*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Are ye not then partial in yourselves? or, are ye not condemned in yourselves. This may be read affirmatively as well as interrogatively, but the sense would be the same, for he amplifies the fault by this, that they took delight and indulged themselves in so great a wickedness. If it be read interrogatively, the meaning is, "Does not your own conscience hold you convicted, so that you need no other judge?" If the affirmative be preferred, it is the same as though he had said, "This evil also happens, that ye think not that ye sin, nor know that your thoughts are so wicked as they are." [1]
1 - It is commonly admitted to be an interrogatory sentence: "And do ye not make a difference among (or, in) yourselves, and become judges, having evil thoughts?" literally, "judges of evil thoughts," it being, as they say, the genitive case of possession. Or the words may be rendered, "and become judges of evil (or, false) reasonings?" or as Beza renders the sentence, "and become judges, reasoning falsely," concluding that the rich man was good and the poor man bad. It is said by Beza and others, that diakrinomai never means to be judged or condemned, but to distinguish, to discriminate, to make a difference, and also to contend and to doubt. The difference made here was the respect of persons that was shewn, and they made this difference in themselves, in their own minds, through the perverse or false thoughts or reasonings which they entertained. But it appears that these preferences were shewn, not to the members of the Church, but to such strangers as might happen to come to their assemblies.
Are ye not then partial in yourselves? - Among yourselves. Do you not show that you are partial?
And are become judges of evil thoughts - There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting this passage, yet the sense seems not to be difficult. There are two ideas in it: one is, that they showed by this conduct that they took it upon themselves to be judges, to pronounce on the character of men who were strangers, and on their claims to respect (Compare Matthew 7:1); the other is, that in doing this, they were not guided by just rules, but that they did it under the influence of improper "thoughts." They did it not from benevolence; not from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character; but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honor to men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real worth. The wrong in the case was in their presuming to "judge" these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction, and then by doing it under the influence of such an unjust rule of judgment. The sense is, that we have no right to form a decisive judgment of men on their first appearance, as we do when we treat one with respect and the other not; and that when we make up our opinion in regard to them, it should be by some other means of judging than the question whether they can wear gold rings, and dress well, or not. Beza and Doddridge render this, "ye become judges who reason ill."
Are ye not then partial - Ου διεκριθητε· Do ye not make a distinction, though the case has not been heard, and the law has not decided?
Judges of evil thoughts? - Κριται διαλογισμων πονηρων· Judges of evil reasonings; that is, judges who reason wickedly; who, in effect, say in your hearts, we will espouse the cause of the rich, because they can befriend us; we will neglect that of the poor, because they cannot help us, nor have they power to hurt us.
Are ye not then partial in (c) yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
(c) Have you not within yourselves judged one man to be preferred over another (which you should not do) by means of this?
Are ye not then partial in yourselves,.... That is, guilty of such partiality as must appear to yourselves, and your own consciences must accuse you of; or do not ye distinguish, or make a difference among yourselves, by such a conduct, towards the rich and the poor:
and are become judges of evil thoughts; or "are distinguishers by evil thoughts"; that is, make a distinction between the rich and the poor, by an evil way of thinking, that one is better than the other, and to be preferred before him.
Are ye not . . . partial--literally, "Have ye not made distinctions" or "differences" (so as to prefer one to another)? So in Jde 1:22.
in yourselves--in your minds, that is, according to your carnal inclination [GROTIUS].
are become judges of evil thoughts--The Greek words for "judges" and for "partial," are akin in sound and meaning. A similar translation ought therefore to be given to both. Thus, either for "judges," &c. translate, "distinguishers of (that is, according to your) evil thoughts"; or, do ye not partially judge between men, and are become evilly-thinking judges (Mark 7:21)? The "evil thoughts" are in the judges themselves; as in Luke 18:6, the Greek, "judge of injustice," is translated, "unjust judge." ALFORD and WAHL translate, "Did ye not doubt" (respecting your faith, which is inconsistent with the distinctions made by you between rich and poor)? For the Greek constantly means "doubt" in all the New Testament. So in James 1:6, "wavering." Matthew 21:21; Acts 10:20; Romans 4:20, "staggered not." The same play on the same kindred words occurs in the Greek of Romans 14:10, Romans 14:23, "judge . . . doubteth." The same blame of being a judge, when one ought to be an obeyer, of the law is found in James 4:11.
Ye distinguish not - To which the most respect is due, to the poor or to the rich. But are become evil - reasoning judges - You reason ill, and so judge wrong: for fine apparel is no proof of worth in him that wears it.
*More commentary available at chapter level.