James 2:10

Jam_2:10-13

Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point

The necessity of universal obedience

I.

THE BREACH OF ONE PRECEPT NECESSARILY IMPLIES, AND THEREFORE IS FAIRLY TO BE ADJUDGED, A BREACH OF THE WHOLE LAW.

1. By offence we are to understand a knowing and voluntary transgression of the law.

2. By offending in one point is meant an habitual neglect of one duty, founded on a disbelief of the necessity of our performing it: and not any single act of transgression.

3. The proposition, then, is this, that whoever knows the law, and yet denies his obedience to any one precept of it, is guilty of disobedience to the whole law. And the reason is because he subverts the authority of the whole.

4. To illustrate this farther, consider that the only principles that preserve mens reverence of God, and engage their obedience to His laws, are either fear and apprehension of His justice in their punishment, or love and the expectation of those rewards He proposes to obedience. Now all the restraint men are under from these motives is by the violation of one law broken through; and the principle which influenced their obedience has lost its efficacy on them.

5. Consider, farther, that the right our Creator has to our obedience is of so high and transcendent a nature that it can suffer no competition; His commands must have the first and governing influence on all our actions. Whoever, therefore, in any one avowed instance of sin, gives any temporal motive or principle a direction over his actions, dethrones the Deity, while he denies the Divine law that sovereign authority it ought to have over him.

II. NEITHER CAN OUR OBSERVANCE OF OTHER PARTS OF OUR DUTY BE ANY ATONEMENT FOR OUR GUILT IN OFFENDING IN ONE POINT, OR ENTITLE US TO THE REWARDS OF OBEDIENCE. For it is not our performing any particular action, but our performing it in obedience to the Divine law, that renders it acceptable to God. Now whoever performs some duties required by the law, while he neglects others, cannot act from any conviction that he ought to obey, or from any regard to the authority of the legislator, which being the same in all, would equally influence his obedience to all; but the virtuous actions he performs are either--

1. Purely a compliance with natural appetite; and consequently are not to be looked on as instances of obedience to a Divine law.

2. Supposing him not to be insensible of an obedience due to God Almighty, and to act with some regard to it, yet since this regard is so small, that in some instances it is manifestly inferior to a temptation, were the same temptation applied to other parts of his duty, it would by the same regular influence engage him to transgress them too.

3. It may appear not only consistent with the pursuits he is engaged in, but the profit, the reputation, or the convenience of the virtue, may recommend it, from the same inducements of pleasure and advantage by which he has been determined in the choice of his favourite vices; and so he may obey the law in one instance, from the motives that prevail on him to break it in another. But this is not serving God, but our own lusts.

III. WHAT ARE THE PLEAS WHICH DELUDE SO GREAT A PART OF MANKIND, AND INDUCE THEE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD WILL BE SATISFIED WITH A PARTIAL OBEDIENCE.

1. It is urged that God Almighty is a wise and merciful Father, who knows the powers and weaknesses of our nature, and the number and difficulty of those temptations we are exposed to. And since an entire observance of the whole law is manifestly beyond our abilities, God cannot without the imputation of cruelty be supposed to require more than a partial obedience from us. But in answer to this we may observe, first, that since God has by positive precept required our obedience to every command of the law, it is a much fairer inference from His knowledge of our abilities, and His inseparable attributes of goodness and justice, to conclude that such a Being would not require impossibilities, and insult the weakness of His creatures with a delusive proposal of happiness, which He knew they could never attain. But to give a more direct answer to this plea, it must be observed that this objection proceeds upon a mistaken sense of the doctrine we assert; which is not that God requires a perfect unsinning obedience, free from particular acts of transgression: thus we acknowledge it impossible for us to obey any one law: but that every law of God is equally to be obeyed.

2. Examine whether any plea can be drawn from Scripture to excuse or to justify a partial obedience. Now it is not pretended that the Scriptures in express terms dispense with any one Divine law. (J. Rogers, D. D.)

Real obedience in all things

This is undoubtedly a hard saying--not one hard to be understood, but because it is very easy to be understood. It is very plain and simple; it tells us clearly that if any one should keep the whole law of God, except one point, he would just as much be an offender against the law, as if he had broken the whole. The saying is hard, only because it is contrary to our notions. We cannot bear that so much responsibility should attach to our single actions. We are wont naturally to measure ourselves by an easy, pliant rule, making large allowances for ourselves; looking on ourselves, as what we think we on the whole are: we shrink from looking into our actions, one by one, which might undeceive us. Against this loose, careless way, the stern peremptory voice of the text is directly opposed. It tells us that God looks upon us and our actions one by one; that we cannot be two sorts of selves, one a transgressor, the other a doer of the law; that He does not give His commandments to be dealt with in a trifling way; that He seeks at our hands a full unswerving obedience. Hard, however, as the saying may to any seem to be, the occasion upon which it was spoken makes it yet harder. For St. James is not speaking of what most would regard as being exclusively grievous sins, but of what many would think a slight instance of a slight sin. He is speaking only of an undone respect towards the rich in Gods house, and a want of kindly regard to the feelings of the poor. St. James goes on to explain, in reference to the ten commandments, the ground of this truth. For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill, &c. If we love God, our Blessed Lord says, we should keep His commandments. It matters not then thus far which commandment we break; all breaking of His commandments is a preference of our own will to His, of the creature to the Creator, of His gifts to Himself, of things earthly to heavenly. Over and above the offensiveness of any sin in itself, all sin has, in common, one offensiveness, in that it is a disregard of His authority, who forbade it. Free-will, of which men boast, is, in our corrupted nature, a perilous gift. And well may we shrink from it. Having been made members of His Son, and so entitled to have His life, through the life-giving Spirit, flow into us, and having been conformed to Him, well may we pray not to be left to our own choice, but that He by His Holy Spirit will master our spirit, direct, control, guide, impel, constrain it, that it should not be able to choose for itself, but choose or leave, as He guides it. This then is the task we have to learn through life, to prefer God and His will to everything besides Him, not to serve Him with a divided and half service. We have our choice given between the two. There can be no choice without preference. Whenever there is a choice to be made, if we choose the creature against the will of God, no matter how small it seem, we are rejecting the Creator. Nay in one way, its very smallness makes the act more grievous, in that, for a small matter, we go against the will of God. Consider, again, how God has in the good chastised, in the evil how He has punished single sins; doubtless, meaning in part to impress upon us the awfulness of single transgressions, of breaking the law in one point. One transgression of one man made the whole human race sinners, brought death into the world, and placed us all under Gods wrath. One act of filial disobedience brought a curse on the whole race of Ham. One contempt of his birthright caused Esau to forfeit it altogether. One act of disobedience took away the kingdom from the house of Saul. Or, to turn to Gods servants whom He chastised. One unadvised speech lost Moses the entrance into Canaan. One act of deceit made Jacob an outcast and a wanderer. For one act of disobedience was the prophet slain who had fearlessly borne faithful testimony against Jeroboam and all Israel in the very day of their rebellion. For one grievous sin did the sword never depart from the house of David, though, in all besides, he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord. Such is the awful way in which Holy Scripture itself explains the text; such in Gods sight, is the character of single acts of sin, of which men think so lightly. Yet consider, also, how seldom sins are single! & little leaven, Scripture saith, leaventh the whole lump; a single sin will taint the whole man. Even the heathen acknowledged that virtues were bound together with a golden band, so that no one could have one virtue perfectly who had not all. Sins too are interwoven together in a sad chain, so that one sin opens the door for others. Look how sins apparently the most opposite are by a subtle band joined together; vanity, or the love of mans praise, and lying which even man despises; extravagance and covetousness; or what seem to have nothing to do with each other, as St. Paul says, idolatry was the root of lust and all that frightful list of sins, to which, he tells us, human nature was once abandoned; or, our own experience shows, how sabbath-breakers go on to drunkenness and working ill to their neighbours; or proverbs tell us in a practical way that idleness is the parent of all sins. How often do we remark, How excellent a person such an one would be, but for that one thing in them! This one leprous spot of vanity, or anger, or ambition, infects all; this one seed of corruption cankers what was otherwise blossoming so fairly and with so much promise. The chain round one little limb keeps the whole man a prisoner. The failure to decide aright in one point mars all other service or puts a person altogether in a wrong course. Thus does conscience itself, thus does our own implanted sense of right bear witness to the text; and not less our daily judgment in the things of this life. We count him a madman who, though in his senses on all points but one, is on that one point insane. We count him a bad servant who, though on other points good, has one incurable fault to which he is continually yielding. We count him a disobedient son, who on one point ever disobeys. And are we then good servants, if we, in one thing, ever neglect the commands of our Gracious Master? Yea, a mans own conscience, till it be seared, will bear witness in another way. The consciousness of one indulged sin will not allow him rest. Then also Satan, in a fearful way, bears witness to the truth. There is no more common temptation by which the accursed one would plunge man into more hopeless sin than this. He persuades them to commit the first sin by telling them it is slight; and then he perverts the apostles truth, and tells them its heinousness, and that they may as well go in sin, and breaking other commands of God, because breaking one is enough to condemn them. There is a common proverb by which men express that if they have gone any way in what is wrong, they may as well take their fill both of the enjoyment and of the sin. They feel themselves shut out from heaven by their one sin they have no hope beyond the grave, and so they may as well have the miserable consolation of the pleasures of sin for a season; if therein they may forget themselves and their doom. Yet in one more way we may see that we must strive to obey in all things, or we do not obey at all. Our trials, for the most part, consist but in a few things. If we fail continually in one or two sorts of trials, it may be that we are failing just in what forms our probation, and in what we are to be judged by. What service or what trial is it, if a person fails not when he is not tempted? if the covetous be not a waster? if the slothful be not worldly, or the worldly not slothful? if the easy-natured be not soon angry, or the passionate be not malicious? Yet thus is it that people continually deceive themselves. Must we then indeed fulfil the whole law, break no one command, or shall we at the Day of Judgment be found guilty of all? Is there no hope except in unsinning obedience through the grace given unto us? God forbid! for so should none of us have any hope. The text would stir us up to increased diligence, to examine ourselves, to look well if there be any way of wickedness in us, and to break off what we find amiss, to dread lest even one accursed thing cleave unto us, to beware how we tamper with any one of Gods enemies. Ye with whom, as yet, no one sin is habitual, see that ye let not one sin creep over you; or if any one is entangled in any sin, see that then he continue not in it. (E. B. Pusey, D. D.)

The defectiveness of human righteousness

The great obstacle to the acceptance of the gospel message is the want of a deep and permanent conviction of the enormity of sin and of our actual transgression before God.

I. In the words before us THE HIGHEST AND BEST POSSIBLE SUPPOSITION IS MADE WITH REFERENCE TO HUMAN OBEDIENCE. It is supposed that the individual here presented before us has kept the whole law with but one solitary exception. Dress yourself out in your best plumes, put on your most courtly array; deck yourself in your most unspotted garments; suppose the best opinion to be true, that with any degree of self-examination you can entertain of your condition, yet surely you are guilty of one sin, you have broken one commandment--then thou art guilty of the whole, thou art weighed in the balance, and by thine own weights and measures thou art found wanting.

II. THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBLE FLAW SUPPOSED that could be supposed to exist. Now, can we make a stronger supposition in favour of human righteousness than that which he makes?--and can we refuse to admit a possible flaw to the extent he supposes it to exist, after the plain declaration of the Word of God?

III. From the strongest possible supposition of human righteousness, and from the slightest possible flaw that can be supposed to exist in that righteousness, THE MOST FEARFUL CONCLUSION IS DEDUCED AS TO ITS BEARING ON US in these words, He that shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point is guilty of all.

1. Because all the commandments of the law are inseparably connected.

2. This conclusion of the apostle rests on the unity of the commandments themselves, on the oneness of the principle on which they are founded. God reveals Himself as our Creator and Preserver, a Being to whelm we are under infinite obligations; in revealing Himself in this character, all He asks of us is love. From that one feeling, He deduces the various duties we owe to Him--they are all but so many proofs of the existence of the principle of love--and on the same ground of obligation to Him, He enforces the duties we owe to our fellow-men.

3. He who offends in one point is guilty of all, because the keeping of some commandments will not, by any means, atone for the violation of others.

4. The law, as law, cannot permit the slightest deviation, and here we see the folly of looking to the law for justification in the sight of God. (W. H. Cooper.)

Guilty of all

I. OFFER A FEW EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

1. By the law here is not meant! he ceremonial, but the moral law, or the law of ten commandments.

2. It is affirmed that the most perfect obedience to the law which could possibly be found amongst sinful and erring creatures would still fall short of its requirements.

3. The conclusion in the text is, that the least defect in our obedience contains in it a virtual violation of the whole law. As the least segment of a true circle is circular, so the smallest act of sin is in the sight of God exceeding sinful.

II. ESTABLISH THE LEADING SENTIMENT--that he who offends in one point is guilty of the whole law.

1. All the Divine commands make but one compact, one uniform rule of duty. As all the curtains of the tabernacle, joined together by taches and loops, made but one covering for the ark, and if any part was disjoined it became unfit for the purpose, so if one command be violated, the whole law is broken, and the compact is made void.

2. The will and authority of the Lawgiver is as much resisted and despised by transgressing any one command as by breaking the whole law.

3. That authority which is not sufficient to deter us from sin in any one particular instance would not be sufficient in any other, if suitable temptations offered.

4. The whole law is summed up in love, which is called the fulfilling of the law. Every action therefore that carries in it the want of love to God or our neighbour is a breach of the whole law; and this is the case with every sin that we commit.

5. The consequence of one sin unrepented of and unpardoned is the same as if we lived in the wilful and continued commission of all sin; it is followed with the curse.

Improvement:

1. We are hereby taught the extent, purity, and spirituality of the Divine law. It forbids, reproves, and punishes all sin; the first risings of it in the heart, as well as its breakings forth in the life, sinful imaginations as well as sinful actions.

2. The folly and danger of building any hope of salvation on the ground of our own obedience, or works of righteousness that we have done. This can only arise from pride of heart, or the most culpable ignorance; ignorance both of the law and of the gospel, of God and ourselves.

3. The necessity there is for the best of men to humble themselves before God under a sense of their innumerable defects, and to be ever watchful against the commission of sin. (B. Beddome, M. A.)

Every command to be observed

1. It showeth how tender we should be of every command: wilful violation amounteth to a total neglect. The least dust offendeth the eye; and so the law is a tender thing, and soon wronged.

2. Partial obedience is an argument of insincerity.

3. It is a vain deceit to excuse defects of one duty by care of another.

4. Upon any particular failing we ought to renew our peace with God. I have done that now which will make me guilty of the whole law; therefore, soul, run to thy Advocate (1Jn_2:1).

5. We must not only regard the work of duty, but all the circumstances of it; and so proportionably, not only the acts of sin, but the vicious inclinations of it.

6. Former profession will do no good in case there be a total revolt afterward. A little poison in a cup, and one leak in a ship, may ruin all. A man may ride right for a long lime, but one turn in the end of the journey may bring him quite out of the way.

7. The smallness of sin is a poor excuse: it is an aggravation rather than an excuse: it is the more sad, that we should stand with God for a trifle. (T. Manton.)

Universal obedience

I. To EXPLAIN IT. We cannot deny that there are different degrees of offence against the commands of God. It does not often happen, perhaps, that any person habitually and wilfully violates one commandment only. It is the nature of sin to bring men along from one transgression to another. We may suppose, however, a man who shall reserve to himself one sin, which he allows, and to keep the law very strictly in every other point. Surely such a man is less guilty than another, who is altogether careless about the commands of God. We feel it so; and if less guilty, his punishment will be less in proportion. Having seen what St. James does not mean, we will inquire what he does mean. He is censuring the Christians, to whom he writes, for a particular fault which they seem to be allowing themselves in--that of paying court to the rich, to the prejudice of those in humbler station; respecting persons, despising the poor. You will say, perhaps, Is not this to condemn all? For who is without sin? In many things we all offend; and if we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us. True, none are without sin; but without deadly sin we trust that many are. True, we all offend; but we do not all offend wilfully: we do not allow ourselves in sin. We must not if we have any well-grounded hope. The true Christian will never feel that he has loved God with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength; but still he will never be satisfied with anything short of this, much less will he say, I cannot love God so far as to part with this or that besetting sin. A man who should act thus would be guilty of all--so far guilty of all that he would be as much unforgiven of God as if he had been guilty of a breach of all the commandments. His punishment might be less severe than that of a greater and more universal profligate; but it would be no less sure. His exclusion from heaven would be as certain. Such is the explanation of the text.

II. I proceed now to VINDICATE IT. You see the ease. It is that of a man who is brought under some sense of the duty owed to God. He is not without the knowledge of Him or the fear of Him, but he allows himself in some practice which is contrary to his duty. While this remains so he has not altogether surrendered himself up to God; he has not given Him his heart. Some service he will not grudge; complete service he refuses to pay.

In short, he reserves to himself the right of disobeying God when it would be difficult or painful to obey Him. Now, consider whether this deserves to be called obedience. How would it be among men? A parent expects to be obeyed by his child whilst under age. Has not such disobedience on one point caused many a child to be disinherited? A master expects to be obeyed by his servants. Suppose a servant to have many excellent qualities, to be very diligent, very careful, very honest, but still to offend in one point. A general expects to be obeyed by his soldiers. Suppose a man to be very brave, very sober, very punctual, but still to offend in one point. Is he not treated exactly as if he had broken all the commands of his general? Many excellent soldiers suffer death on this account alone in every campaign against an enemy. The people of every land are expected to obey the law of that land. He who offends the law in one point is as surely condemned as if he had committed many offences. These examples, I think, must prove to you that there is nothing unreasonable or hard to understand in this sentence of Scripture.

III. I come now to APPLY what has been said. There are two classes of sinners in the world. There are those who acknowledge no restraint from the law of God at all, and if they do not offend in every possible way, are not hindered from offending by anything like godly fear. The thought that God has commanded this, God has forbidden that, never comes into their minds; at least, it never governs their actions, Now, the text is not addressed to them. I would only inquire, If he who keeps the whole law, and yet offends in one point, is guilty of all, what must become of those who offend in every point, who take no heed to keep even any part of the law because it is the law of God? But there are other and different persons with which this sentence of St. James has to do--those who know the law of God, and confess that it ought to be obeyed, but still allow themselves some habit of sin which they do not resolve against, or watch against, or pray against. Perhaps it is a sin of natural temper, as lust, uncharitableness, peevishness. They indulge this sin, and silence the voice of conscience by thinking within themselves, This is my natural constitution; my disposition leads me to it. I wish it were otherwise; but nature will break out. Now, this very circumstance, that it is the natural disposition, is the reason why they should set their minds to conquer this habit. Here their probation lay. Few persons are tempted equally to all vices. This sin, then, it is their especial business to overcome; and they would make it their business if they were truly faithful. Suppose a child knew that there was one piece of duty which his father particularly required of him, would not this be the very duty which he would take especial pains to perform? I have spoken of sins which belong particularly to the temper. There are others which belong to the way of life, or bad habits to which a person has addicted himself, and which he cannot be persuaded to abandon. One of these is taking the name of God in vain. Another is excess of liquor on occasions of temptation. There are also sins of the tongue, which persons sometimes indulge without being aware of their danger. Now these which I have mentioned are all matters to which you must apply the assurance in the text. This is one test of your state. This is a serious text. Nay, we may think it awful; but I am sure we earner deny its justice. We cannot deny that God has a right to our service, and that it is not service to disobey Him when we please. We cannot think that God will be put off with half a heart. Try and examine yourselves, then, by this text before you sleep Ibis night. See whether you have permitted yourself in any habit of sin--if there is any such unforsaken sin, any such evil habit still allowed, that is the barrier between you and God; nay, between you and heaven. Lastly, I trust there are those who can affirm with sincerity and truth that they have forsworn all known sin, that they hold no parley, no measures, with any, but strive against every evil thought and word and deed which Satan inclines their nature to. This must be your evidence that you are in the faith of Christ. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. (J. B. Sumner, D. D.)

Offending in one point

The justice, the necessity of what James here asserts, will appear from the following considerations:

1. Look at the law itself. It is characterised by essential, all-pervading unity. It has manifold relations. It deals with the heart and life, the thoughts, words, and actions; with men of all ages and conditions, as bound up with and owing duties to each other as members of families, of communities, of churches. But, in perfect harmony with this, it consists of one great, all-comprehensive principle. The whole obedience it demands can be expressed in a single monosyllable. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. The matter standing thus, to break it in one respect is to break it in every respect--in its entirety, its unity. You cannot trample on a single jot or tittle of it without thereby treading on the principle of which it is the expression.

2. Look at the subjects of the law. There must be a unity in them exactly corresponding to the unity in the law. Its great comprehensive demand is love, as we have seen, and by this affection or principle alone can it be fulfilled. There cannot be a failure in any respect but by a failure of this, the spring of all true submission and service. That within us, apart from which none of the Divine statutes can be honoured, is found so far lacking; and the deficiency is to be viewed, not simply in relation to the particular enactment disregarded, but to the entire code with which it is connected. The root of the tree is shown to be affected, and that tells on the stem and all the branches.

3. Look at the Author of the law. It has been given by God, and bears throughout His impress. His authority is stamped equally on every part of the statute-book. But does not this view of the matter lie open to grave objections? Does it not make all sin equal? By offending in one point we do not become guilty of all, but we may be so in varying degrees. Violations of human law, even when they are most complete, differ widely, and so there is a scale of punishments ranging from a trifling or a short imprisonment to death itself. It is not otherwise with the supreme rule of duty. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others. To trample on even the least commandment is, in effect, to trample on the whole law; but we may do that more or less wilfully, recklessly, impiously. Again, does it not involve men equally in sin they do and do not commit? If I am held as violating the entire law, then am I not held as violating equally the part I have broken and the part I have not broken? Acts of disobedience have this universal character; but it is one thing constructively, and another thing actually, to trample on all the commandments. Offences of every kind are deadly in their nature; but we are answerable only for those we commit, and the degree of our guilt and misery depends on their number and magnitude. (John Adam.)

The prejudices of professing Christians

There are few men who would turn themselves to the commission of every crime; and if once it is imagined that the observance of one class of duties can make up for the neglect of another, there are scarcely any who will not delude themselves into the idea that they may find acceptance with God. There are two classes into which all who act with this delusion may be divided. The first consists of those who conceive that the discharge of the social and relative duties, makes up for the neglect of those higher duties we owe to the Author of existence; while the second is composed of those who satisfy themselves with the warmth of their zeal and the scrupulousness of their religious services, while they are without meekness, humility and charity.

1. The first of the prejudices to which we shall direct your attention, is that of those who conceive that if our good deeds overbalance our evil deeds, the Almighty will, in consideration of what is excellent in our conduct, overlook what is defective. The man who conceives that his sins are outnumbered by his virtues, overrates his own merits. But even admitting that any could aver that his virtues outnumbered his vices, it were erroneous to suppose that his sins must, therefore, be cancelled. His virtues are certainly deserving of the approbation of men, but never can atone for the habitual violation of any command of God. This is agreeable to those principles upon which we form our judgments of those around us. How completely our confidence in any person is destroyed, if a single dishonourable action is detected!

2. The next prejudice is nearly akin to what we have been considering, and indeed takes its rise from it. There are who maintain that their lives are chargeable with as few faults as the lives of those who make a profession of religion, and thence infer that their prospects must be equally favourable. They look at the outward act and see imperfection cleaving to the very best, from which they themselves may happen to be free; but they see nothing at all that takes place in the tuner man--nothing of the struggles between principle and passion, between grace and nature, and still less of the force of contrition, of fixed purposes of amendment. Here, then, is the difference between the two. The one sins, and hardens his heart to continue in sin; the other, when he sins, humbles himself in the dust before his God, and resolves, through His grace, to go no more astray. We see, then, the danger of satisfying ourselves with the idea that our lives are as irreproachable as those of others. The habit of measuring ourselves by others is, indeed, pernicious in another respect. It fosters a sensorious disposition, a tendency to underrate the good qualities of others. It creates a suspicion of the purity of their motives. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? In examining yourselves, look to the law by which you are to be tried. There are other prejudices to be found, to which we can only make a general illusion.

3. Some have imagined that what is revealed in Scripture does not apply to their peculiar case, and that the punishment will therefore not be inflicted.

They judge of sin by its perceived consequences, and not by its own nature. One man violates the truth, but then this injures no one. Another indulges in sinful pleasure, but his excesses are hurtful to none but himself. But we are not thus to judge of sin. Independently of these consequences, God has declared from on high against all unrighteousness.

4. We now proceed to consider some of the prejudices which prevail among the class of individuals formerly referred to, those who, by the outward observance of the first table of the law, quiet their consciences for the violation of the second, and who, dashing the one table against the other, break the whole. The other mistake is that of those who conceive that the law is altogether superseded by the gospel, and that faith in Christ exempts from the performance of good works. We only remark that the believers are exempted from the curse of the law--they are not free from the obligation to obey God, as the rule of life. Nay, by the new motives Christ has given to obedience, the obligations to obedience are increased instead of diminished. There are one or two snares into which even sincere believers are in danger of falling, which I merely mention. One is, that the readiness they have experienced on the part of the Almighty to pardon them, is employed by Satan as an encouragement to sin, in the prospect of certain forgiveness. Another is, that the power of indwelling sin is never wholly overcome in the world, from which indolence takes occasion to flatter itself, as to the folly of its endeavours, as to the hopelessness of success, and the mercy of God, which is passively relied on, is made thus to increase our willingness to offend. (D. Welsh, D. D.)

The law of philanthropy

I. IT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF ALL LAW.

II. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ALL SOCIAL WRONGS.

III. IT IS THE SPIRIT OF TRUE LIBERTY. Where there is selfishness, there may be license; where there is love, there is liberty.

IV. IT IS THE DETERMINER OF OUR CONDITION. By our loyalty to this law, our possession of this love, we prove that we are in the kingdom of mercy. (U. R. Thomas.)

On keeping Gods law

1. Consider how wonderfully you are obliged to your infinitely good God, in that He hath, through Christ, declared Himself so exceedingly willing to pardon all sins not allowed and lived in. Can you be so foolish and ill-natured as thus to requite the Lord?

2. Consider how gracious God hath been to you in continuing His restraining grace, whereby you have been kept from scandalous sins; whereas He hath had most just provocations to leave you to yourselves, in regard of your allowance of secret ones.

3. Let the partially obedient consider what unaccountable folly and madness it is to disobey God in anything. What can you say for yourselves, why you should obey Him but just so far?

4. Consider what a glorious reward is assured to us to encourage us to obey.

5. Let it be likewise considered that, as vastly great as the reward of obedience shall be, there is no more required of us under the gospel dispensation than, all things considered, needs must.

6. Consider also that the laws which are given us, as they are most necessary, so they are not so many as that we need to be scared at them.

7. Consider that there is so close a connection between them all, that obedience to one law will enable us to obey another, and so on. And the performance of one duty will prepare us for another, and make it easy to us. And on the other hand, the breach of one law will cause carelessness in keeping other laws; and no sin goes alone.

8. I may add that there is no necessity of being very solicitous about any more than one thing, in order to our keeping Gods laws; and that is the vigorously possessing our souls with the love of God.

9. What a sad thing and miserable disappointment must it needs be to come near to the kingdom of heaven, and yet at last fall short of it for want of going a little further? (Edward Fowler, D. D.)

The necessity of universal obedience

I. LET US FIX THE SENSE OF OUR APOSTLES PROPOSITION.

1. What kind of sin had St. James in view when he said this? It should seem at first, from the connection of the text with the preceding verses, theft when St. James says, Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all, he means by this one point benevolence. However, I cannot think the meaning ought to be thus restricted. I rather suppose that he took occasion from a particular subject to establish a general maxim, that includes all sins which come under the same description with that of which he was speaking. We acquit the apostle of the charge of preaching a melancholy, cruel morality, and we affirm, for the comfort of timorous minds, that we ought not to place among the sins here intended either momentary faults, daily frailties, or involuntary passions.

(1) By daily frailties I mean those imperfections of piety which are inseparable from the conditions of inhabitants of this world, which mix themselves with tire virtues of the most eminent saints. These are rather an imperfection essential to nature than a direct violation of the law.

(2) We ought not to number momentary faults among the offences of which it is said, Whosoever committeth one is guilty of a violation of the whole law. A believer falls into such sins only in those sad moments in which he is surprised unawares, and in which he loses in a manner the power of reflecting and thinking.

(3) We affirm their gusts of involuntary passions ought not to be included in the number of sins of which St. James saith, Whosoever offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all. The sins of which the apostle speaks are preceded by the judgment of the mind, accompanied with mature deliberation, and approved by conscience.

2. But in what sense may it be affirmed of any sin that he who offendeth in one point is guilty of all? It is plain St. James neither meant to establish an equality of sins nor an equality of punishments. He probably had two views--a particular and a general view. The particular design might regard thetheological system of some Jews, and the general design might regard the moral system of too many Christians. Some Jews, soon after the apostles time, and very likely in his days, affirmed that God gave a great many precepts to men, not that He intended to oblige them to the observance of all, but that they might have an opportunity of obtaining salvation by observing any one of them; and it was one of their maxims that he who diligently kept one command, was thereby freed from the necessity of observing the rest. What is still more remarkable, when the Jews choose a precept they usually choose one that gives the least check to their favourite passions, and one that is least essential to religion, as some ceremonial precept. This, perhaps, is what Jesus Christ reproves in the Pharisees and Scribes of His time (Mat_23:23). Perhaps these words of our Saviour may be parallel to those of St. James. The apostle had been recommending love, and at length he tells the Jews who, in the style of Jesus Christ, omitted mercy, that whosoever should keep the whole law, and yet offend in this one point, would be guilty of all. But St. James did not intend to restrain what he said to love. If he had a particular view to the theological system of some Jews, he had also a general view to the morality of many Christians whose ideas of devotion are too contracted. He informs them that a virtue incomplete in its parts cannot be a true virtue. He affirms that he who resolves in his own mind to sin, and who forces his conscience to approve vice while he commits it, cannot in this manner violate one single article of the law without enervating the whole of it.

II. HE WHO VIOLATES ONE PRECEPT OF THE LAW IN THE MANNER JUST NOW DESCRIBED, VIOLATES ALL.

1. He subverts, as far as in him lies, the very foundation of the law. When God gives us laws, He may be considered under either of three relations, or under all the three together, as a Sovereign, a Legislator, a Father. He saps the foundation of that obedience which is due to God considered as a Master, if he imagine he may make any reserve in his obedience; if he say, I will submit to God if He command me to be humble, but not if He command me to be chaste, and so on. He saps the foundation of that obedience which is due to God considered as a Lawgiver, if he imagine God is just in giving such and such a law, but not in prescribing such and such other laws. He subverts the foundation of obedience to God as a Father, if he suppose that God hath our happiness in view in requiring us to renounce some passions; but that He goes contrary to our interests by requiring us to sacrifice some other passions, which he may suppose can never be sacrificed without his sacrificing at the same time his pleasure and felicity.

2. The man who offends in the manner that we have described, he who in his mind resolves to sin and endeavours to force his conscience to approve vice while he commits it, breaks all the precepts of the law, because, whether he do actually break them or not, he breaks them virtually and intentionally.

III. St. James pronounces in our text A SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION AGAINST THREE SORTS OF SINNERS.

1. They who are engaged in a way of life sinful of itself are guilty of a violation of the whole law, while they seem to offend only in one point. We every day hear merchants and traders ingenuously confess that their business cannot succeed unless they defraud the Government.

2. In the same class we put sinners who cherish a darling passion. A jealous God will accept of none of our homage while we refuse Him that of our chief love.

3. Finally, intractable minds are condemned in our text. Docility is a touchstone, by which a doubtful piety may be known to be real or apparent. (J. Saurin.)

The condemning power of Gods law

It is one strong presumptive evidence in favour of the truth of that system of religion which the Bible propounds to our acceptance, that its doctrines are not calculated to attract human favour or approbation. There is no traceable indication in them of an attempt at adaptation to human prepossessions. They do not bend to human frailty: they concern themselves not with human antipathies or predilections. They present a stern and unmovable aspect.

I. CONSIDER WHAT THE DECLARATION IS, AND HOW MUCH IT IMPLIES. A case is put. God has revealed in His holy Word a law for the regulation of His creatures. This law, the index of His Will, is the transcript of His own mind and character. It is therefore holy, just, and good: it is pure, perfect, and spiritual. Nothing else could proceed from Him. Has the law been transgressed (it matters not how much)? If it has been transgressed, it is to no purpose to plead in what a slight particular the transgression was committed. But the excuse is heard, that no other fault can be found, that perfect obedience has been rendered in every other particular. But why was it not fulfilled in this? justice promptly, but confoundingly demands. The offender is speechless; for the stern reply crushes in pieces his vain allegation, and shivers it to the winds. There was a young man, whose reply, when Christ rehearsed to him his duties, was, All these have I kept from my youth. One thing he lacked, and that was deadness to the world.

In one point of that law he offended, and that point was covetousness: he was living in the continual breach of the tenth commandment. Now, this is an invisible sin: it is not of a palpable and outward character like the rest; and the young man had never broken the other nine literally, or at least flagrantly; yet the text pronounces this verdict upon him, He is guilty of all.

II. BUT LET US SEE UPON WHAT PRINCIPLE THIS IS DECLARED. The principle is simply this, that the law is one and indivisible. It is true its requirements are ten in number; but the law itself is one. If you can set at naught Gods authority in one particular, you can in another: no distinction can be drawn here. If one link of the chain is broken, the chain is broken. The blow that splits a mirror into two might as well shiver it into a thousand pieces. The invasion of one law of his country deprives the culprit of his liberty or his life; and justice is deaf to any such plea as that he has kept every other law.

III. CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE TO OURSELVES.

1. It shuts every mouth: it stops boasting; hereby the seemingly innocent are brought in guilty. It hence appears that there are no little sins, that the slightest delinquencies are noticed; and the tendency is to open mens eyes to their guilt. The law, as thus explained, admits of no escape.

2. One other result which proceeds from this principle in its application, is the arousing men out of their careless security. This the law does by discovering to them the enormity of their guilt, because it shows to them the infinite turpitude of one transgression. It is virtually equal in magnitude with many; for whosoever offendeth in one point is guilty of all. Thus, each sin is a boundless evil its guilt transcends all calculation.

IV. NOTICE THE MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM CONDEMNATION.

1. If there is any poor sinner, halting from his iniquities now, under the fear of conscquences to which before he has been blind, I would bid such a one not despair. Look to Jesus: He has died for you. Repent truly of your sin, and apply to Him for mercy. He will not cast you out: you may be saved by believing in His name.

2. But let me address a few words to the Lords people before I conclude.

(1) In reference to your privileges. Although you have offended in one, and in more than one point of the law, yet you are no longer held to be guilty of all, or indeed of any. Your answer to all charges is this: Who is He that condemneth? it is Christ that died; yea, rather that is risen again; who also makes intercession for us. Yes yell know that if any of you sin you have an advocate with the Father, who pleads for you His own all-availing propitiation. Therefore you are free.

(2) I would only add one word of a caution. I have said you have liberty. Yet use not this liberty as a license to transgress. See that you abuse not your privileges; neither requite Gods mercies with base ingratitude. (H. Smith, M. A.)

Guilty of all

1. It cannot possibly be the apostles meaning, that he who commits one sin does by that single fact contract the guilt of all other: sins. That he who pilfers, for example, is guilty of murder and adultery; so absurd is this notion, that it may at any time be reduced to a contradiction in itself; for one and the same person may, according to this explication, at one and the same time be guilty of contraries.

2. Can the apostle be supposed to mean to destroy all difference between one sin and another; and to teach that the guilt of all sins is the same, and their malignity equal; that tattling is as execrable as blasphemy?

3. But the doctrine conveyed by the text is this. That a universal obedience to all the laws of God, without reserve, and without exception, is required from us, and cannot be supplied by a partial observance; that is by a strict observance of some, and an absolute neglect of other duties.

4. And the reasonableness of this doctrine will appear from many considerations.

(1) That he who offends only in one point of the law, offends however against the Author of the whole body of laws; against that Authority upon which all other points depend, and from which they derive their force and obligation.

(2) Again, he who offends in any one point of the law with presumption of toleration in that single offence, though he strictly observes the other points, does by that absurd notion of partial obedience destroy the very attributes of God.

(3) Nor let the offender in one point plead his obedience in all others till he has considered of what force such a plea would be before a human tribunal.

5. But let us now consider the insecurity of partial obedience. What man can pretend to say he will continue to keep the whole law, save one point? There is self-deceit at the bottom of such a thought. The whole tribe of vices is so closely connected they unite imperceptibly with each other, nay, sometimes seem to require one another. If we complain of the difficulty of observing some laws more than others, we may be assured the fault is in ourselves; through habits wilfully contracted, want of observation and continual control of the more powerful affections, and therefore tend to aggravate our guilt from the unchecked reiteration of our offences. (H. Usher, D. D.)

The duty of an uniform and unreserved obedience

I. THE REASONABLENESS OF AN UNRESERVED AND UNIFORM OBEDIENCE TO GOD.

1. Suppose a servant should only execute his masters orders when they fell in with his own humour, but should continually disobey him when they did not suit his fancy or convenience, could such a man be said to obey his master, or only to gratify himself?

2. People are not aware what they are doing when they indulge any one vice. For any one habitual bad quality will, in process of time, as effectually destroy everything morally good in us, as even many bad qualities. When it has thoroughly got possession of your heart it will soon draw the head after it.

II. THE FOLLY OF A PARTIAL OBEDIENCE. It is universally agreed that in works of art--architecture, for instance, painting and statuary--it is not one detached independent part, however ornamental, which we call beauty; it is a full result and well-proportioned union of all the several parts, which must have a noble and agreeable effect upon the whole. Thus in life it is not one single accomplishment, how excellent soever, that constitutes the beauty of a Christian life: it is the assemblage of all the moral virtues, as far as in us lies. What avails one glaring action or two, one shining quality or more, which is not of a piece with the rest of our conduct? It is but a purple patch sown upon a garment everywhere else despicably poor, and only serveth to upbraid, by its ridiculous splendour, the coarseness of all the rest.

III. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. Some think themselves excusable for the commission of any fault, however notorious, because nobody is free from faults. That is, because the best of men are sometimes liable to little inadvertencies, therefore they may indulge themselves in drunkenness, malice, dishonesty, etc. Nay, they have recourse to Scripture to patronise a wicked life. To as little purpose is it to allege the examples of several great men in the Old Testament in favour of vice. For either they were known sins, of which those men were guilty, or they were not. If the former, then the severity of their repentance bore proportion to the enormity of their guilt. And who would choose to catch a dangerous distemper because some of a strong constitution, after they have undergone very severe discipline, have, with much ado, recovered their former health? But if they were not known sins, such as perhaps were polygamy, concubinage, &c., what is that to us who have no title to the same plea in behalf of the favourite vice which we retain? One objection more remains to be obviated, viz., that it is inconsistent with the Divine goodness to consign any man who stands clear of all other vices to future misery for one habitual crime. To which, first, I answer that future misery is the necessary consequence of one habit of sin, since one habit of sin disqualifies us for the enjoyment of heaven. I answer further, that it is so far from being inconsistent with Gods goodness to punish habitual sinners, that from this very attribute we may infer the doctrine of future punishments. For, if He be a Being of infinite goodness, lie must support the cause of virtue, which cannot be done without discouraging vice as well as honouring virtue.

IV. SOME PRACTICAL INFERENCES.

1. HOW necessary it is we should study the Scriptures and there inform ourselves what the will of our Maker is; otherwise we shall dignify with the name of reason whatever our craving inclination warmly pleads for.

2. A lame partial obedience, instead of an entire universal righteousness, is what we ought most to guard against. (J. Seed, M. A.)

The necessity of unreserved obedience

Suppose one of your neighbours to be punctual in obeying all the laws of the land with one exception, but to be obstinate in the transgression of that particular statute. He pays his taxes, in general, with honesty. But there is one particular tax which he cannot be persuaded to discharge. Suppose a soldier, regular in his general obedience to the orders of his superiors, to refuse to march upon a particular service to which he is appointed. W-ill you say that, because he has obeyed his officer in every other point, he is at liberty not to obey in this? Will you say that he does not deserve signal punishment? (T. Gisborne, M. A.)

The inviolability of the whole law

1. It is not merely the violation of Gods law we are to regard, but the temper which leads thereto. Sinfulness is to the sinner a greater evil than the sin. The sin is something outside of bin, self; the sinfulness inside. He has projected the sin out of himself, to be a black tact in Gods universe; the sinfulness remains in him to be the black parent of other sinful acts. If all his past sins were suddenly annihilated and still his sinfulness remained, he would be a sinner.

2. James urges the fact that each law has been enacted by the authority which makes every other law obligatory. And it may be well to note that this great principle sets every law enacted by our heavenly Father in the light of sacredness, so that it seems a solecism to speak of any sins as little sins, and any lies as white lies. Much less would little sins be excusable, if there were little sins. They require less resistance, while, like the little speck on the skin of the fluff, they may eat in and destroy all.

3. There is no middle ground between this principle and the surrender of all government. If a thing is permissible, a wise Ruler should not forbid it. If a thing is hurtful, a wise Father should not allow it. If, in all the whole category of laws, any one may be set aside, or the violation of any be indulged with impunity, then either God must select the law from which the Divine sanction is to be lifted, or the man who desires to sin must make the selection. If God be supposed to select, we have the extraordinary suggestion of the Father cherishing disobedience in the child, the monarch affording aid to the rebel, the only perfectly holy person in the universe sanctioning sin. But if each man is to select his pet sin to be indulged with impunity, he must do this either with or without the approbation of God. It cannot be the former, as that would be a case of God sanctioning sin, which cannot be entertained for a moment. And how are we to conceive of a man selecting a single sin for his indulgence without the permission of God? But, suppose we could take in that idea, then the following would result

Each man would reason from the liberty of the others to a larger liberty for himself, and so the area of rebellion would be perpetually enlarging. If all selected the same sin, the terrific state of society may be imagined. Suppose, for instance, all men kept every other commandment, but all felt at liberty to violate the eighth. The absolute worthlessness of all property would immediately ensue, and the progress of civilisation come to a dead halt. Suppose all carefully obeyed every precept of the law but the sixth, and every man felt at liberty to commit homicide at any time. It is plain that all the wit and energy of each man would be concentrated on the preservation of a life which would be worthless, because it would be reduced to a mere existence, denied of every pleasure which comes from human intercourse. In this case, as well as in the case of one man selecting lying, and another adultery, and another theft, and another murder, it is plain that human society would dissolve and the moral government of the universe would collapse. This is so plainly a necessary principle of all government, that it is acknowledged in all known codes of human jurisprudence. That a man has paid every debt but one would not discharge the obligation to pay that debt. Many a man has been hanged for a solitary act of malicious homicide. To the defence of the accused might be brought proof of a general course of even exemplary conduct. (G. F. Deems, D. D.)

One transgression of the law

One wheel broken in the machinery will render the whole inefficient; one breakage of a stave in the ladder may make it unfit for safe and full use; one piece of rail displaced on the railway may result in fearful disaster; one inch of wire cut out of the telegraph would prevent the use of all the rest, whatever its extent; one failure in any law of Nature may go on producing other failures ad infinitum. So the transgression of but one law of God: it is ruinous to the soul; it leads on to innumerable transgressions; it violates the whole code.

One omission injurious

A wealthy gentleman employed a workman to erect upon a lot in the cemetery a costly monument. After the stone had been erected, and the finishing touches put on the carving, the proud workman sent for the owner to come and inspect the work. With a smile of satisfaction the artist pointed to the monument. The owner glanced at it a moment, and turned away, saying, You have left out one letter, which renders all the labour and anxiety you have spent on it worthless to me, and I cannot accept your work. And so in carving the monument of our Christian characters: one pet sin may render the whole structure worthless, and cause it to crumble to dust.

No little sins

It is as supreme a folly to talk of a little sin as it would be to talk of a small decalogue that forbids it, or a dimunitive God that hates it, or a shallow hell that will punish it. Sin is registered according to heavenly measurements of holiness and majesty. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

The entirety of Gods law

The strength of a chain is only equal to its weakest part. Snap one link, and what avails the strength of all the rest until that broken or loose link be welded again? The question of small sins is as clear as a problem of Euclid--a question of a drop of prussic acid and a vial full or a sea full. (A. B. Grosart, LL. D.)

Rejected for one flaw

A famous ruby was offered to this country. The report of the crown jeweller was that it was the finest he had ever seen or heard of, but that one of its facets was slightly fractured. The result was, that almost invisible flaw reduced its value by thousands of pounds, and it was rejected from the regalia of England. (A. B. Grosart, LL. D.)

Convicted as transgressors

Gods law condemneth small faults; as the sunshine showeth us atoms, moths. (J. Trapp.)

All sin has one root

Like some of those creeping weeds that lie underground and put up a little leaf here and another one there; and you dig down, fancying that their roots are short, but you find that they go creeping and tortuous below the surface, and the whole soil is full of them--so all sin holds on by one root. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Offending in one point

The law is one seamless garment, which is rent if you but rend a part; or a musical harmony, spoiled if there be one discordant note. (Tirinus.)

Not worse than others

This is cold comfort and false logic. Does the judge acquit a criminal because he has only defrauded £50, while another has £5,000? Are not both guilty in the eye of the law?

Potential transgression

Actual transgression in one case involves potential transgression in all. (E. H. Plumptre, D. D.)

The broken bridge

Hossein said to his aged grandfather Abbas, Oh I grandfather, why are you reading the Gospel? Abbas made answer, I read it, oh! my son, to find the way to heaven. Hossein, who had received some instruction in an English school, smiling, said, The way is plain enough; worship but the one true God, and keep the commandments. The man, whose hair was silver with age, replied, Hossein, the commandments of God are as a bridge of ten arches, by means of which the soul might once have passed to heaven. But, alas I the bridge has been broken. There is not one among us who has not broken the commands again and again. My conscience is clear, cried Hossein, proudly, I have kept all the commandments; at least, almost all, he added, for he felt that he had said too much. And if one arch of the bridge give way under the traveller, doth he not surely perish in the flood, though the other nine arches be firm and strong?

Merciful severity

A traveller relates that, when passing through an Austrian town, his attention was directed to a forest on a slope near the road, and he was told that death was the penalty of cutting down one of those trees. He was incredulous until he was further informed that they were the protection of the city, breaking the force of the descending avalanche which, without this natural barrier, would sweep over the homes of thousands. To transgress once is to lay the axe at the root of the tree which represents the security and peace of every loyal soul in the wide dominion of the Almighty. (Family Treasury.)

Danger of a single sin

Some time ago a party of workmen were employed in building a very tall shot-tower. In laying a corner one brick, either by accident or carelessness, was set a little out of line. The work went on without its being noticed, but as each course of bricks was kept in line with those already laid, the tower was not put up exactly straight, and the higher they built the more insecure it became. One day, when the tower had been carried up about fifty feet, there was a tremendous crash. The building had fallen, burying the men in its ruins. All the previous work was lost, the materials wasted, and, worse still, valuable lives were sacrificed, and all this from one brick laid wrong at the start. How little the workman who laid that one brick wrong thought of the mischief he was making for the future! That one faulty brick, which the workman did not see, caused all this trouble and death.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Jas_2:10.—Omit word “point”; insert “precept” or “commandment.” Because the law is only the various application of one essential principle.

Jas_2:13.—Render, “For the judgment shall be merciless to him that wrought not mercy.” Rejoiceth against.—Or, “triumphs over.” Shakespeare has, “When mercy seasons justice”; “The quality of mercy is not strained,” etc.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Jas_2:10-13

The Law of Liberty.—That is the name for the law under which the Christian is placed; the law by which the Christian regulates all his life, conduct, and relations. One of the old divines puts it in the following quaint way: “I hear it said that a Christian may do what he likes. And so he may. Only a Christian is a man with a fresh set of likes.” The law of liberty can only be given to those who can be entrusted with it. It is a familiar point of apostolic teaching, that the formal law of Judaism proved ineffectual to the production of righteousness. St. James presents this truth in one form here. That old law so held together that the breaking of one part of it involved the penalty of the whole. The breaker was a transgressor, and as such must be dealt with. For the moment St. James takes the strictly Jewish standpoint. He wanted to deal with men who prided themselves on keeping the greater and more evident laws—as the young rich ruler did—but thought that very little importance attached to breaking it in its smaller provisions, or in matters that did not very manifestly disturb social order. They would wholly shrink back from “killing” or “adultery,” but they were quite indifferent to “despising the poor,” which, indeed, was hardly associated with that searching law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” But that really is the very essence of the second table of the Mosaic law, and therefore in breaking that law they broke it all. But St. James would have them understand that, as Christians, they were under a new law, one that was at once more searching and more inspiring, one that concerned itself about both the great and the little in Christian life and conduct. If they responded to the call of that law in merciful consideration of one another and kindly treatment of one another, they need be under no fear of judgment. Under the “law of liberty,” “mercy rejoices over judgment.”

I. The “law of liberty” frees from the bondage of the older law.—Because men were not able to go alone, not able to guide their moral or social life of themselves, therefore a formal law was given, stating precisely what they should do, and what they should not. It was a book of rules for their guidance in all relationships. But when a man wants to do the good and the right, he can put his book of rules on the shelf. That book is just as valuable as ever it was, only it does not now concern him, he does not need it; the new life in him can find all good and befitting expressions. The Christian has no evil word to say of the old law. “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Only he does not need it; because the very essence of it—love to God and his neighbour—is in him.

II. The “law of liberty” allows him to be a “law unto himself.”—When can a man be a law unto himself? When he is a man. It is the very mission of Christianity to make men; to nourish that self-restraint which ensures that no bodily passion and no external temptation shall prove overwhelming. A child cannot be a law unto himself. A youth can, only with important limitations. A man ought to be able to rule himself. A man in Christ Jesus ought, and can. He is free; but free unto holiness, free to do right. Christ was a “law unto Himself.”

III. The “law of liberty” permits a man to bind himself to Christ.—The free man need not be without attachments, without examples, without guidance, without a master. He is free in this sense—that he allows no one, and nothing, to put bonds on him. But he is free to put bonds on himself; and when he does so, he never thinks of them as bonds, he never calls them bonds. He is free to bind himself to Christ, but His service is perfect freedom. It were not freedom if the man were not free to choose his friend or his master.

IV. The “law of liberty” enables a man to use the old law when he pleases.—If he is free to put it away on the shelf, he is free also to take it down. In the free endeavour to adjust his life and relations, he may often find in the old law good counsel and guidance. He discovers its practical and experimental value, but has no such sense of its constraint as properly came upon the Jew. St. James intimates that if men order their conduct, as Christians, according to the “law of liberty,” they will never be servile to the rich and never despise the poor. Mercy will be sure to tone all their judgments.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Jas_2:10. Offending in One Point.—A law is the expression of the meaning of the law-making power. The constitution of the United States is the declaration of the method by which the law-making power—the people of the United States—intends to govern. A law will be right and beneficent in the proportion of the moral elevation of the power promulgating the law. A bad king, other things being equal, will promulgate bad laws. A community debased in moral tone will establish for itself correspondingly deteriorated laws. On the other hand, a supremely good governing power will express itself by law supremely good. God is the governor of the universe, and God is the supremely good; therefore the law which He has promulgated must be the expression of a nature infinitely good, and so must itself be infinitely good. This infinitely good law of God is stated for us,—in man’s moral constitution; in the Ten Commandments; in the condensed universal formula for right living by the Lord Jesus, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul and strength and mind, and thy neighbour as thyself”; still further, this law of God is taken out of a merely cold and mechanical and dead statement, and set before us and illustrated in the living person Jesus Christ. Our scripture declares that though a man keep the whole of this law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Why? Because, first, of the essential unity of the Divine Lord. The law of God is not made up of parts dissimilar in authority. You are under no less obligation to love your neighbour as yourself than to love God with your whole being. The sanctions sustaining either part of the law are just the same. The law of God is the expression of the one nature of God. Each particular of the law is equally holy with every other, and equally good with every other, and equally authoritative with every other. “For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” The law of God is a complete circle. It makes little difference whether you break into the circle at what you call the top or bottom or on either side; if it be fractured anywhere, it is broken. Here is some most precious statue, perfect save that it is broken as to its least finger. Is the statue whole? Is the unity of its beauty unimpaired? Is it not henceforth for ever a broken thing? In some true sense do not features and feet and limbs and hands share in the damaged unity? Is it not really true that that broken finger, offending though only in that one point against the law of wholeness, is yet guilty of breaking the entire law of wholeness? That perfect statue is the law of God. God’s law possesses in itself the majestic unity of perfection. It is the expression of the one perfect nature of Jehovah. Each least particular of it is essential to the unity and completeness of the whole. And if you break it in one particular, you for ever damage that law’s oneness, and do, in a most true sense, break it all, and so are guilty of it all. Profoundly true are these words of Milton: “If the law allow sin, it enters into a kind of covenant with sin; and if it do, there is not a greater sinner in the world than the law itself.” Because, second, that disposition which would break one point would, other things being equal, break any other point. “He who would, for sound religious reasons, keep one precept, would, from the same conscientious motive, abstain from breaking all the rest; and, on the other hand, he who would not for any religious reasons abstain from breaking one, has nothing within himself which would restrain him from breaking all the rest.” Because, third, the sin in one point inevitably spreads into sin in other points. As a fire that breaks out in one place, but soon consumes the whole dwelling.—Anon.

God’s Law is a Whole.—As a chain is snapped by failure of the weakest link, so the whole law, in its harmony and completeness as beheld by God, is broken by one offence of one man; and the penalty falls, of its own natural weight and incidence, on the culprit.

I. The requirement.—Keep the whole law.

II. The failure.—Stumble at one point.

III. The Divine reading of the failure.—It is virtually breaking all the laws, for it is breaking the thing—the law. The man who fails stands before God, not for a particular offence, but for breaking the law. This, however, must not be so presented as to lead men to assume that God recognises no degrees of criminality. What has to be impressed is the large moral significance of apparently insignificant moral offences.—Anon.

A Law of Liberty.—That is, a law which secures a man freedom for righteousness; and consequently comes down severely on a man when that freedom is abused.

Jas_2:12. The Dual-sphere of Relations.—“So speak ye, and so do.” A man finds expression for what is in him by speech and by action. He is known by his fruits in conduct; but it is also true that he is known by his fruits in conversation. A man comes into association with others and influences others by the substance and tone of his talk and by the example of his actions. But the importance of a man’s conduct-sphere is often exaggerated. It is when it is said that “three-fourths of life is conduct.” It is when the speech-sphere is not adequately and harmoniously estimated along with the conduct-sphere.

I. A man’s speech judged by the law of liberty.—The law of liberty is that law of liberty which orders a man’s life when he wants to do right. A man becomes free of law, and a law unto himself, when the love of righteousness is fully established in him. But this law of liberty becomes, in the use of the man himself concerning himself, the sternest and most searching law. It ensures such speech, such conversation, as becometh the gospel of Christ.

II. A man’s conduct judged by the law of liberty.—Apply the explanation of the law of liberty, given above, to the sphere of man’s actions and relations. When a man is right-minded, and attempts to rule his own conduct, there is a guarantee of righteousness. This truth is set forth in his characteristic way by the apostle John, when he says of the man ruled by the law of liberty, the love of righteousness, “He cannot sin, because he is born of God.” But the application of Christian principles to the sphere of conduct is much more constantly dealt with than their application in the sphere of conversation. And many an earnest Christian spoils the witness of his life because he does not pay due regard to the witness of his lips. It is not without special significance that the word “conversation” is used in the New Testament. It means the whole turning about of our relations, but it evidently includes the element of speech.

Jas_2:13. The Relativity of Mercy and Judgment.—The psalmist puts mercy and judgment together in a way that is somewhat surprising: “Also unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for Thou renderest to every man according to his work.” It is as if he had said of God, “His mercy is judgment”; “His judgment is mercy.” It would be no real mercy if God did not judge and punish His creatures. It would be no judgment of the Divine Father of men if mercy were not at the very heart of it. St. James here suggests that—

1. Usually mercy and judgment go together, hand in hand.

2. Occasions may occur which require judgment to go first, and mercy keep in the background. The special case referred to is that of the man who has showed no mercy to his fellow-man; a case illustrated by our Lord’s parable of the unforgiving servant. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

3. Occasions may arise in which mercy stands forth to do her work, and judgment must lag behind. We can think of cases in which the mercifulness and charity of a man may put an arresting hand on judgment and “hide a multitude of sins.—R. T.

Mercy rejoiceth against Judgment.—Mercy is dear to God, and intercedes for the sinner, and breaks his chains, and dissipates the darkness, and quenches the fires of hell, and destroys the worm, and rescues from the gnashing of teeth. To her the gates of heaven are opened. She is the queen of virtues, and makes men like to God, for it is written, “Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luk_6:36). She has silver wings like the dove, and feathers of gold, and soars aloft, and is clothed with Divine glory, and stands by the throne of God; when we are in danger of being condemned, she rises up and pleads for us, and covers us with her defence, and enfolds us in her wings. God loves mercy more than sacrifice (Mat_9:13).—John Chrysostom.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2

Jas_2:10. Offending in One, Guilty in All.—The Rev. Mr. Leupolt, of India, found some difficulty in getting the idea contained in the above verse impressed upon the minds of the natives. Argument was resorted to, but without avail. “Never,” says he, “could I make the common people understand me without a parable.” In this parable he described a scene on the Ganges. “The day was dismal; the wind roared, the thunder pealed, the lightning was vivid, the waves of the Ganges rapid; the infuriated elements threatened destruction to every vessel on its waters; no boat could outlive the storm for any length of time. But see I—what is that? It is a boat in distress, filled with people, rapidly hurried along by the waves. Between the peals of thunder the shrieks of the people are heard. They fear the rocks on the shore, to which the current is driving them. What can be done for them? Could they but be drawn into the creek, they would be safe. Those on the shore look anxiously around, and discover a chain near them. A man instantly fastens a stone to a rope, binds the other end to the chain, and flings the stone into the boat. The rope is caught. The people eagerly lay hold on the chain, while those on shore begin to draw them, amid the raging elements, towards the creek. They already rejoice at the prospect of deliverance; but when they are within a few yards of the land one link of the chain breaks. I do not say ten links, but one link, in the middle of the chain. What shall these distressed people do now? Shall they still cling to the unbroken links? ‘No, no!’ says one of my hearers, ‘overboard with the chain, or it will sink them sooner.’ ‘What, then, shall they do?’ ‘Cast themselves upon the mercy of God,’ exclaimed another. ‘True,’ I replied; ‘if one commandment be broken, it is as though all of them were broken. We cannot be saved by them; we must trust in the mercy of God, and lay hold on the almighty hand of Christ, which is stretched out to save us.’ I have frequently used this parable, and always found it to answer.”

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 2:10. Πταίσει, shall offend) especially in some important matter. Πταίειν is used of an offence of daily occurrence, ch. Jas 3:2.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jam_2:10. Confirmation of the last expressed thought: For whosoever kept the whole law, and yet sinned in one (commandment), he is guilty of all (commandments). The conjunctives τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ, certified by authorities, are not to be considered as an error of the scribe (as Winer, 5th ed. p. 356, was inclined to assume); but the particle ἄν is here, as frequently in the N. T. contrary to classical usage in hypothetical sentences, omitted when ὅστις stands, because the universality was already sufficiently indicated by the pronoun (Buttmann, p. 197 [E. T. 229]).[123] ἀνθρώπῳ is not, with Schulthess, to be supplied to ἘΝ ἙΝΊ, but ΝΌΜῼ, with Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, Lange, and others, from the preceding collective idea ΝΌΜΟς. The following ΠΆΝΤΩΝ forbids us, with Schneckenburger and Kern, to understand ἙΝΊ as neuter. It is in entire conformity with the character of the thought as a general sentence to take ἙΝΊ quite generally, and not, with Theophylact, Oecumenius (ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΕΡῚ ἈΓΆΠΗς ΕἼΡΗΚΕ), Schol. Matthaei, p. 188 (ἐν ἑνὶ πταίσειν ἐστὶ, τὸ μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην), and some recent critics (Semler: in hanc unam et primam), to refer it to a definite commandment, particularly to that of love.[124] By this general sentence James seeks to confirm the thought that respect of persons includes in itself the transgression of the whole law, although it appears to be directed only against a single commandment.

The word ΠΤΑΊΕΙΝ is found in the N. T. only in a figurative sense; the construction with ἘΝ is only in this place; in chap. Jam_3:2 the reference of ἘΝ is different. By ΓΈΓΟΝΕΝ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ (sc. νόμων) ἜΝΟΧΟς, James declares the transgressor of one commandment to be guilty of the transgression of all.

ἔνοχος] is here, as in 1Co_11:27, used with the genitive of the thing against which one sins, in the guilt of which one is thus involved.[125] The same thought is also found in the Rabbinical writings, e.g. Cod. Talm. Schabbath, fol. lxx. 2; R. Johanan: Quodsi faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singulorum reus; see Wolf.[126]

[123] Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 386], explains the omission of ἄν, because in the writers conception the case is altogether definite; but then the future indicative would be put; also the case here stated, namely, that one may transgress one commandment and yet keep the whole law, is a case which cannot be imagined.

[124] Still more arbitrarily, Grotius, Morus, Stolz, and Jaspar limit the general expressions ἑνί and πάντων to such commandment, to the transgression of which the punishment of death is assigned.

[125] The punishment with ἔνοχος is usually in the genitive, with Mat_26:66, Mar_3:29; Mar_14:46; yet also in the dative, Mat_5:21. In classical language, the thing against which one sins is with ἔνοχος only in the dative, whilst the crime itself of which the man is guilty, as well as the punishment which he has to suffer, is added in the genitive.

[126] Köster (Stud. u. Krit. 1862, 1) to this passage cites the corresponding expression of Livy (Hist. xxxiv. 3) referring to the lawgiver: unam tollendo legem ceterae infirmantur.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 2:10 . τηρήσῃ : τηρεῖν is used here with a force precisely corresponding to the Hebrew שׁמר when used in reference to the Law, or a statute, the Sabbath, etc.; the idea is that of guarding something against violation. πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί : πταίειν = the Hebrew כשׁל , “to stumble over” something; the picture is that of a παραβάτης stumbling over the border which marks the way; cf. the oft-used expression in Jewish writings of making a “hedge” or “fence” around the Torah, e.g., Pirqe Aboth. , i. 1. With the verse before us cf. Sir 37:12 , … ὃν ἂν ἐπιγνῷς συντηροῦντα ἐντολάς … καὶ ἐὰν πταίσῃς συναλγήσει σοι , and Jas 2:15 καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις δεήθητι Ὑψίστου ἵνα εὐθύνῃ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τὴν ὁδόν σου . ἐν ἑνί : used in a pregnant sense, “in one matter” or “in any single point”. γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος : While there are a certain number of passages in Rabbinical writings which are in agreement with this teaching ( e.g., Bemidbar Rabb. , ix. on Num 5:14 ; Shabbath , 70 b; Pesikta , 50 a; Horaioth , 8 b ; quoted by Mayor), there can be no doubt that the predominant teaching was in accordance with the passage quoted by Taylor (in Mayor, op. cit. , p. 89) from Shemoth Rabb . xxv. end: “The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts”; as Taylor goes on to say: “If they kept it, they were to be reckoned as having done all; if they profaned it, as having broken all”. Rashi teaches the same principle. This is quite in accordance with the Jewish teaching regarding the accumulation of מצוות (“commandments,” i.e. , observances of the Law); a man was regarded as “righteous” or “evil” according to the relative number of מצוות or evil deeds laid to his account; the good were balanced against the bad; according as to which of the two preponderated, so was the man reckoned as among the righteous or the wicked (see the writer’s article in the Expositor , April, 1908, “The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard”). πάντων is equivalent to all the precepts of the Torah . For ἔνοχος cf. Mat 26:66 ; 1Co 11:27 ; Gal 3:10 ; see also Deu 27:26 , and Resch, op. cit. , p. 47.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A new argument to prove the same conclusion: They do not love their neighbors, which neglect some, and ambitiously honor others: for he doth not obey God, which cutteth off from the commandments of God that that is not so commodious for him, nay he is rather guilty generally for the breach of the whole Law, although he observe the residue.

Not that all sins are equal, but because he that breaketh one tittle of the Law, offendeth the majesty of the Lawgiver.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The best manuscripts read, "Whosoever shall have kept the whole law, and yet shall have offended (literally, 'stumbled'; not so strong as 'fall,' Rom 11:11) in one (point; here, the respecting of persons), is (hereby) become guilty of all." The law is one seamless garment which is rent if you but rend a part; or a musical harmony which is spoiled if there be one discordant note [TIRINUS]; or a golden chain whose completeness is broken if you break one link [GATAKER]. You thus break the whole law, though not the whole of the law, because you offend against love, which is the fulfilling of the law. If any part of a man be leprous, the whole man is judged to be a leper. God requires perfect, not partial, obedience. We are not to choose out parts of the law to keep, which suit our whim, while we neglect others.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, c.] This is a rabbinical form of speech. In the tract Shabbath, fol. 70, where they dispute concerning the thirty-nine works commanded by Moses, Rabbi Yochanan says: But if a man do the whole, with the omission of one, he is guilty of the whole, and of every one. In Bammidar rabba, sec. 9, fol. 200, and in Tanchum, fol. 60, there is a copious example given, how an adulteress, by that one crime, breaks all the ten commandments, and by the same mode of proof any one sin may be shown to be a breach of the whole decalogue. The truth is, any sin is against the Divine authority and he who has committed one transgression is guilty of death; and by his one deliberate act dissolves, as far as he can, the sacred connection that subsists between all the Divine precepts and the obligation which he is under to obey, and thus casts off in effect his allegiance to God. For, if God should be obeyed in any one instance, he should be obeyed in all, as the authority and reason of obedience are the same in every case; he therefore who breaks one of these laws is, in effect, if not in fact, guilty of the whole. But there is scarcely a more common form of speech among the rabbins than this, for they consider that any one sin has the seeds of all others in it. See a multitude of examples in Schoettgen.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law. What alone he means is, that God will not be honored with exceptions, nor will he allow us to cut off from his law what is less pleasing to us. At the first view, this sentence seems hard to some, as though the apostle countenanced the paradox of the Stoics, which makes all sins equal, and as though he asserted that he who offends in one thing ought to be punished equally with him whose whole life has been sinful and wicked. But it is evident from the context that no such thing entered into his mind.

For we must always observe the reason anything is said. He denies that our neighbors are loved when a part only of them is through ambition chosen, and the rest neglected. This he proves, because it is no obedience to God, when it is not rendered equally according to his command. Then as the rule of God is plain and complete or perfect, so we ought to regard completeness; so that none of us should presumptuously separate what he has joined together. Let there be, therefore, a uniformity, if we desire rightly to obey God. As, for instance, were a judge to punish ten thefts, and leave one man unpunished, he would betray the obliquity of his mind, for he would thus shew himself indignant against men rather than against crimes; because what he condemns in one he absolves in another.

We now, then, understand the design of James, that is, that if we cut off from God’s law what is less agreeable to us, though in other parts we may be obedient, yet we be come guilty of all, because in one particular thing we violate the whole law. And though he accommodates what is said to the subject in hand, it is yet taken from a general principle, — that God has prescribed to us a rule of life, which it is not lawful for us to mutilate. For it is not said of a part of the law, “This is the way, walk ye in it;” nor does the law promise a reward except to universal obedience.

Foolish, then, are the schoolmen, who deem partial righteousness, as they call it, to be meritorious; for this passage and many others, clearly shew that there is no righteousness except in a perfect obedience to the law.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(10) For whosoever shall keep . . .—Better, have kept the whole Law, but shall have offended in one, has become guilty of all. As a chain is snapped by failure of the weakest link, so the whole Law, in its harmony and completeness as beheld by God, is broken by one offence of one man; and the penalty falls, of its own natural weight and incidence, on the culprit.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. in one point] The noun, as the italics shew, is not in the Greek, but the English is a satisfactory rendering. Guided by what follows we might perhaps say “in one commandment.”

he is guilty of all] Better, he has become guilty, i. e. liable to condemnation under an indictment which includes all the particular commandments included in the great Law. This seems at first of the nature of an ethical paradox, but practically it states a deep moral truth. If we wilfully transgress one commandment we shew that in principle we sit loose to all. It is but accident, or fear, or the absence of temptation, that prevents our transgressing them also. Actual transgression in one case involves potential transgression in all. A saying of Rabbi Jochanan is recorded in the Talmud (Sabbath, fol. 70) identical with this in its terms, and including in its range what were classed as the 39 precepts of Moses. St James was urging upon devout Jews, whether they believed in Christ or no, the highest ethical teaching of their own schools. It is probable enough, that the Pharisees who misrepresented the teaching of St James in the Church of Antioch, laid stress on these words as including circumcision and the ceremonial Law, as well as the precepts which were moral and eternal (Act_15:1; Act_15:5; Act_15:24). See Introduction, ch. 3

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law,.... Or the greatest part of it, excepting only in one point, as follows: Adam, in a state of innocence, was able to keep the whole law, but by sin he lost that power, nor can any of his posterity now keep it perfectly: they are all transgressors of it, and liable to its penalty; unregenerate men are not obedient to it, and have an aversion to it, and despise it, and cast it behind their backs; regenerate persons, who love it, and delight in it, after the inner man, do not keep it perfectly; the several parts of the law may be indeed kept by a believer, and that sincerely, but not to a perfect degree, for in many things they all offend; Christ only has perfectly kept it, and is the fulfilling end of it for righteousness; men of a pharisaical disposition may fancy they have kept it wholly, as the young man in the Gospel, and Saul, before his conversion; but this is but a fancy, and a sad mistake: the case in the text is only a supposed one, and, as it is here put, implies perfection; for it follows,

and yet offend in one point; sin, which is a transgression of the law, is an offense to God the Father, who is of purer eyes than to behold it; to Jesus Christ, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and to the blessed Spirit who is grieved and vexed by it; and to the justice of God, which being injured by it, demands satisfaction; and to the law of God, which accuses, convinces, reproves, and condemns for it. The word used signifies to "fall", and designs more than stumbling, even an open breach and violation of the law; and which being made, by any, in a single instance,

he is guilty of all: this seems to agree with some common sayings of the Jews, that he that is suspected in one thing, is suspected in the whole law (y); and he that keeps this or the other command, keeps the whole law; and he that breaks this, or the other command, breaks the whole law; as whether it respects the sabbath, or adultery, or that command. Thou shall not covet, or any other (z): and this must be understood, not of every particular command in the law, as if he that is guilty of murder is in that instance also guilty of adultery; or he that is guilty of adultery is in that instance guilty of murder; but the sense is, that he is guilty of the breach of the whole law, though not of the whole of the law; as he that breaks anyone condition of a covenant, which may consist of many, though he does not violate every condition, yet breaks the whole covenant; so he that transgresses in anyone point of the law, breaks the whole, commits sin, and is deserving of death, and is treated by the law as a transgressor of it, let it be in what instance it will. But it does not follow from hence, that all sins are equal, as the Stoics say (a), for there are greater and lesser sins, Joh 19:11 though not some venial, and others mortal, for the wages of every sin is death; nor that the punishment of sin will be alike, as all sins were punishable alike by Draco's laws, but not by the law of God, Mat 11:22 but this may be fairly concluded from hence, that there can be no justification in the sight of God, by an imperfect obedience to, the law, or by a partial righteousness: the law requires perfect obedience, and in failure of that, though but in one point, curses and condemns; and likewise it may be inferred from hence, that a man is not at liberty to obey and neglect what commandments of the law he pleases, but should have respect to them all; which seems greatly the design of the apostle, as appears by what follows.

(y) T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 69. 1. (z) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 192. 3. Zohar in Exod. fol. 20. 2. & 37. 1. & in Lev. fol. 32. 3. Shemot Rabba, sect. 25. fol. 109. 3. T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 39. 2. & Menachot, fol. 43. 2. & Abkath Rochel, par. 1. p. 3. (a) Zeno & Chrysippus apud Laert. Vit. Zeno, p. 510.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Ver. 10. He is guilty of all] The whole law is but one copulative, Exo 16:18; Eze 18:10-13. He that breaketh one commandment habitually breaketh all; not so actually. The godly keep those commandments that actually they break; but a dispensatory conscience keeps not any commandment. Deus non vult cum exceptione coli, God will not be served with an exception, saith a learned interpreter here. He that repents with a contradiction (saith Tertullian) God will pardon him with contradiction. A man must not be funambulus virtutum (saith the same author), going in a narrow track of obedience; but must do everything as well as anything, or all is lost; his obedience must be universal, extending to the compass of the whole law.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law - All except the single point referred to. The apostle does not say that this in fact ever did occur, but he says that if it should, and yet a man should have failed in only one particular, he must be judged to be guilty. The case supposed seems to be that of one who claimed that he had kept the whole law. The apostle says that even if this should be admitted for the time to be true in all other respects, yet, if he had failed in any one particular - in showing respect to persons, or in anything else - he could not but be held to be a transgressor, The design of this is to show the importance of yielding universal obedience, and to impress upon the mind a sense of the enormity of sin from the fact that the violation of any one precept is in fact an offence against the whole law of God. The whole law here means all the law of God; all that he has required; all that he has given to regulate us in our lives.

And yet offend in one point - In one respect; or shall violate any one of the commands included in the general word law. The word offend here means, properly, to stumble, to fall; then to err, or fail in duty. See the notes at Mat 5:29; Mat 26:31.

He is guilty of all - He is guilty of violating the law as a whole, or of violating the law of God as such; he has rendered it impossible that he should be justified and saved by the law. This does not affirm that he is as guilty as if he had violated every law of God; or that all sinners are of equal grade because all have violated some one or more of the laws of God; but the meaning is, that he is guilty of violating the law of God as such; he shows that be has not the true spirit of obedience; he has exposed himself to the penalty of the law, and made it impossible now to be saved by it. His acts of obedience in other respects, no matter how many, will not screen him from the charge of being a violator of the law, or from its penalty. He must be held and treated as a transgressor for that offence, however upright he may be in other respects, and must meet the penalty of the law as certainly as though he had violated every commandment.

One portion of the law is as much binding as another, and if a man violates any one plain commandment, he sets at nought the authority of God. This is a simple principle which is everywhere recognised, and the apostle means no more by it than occurs every day. A man who has stolen a horse is held to be a violator of the law, no matter in how many other respects he has kept it, and the law condemns him for it. He cannot plead his obedience to the law in other things as a reason why he should not be punished for this sin; but however upright he may have been in general, even though it may have been through a long life, the law holds him to be a transgressor, and condemns him. He is as really condemned, and as much thrown from the protection of law, as though he had violated every command. So of murder, arson, treason, or any other crime. The law judges a man for what he has done in this specific case, and he cannot plead in justification of it that he has been obedient in other things.

It follows, therefore, that if a man has been guilty of violating the law of God in any one instance, or is not perfectly holy, he cannot be justified and saved by it, though he should have obeyed it in every other respect, any more than a man who has been guilty of murder can be saved from the gallows because he has, in other respects, been a good citizen, a kind father, an honest neighbor, or has been compassionate to the poor and the needy. He cannot plead his act of truth in one case as an offset to the sin of falsehood in another; he cannot defend himself from the charge of dishonesty in one instance by the plea that he has been honest in another; he cannot urge the fact that he has done a good thing as a reason why he should not be punished for a bad one. He must answer for the specific charge against him, and none of these other things can be an offset against this one act of wrong. Let it be remarked, also, in respect to our being justified by obedience to the law, that no man can plead before God that he has kept all his law except in one point. Who is there that has not, in spirit at least, broken each one of the ten commandments? The sentiment here expressed by James was not new with him. It was often expressed by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been an admitted principle among the Jews. See Wetstein, in loc., for examples.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Augustine, Ep. lxvii. num. 16. p. 600. An forte quia plenitudo legis charitas est, qua Deus, proximusque diligitur, in quibus præceptis charitatis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, merito fit reus omnium, qui contra illam facit ex qua pendent omnia.

====================

Is become guilty of all. It is certain these words are not to be taken merely according to the letter, nor in the sense which at first they seem to represent, as if a man by transgressing one precept of the law transgressed and broke all the rest: this appears by the very next verse, that a man may commit murder by killing another, and not commit adultery. And it is certain, as St. Augustine observes, that all sins are not equal, as the Stoic philosophers pretended. See St. Augustine, Epist. clxvii, (nov. ed. tom. 2, p. 595) where he consults St. Jerome on this very place out of St. James, and tells us that such a man may be said to be guilty of all, because by one deadly sin he acts against charity,[3] (which is the love of God and of our neighbour) upon which depends the whole law and all its precepts; so that by breaking one precept, he loseth the habit of charity, and maketh the keeping, or not breaking of all the rest, unprofitable to him. Secondly, it may be added, that all the precepts of the law are to be considered as one total and entire law, and as it were a chain of precepts, where by breaking one link of this chain the whole chain is broken, or the integrity of the law, consisting of a collection of precepts. Thirdly, it may be said, that he who breaks any one precept, contemns the authority of the lawgiver, who enjoined them all, and under pain of being for ever excluded from his sight and enjoyment. A sinner, therefore, by a grievous offence against any one precept, forfeits his heavenly inheritance, becomes liable to eternal punishments, as if he had transgressed all the rest: not but that the punishments in hell shall be greater against those who have been greater sinners, as greater shall be the reward in heaven for those who have lived with greater sanctity and perfection. (Witham) --- Guilty, &c. That is, he becomes a transgressor of the law in such a manner, that the observing of all other points will not avail him to salvation; for he despises the lawgiver, and breaks through the great and general commandment of charity, even by one mortal sin. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

For whosoever shall keep: this is not an assertion, that any man doth keep the whole law so as to offend but in one point, but a supposition that if, or admitting, such a one were.

The whole law; all the rest of the law, that one point only of the whole being excepted.

And yet offend in one point; slip, or trip, or stumble at; it seems to signify the least failing in any point of the law.

He is guilty of all; guilty of the breach, and obnoxious to the punishment, of all; not distributively, or separately, as if he transgressed every precept distinctly; but:

1. Conjunctively or copulatively; he is guilty of not keeping the whole law, though not of breaking each particular command; he breaks the whole law, though not the whole of the law: as he that wounds a man’s arm wounds the whole man, though not the whole of the man; he that breaks one link breaks the whole chain, and he that fails in one musical note spoils the whole harmony.

2. He sins against charity, which is the sum of the law, and upon which all the commands depend; and so though he keep most of them, as to the substance, yet he keeps none of them in a right manner, because none out of love, which should be the principle out of which he observes all of them.

3. He sins against the authority of the whole law, which is the same in every command.

4. He is liable to the same punishment, though not the same degree of it, as if he had broken all the commandments, Gal 3:1; and his keeping most, cannot exempt him from the punishment due for the breach of that one. This he speaks either in opposition to the Pharisees among the Jews, who thought themselves righteous if they kept most of the law, though in some things they came short; or rather, against hypocrites among Christians, who would pick and choose duties, obey some commands and neglect others; whereas no obedience to God is right, but that which is impartial, and respects all the commands, Psa 119:6; Mat 5:19.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. For—Refuting the claim that their fault was slight and venial.

Offend in one point—Small as that point appears to you.

Guilty of all—The royal law is a unit; you cannot violate a part of it alone. There may be different degrees of heinousness of violation, but if you have done a loveless act no part of the law acquits you; the whole law of love has been violated, and condemns you.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In this verse the subjunctives thrhsh ptaish, are rightly read by the Revisors, with a, B, C. The Law was express on the need of keeping all the commandments; see, Lev_19:37 (the same chapter to which St. James has already referred) Kaixwsqe panta tomon mou kainta tagmata mou kaisete aujta). He is guilty of all. The very same thought is found in rabbinical writers (Talmud, "Schabbath," fol. 70); a saying of R. Johanan: "Quodsi racist omnia unum vero omitter omnium est singulorum reus." Other passages to the same effect may be seen in Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae," vol. 1. p. 1017, etc.; and cf., "Pirqe Aboth," 4:15. Was it a false inference from St. James"s teaching in this verso that led the Judaizers of Acts 15. to lay down the law Except ye be circumcised after the customs of Moses ye cannot be saved"? Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all," might seem to suggest such an inference: To whom," says St. James himself, we gave no commandment". (Act_15:24) (On the teaching of this tenth verse there is an interesting letter of Augustine"s to Jerome, which well repays study: "Ep." 167.)

The obedience which God requires is absolute.

shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Why, since the breach of but one command is certainly not as sinful as the breach of all? Because

(1) "the principle of duty and of obedience to all the commandments is one; so that if we choose for ourselves nine commandments to keel), and one to break, we are not doing God"s will, but our own;

(2) all the precepts are alike expressions of one Divine will, and rest on one authority;

(3) all the precepts are manifestations of love at work love first to God, and then to our neighbor; and each particular failure shows defect in this" (Dean Scott). "A garment is torn, though you only take away one piece of it; a harmony in music is spoiled if only one voice be out of tune" (Starke). The perfect figure of the circle is marred by a flaw in any one part of it. So to break one command out of all is to violate the whole principle of obedience. Thus men have no right to pick and choose which commandments they will keep, or to

Compound for sins they are inclined to,

By damning those they have no mind to.

As Christians, we are not entitled to bow down in the house of Rimmon, nor does the strictest obedience to one command give us a dispensation to break another; e.g. spotless chastity on the part of the unfallen will not atone for Pharisaism and harshness to the fallen, for "if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law." (On this verse see a sermon in Dr. Pusey"s "Parochial Sermons," vol. 3. p. 70.)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever keepeth the whole law, except in one point, he is guilty of all - Is as liable to condemnation as if he had offended in every point.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The will of God to be kept in all parts:

v. 10. For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend-in one point, he is guilty of all.

v. 11. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.

v. 12. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

v. 13. For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

The solidarity, the unity of the will of God is here brought out. For in connection with the fact that a carnal preference of persons is a transgression of the holy will of God, the apostle argues: For whoever keeps the whole Law, offends, however, in a single thing, has become guilty of all. A person might argue that an offense of the kind as explained by the apostle really did not amount to much, that the fault, if it might be designated so, would surely be overlooked by God. But as a matter of fact, he that transgresses, stumbles, becomes guilty in any single point pertaining to the Law of God, no matter how insignificant it might seem by comparison, is considered a transgressor of all. To profane one commandment means to have broken all.

This is now illustrated: For He that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, also said, Thou shalt not kill; if, then, thou dost not commit adultery, but committest murder, thou becomes a transgressor of the Law. The will of the Lord is one and cannot be divided any more than His essence and qualities can be divided. Both adultery and murder are prohibited by God, and the adulterer cannot offer as an excuse that he has murdered no one, nor can the murderer escape by pleading that he has not become guilty of adultery. In either case the Law has been transgressed; in either case the guilty one is punished according to the same rule, which says that the soul which sinneth shall die.

The advice of the apostle therefore is: So speak and so act as those that want to be judged through the law of freedom. The Christians, as Christians, are not under the Law, but under grace. Their life of sanctification is governed by the law of freedom, that is, they govern their words and actions by their love toward God, by their relation to their heavenly Father as His dear children. Because they are free and have become the servants of righteousness, they find their delight in speaking and acting as it pleases their heavenly Father and Christ. It is in this way, according to this standard, that the Christians want to be judged.

Those that do not want to heed this fact will be compelled to heed the warning: For the judgment is merciless to him that did not practice mercy; but mercy will boast in the face of judgment. If a person does not practice mercy and charity in this life, also in his behavior toward his neighbor of low degree, then the judgment will likewise deny him mercy; he will be treated according to the full measure of justice and be condemned. If, however, a Christian has shown himself merciful at all times, full of charity to all men under all circumstances, then he need not fear the Last Judgment, but may exult at the thought of it, since God, out of His boundless mercy, will then dispense mercy. See Mat 5:7.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here the apostle doth suppose a case which ought to make every person very conscientious in his obedience to the whole law of God, namely, that in case a man were careful to observe all the laws of God, except one, his living in the breach of that one shall be so far from being connived at upon the account of his obedience to all the rest, that he shall be liable to the punishment which is due to the transgression of the whole law; to the same punishment for kind, I say, not for degree; because the more and greater sins men are guilty of, the greater and severer shall be their punishment, which consists in being for ever banished from the presence of God, and in being imprisoned with devils and damned spirits, which is called eternal death.

Learn hence, that whoever allows himself in any one sin, be it either of omission or commission, willingly, constantly, and with allowance from conscience, and doth not convert and turn from it unto God, he is certainly in a state of damnation, because he affronts the sovereignty, and condemns the authority of that God that made and enacted the whole law, and also stands in a prepared readiness and disposition to break any other, yea, all other laws, in the grossest manner, whensoever any forcible temptation may assault him. Add to this, that living in the breach of any one law, will make a person unmeet for the enjoyment of God, as well as living in the breach of all.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10–13. Whosoever shall keep the whole law. If the law is broken by “respect of persons,” the whole law is broken. He who willfully breaks one command is a law breaker and is guilty before the law.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

For whoever obeys

"For anyone who obeys"

except that he stumbles ... the whole law

Stumbling is falling down while one is trying to walk. Disobeying one point of the law is spoken of as if it were stumbling while walking. (See: Metaphor)

in just a single way

because of disobedience to just one requirement of the law

For the one who said

This refers to God, who gave the law to Moses.

Do not commit

To "commit" is to do an action.

If you ... but if you ... you have

Here "you" means "each one of you." Although James was writing to many Jewish believers, in this case, he used the singular form as if he was writing to each person individually. (See: Forms of You)

translationWords

obey

law

guilt

adultery

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

10. Regarded as a whole law is the expression of the divine will; therefore infraction of the law in one particular is transgression of the divine will, and so a transgression of the whole law. The instances cited are cases of transgressing the Mosaic law, but the principle is of universal application. It is a different principle from that taught in the Rabbinical schools, according to which each particular act of obedience to each law has its assigned reward. The law was not treated as a whole but as a series of separate enactments. “Whosoever fulfils only one law, good is appointed to him, his days are prolonged and he will inherit the land.” Kiddushin i. 10, quoted by Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes, II. § 28 (Eng. Trans. Div. II. Vol. II. p. 92).

On the other hand Wetstein ad loc. quotes sayings agreeing with St James’ teaching, e.g. Si faciat omnia unum vero omittat omnium et singuloram reus est, Sabbat. f. 70. 2; again R. Johanan dicit, omnis qui dicit: Totam legem ego in me recipio praeter verbum unum, hie sermonem Domini sprevit, et praecepta ejus irrita fecit. One false note destroys the harmony, and a broken link destroys the chain. For our Lord’s word on this see Mat 5:19.

ὅστις … τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ. In Classical Greek ὅστις ἄν would be usual. The omission of ἄν however removes the indeterminate character of the expression; it is conceived as an actual case. Comp. Hom. Od. VIII. 523 f. ὡς δὲ γυνὴ κλαίῃσι φίλον πόσιν ἀμφιπεσοῦσα | ὅς τε ἑῆς πρόσθεν πόλιος λαῶν τε πέσῃσιν, Soph. Oed. Col. 395, γέροντα δʼ ὀρθοῦν φλαῦρον ὃς νέος πέσῃ, Ant. 1025, ἐπεὶ δʼ ἁμαρτῇ. So also in prose Thuc. IV. 17, ἐπιχώριον ὂν ἡμῖν οὖ μὲν βραχεῖς ἀρκῶσι μὴ πολλοῖς χρῆσθαι. See Campbell, Soph., Essay on Lang. § 27 and Goodwin, § 62, n. 3.

πάντων ἔνοχος. Comp. ἔνοχος θανάτου, Mat 26:66; ἔνοχος τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου, 1Co 11:27. ἔνοχος bound or held, from ἐνέχεσθαι: πάντων is a genitive of cause. The construction follows that of verbs of prosecuting and sentencing: (Μιλτιάδεα) οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἐδίωξαν τυραννίδος τῆς ἐν Χερσονήσῳ, Hdt. VI. 104; οὐχ ἁλίσκεται ψευδομαρτυριῶν, Arist. Rhet. I. 15. 17, Jelf § 501. See also Winer (253) III. xxx. d who connects the construction with verbs of taking hold of &c., where the Greek idiom requires a genitive, as: τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, Heb 6:9.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10.] The fact of transgression of this law is proved by its solidarity, not admitting of being broken in one point and yet kept in the whole. “Hoc tantum sibi vult,” says Calvin, “Deum nolle cum exceptione coli, neque ita partiri nobiscum, ut nobis liceat si quid minus allubescit, ex ejus lege resecare.” For whosoever shall have kept (reff.) the whole law, but shall have offended (stumbled) in (the matter of: as in ch. 3:2: see there) one thing (one thing enjoined, one commandment, as by and by explained: not as Schulthess, ἑνὶ ἀνθρώπῳ; nor as Œc., al., τοῦτο περὶ ἀγάπης εἴρηκε (so the Schol.-Matthæi, ἐν ἑνὶ πταίσειν ἐστί, τὸ μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην): nor is it to be limited to commandments carrying capital punishment, as Grot., al. It is better to understand ἐντάλματι than νόμῳ (as De W., Wies., Huther, al.), seeing that νόμος here is evidently used collectively for the sum of the commandments, and so πάντων τῶν νόμων could not be said), has become guilty (brought into the condemning power of, involved in, see reff. The more usual construction is to put the punishment, in which a man is involved, in the genitive, as in reff. Matt. and Mark: sometimes in the dative, as in Mat 5:21 f. The classical construction is to put both the crime and the punishment in the dative: so ἔνοχος τῇ προδοσίᾳ, Demosth.: τῇ γραφῇ, δίκαις, ὀνείδει, &c., Plato, Xen. Sometimes however we have the gen.: as ἔνοχος λειποταξίου, Demosth. See Palm and Rost, sub voce) of all (things mentioned as objects of prohibition—for such is the reference here, see below—in the law).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. ὅστις … τηρήσῃ, with ἄν omitted. Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 307, Blass-Debrunner, § 380.

τηρήσῃ] BאC minn ff vg boh.

τηρήσει] KLP minnpler ff vg boh.

πληρώσει] A minn.

πληρώσας τηρήσει] 33.

τελέσει] minn, cf. v. 8.

The future is probably an emendation called out by the absence of ἄν.

The same thing has happened to πταίσῃ, for which KLP minnpler have πταίσει. The synonyms, and the conflation in 33, are interesting.

πταίσῃ, in sense of “sin,” Rom 11:11, Jas 3:2, cf. Deu 7:25. See M. Aur. Anton. vii, 22 ἴδιον ἄνθρωπον φιλεῖν καὶ τοὺς πταίοντας, Maximus Tyr. Diss. 26 τίς δὲ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ὡς διελθεῖν βίον ἀπταίστως;

ἐν ἑνί, “in one point,” neuter, since νόμος is not used of single precepts.

πάντων ἔνοχος. πάντων is neuter, and the genitive, as in classical Greek, denotes the crime. This is a rhetorical, way of saying that he is a transgressor of “the law as a whole” (παραβάτης νόμου, v. 11), not of all the precepts in it.

For similar emphasis on the several individual precepts which make up the law, cf. Mat 5:19, and especially Test. XII Patr. Aser 2:5-10 (Charles’s translation): “Another stealeth, doeth unjustly, plundereth, defraudeth, and withal pitieth the poor: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. He who defraudeth his neighbour provoketh God, and sweareth falsely against the Most High, and yet pitieth the poor: the Lord who commandeth the law he setteth at nought and provoketh, and yet he refresheth the poor. He defileth the soul and maketh gay the body; he killeth many, and pitieth a few: this too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Another committeth adultery and fornication, and abstaineth from meats, and when he fatteth he doeth evil, and by the power of his wealth overwhelmeth many; and notwithstanding his excessive wickedness he doeth the commandments: this, too hath a twofold aspect, but the whole is evil. Such men are hares; for they are half clean, but in very deed are unclean. For God in the tables of the commandments hath thus declared.”

The roots of this verse evidently lie in rabbinical modes of emphasising the importance of certain special precepts and of every precept. Thus Shemoth rabba 25 fin., “The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts”; Shabbath, 70, 2, “If he do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all severally.” Schöttgen and Wetstein give many sayings of similar tenor from rabbinical writings of various dates.

Augustine, Ep. 167 ad Hier., draws a comparison with the Stoic doctrine of the solidarity of virtues and vices. The Stoic doctrine is that virtue is an indivisible whole, a man is either virtuous or vicious. The wise (or virtuous) is free from fault, the foolish (or vicious) does no right act; hence ἴσα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα. The character of every act depends on the controlling inner purpose and disposition. See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen4, III, i, pp., 251-263, with abundant references. This doctrine has plainly nothing to do with that of James.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Keep [τηρηση] . See on ver. 8.

Offend [πταιση] . Lit., as Rev., stumble.

He is guilty [γεγονεν ενοχος] . Lit., he is become guilty. Enocov, guilty, is, strictly, holden; within the condemning power of. Compare Mt 26:66; Mr 3:29; 1Co 11:27. Huther cites a Talmudic parallel : "But if he perform all, but omit one, he is guilty of every single one."

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.