Adopted by God’s Grace

by Bruce Mills

This past Sunday, I preached on Romans 8:14-17a, which is one of the great passages in Scripture on the believer’s spiritual adoption.  It says, “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.” 

This passage is rich in theological truth, but it becomes even more incredibly rich to us when we understand what Paul’s Roman readers would have understood when they heard those words.  I am convinced that an understanding of the historical setting into which Scripture was written will greatly aid in our understanding of what the author was communicating to his readers, and this passage is a perfect illustration of that.  Specifically in regard to this passage, understanding the Roman adoption process sheds tremendous light on these few precious verses.  I know that many of those who heard my sermon on Sunday expressed to me that learning the procedures and consequences of an adoption in ancient Rome brought them fresh understanding regarding this biblical expression of our relationship to God.

In the first century when Paul was writing this, adopted children were, in many cases, more honored than natural children.  In virtually all cases, it was seen as an act of honor to be adopted, because that child—who was born into a world filled with illegitimate children and orphaned children—that child could say, “I was chosen by someone.  I wasn’t just born into a family where what you get is what you get…I was chosen.” 

So being adopted was a noble thing.  An adopted son was deliberately chosen by the adopting father to perpetuate that father’s name and to inherit that father’s estate.  And when a father in the Roman world didn’t have a son, he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him and give him all the rights and privileges of a natural born son. 

The adopted son was in no way inferior. In fact, he may have been chosen because he was deemed to be superior to the natural born son.  There were many Roman fathers who had sons who, in their eyes, didn’t measure up to their qualifications to inherit their estate, so they went out and found one that did.  So an adopted son may have received more affection from his father than a naturally born son and he may well have represented his father’s moral standards more perfectly than that man’s natural sons.

And that’s the whole point of biblical adoption, which is that we become children of God by sovereign divine choice.  We are the preferred choice of God.  On the basis of free and voluntary election, God has chosen us to be adopted as His sons.  We will never be condemned because God has chosen us to be His children forever by His free grace and His uninfluenced sovereignty.  He will never disinherit us. We have been lifted to this place of honor and He will fulfill in us His good purposes.

Let me explain some more about adoption in the Roman world. The process of adoption was far more serious and more difficult due to the Roman law known as Patria Potestas, a Latin phrase meaning “the father’s power.”  And under Roman law, the father had absolute power over his family, including the power of life and death.  When a child was born, if the father did not want the child, he would abandon the infant outside, to be exposed to the weather, which, depending on the time of the year, may kill the child within a few hours. In fact, the early church took to heart the biblical instruction about caring for orphans in their distress (James 1:27) and began to take in the abandoned babies from around the city—a large number of which were girls because every Roman father wanted a son to whom he would pass on his inheritance.

But please don’t think that all Roman fathers were so callous and heartless. Most female babies were raised in their own homes by their natural parents, but among those babies who were abandoned, virtually all of them were females or were deformed in some way. So Roman fathers had the absolute power of disposal and control within their family, and there was absolutely no recourse that could be taken against him.

Also, in regard to his father, a Roman son never came to age.  No matter how old he was, he was still under Patria Potestas, as were the daughters also.  No matter how old they were, they were still under the absolute control of the father. 

This made adoption into a family a very difficult and very serious matter unless the person was an illegitimate child or an orphan, because Roman law provided that a man could adopt the son of another man only if the natural father agreed to allow that to occur. And because the father maintained his Patria Potestas over his son for life, he could give up his son for adoption at any age—even well into adulthood.

For example, if a wealthy man saw a boy or young man that, for whatever reason, he wanted to adopt as his own son, and that son belonged to another father (usually a poor man), he had to go through a very formidable operation to get that person to pass out from under the Patria Potestas of the natural father into the Patria Potestas of the adoptive father.

There were two steps.  The first one was called Emancipatus, from which we get our English word “emancipation.”  It is a compound word consisting of the Latin prefix ex- meaning “out of” and the Latin word mancipium meaning “ownership” or “slavery.” In other words, “out of ownership” or “out of slavery.” And Emancipatus was carried out as a symbolic sale of sorts.  If the natural father would agree to let his son be adopted by another man, there was a ceremony in which there was a symbolic sale of the son to the other man. They used scales and coins in the process, and they went through the ceremony three times.  Twice the father symbolically sold the son and twice he bought him back, and then the third time he didn’t buy him back and the natural father’s Patria Potestas over that son was broken. 

After the sale there was ceremony called Vindacatus, which is a Latin word meaning “to lay claim to.” The adopting father went to the Roman magistrate and presented a case for the actual legal transference of the person to be adopted into his own Patria Potestas.  And when all of this was complete, the adoption was official. 

Now there were four main consequences to a Roman adoption:

1. The adopted person lost all rights in his own family and gained all rights in his new family.  He gained all the rights of a fully legitimate son in his new family. 

2. He became full heir to his new father’s estate even if there were other natural sons. If there were no other sons at the time of his adoption, but other natural sons were born afterward into the family, it did not affect his right as the primary son.  He could not be disinherited; his rights were inalienable.

3. According to Roman law, the old life of the adopted person was completely wiped out.  If he had any debts, they were cancelled. If he had any record of crime it was abolished.  They wiped out all the records as if that person had never existed; as if he had never been born.  And the adopted person was regarded as a new person entering a new life with no past. 

4. In the eyes of Roman law, the adopted person was literally and absolutely the son of his new father in every sense.

Now, when we think of our adoption into God’s family in those terms, it’s a marvelously wonderful thing.  We have lost all the rights and all the claims of our past and we’ve gained all the rights and privileges of our new family.  We have become heir to our Father’s estate.  Our past life is obliterated, blotted out, and wiped away and we are literally, absolutely, and permanently the sons of God. 

Throughout the New Testament we see this imagery over and over again that when a person becomes a Christian, he enters into the family of God.  He did nothing to earn it, he did nothing to deserve it, he did nothing to choose it. God the Father, in His amazing love and mercy, has taken the initiative to reach out to him and to draw him into His family and wipe out his past and give him a new life. 

I think the reason that the New Testament uses this imagery of adoption as an illustration of what has happened to us in salvation is because adoption was such a remarkably lofty thing.  To say that you have been born into the family of God is very special, but to say that out of all the people in the world, God Himself chose you, wiped away the record of all of your sin, and gave you full status as a son and joint heir with His Son Jesus Christ, and you will be permanently and forever in that status…that is special beyond our ability to express it.  Praise God for His unsearchable riches in Christ Jesus!

Recognizing a Savage Wolf

by Bruce Mills

In Acts 20:29-30, the apostle Paul warned the elders of the church at Ephesus—and by extension, churches through the years since—with these words: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”  Those are extremely serious words, because they inform us that there are those men whose desires are to ravage the church.  They seek to divide and destroy. 

Jesus also warned about such men in Matthew 7:15 when He said, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”  The spiritual leaders of His day wore wool robes (“sheep’s clothing”), so this warning concerned those men who would come, offering spiritual direction and guidance, appearing to be one thing on the outside, when they are actually seeking to devour the flock of God.

So how do we recognize such men so that we can guard the church from their destructive activities and teachings?  Let me give you some guidelines that are helpful in identifying them.

1) First of all, Jesus said we can recognize them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16, 20).  In other words, do they produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) in their lives, or do they produce the fruit of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21)?  They may not display every one of the fruit of the flesh, but they will produce certain ones; particularly such characteristics as “strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions” (Gal. 5:20).

2) They put great effort into promoting themselves.  Like Diotrophes (3 John 9), they desire to gain a position of prominence and power in the church and will do whatever it takes to do so (3 John 10).

3) They handle the Word of God deceitfully, adulterating its truth to match their own message (2 Cor. 4:2-3).  They invariably reinterpret the Scriptures to justify their fleshly desires and ungodly teaching.

4) They see the Word of God as a means of financial gain (2 Cor. 2:17, 1Tim. 6:5).  Rather than focusing on teaching people the Word in order that the Holy Spirit might apply it to their hearts and they are changed into the image of Christ, these men continually focus on money.  They press their listeners (many of them financially strapped) to give to their ministry, promising that God will grant special miracles to those who have sufficient faith.

5) They reject sound doctrine which promotes godliness (1 Tim. 6:3), choosing rather to promote what Scripture calls “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).  That doesn’t mean that they knowingly promote beliefs which are demonic in origin.  In fact, they would be appalled if someone suggested that their doctrines originate from Satanic forces, but in reality, that is the source of anything they teach which does not concur with Scripture.  Their teachings promote self, and encourage their followers to engage in activities which characterize the fallen flesh.

6) They will exploit their followers with destructive heresies and sensuality to such a degree that the way of the truth is maligned (2 Peter 2:1-3).  The watching world loves to criticize Christians as a bunch of hypocrites and these evil men provide the perfect means for the world to paint all believers with the label of hypocrisy.

7) They use smooth, flattering speech to deceive the hearts of those who are naive and unsuspecting (Rom. 16:18).  In other words, they are smooth talkers.  They sound convincing.  So how is a believer to know whether or not what they are saying is true?  By following the pattern of the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11, who examined the Scriptures daily to see if the things which Paul and Silas were teaching them matched up with God’s Word.  If a man’s doctrine does not match up with Scripture, he is to be rejected.

There are a lot of savage wolves who are ravaging the flock of God.  Be on guard!  Never assume that because a man is or claims to be a pastor or an evangelist that he is a man of God.  He may be one of Satan’s agents, seeking to destroy God’s people.  Study the Word, and if what that man teaches does not concur with sound doctrine, turn away from him.  Listen and follow only those men whose doctrine matches up with Scripture, and thus promotes holy and godly behavior.

The Pastor’s Continual Struggle

By Bruce Mills

I can honestly say from experience that Spurgeon was absolutely correct.  There is never a time when the faithful pastor who desires to impart the truth of God’s Word feels that he has an adequate grasp of the overwhelming sea of living water which it contains.  Rather he feels that because of his own sinfulness and limitations, he can hold only a few small droplets that he has gathered from his studies.  But even then, God’s Spirit compels him to share those miniscule drops with those who listen.

Marketing the Church

by Bruce Mills

One of my significant concerns about the American evangelical church is that it has no idea what the purpose of the church as a body is to be.  It has largely abandoned the method which Jesus and the apostles used; namely, preaching the truth of the gospel, teaching the Scriptures, and exhorting believers to obedience.  Instead, it has chosen to adopt the world’s marketing methods to determine what its message will be and how it will be presented.

Afraid to offend the listeners and choosing rather to entertain them, many pastors have decided that preaching in a lecture-listener format is too old fashioned and boring for the educated, erudite American ear.  Thus, they believe it is necessary to use drama, skits, movie and television clips, popular secular musicians, and a watered down presentation of the gospel which is devoid of any serious mention of sin, judgment, repentance, or the lordship of Christ. 

Going to church is now supposed to be entertaining and, seemingly, only superficially enlightening about one’s human interpersonal relationships, rather than instructive on what God has to say in His word about who He is, what He commands, how we are to relate to Him, and what we need to do in order to grow and change to be more like Christ.  Moral absolutes are out; subjective recommendations on how to live are in.

I am now re-reading John MacArthur’s book, Ashamed of the Gospel, which has just been updated and released in a third edition.  The following is an excerpt which I found particularly pertinent regarding today’s American church culture and I decided to share it with you.

Having absorbed the world’s values, Christianity in our society is now dying.  Subtly but surely, worldliness and self-indulgence are eating away the heart of the church.  The gospel usually proclaimed today is so convoluted that it offers believing in Christ as nothing more than a means to contentment and prosperity.  The offense of the cross (cf. Gal. 5:11) has been systematically removed so that the message might be made more acceptable to unbelievers.  The church somehow got the idea it could declare peace with the enemies of God.

When on top of that punk rockers, ventriloquists’ dummies, clowns, knife-throwers, professional wrestlers, weight lifters, bodybuilders, comedians, dancers, jugglers, ringmasters, rap artists, actors, and show-business celebrities take the place of the preacher, the gospel message is dealt a catastrophic blow.  “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom. 10:14).

I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonize our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey.  It is too easy to trivialize the sacred message.  And we must make the message, not the medium, the heart of what we want to convey to the audience.

Don’t be quick to embrace the trends of the high-tech megachurches.  And don’t sneer at conventional worship and preaching.  We don’t need clever approaches to get people saved (1 Cor. 1:21).  We simply need to get back to preaching the truth and planting the seed.  If we’re faithful in that, the soil God has prepared will bear fruit.

I don’t think anyone could have said it any better.  Many within the American evangelical culture have decided that it takes a skit and a slick, market-driven “conversation” to win Christ-followers.  Such a view completely ignores the fact that no one ever comes to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws that person, and when He does, His effectual call will result in that individual coming to Christ in saving faith, no matter how “out-dated” the method of sharing the gospel may be.

Responding to Our Enemies

by Bruce Mills

At the request of a special friend who was unable to attend my class on Sunday, I am posting the basics of my lesson on Romans 12:17-21 which dealt with the Christian’s response toward those who are his enemies.  This is a subject which I predict will become more and more important to those who desire to live faithfully for our Lord in a culture which is increasingly hostile toward believers.

It is quite characteristic of the American culture for people to feel like they are in the right to take vengeance upon their enemies. Movies and television shows glorify striking back at those who unjustly attack others and consequently, many Christians think such behavior is acceptable and right.  It is a classic case of adopting the culture’s viewpoint rather than a biblical viewpoint.

But that is not what Paul teaches in this passage to be the standard for believers. First of all, he says, ”never pay back evil for evil to anyone.”  Now, someone is bound to think, “But what about the OT law that said ‘eye for an eye, tooth for tooth’ (Ex. 21:24)? Isn’t that authorizing revenge?” No, it isn’t. That law pertained to civil justice, not personal revenge. Not only that, but its major purpose was to prevent the severity of punishment from exceeding the severity of the offense. In other words, someone guilty of destroying another person’s eye could not be punished with any greater penalty than that of forfeiting one of his own eyes.

A few verses later, in Rom. 13:4, Paul declares that civil authority “is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”  But that authority, which is not only divinely permitted but divinely mandated for civil government, is divinely forbidden for personal purposes.

Paul gave this same instruction to the Thessalonian believers in 1 Thess. 5:15—See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.

Peter echoes this same truth in 1 Peter 3:8-9—To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

So that old adage, “I don’t get mad, I get even,” isn’t biblical. Be very careful about your attitude in seeking revenge toward those who harm you.

Closely related to not returning evil for evil is the second exhortation about how to behave toward our enemies. Paul says, “Respect what is right in the sight of all men.” If we genuinely respect others, including our enemies, we will have a “built in” protection against angrily repaying them evil for evil and will be predisposed to doing what is right toward them.

The word “respect” literally means “to think beforehand.” Louw-Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, a highly respected lexicon of biblical Greek, says that the idea is “to think about something ahead of time, with the implication that one can then respond appropriately.”  And because “respect” is in the present tense, the idea is that of continually thinking ahead of time.”  So it is valid to translate this word as “be preoccupied with thinking about that which is right.”

That kind of respect will help us develop the self-discipline necessary to prepare ourselves beforehand for responding to evil with what is good instead of with what is bad. Believers should respond instinctively and spontaneously with what is pleasing to God and beneficial to others.

The word “right” is the word kalos, which refers to that which is intrinsically and morally good, proper, and honest. It also carries the idea of being visibly, obviously right “in the sight of all men.” Paul is not speaking of hidden feelings but of outwardly expressed goodness. Our forgiving, gracious behavior toward our enemies should commend us to them and to others who witness that behavior.

One problem we face in our culture is that there has been a redefining of “right” and “wrong” so that many people struggle to know what things are inherently right and what is inherently wrong. For the believer, that’s easy. If the Bible commends something, it is right; if it condemns something, it is wrong. So we do what the Scriptures say and trust that the internal moral law which God has placed in the hearts of all mankind will be challenged by our behavior and acknowledge its “rightness.”

The next of Paul’s exhortations is conditional in terms of its fulfillment, in that it partly depends on the attitudes and responses of our enemies. In verse 18 he writes: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

By definition, a peaceful relationship cannot be one-sided. But our responsibility as believers is to make sure that our side of the relationship is right, that our inner desire is genuinely to “be at peace with all men,” even the meanest and most undeserving.

From the perspective of the believer, there is to be no breach of peace. Short of compromising God’s truth and standards, we should be willing to go to great lengths to build peaceful bridges to those who hate us and harm us. We must forsake any grudge or settled bitterness and fully forgive from the heart all who harm us.

But this must also be qualified by the fact that the Christian is to bear witness to the truth and to live by Christian principles. Peace at the price of sacrificing the truth or compromising principle is never to be done. This means that there will be times, in our sin-fallen world, when it will be impossible because the unbelievers in our lost world will be unwilling to live in peace with us. But there must never be a reason why they can legitimately place the blame on us for being unwilling to be at peace with them.

Keep in mind that the principle of being at peace with others does not just mean that we only tolerate them on the outside and endure being around them, but rather that we are truly at peace with them as far as it is possible to be so. Now, I’ll admit that that isn’t always easy, but that is what this verse calls us to do. So we must guard our hearts against any kind of internal feelings of bitterness, hate, or disrespect toward them. If there is any kind of problem between us and those who oppose us, it must be entirely of them and none of our doing.

The last two characteristics Paul lists here are both reiterations. He again denounces returning evil for evil, stating, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God.” If a wrong has been done to us, no matter how serious and harmful it may have been, we are never qualified for or have a right to render punishment for the offense ourselves.

Why aren’t we allowed to take revenge for ourselves? Because, Paul says, “leave room for the wrath of God.” Now you may have noticed in your Bible (if you have an NASB) that the words “of God” are italicized, meaning that they are not found in the original language. This has caused some to interpret this as referring to the wrath of our evil persecutors, or to our own wrath, or to the wrath of the government in executing judgment on our behalf. But most interpreters, including virtually all modern Bible translations, see that it is clearly God’s wrath that is in view here because Paul then quotes Deut. 32:35, saying, “for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”

It is not our job to execute justice on evil people; that is God’s prerogative, and He will visit His wrath on such people when He deems it right to do so. In his commentary on Romans, Bible teacher Gerald Cragg says that when we try to take the law into our own hands, “we are inept bunglers in a region where we do not belong.”

Perhaps the best biblical example we have of not taking our own revenge is David, who had two opportunities (1 Sam. 24, 26) in which it seemed like God had delivered Saul into his hands and it would have been easy for him to kill Saul. But instead David refused to take advantage of his enemy, recognizing that God had sovereignly placed Saul upon the throne of Israel, and decreed that he would not be the one who stretched forth his hand against him. He even said, “As the Lord lives, surely the Lord will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish” (1 Sam. 26:10). He allowed the Lord to execute justice on his behalf rather than taking things into his own hands.

Another example is Jesus Himself, when the authorities came to arrest Him in the garden, and Peter had his moment of bravado and cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear. Jesus stopped Peter and said, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:52-53). But instead of defending Himself and taking His own revenge on them, He willingly submitted to the Father’s will and let them take Him into custody. And throughout His trial before Herod and Pilate, He refused to defend Himself or fight against them.

So then, if we are not to take our own revenge, and must wait for the Lord to take revenge—which may not even take place in this lifetime—how then are we to respond to the evil things that our enemies do to us? Well, the answer is in verses 20 and 21, where Paul says overcome evil with good.

You see, merely not returning evil for evil does not fulfill our responsibility. And sometimes doing the positive thing that honors the Lord is the more difficult thing to do. To withhold vengeance is one thing; it requires only doing nothing. But to actually return good for evil is quite another.  Yet that is our obligation if we desire to be godly in our behavior. In verse 20 Paul quotes from Prov. 25:21-22, “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Now the question which arises from everyone is, what does it mean to “heap burning coals on his head”? Well, this has been debated for many years, and several interpretations have been offered. Perhaps one of the more common interpretations is that this statement figuratively describes doing good that results in the conviction and shame of the enemy.

The expression supposedly alludes to the old custom of carrying burning coals in a pan. When one’s fire went out at home, a person would have to go to a neighbor and request hot coals that he or she would then carry home in a pan on the head. Carrying the coals demonstrated to others in the community that the individual who had to get coals from his neighbor was irresponsible (in that he let his fire go out) and thus he was shamed for his irresponsibility. At the same time, they were the evidence of his neighbor’s kindness and goodness.

In the same way, the person who receives good for evil demonstrates to others around them that he has behaved badly and he is shamed by the kindness of his enemy who was willing to do good to him even when it was not deserved.

That’s one interpretation and perhaps it is the most common interpretation. But I think there is a better interpretation. I take the burning coals as a figure of God’s judgment that will come on the enemy if he persists in his antagonism. The figure of “coals of fire” is used consistently in the OT to refer to God’s anger and judgment (cf. 2 Sam. 22:9, 13; Ps. 11:6; 18:13; 140:9-10; Prov. 25:21-22). Thus the meaning would be that the Christian can return good for evil with the assurance that God will eventually punish his or her enemy if he continues in his unrepentant behavior.

So what Paul is saying here is, “Keep doing what is good and kind, even to your enemies. Let God handle the business of executing vengeance. Your responsibility is to keep doing good to them, and if you keep on doing that, God will take care of executing judgment on them, and it won’t be pretty for them in the end. In fact, if you respond the way you should—with kindness and goodness to them—but they keep up their evil actions toward you, their judgment will heap up to an even greater degree.”

Paul concludes with these words in verse 21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” The first part of this verse—“do not be overcome by evil”—has two meanings and applications. First, we must not allow the evil done to us by other people to overcome and overwhelm us. We must rest in the fact that “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4), and we need to remember that “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:12).

Second, and even more important, we must not allow ourselves to be overcome by our own evil responses. An evil response to an evil action only brings about more evil. Evil can overcome us when we allow the pressure put on us by a hostile world to force us into attitudes and actions that are out of keeping with the transformed life of God’s children. And our own evil is infinitely more detrimental to us than is the evil done to us by others. In each case, it is the evil itself that must be overcome, and that can be accomplished only with good. That is what Christ did, and we must do the same. When we display Christ-like character to a watching and skeptical world, we “overcome evil with good.”

Partiality and Our Ministry to Outcasts

by Bruce Mills

I just taught through Romans 12:16 in my adult Sunday School class. The first half of that verse reads: “Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.”  As I studied and prepared to teach my class, the implications of this particular verse had a significant impact on me personally.

The virtue which is expressed in the words “be of the same mind toward one another” is that of impartiality. The original Greek text literally says, “Thinking the same things toward one another.”  So it isn’t saying that we have to all have the same viewpoint on every issue, but rather that we are to display the same attitude toward all other people, whatever their social, ethnic, or economic status.

The most explicit New Testament teaching on impartiality is given in James 2:1-4. It says, “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?” And then James 2:9: “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”

I recently had an illustration in my own life of how easy it is to fall into this sin. I had just read this passage in my own personal quiet time and so it was fresh in my mind. I was serving communion one Sunday evening at my church and there was a man sitting at the end of a pew as I was serving who was wearing filthy clothes and had strong body odor. I almost had to hold my breath as I passed by him. My first thought was so sinful. I thought, “Oh my, why is he here? Couldn’t he take a bath?” And then I realized where I was, what I was doing, and what God’s Word had to say about this situation. Here I was, an elder in the church, serving communion, and at that very moment, I was guilty of the sin of partiality which James condemned. I immediately confessed my sin and repented, and when I went by him again, I looked at him as a man who was there to remember the Lord’s death and I mentally thanked the Lord for that.

We are to think the same things toward one another. Our attitude toward others should be the same regardless of their skin color, their economic status, or their social status. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to set up our own mental caste system, such as exists in India. We are to recognize that every human being who exists, exists because of the grace of God and therefore, He cares about them. So we need to care about them too and look at them as He looks at them. And according to Scripture, “there is no partiality with God” (Rom. 2:11). So since He is impartial, we are to be impartial.

That means no prejudice, no bias, no hatred. Not against blacks, not against whites, not against yellow, red, or any other color. Not against rich, not against poor, not against uneducated, not against highly educated. There is to be no partiality among believers.

Closely related to not being partial is Paul’s next prohibition in Rom. 12:16 about not being “haughty in mind.”  It translates a Greek phrase which literally says, “do not think highly” (or “arrogantly”).

Partiality is closely related to a reluctance to show respect for, or even to “associate with the lowly,” such as the “poor man in dirty clothes” in the James passage. The idea is not that we should avoid associating with those in high positions of wealth or influence. But as far as our service to them is concerned, we typically have more obligation to “associate with the lowly,” not because they are more important, but because they are more needy.

And the word translated “lowly” refers to that which is really low; down in the dirt lowly. We are to get down in the gutter with the lowly. It doesn’t mean you ignore those who are the high and mighty; that is, the wealthy, the politically powerful, the influential, the highly educated and erudite. Rather, it means you don’t pursue, chase after, or concentrate on that.

I thank the Lord for those genuine believers who are friends of mine who are highly regarded professional people of wealth and achievement, who are both significant in the world of men and significant in the Kingdom of God. But I also praise the Lord for friends of mine who live right down on the ground level, who seek to please the Lord in their lives, ministering to me, and enriching my life. Believe me, there are a lot more of them than there are of the powerful, mighty, and wealthy. And what Paul is saying is that we are to not be ashamed to identify with those who are poor and needy.

Our feelings are to be so much in line with those who are lowly that we are perfectly at home with people who never rise above ground level. Paul’s point is that there’s no place for aristocracy in the church. There’s no place for an upper crust. We are to be at home with the lowly as well as the rest.

This principle is marvelously illustrated for us in Luke 14:12-14.  Jesus is at a dinner and He sees how the guests are seeking after places of honor at which to sit.  Apparently the host had invited the wealthy and powerful to attend, so look at what Jesus tells him, beginning in the middle of verse 12: “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

He says, “You want to know something? You invite the rich, the rich will pay you back. But if you bring over the poor, guess who will pay you back? The Lord will pay you back.”  So the question is, who do you want your reward from? From the rich or from God? It’s nice when you have folks over and they respond and have you over or give you a gift. But their gift can’t match what the Lord will give, so next time you have a dinner, call the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind who could never have you over, who could never pay you back. And learn to be at home, to be carried away with those people who are of low status by the world’s standards.

The truth of the matter is the idea of low estate has nothing to do with spirituality. It is not to say they are low-level spiritually; it is to say that on the social scale they’re at the bottom rung. And I have found from experience that very often some of those people who are low on the social scale are very, very high on the spiritual scale.

If you are to treat everyone equally, there are two things you’re going to have to realize. First, in the church there is to be no social aristocracy, and second, there is to be no intellectual aristocracy. Don’t say to yourself, “Well, I’m so wise I wouldn’t want to have a whole house of fools over, what would I say to them? After all, I need to have people who are at my level.” No, that’s the wrong attitude. There is no social aristocracy and there is no intellectual aristocracy. There is no caste system in the body of Christ. That’s the way it ought to be.

Never, ever get caught up in the trap of saying, “I’m want to attend the church where the rich and powerful people in town go; where there are no money problems, where everyone else looks like me, wears the same quality of clothes I wear, drives the same fancy car I drive, and where I can rub elbows with the movers and shakers of the community.” That is such an ungodly attitude. It runs counter to what Paul is saying here in this verse. Yet I have heard believers who expressed exactly such desires.

Now let’s extend this out further to the unbelieving world. Don’t be afraid to get your hands dirty by ministering to the poor, the lowly, and the needy. They need someone who will show them the love and compassion of Jesus.

In biblical times, leprosy was the worst of all diseases. When a man was diagnosed with leprosy, he was immediately isolated from everyone else in society. He became an outcast. Unless he was someone like King Uzziah who could live in a separate house, apart from everyone else, most lepers were doomed to living in the local trash dumps, scavenging for food scraps, banned from going near to anyone else. When they walked down the road and someone approached, they were required to call out, “Unclean, unclean, unclean,” so that the other people would turn away and avoid contact with them.

But look at what Jesus did. In Matthew 8:1-3 we have the story of Jesus and a leper, and it was such an amazing incident that all three of the synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke—record this event. The text says, “When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him. And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him (incidentally, Luke tells us this man was covered with leprosy; he had a very severe case), and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”

Did you notice what happened? Jesus didn’t have to touch this man to heal him. In fact, later on Luke tells us that He healed ten lepers at one time and didn’t touch any of them. But here, in front of this large crowd, while everyone is watching, “He stretched out His hand and touched him.” Why did Jesus do that? Because He wanted everyone to see. He didn’t move in close to the guy so that no one else could see and just sort of brush up against him. He didn’t just speak to him like He did with many others whom He healed. Instead, He stretched out His hand and He placed it right on that man who was covered with that horrible disease and He healed him. He was demonstrating His love and compassion for those who were the worst of all outcasts in Israel. He was willing to touch them. He was willing to “associate with the lowly.”

You say, “But Jesus was God; He wouldn’t catch that man’s leprosy. If others had touched him, they may have caught it. So if I start ministering to people who are lowly and have diseases, I might catch something terrible.” Well, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take reasonable precautions, such as wearing gloves when necessary, and using hand sanitizers and a surgical mask, and washing your hands regularly. But don’t let the excuse of potentially catching something be the reason you refuse to obey Christ and follow His example in ministering to those who are infected with terrible diseases.

Let me just add, that if that is a problem for you, then you also have a problem with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Because I will admit that there is always the possibility that even if you take steps to prevent yourself from catching some terrible disease, you might still catch something that will leave you very sick or even kill you. But that’s where God’s sovereignty comes in. He is the One who determines how and when you will die, and until then, He wants your obedience in serving Him and those who are in need. He is sovereign over your life and your death, so until He calls you home, be obedient in ministering to those who are the lowly, the poor, the needy, the outcasts.

One more thing—you will never have a problem sharing the gospel with the downtrodden and the outcasts. Generally they are very willing to listen. They understand that they are sinners; they know they’ve blown it. The rich and the wealthy and the powerful—they are all consumed with themselves and believe that they have gotten their power, wealth, and fame by their own strength, and so they are almost impossible to reach. Jesus even said that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:25). But the lowly, the downcast—they know what rotten sinners they are; they know they deserve judgment. So they are usually very willing to listen to the gospel of God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ, and they are far more willing to receive it. So go “associate with the lowly” and bear fruit for the kingdom of God.