 1942) connects:

There is the service of bearing the burdens of each other. “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). The “law of Christ” is the law of love, the “royal law” as James calls it (James 2:8). Love is most perfectly fulfilled when we bear the hurts and sufferings of each other, weeping with those who weep. And especially when we are with those who are going through the valley of the shadow, weeping is far better than words. (Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, 139)

In the movie 42 (2013), Branch Rickey (1881-1965) appropriatlely cites the royal law as part of his rationale for bringing Jackie Robinson (1919-1972) into Major League Baseball. On the basis of Scripture, Rickey refuses to discriminate regardless of race.

Of course, the exemplar of obeying the royal law is the King. Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) resolves:

The problem of partiality is that the bigot disobeys the “royal law,” “you will love your neighbor as yourself,” when it is this very law that the wise congregation must observe in hope of receiving God’s promised blessing. To actually fulfill this law is to perform its demand by following the example of Jesus in resisting discrimination against the poor. (Wall, Community of the Wise: The Letter of James, 122)

Paul A. Cedar (b. 1938) praises:

Jesus came not to only teach this law but to live it. Indeed, He is the personification of the royal law of love. (Cedar, James/1 & 2 Peter/Jude (The Preacher’s Commentary), 58)

Who do you know who best lives out the royal law? In your experience, do Christians typically follow this royal law? Do you? At your church, do you get as excited to see panhandlers and vagrants as young well-to-do families?

“The moment a little boy is concerned with which is a jay and which is a sparrow, he can no longer see the birds or hear them sing.” - Eric Berne (1910-1970), Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis, p. 178