James 2:7

"Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?"blaspheme the fair name" -To blaspheme is to speak reproachfully, disrespectfully and evil against the things of God. The phrase "fair name" means the "unobjectionable, blameless, excellent" (Arndt p. 400).

This verse should really hit home with us. For we often tend to idolize actors, musicians, sport's heroes, political giants and so on who blaspheme the name of God. Why is it that we at times insist on drooling over someone who is ridiculing and opposing everything that we hold dear? Who insults and ridicules the very God whom we serve?

Points To Note:

1. The name which these believers have been called, is the name Christian (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). 2. The unbelieving wealthy had ridiculed the name Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3) and the designation which had been given to His followers, i.e. Christians. "And all too often they are the ones who laugh at Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear" (Draper p. 76). 3. See Amos 2:12 and Acts 15:17. "It is. further indication of the fact that James, who was prominent in the Jerusalem church, is the author of the book which bears his name, than an expression similar to the words…'which is called upon you', occurs from his mouth in Acts 15:17 " (Woods p. 117) Barclay notes, "The rich and the masters would have many. reason for insulting the name Christian.. slave who became. Christian would have. new independence; the Christian slave would no longer cringe at his master's power; punishment would cease to terrorize him; he would meet his master in. new manhood. He would have. new honesty. That would make him. better slave, but it would also mean he could not longer be his master's instrument in sharp practice and petty dishonesty…He would have. new sense of worship; and on the Lord's Day he would insist on leaving work aside in order that he might worship with the people of God" (p. 70) "James was not denouncing wealth per se as evil. Neither was he advocating reverse discrimination, whereby the poor are to be favored at the expense of the rich. He was arguing against favoritism of any kind" (Kent p. 82).