James 2:1–13 — Greek Exegesis

Verse 1 states the thesis of the entire unit: μὴ ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν. The noun προσωποληψία is a Christian coinage built from the LXX idiom λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον ("to receive a face"), which renders the Hebrew nāśāʾ pānîm — to show favor based on externals. The background text is Leviticus 19:15 ("you shall not be partial to the poor, nor show favor to the great"), a chapter Luke Timothy Johnson (AB) has shown to be woven throughout James (Lev 19:12, 13, 15, 16, 18 all surface in the letter). Significantly, the same chapter supplies the "royal law" of v. 8 (Lev 19:18). James's argument in 2:1–13 is therefore an extended exposition of Leviticus 19:15–18 read through the teaching of Jesus.

The phrase τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is best taken as an objective genitive: the faith the readers exercise in Christ. The Free Grace significance is plain — James addresses people who have (ἔχετε) this faith. He does not question its reality; he objects to its being "held" in company with partiality. Faith is here pictured as something that can coexist with inconsistent conduct, which is exactly why James must command against the combination. If genuine faith automatically excluded partiality, the prohibition would be pointless. This observation should be carried forward to 2:14–26, where the same brothers are warned about faith unaccompanied by works.

The closing genitive τῆς δόξης is syntactically awkward and has generated three readings. The WEB's "our glorious Lord" treats it as an attributive (Hebraic) genitive. An older line of interpretation (Bengel, Mayor) takes it as appositional: "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory," i.e., the Shekinah presence of God. Either way the rhetorical point is devastating: believers who hold faith in the Lord of glory are giving "glory" to a man with a gold ring. The contrast between the true δόξα of Christ and the borrowed splendor of the ἐσθὴς λαμπρά (v. 2) drives the whole scene.

Some interpreters (e.g., Hort, and more tentatively others) punctuate v. 1 as a question: "Do you hold the faith … with partiality?" The form ἔχετε is ambiguous between indicative and imperative. However, a question introduced by μή expects a negative answer ("You don't, do you?"), which fits the rhetoric poorly given vv. 2–4 assume the partiality is occurring. The prohibitive imperative, followed by nearly all modern versions, remains the better reading.

James now sketches a scene that is deliberately vivid. The conditional ἐάν + subjunctive is a third-class condition: hypothetical in form, but the details are so specific that the readers would recognize their own practice. The protasis runs through v. 3 and the apodosis does not arrive until v. 4 — a long, suspended sentence that makes the reader "watch" the whole episode before hearing the verdict.

The noun συναγωγή is striking. It is the only place in the NT where a Christian gathering is called a "synagogue," which fits the early, Jewish-Christian provenance defended in the introduction to this series (see James 1:1–12, on ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς). Roy B. Ward (HTR 62 [1969]) proposed that the scene is a church judicial assembly — two litigants arriving for a hearing, with the congregation showing favor to the wealthy party. The proposal draws support from the legal vocabulary of v. 4 (κριταί) and v. 6 (κριτήρια), and from rabbinic rules forbidding judges to let one litigant sit while the other stands. Davids is sympathetic to Ward's reading; others prefer an ordinary worship gathering. The exegetical point holds in either setting: the assembly that belongs to the Lord of glory is ranking people by their clothes.

The contrasting pairs are carefully built: χρυσοδακτύλιος (a word with no earlier extant attestation, possibly coined by James) and ἐσθὴς λαμπρά versus πτωχός and ῥυπαρὰ ἐσθής. The adjective λαμπρός (bright, gleaming) quietly echoes the δόξα of v. 1: the congregation is dazzled by the wrong glory.

The verb ἐπιβλέπω is the telling choice. In the LXX it frequently describes God's gracious regard for the lowly — Hannah's prayer that the Lord would "look upon" her affliction (1 Sam 1:11), and Mary's echo, "he has looked upon the humble state of his servant" (Luke 1:48, ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν). James's readers are doing exactly the reverse of God: they bestow favorable regard on the man in splendid clothing. The substantival participle τὸν φοροῦντα τὴν ἐσθῆτα τὴν λαμπράν reduces the rich man to his wardrobe; he is "the one wearing the bright clothes," nothing more.

The dialogue is sharply asymmetrical. The rich man receives a courteous invitation — Σὺ κάθου ὧδε καλῶς — while the poor man receives the curt aorist στῆθι ("Stand!") and is sent ἐκεῖ, "over there," or told to sit ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου. The footstool image carries a sting for readers who knew Psalm 110:1 — "until I make your enemies your footstool." The poor believer, whom God has chosen (v. 5), is being placed where God places His enemies.

The Byzantine second ὧδε ("sit here under my footstool") creates a pointed verbal irony against the first ὧδε ("sit here in a good place"). Whether original or a scribal harmonization, it faithfully captures the scene's logic: the same room, the same "here," but two different worlds of honor.

The apodosis finally arrives as a rhetorical question introduced by οὐ, which expects the answer "Yes." The key verb is διεκρίθητε. On the surface it means "you made distinctions" — discriminated between the two visitors. But James has already used the same verb in 1:6 for the believer who asks διακρινόμενος, "doubting," internally divided. The double sense is almost certainly intended. The believers who favor the rich man are not only drawing distinctions between people; they are themselves divided — holding the faith of the glorious Lord (v. 1) while living by the world's standard of glory. Partiality is the social form of the δίψυχος condition of 1:8.

The second charge, ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, uses a genitive of quality: they have become "evil-reasoning judges." The word κριταί introduces the κρίνω family that will return with full force in vv. 12–13. There is a warning embedded in the vocabulary: those who appoint themselves judges of others' worth will themselves stand before a Judge (cf. 4:11–12; 5:9).

Notice what James does not say. He does not say "you have shown that you never believed." He says "you have become judges with evil reasoning." The diagnosis is moral inconsistency in believers, not the absence of saving faith — a pattern that should inform how 2:14–26 is read.

With the imperative Ἀκούσατε James shifts from the scene to the theology behind it. The first argument is from divine election: οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχούς. The question expects a "Yes," and its logic is simple — if God has set His favor on the poor, the congregation that dishonors them is working against God. This is Israel's election language (Deut 7:6–7: God chose Israel not because it was great but because He loved it) applied to the economically lowly. The double-accusative construction (πτωχοὺς … πλουσίους … καὶ κληρονόμους) states the purpose of the choosing: God chose the poor to be rich in faith and to be heirs. This develops the reversal announced in 1:9 — the lowly brother's ὕψος.

The phrase πλουσίους ἐν πίστει does not claim that all poor people are believers, nor that poverty earns anything. It describes a pattern: God has characteristically drawn the poor into faith, and in that sphere they are wealthy (cf. 1 Cor 1:26–29; Luke 6:20). The election in view is corporate and historical — the observable fact that the church is filled with the poor — rather than a statement about individual predestination to eternal life.

The most important phrase for Free Grace interpretation is κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. The final clause repeats word-for-word the promise formula of 1:12, where the object of the promise was τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς. (In 1:12 the Byzantine text names the subject explicitly, ὁ κύριος, whereas the critical text leaves it implicit; in 2:5 all traditions leave it implicit, with God understood from the main clause.) James is deliberately linking the two promises. In 1:12 the crown was given to the one who endures trial and is approved; here the kingdom-heirship is promised to those who love Him. Zane Hodges and Joseph Dillow (The Reign of the Servant Kings; Final Destiny) argue that in such contexts "inheriting the kingdom" denotes not mere entrance into the kingdom — which is the free gift to all who believe (John 3:3–5, 16) — but possession of and rulership in it, a reward for faithful, loving service (cf. Rom 8:17b; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 2:26–27). On this reading, the poor believer who is being made to sit at the footstool is in fact destined to share the throne.

The emphatic Ὑμεῖς δέ makes the contrast with v. 5 stark: God chose the poor, but you dishonored him. The verb ἀτιμάζω belongs to the vocabulary of honor and shame, which structured ancient Mediterranean social life. Being told to stand in the corner or sit on the floor in a public gathering was not a minor slight; it was a public declaration of worthlessness. James calls it what it is.

The second argument is from sheer irony. The very class the congregation flatters is the class that καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν — a strong LXX word for the oppression of the vulnerable (Amos 4:1; 8:4; Zech 7:10) — and drags them εἰς κριτήρια. The legal vocabulary continues the "judging" thread: the readers are acting as partial judges (v. 4) toward the poor while the rich are hauling them before actual judges. The picture anticipates the full indictment of oppressive wealth in 5:1–6 (withheld wages, condemnation of the righteous).

James speaks of "the rich" as a class here, not every wealthy individual; 1:10 has already allowed for the rich brother. His point is not that wealth is inherently damning, but that treating wealth as a mark of worth is both theologically backward (God chose the poor) and practically foolish (the rich as a class are your oppressors).

The phrase τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς is a Hebraism. In the OT, to have a name "called over" someone or something marks ownership and belonging: Israel is called by the Lord's name (Deut 28:10), the temple bears His name (Jer 7:10), and in Amos 9:12 — quoted by James himself at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:17) — the Gentiles "upon whom my name is called." The "noble name" here is the name of Jesus, and the aorist participle most likely points to baptism, when the name of the Lord Jesus was invoked over the believer (Acts 2:38; 10:48).

The rhetorical climax is complete. The rich (1) oppress you, (2) drag you to court, and (3) blaspheme the very name that marks you as belonging to Christ. Yet the congregation offers them the best seats. From a Free Grace standpoint, it is worth noting that the name was "called over" the readers — their identity as Christ's people is settled and public. James's appeal is not "become His," but "act like people who bear His name."

James anticipates a defense: "But we were just loving our neighbor — the rich visitor!" The particle μέντοι introduces the concession: if you really fulfill the royal law, well and good. But — as v. 9 will show — you cannot claim to fulfill the law of love while practicing partiality, because the same chapter of Leviticus forbids both (Lev 19:15, 18).

Why is the law βασιλικός? Three explanations are offered: (1) it is the law of the King — given by God and reaffirmed by King Jesus (Mark 12:28–31); (2) it is the "sovereign" law that governs all others (cf. Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8–10); (3) it is the law of the kingdom, linked to βασιλεία in v. 5 — the law by which the heirs of the kingdom live. These are not mutually exclusive, and the lexical link with v. 5 suggests James intends at least the third: those who will inherit the kingdom are called to live by its royal law now.

Readers of our Galatians series will recognize the argument. Paul writes that "the whole law is fulfilled in one word … 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal 5:14), and he frames that love as the fruit of walking by the Spirit rather than a condition of justification. James and Paul are not in tension here: both locate the Christian ethic in Leviticus 19:18 as taught by Jesus, and both address people who are already in Christ. The adverb καλῶς also forms a pointed echo of v. 3: the congregation said to the rich man "sit here well"; James says the one who truly loves his neighbor does well.

Verse 9 closes the loophole of v. 8. The first-class condition εἰ δὲ προσωποληπτεῖτε treats the partiality as real — the scene of vv. 2–4 has already established it. The fronted ἁμαρτίαν is emphatic: what the congregation regarded as social etiquette is sin. And the law they appeal to (Lev 19:18) itself convicts them, because the same passage forbids partiality in judgment (Lev 19:15). The participle ἐλεγχόμενοι pictures the Law as a prosecutor exposing and convicting them ὡς παραβάται — as those who have stepped over a boundary.

This verse is a crucial check against any reading of James that minimizes sin in the believer's life. Free Grace theology does not treat sin lightly; it simply refuses to make the believer's performance the ground or evidence of eternal life. Believers can commit real sin, be really convicted by God's standard, and face real consequences — including temporal discipline and loss of reward — without their eternal life coming into question (1 Cor 3:15; 11:30–32; Heb 12:5–11).

Verse 10 explains (γάρ) why a single sin such as partiality makes a person a transgressor: the Law is a unity. Whoever keeps ὅλον τὸν νόμον but πταίσει ἐν ἑνί — stumbles in one point — γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος, "has become guilty of all." The perfect tense describes the resulting legal standing. The principle was known in Judaism (the rabbinic discussions of "light" and "heavy" commandments frequently insisted that all were binding), and it was debated in antiquity; Augustine famously discussed this very verse at length in his Letter 167 to Jerome, asking how guilt in one point entails guilt in all.

This is exactly Paul's point in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3, which we treated in our Galatians series: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law," and "every man who receives circumcision … is a debtor to do the whole law." Paul uses the unity of the Law to show that no one can be justified by it. James uses the same principle for a different purpose: to show believers that partiality is not a trivial lapse. The two apostles share the premise; they draw it into different arguments. Neither is teaching that believers must keep the whole Law to obtain or retain eternal life — James is showing that the Law's verdict on partiality is serious.

The verb πταίω is gentle — to stumble or trip — and James will use it again of himself: "we all stumble in many things" (3:2, πταίομεν ἅπαντες). James includes himself among those who stumble. That observation alone makes it impossible to read James as teaching sinless perfection or a performance-based assurance.

The explanation of v. 10 is personal rather than abstract: the Law is a unity because the Lawgiver is one. ὁ εἰπών … εἶπεν καί — "the One who said … also said." To break any commandment is to defy the single will that stands behind all of them (cf. 4:12, "There is one lawgiver and judge"). The Law is not a collection of independent rules where good performance in one area offsets failure in another; it is the expression of one Person's character.

The examples, adultery and murder, are drawn from the second table of the Decalogue — the commandments governing love of neighbor, which the royal law of v. 8 summarizes. The choice is pointed: murder in James is not only literal (cf. 5:6) but, following Jesus (Matt 5:21–22), includes contempt for a brother. To humiliate the poor man in the assembly is closer to the spirit of "murder" than the congregation would like to admit. The negation οὐ (not μή) in the protasis negates only the verb μοιχεύσεις: "if you refrain from adultery but commit murder." The conclusion, γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου, drives the point home in the second person singular — James is now speaking to each reader individually.

Verse 12 turns the argument toward the future. Οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε — "so speak and so act" — covers both the words spoken to the two visitors (v. 3) and the actions of seating them (v. 3). The standard is set by the ὡς clause: believers are to speak and act as those διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας μέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι — destined to be judged by a law of liberty. The construction μέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι expresses certainty: this judgment is coming.

The "law of liberty" (already introduced at 1:25, which the next document in this series will treat) is not the Mosaic code as a system of condemnation but the royal law of love as taught and embodied by Jesus — a law that frees rather than enslaves, because it is written on the heart of the regenerate (cf. Jer 31:33; Gal 5:1, 13–14). It is the same law that the believer is already free to fulfill.

Who is judged, and what is at stake? From a Free Grace perspective, James is addressing ἀδελφοί and speaking of the evaluation of believers at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:12–15; 2 Cor 5:10). Hodges and Wilkin both read the passage this way. The believer's eternal destiny is not on the table — Jesus promised that the one who believes "does not come into judgment" regarding eternal life (John 5:24, εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται). But the believer's words and works are evaluated, and that evaluation determines reward or loss of reward (1 Cor 3:14–15; 2 John 8). The same verb, κρίνω, can describe both the condemning judgment of unbelievers and the evaluative judgment of believers; context determines which is in view, and here the addressees are unmistakably believers.

The unit closes with a pair of balanced sayings. The first is a warning built on the principle of reciprocity that runs through Jesus's teaching: ἡ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος — "judgment is merciless to the one who has not done mercy." Compare "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt 5:7), "with what judgment you judge, you will be judged" (Matt 7:1–2), and the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23–35). The phrase ποιεῖν ἔλεος is a Hebraism for practical acts of compassion (ʿāśâ ḥesed; cf. Luke 10:37, ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος, of the Good Samaritan). In context, the "mercy not done" is the mercy withheld from the poor man in the assembly.

The second saying is a triumphant maxim: κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεον κρίσεως — "mercy exults over judgment." The verb (a κατα- compound of καυχάομαι, the verb used in 1:9–10 of the poor and rich brothers' "boasting") pictures mercy standing victorious over judgment. For the believer who has shown mercy, the coming evaluation is not a source of dread, because mercy has the last word. The James series is building a coherent vocabulary here: the lowly brother boasts in his exaltation (1:9), and mercy boasts over judgment (2:13).

Within a Free Grace framework, v. 13 makes excellent sense as a statement about the believer's evaluation at the Judgment Seat. The believer who has shown mercy will find his Lord's evaluation merciful; the believer who has been harsh and partial will face a strict evaluation, with loss of reward (cf. Matt 18:32–35 on the consequences for the unforgiving servant; Luke 19:20–26). What is not in view is the forfeiture or disproof of eternal life, which James's readers already possess as a gift (1:18, "of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth"). This conclusion prepares the way for 2:14–26: having shown that believers' conduct will be judged, James will now ask what "faith" without mercy-works can accomplish — and the question, "Can that faith save him?" (2:14), must be read in the light of the judgment just described.

James 2:1–13 is the most tightly argued paragraph in the letter to this point. Martin Dibelius (Hermeneia) regarded it as one of the few places where James composes a genuine "treatise" rather than stringing sayings together, and the structure bears this out:

(A) Thesis (v. 1): Do not hold the faith of the glorious Lord with partiality. (B) Illustration (vv. 2–4): an extended third-class condition (protasis vv. 2–3, apodosis v. 4) portraying the rich and poor visitors. (C) Theological argument (vv. 5–7): three rhetorical questions expecting "yes" — God chose the poor; the rich oppress you; the rich blaspheme the Name. (D) Legal argument (vv. 8–11): a pair of first-class conditions (vv. 8, 9) contrasting fulfilment of the royal law with partiality, followed by two γάρ-clauses (vv. 10, 11) grounding the verdict in the unity of the Law and the oneness of the Lawgiver. (E) Eschatological conclusion (vv. 12–13): a double imperative with a coming judgment, sealed by the twin maxims of merciless judgment and triumphant mercy.

Several devices bind the unit: the inclusio of the κρίνω word-group (διεκρίθητε, κριταί v. 4; κριτήρια v. 6; κρίνεσθαι v. 12; κρίσις, κρίσεως v. 13); the ironic repetition of καλῶς (vv. 3, 8); the βασιλεία / βασιλικός link (vv. 5, 8); and the thesis-term προσωποληψία (v. 1) returning as προσωποληπτεῖτε (v. 9). The underlying text throughout is Leviticus 19:15–18, which forbids partiality in judgment and commands love of neighbor.

James's objection to partiality is ultimately Christological. The readers hold faith in the Lord τῆς δόξης; to honor a man because of his ἐσθὴς λαμπρά is to relocate glory from Christ to wealth. Partiality is therefore a practical denial of what the believer confesses. Importantly, James assumes the faith is real — the readers have it (ἔχετε, v. 1). The problem is inconsistency between confession and conduct, not the absence of saving faith. This is the same diagnosis offered for the δίψυχος in 1:8, and the verb διακρίνω (1:6; 2:4) links the two passages: the doubting petitioner and the partial judge are both believers divided within themselves.

Verse 5 grounds the ethic in the character of God's choosing: He has chosen the world's poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. The election in view is best read as a historical and corporate pattern (the church is largely composed of the poor), not a statement about individual predestination. The inheritance clause repeats verbatim the promise formula of 1:12 ("which he promised to those who love him"), aligning kingdom-inheritance with the crown of life. The Free Grace reading, developed by Hodges and Dillow, distinguishes entrance into the kingdom (a free gift by faith) from inheritance of the kingdom (a reward for faithful, loving service). The majority reading equates inheritance with salvation itself. The student should note the verbal link with 1:12 as the strongest textual support for the Free Grace distinction in this passage, and the broad NT usage of inheritance language (e.g., Matt 25:34; 1 Pet 1:4) as the strongest support for the alternative.

James and Paul share both the love command (Lev 19:18; Jas 2:8; Gal 5:14; Rom 13:9) and the principle of the Law's unity (Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10; 5:3). Paul deploys the unity principle to show that justification by law-keeping is impossible; James deploys it to show that partiality is serious sin. Their arguments are complementary, not contradictory. For James, the Law is personal — its unity derives from the one Lawgiver (v. 11; 4:12) — and its fulfilment is summarized in the royal law of love. James never presents law-keeping as the means of obtaining eternal life; eternal life, for James, is a birth by the word of truth (1:18).

Verses 12–13 introduce a future judgment governed by the νόμος ἐλευθερίας. In the Free Grace framework this is the Judgment Seat of Christ, where believers' words and works are evaluated for reward (Rom 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:12–15; 2 Cor 5:10), while their eternal life stands secure (John 5:24). The alternative reading — a final judgment in which works evidence the reality of faith — has been presented in the honesty note under v. 12. The point both readings share must not be lost: believers will give an account for how they treated the poor in their assembly, and that account matters.

The closing maxim, κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεον κρίσεως, is the positive counterpart to the warning. It echoes Jesus's beatitude on the merciful (Matt 5:7) and places mercy — concrete acts of compassion (ποιεῖν ἔλεος) — at the center of Christian ethics. The verb connects with καυχάσθω in 1:9: the lowly brother's boast and mercy's boast are two expressions of the same gospel reversal. This theme prepares directly for 2:14–17, where the first example of "works" James offers is feeding and clothing a destitute brother or sister — a work of mercy.

The picture of the gold-ringed man and the poor man in the assembly has been one of the most frequently applied passages in the church's social teaching. In the patristic period, 2:10 attracted special attention: Augustine devoted his Letter 167 (to Jerome) to the question of how one offense makes a person guilty of all, relating it to the unity of the virtues and locating that unity in love. Chrysostom's homilies on wealth and poverty draw on the same moral vision, though not always citing James directly. In the Reformation, Luther's unease with James centered on 2:14–26 rather than 2:1–13; indeed, the partiality passage has rarely been controversial doctrinally, and its ethic is common ground across traditions.

Canonically, the passage sits at the intersection of Torah (Lev 19), the Jesus tradition (Matt 5:7; 7:1–2; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:20), and Pauline ethics (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8–10; 1 Cor 1:26–29). The early Jewish-Christian flavor — συναγωγή for the assembly, the Shema-like Ἀκούσατε, the Hebraisms "the name called over you" and "doing mercy" — supports an early date and a Palestinian-rooted author, consistent with the attribution to James of Jerusalem argued in the first document of this series. In modern scholarship, Luke Timothy Johnson's demonstration of the pervasive influence of Leviticus 19 on the letter has become an important key to the passage's logic.

James 2:1–13 contains more Byzantine/critical divergences than 1:1–12, though none alters doctrine. In summary:

v. 1 and v. 9 — προσωποληψία / προσωποληπτεῖτε (Byz) vs. προσωπολημψία / προσωπολημπτεῖτε (NA28): orthographic. v. 2 — εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν (Byz) vs. εἰς συναγωγήν (NA28): article only. v. 3 — καί vs. δέ; addition of αὐτῷ; second ὧδε in the Byzantine text: slight stylistic heightening of the contrast. v. 4 — καὶ οὐ (Byz, apodotic καί) vs. οὐ (NA28). v. 5 — τοῦ κόσμου (Byz) vs. τῷ κόσμῳ (NA28): the most substantive variant in the passage, shifting emphasis between "the poor of the world" and "the poor in the world's estimation" (the Textus Receptus adds τούτου). v. 10 — τηρήσει … πταίσει (Byz, future indicative) vs. τηρήσῃ … πταίσῃ (NA28, aorist subjunctive): probably itacistic. v. 11 — Μὴ μοιχεύσεις … Μὴ φονεύσεις (Byz, future) vs. Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς … Μὴ φονεύσῃς (NA28, aorist subjunctive) in the quoted commandments; μοιχεύσεις … φονεύσεις (Byz, future, matching the LXX Decalogue) vs. μοιχεύεις … φονεύεις (NA28, present) in the protasis. v. 13 — κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεον (Byz, masc. form) vs. κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος (NA28, neut.): morphological (the TR's ἀνίλεως and καί are not Byzantine majority readings).

In each case, the Byzantine reading is supported by the bulk of the later majuscules and minuscules (𝔐), and the critical reading by the leading Alexandrian witnesses. The pattern is characteristic: the Byzantine text tends toward explicitness (articles, pronouns, connectives) and toward regularized or LXX-conformed forms, while the Alexandrian text tends toward brevity. From a Byzantine-priority standpoint, several of these readings (the apodotic καί in v. 4, the Decalogue-shaped futures in v. 11) are at home in James's Semitizing style and should not be dismissed as secondary merely because they are fuller. The reader is encouraged to verify individual sigla against the NA28 apparatus and the Robinson–Pierpont and Hodges–Farstad editions before citing them in teaching.