Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
James 2:10

Clarke's Commentary

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.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

Favouritism destroys love (2:1-13)

Standards of judgment in the church are not the same as those in the society round about. People ought not to be given important places in the church merely because they have important places in the society. Likewise poor people should not be ignored (2:1-4). God welcomes people into his kingdom regardless of wealth or social position, and gives his riches to them equally. James notes how strange it is that the Christians should show special favour to the rich, because the rich are from the class that oppresses Christians most cruelly (5-7).

In their dealings with others, the rule for Christians is ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ (8). Those who show favouritism break that rule. They would, under Moses’ law (where the rule was first taught; Leviticus 19:18), be considered law-breakers, no matter what other good they may have done. For example, they may not commit adultery, but if they kill they are still law-breakers (9-11).

Christians are not in bondage to the law of Moses, but God’s ‘law of liberty’ within them should cause them to love others. If they show no mercy to the poor, God will show no mercy when he judges them. But if in mercy they refrain from harsh judgments, God will refrain from harsh judgment of them (12-13).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

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

As Dummelow put it: "It might be said that even if a man transgressed the Law of Christ in the matter or respect of persons, he was only breaking a small part of that Law. Not so. The Law, like the Lawgiver, is one." J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1035. This is another instance of James' reiterating a principle laid down by Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:19). "Transgression of one precept of the Christian rule of faith is a breach of the whole, because it breaks fellowship with the object of faith." Walter W. Wessel, op. cit., p. 952. All of this is part and parcel of the "perfection" theme which dominates the epistle, having the great value of showing that even Christians who earnestly strive to do the will of Christ are nevertheless not able to attain any acceptable degree of perfection in their own right. The proper respect for this truth will have the practical effect of driving every man to Jesus Christ, in whom alone the perfection required by Almighty God (Matthew 5:48; Colossians 1:28) may be received through God's grace.

Regarding this principle that breaking Christ's commandments in one particular is the same as breaking all of them, commentators have given many illustrations. If one strikes a great mirror in only one place, the whole is broken; if one breaks over a fence at only one place, he has violated all of it; if a chain of a thousand links is broken in only one, the chain is broken, etc., etc. The thing in view here, of course, is the law of love; but there are many other commandments of Christ which are today violated by men with impunity; and not the least of these regards baptism and the Lord's supper, the command to assemble in worship, etc.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

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 Matthew 5:29; Matthew 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.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

10For 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.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Chapter 2

Now my brothers, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons ( James 2:1 ).

This is so difficult. It is so easy for us to fall in the trap of respecting persons. It's just I don't know a part of our whole social structure, I guess, is that of respecting certain persons above others. You've got to be careful that we don't fall into that trap.

So often a person will introduce himself, "Well I am Dr. So." Doctor, oh my, we respect the person. We shouldn't be a respecter of persons. God isn't. "God is no respecter of persons," the Bible says ( Acts 10:34 ). We shouldn't be.

If there comes into your assembly a man with a gold ring, fancy clothes, there comes also a man in with rags that smell; And you have respect to him that is wearing the fancy clothing, and you say to him, Oh, sit here in this good place; and you say to the poor man, Stand over there in the corner, or sit under my footstool: Are you not then partial in yourselves, and you've become the judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hasn't God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to them that love him? But you've despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, draw you before the courts? Don't they blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called ( James 2:1-7 )?

You've been called Christians. So be careful on this business of respecting a person just because he is rich. Or sort of snubbing a person because he is poor. Now let's be honest. We are far more apt to stop along the road and help a person with a flat tire who's driving a Mercedes than we are someone driving a Volkswagen bug. I mean, you see someone out there you know and in distress. "Oh my, you know, I'll be glad to help him because who knows, maybe they'll you know offer me five bucks you know for giving them a hand." But you've been there. That's respect of persons. Something we shouldn't be guilty of.

Interesting God has chosen the poor of this world as far as worldly good but rich in faith. God measures riches on a far different standard than do we. We're on the gold standard; used to be. We're on no standard now. Used to be gold notes. In effect, they said the government owes you twenty dollars worth of gold. Then we went to silver notes; the government owes you twenty dollars worth of silver. Now they're federal notes. They're not backed by anything so it means the government owes you nothing. It's true. They're not backed by anything. Just paper. But gold is not the standard of heaven. Asphalt up there; they pave the streets with the stuff.

God looks at the heart of a man and He sees the faith and the trust that is there in Him. And God says, Oh that's a rich man. He loves me. He trusts me. God looks at some of the named people in the world who lived in the Four Hundred Club and God says, "Oh, what poor riches. They have nothing." Now we should look at people as God. We shouldn't have respect for wealthy people but we should be just as concerned to help the poor. In fact, most concerned to help the poor. The rich don't really need help so much. It's the poor that need our help, our attention. God help us. I'm guilty here. God help me.

Now if you fulfil the royal law ( James 2:8 )

I love this, the royal law. What is the royal law?

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ( James 2:8 ),

That's the royal law. I like the title for it. If you fulfill that royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,

you do well ( James 2:8 ):

Now really, that's where that young ruler sort of failed, isn't it, who came to Jesus, fell at His feet and said, "Good Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus said, Keep the commandments. Which ones? Oh, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness. Oh Lord, I kept all these from the time I was a kid. But what I, what do I lack yet? Well if you will be perfect, keep the royal law, go sell everything you have and distribute it to the poor. You'll have great riches in heaven." Keep the royal law; Love your neighbor as yourself; hard to do, isn't it? Awfully hard to do. Loving my neighbor as I love myself. But if you keep that, you do well.

But if you have respect of persons, you're actually committing sin, and you're convicted of the law as a transgressor. Convinced of the law ( James 2:9 ).

It is pointing its finger of accusation against you.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet violate in one point, you're guilty, guilty of all. For the law says, Don't commit adultery, but it also says, Do not kill. Now if you don't commit adultery, but yet you kill somebody, you're guilty of violating the law ( James 2:10-11 ).

You're a violator. Doesn't matter which one of the commandments you violated. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. Oh, I've never done that. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Whoops. But you violate one point; you're guilty of all. You're guilty of breaking the law and it really doesn't matter which of the commandments you've broken. You're guilty of having broken the law. If you keep the entire law let yet you break one of the commandments, then you're just as guilty as if you've broken all of them. You are guilty of being a lawbreaker.

So speak, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that has showed no mercy ( James 2:12-13 );

Think about that for a moment. Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy" ( Matthew 5:7 ). We are also told, "And whatever measure you meted out, it's going to be measured to you in judgment. Judge not, lest you be judged. For whatever mete you measure, that's the standard by which you're going to be judged" ( Matthew 7:1 , Matthew 7:2 ). Now I don't like that. I want one standard for me and another standard for you.

But I if I stand in judgment against you, and if I begin to point a guilty finger at you and say, Boy, you're really terrible, look what you did and all. What you did you may not have known was wrong. But I do because I'm judging you for it. And that means that's the standard by which I'm going to be judged.

Interesting, all you have to do is just change the picture a little bit and put in different faces and oh, it's horrible. Terrible. "How could they do such a thing?" Wait a minute. That's me. I've done that.

David had all these beautiful wives. Walking on his roof one day, he saw a gal next door taking a bath. Lusted, desired her. Sent his servants over with a message, the king would like to see you. Committed adultery with her. A few weeks later he gets a note: Dear David, I'm pregnant. Bathsheba.

So David sends a message to his general to send her husband home on furlough. Her husband comes home. David says, "Well how's everything going? How's the battle?" "Oh fine." "Well, you know, go home and spend the night with your wife. Talk to you in the morning." He didn't go home. He slept on David's porch. In the morning the servant said, "Hey, he didn't go home last night. He slept right here on the porch." And David called him in and said, "What's the matter with you, man? Got a beautiful wife there, you ought to you know go home and spend the night with her you know. Enjoy your wife. What's your problem?" And the guy says, "Well," he said, "I was thinking of all my buddies. They're out there in the fox holes and it wouldn't be fair for me to go in and enjoy an evening with my wife while those guys are out there in the trenches. That wouldn't be very honorable."

So David got him all soused. Told the servants, Keep his wine cup full. So the guy was drunk. Figure he'd stagger home; spend the night with his wife. And instead he staggered to David's porch, went to sleep again. In the morning, the servant said, "He spent the night here." The Bible says, "He that seeks to cover his sins shall not prosper" ( Proverbs 28:13 ). David tried to cover his sins. Very dastardly way. He sent secret orders with this man back to Joab, the general. It said, "Put him in the front of the battle. When things get tough, withdraw the support from him."

And so Joab did as David commanded and he was killed in battle. Got the report. Killed in battle. David took Bathsheba as his wife. Figured he could cover his tracks. The child was born. David looked like he was a very magnanimous person. Here her husband was killed in battle and now David takes her as one of his wives to raise the child. Isn't that wonderful? No, it isn't.

Nathan the prophet came to David. David thought nobody knew. He'd covered it pretty well. Nathan came to him and said, "David, a man in your kingdom, very wealthy man; he had more than he could ever spend. Tremendous herds, sheep, he lived next door to an extremely poor man who had as his sole possession one little ewe lamb that he loved greatly. In fact, it was sort of a pet. He slept with it at night. Slept in the house and it ate at the guy's table. And the rich man had company. And he ordered his servants to go next door and by force to take the ewe lamb from this man and kill it in order that he might give it to his company. He might feed his company." And David got angry and he said to Nathan, "That man will be surely put to death." David said. Nathan said, "David, you're the man. You've had all these wives. Here's your neighbor. You take away. You're the man, David."

You see, if we show no mercy we will be shown no mercy. Whatever measure we meted out, it's going to be measured to us again. That's why it's so dangerous to put yourself in the position of a judge. Judging other people's actions. "I can't understand why they would do something like that. That's horrible for them to do that, you know." Watch out now. You're setting a standard by which you're going to be judged. "Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy"( Matthew 5:7 ). He who doesn't show mercy, he who judges without mercy will be shown no mercy.

but true mercy rejoices against judgment. Now what does it profit, my brethren, though a man says he has faith, and doesn't have works? can faith save him ( James 2:12-14 )?

Now at this point many people see James and Paul in conflict in teaching. I don't. Paul teaches that salvation is through faith, faith alone. "By grace are you saved through faith; not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship" ( Ephesians 2:8-10 ).

Then what does James say, Can faith save him? The answer is yes, faith can save him. A true faith. But make sure you have a true faith. For if you have a true faith, it will be manifested by the works. In other words, to just say you have faith doesn't cut it. Saying it isn't enough.

I've had people come to me and say, "Oh, I have all the faith in the world." Baloney! Nobody has all the faith in the world. And saying it doesn't make it so. If you believe certain things to be so, then your life is going to be lived accordingly. And so your life testifies of your faith or your beliefs. And to say that you believe in God and that God is supreme and that God is first in your life, then it will follow that there will be certain evidence that will verify that fact that you have declared to be so. And by the works that you do your faith will be proved or proclaimed. And to say that you have faith and not have any works that correspond is totally wrong. You've deceived yourself. You aren't really walking in faith. If you are truly walking in faith, your works are going to be manifesting that truth.

So "what does it profit if a man says he has faith, and he doesn't have works? can that kind of faith save him?" No, it can't.

If a brother or sister is naked, or is destitute of daily food, And you say to them, [Oh] Depart in peace, be warmed and filled; but yet you don't give them any clothes or any food; what good are your words ( James 2:15-16 )?

They can't make him warm. They can't fill his stomach.

Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, if you try to stand alone. Yes, a man may say, You have faith, and I have works: but you show me your faith without your works, I will show you my faith by my works ( James 2:17-18 ).

So it isn't just the declaration. It's the declaration that has something behind it. The proof behind it is the works that I do. Now the works don't save me. They only prove that I have saving faith. And if I don't have works that are corresponding to what I am declaring, then I do not have saving faith, just the declaration, the verbal affirmation isn't enough and it won't do it.

Now a lot of people made mistakes; going forward and saying the sinner's prayer and then going away and living the same kind of life doing the same kind of thing. They say, "Oh yeah, I was saved. I went forward and I said the sinner's prayer." No, no, the sinner's prayer isn't going to save you. It is a living faith in Jesus Christ that brings about actual changes in your life and the proof is in the works; the proof of your faith. Your works have to be in accordance, in harmony with what you are declaring to be true.

You believe that there is one God; [Ah] you do well: the devils believe the same thing, and they tremble ( James 2:19 ).

"Oh, I believe in God." Big deal. Who doesn't, except some fool? The Bible says the fool is the one that says there is no God. So you say you believe in God, it only proves one thing, you're not a fool. But it doesn't save you. The devils believe in God, they probably believe more firmly in Him than you do. They said to Jesus, "We know who you are, you're the Holy One of God" ( Mark 1:24 ). So you say, "Oh I believe Jesus is the holy One of God." So what? Have you submitted your life to His lordship? Are you doing His works? Are you obeying His commands?

You see, not all who say, Lord, Lord, are going to enter the kingdom of heaven. So you say, "Oh Lord, Oh the Lord, Oh the Lord," yea, yea, but saying is not going to do it. Jesus said, "not all who say, Lord, Lord, are going to enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of the Father" ( Matthew 7:21 ). James is telling you the very same thing. It isn't saying I have faith, it is demonstrating the faith because of the works of my life are in harmony with what I am declaring that I believe.

If I believe that there was a bomb planted in this room, set to detonate in two minutes, and I'd stand up here and calmly proclaim to you, "You know, huge bomb in this room going to detonate in two minutes and blow this whole place to smithereens." Terrible of people to do that, isn't it? Can't imagine the mind of a person that would plant such a bomb. Why would they want to destroy us? You'd say, "Ah, you don't really believe there's a bomb here." Why? Because my works don't correspond with what I'm declaring that I believe. But if I go running out of the door and say, "Get out of there, you know. Bomb's going to blow up in two minutes," you know, then you're more apt to believe that at least I believe what I'm telling you because now my actions are corresponding with what I am declaring that I believe to be so.

Now the same is true. You say, "Well I believe in God and I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and all." Well, do your actions correspond? Do your actions really show that Jesus is the Lord of your life? Is that demonstrated by the works that you do? That's what James is saying. Don't just say it. Don't rest in just words, beautiful words. But let's see the actions that demonstrate that you truly believe what you're saying.

Will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead ( James 2:20 )?

It isn't really alive. It isn't a living faith. It isn't a saving faith.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ( James 2:21 )?

You see, his works corresponded with his faith. He believed God. He believed that through Isaac God was going to raise up a nation because God has promised that. Through Isaac shall thy seed be called. Now his very offering up of Isaac was proof of his strong belief in the word of God. Believing that God would if necessary raise Isaac from the dead to keep His promise. And so his faith was in keeping or his works were in keeping with his faith.

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works ( James 2:22 ),

They were working together. His faith produced the works as faith will also produce the corresponding works in our life.

and by works was faith made perfect ( James 2:22 )?

Not a question mark. In the Greek there is no question mark there. It's just the declaration, "by works his faith was made complete." His faith was proved.

And the scripture was fulfilled which said, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only ( James 2:23-24 ).

The works being the proof of the faith.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also ( James 2:25-26 ).

When your spirit leaves your body, your body is dead. The body without the spirit, dead. So faith, if it doesn't have corresponding works, is not a true faith. It's dead. It does nothing for you. It cannot save you. Dead faith can save no one. It's a living faith and a living Lord and that living faith can be demonstrated by the actions of my life that are in harmony and corresponding with what I declare to be true and what I declare I believe to be true. There has to be the corresponding works for faith to be alive.

Therefore, let us examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, the true faith that saves. Not just the verbalizing of the Apostle's Creed. I believe but the actions of my life being in harmony with it.

Father, help us that we might indeed be doers of the word and not hearers only. That we might not just affirm a belief but may we demonstrate that belief by the attitudes and actions of our lives. Lord, help us not to be deceived. In Jesus' name, Amen.

May the Lord bless you and guide you as you go this week. As you face the many temptations, may the Lord give you strength and may you walk and live after the Spirit. And may you respond after the Spirit. In the temptation may you not yield to the flesh and react after the flesh. May your life be pleasing unto God, as our actions come into harmony with our declarations of what we believe. May we show it in the works that we do. In Jesus' name. "

Contending for the Faith

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

For whosoever shall keep the whole law: Does James mean that if an individual breaks the law in one point he is guilty of breaking every law? No, he means that if an individual keeps the law faithfully in every point, yet he disobeys in one point, he is a lawbreaker and will receive punishment just as any other sinner would. The murderer may not be guilty of any other crime, but he is still guilty of breaking the law. The Jews divided their laws into some that were more important than others; as long as one kept their perceived important laws, it did not matter if he kept the lesser ones. That viewpoint, however, is not a correct understanding of the law of Christ. James is telling the readers that while they may be obeying Christ perfectly in every other area, partiality makes them guilty as lawbreakers.

whosoever: The "whosoever" (hostis) is from an indefinite relative Greek pronoun that means "anyone who." These words serve up a warning to every Christian. The two verbs "keep" and "offend" are aorist subjunctives, meaning that while James is presenting this situation as a hypothetical case rather than an actual one, it is implied that it is a possibility. "Keep" (teresei) means to guard, observe, or protect. The picture is of one who zealously protects the whole law by guarding it against desecration.

and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all: "Offend" (ptaisei) means to slip, stumble, or make a mistake. This individual stumbles over one point of the law that gets in his way. While he may take great pains to observe the whole law, he carelessly stumbles in one point. The result is that "he is guilty of all." "Is" (gegonen) is a perfect tense verb referring to the fact he was and even remains guilty of all.

These words tell us that as Christians we are not free to pick and choose the laws of God we prefer. It is easy to obey those commands that appeal to our logic, but it can be difficult to obey those commands we do not like. To ignore purposely or refuse to comply with God’s laws shows rebellion on our part. Those who minimize the importance of obedience to all of God’s laws should heed the sobering words of James. Jesus tells the story of those on judgment day who point out to the Lord the good works they accomplished only to be informed they had not obeyed the will of God (Matthew 7:21-23).

How can the Christian protect himself from unconsciously ignoring some of the commandments of God?

First, he must have an all-consuming desire to be righteous (Matthew 5:6). This desire cannot be an occasional wish but must be constant like a passion.

Second, the Christian must develop a love for obeying all of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). It is human nature to desire to be close to what we love. When we develop an unselfish love for the truth, we will want to be obedient regardless of our own interests.

Third, the Christian must be honest in his treatment of God’s word. He must not force his preconceived ideas into the word. May we never be like those Jesus described as having their heart, eyes, and ears closed to the truth (Matthew 13:15).

Fourth, we must respect God’s word. This word is a sharp and powerful sword (Hebrews 4:12) that will judge the Christian at judgment (John 12:48).

When the Christian conscientiously practices these principles, he will protect himself from ignoring God’s commands.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

A. The Problem of Favoritism 2:1-13

James’ previous reference to hypocritical religiosity (James 1:26-27) seems to have led him to deal with one form of this problem that existed among Christian Jews of his day. It is still with us today. It is the problem of inconsistent love for other people that manifests itself in how we treat them. James wrote this chapter to exhort his readers to deal with this very basic inconsistency in their lives and so progress toward spiritual maturity.

"The connection of this warning against social discrimination with the previous ch. 1 seems fairly obvious. Truckling to the rich and apathy or worse toward the poor are two sides of the same base coin rejected by the touchstone of James 1:27 and of James 2:8." [Note: Adamson, p. 102.]

"He [the believer] must show courtesy to all, compassion for all, and consistency to all. Equity, love, and fidelity are the vital ingredients." [Note: Blue, p. 824.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

James anticipated that some of his readers might feel that preferential treatment was not very important. Consequently he pointed out that the practice of preferring certain individuals makes one a violator of God’s law. We become guilty of all in the sense that we have violated God’s law, not that we have violated every commandment in that law. One can never claim to behave righteously because he or she keeps only part of God’s laws.

"The Jew was very apt to regard the law as a series of detached injunctions. To keep one of these injunctions was to gain credit; to break one was to incur debt. Therefore, a man could add up the ones he kept and subtract the ones he broke, and, as it were emerge with a credit or a debit balance." [Note: Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 81.]

"Our obedience to God’s will cannot be on a selective basis; we cannot choose that part that is to our liking and disregard the rest. God’s will is not fragmentary; the entire law is the expression of His will for His people; it constitutes a grand unity. To break out one corner of a window pane is to become guilty of breaking the whole pane. He who crosses a forbidden boundary at one point or another is guilty of having crossed the boundary." [Note: Hiebert, James, p. 148.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

5. The importance of partiality 2:10-11

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 2

RESPECT OF PERSONS ( James 2:1 )

2:1 My brothers, you cannot really believe that you have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, and yet continue to have respect of persons.

Respect of persons is the New Testament phrase for undue and unfair partiality; it means pandering to someone, because he is rich or influential or popular. It is a fault which the New Testament consistently condemns. It is a fault of which the orthodox Jewish leaders completely acquitted Jesus. Even they were bound to admit that there was no respect of persons with him ( Luke 20:21; Mark 12:14; Matthew 22:16). After his vision of the sheet with the clean and unclean animals upon it, the lesson that Peter learned was that with God there is no respect of persons ( Acts 10:34). It was Paul's conviction that Gentile and Jew stand under a like judgment in the sight of God, for with God there is no favouritism ( Romans 2:11). This is a truth which Paul urges on his people again and again ( Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25).

The word itself is curious--prosopolempsia ( G4382) . The noun comes from the expression prosopon ( G4383) lambanein ( G2983) . Prosopon ( G4383) is the "face"; and lambanein ( G2983) here means "to lift up." The expression in Greek is a literal translation of a Hebrew phrase. To lift up a person's countenance was to regard him with favour, in contradistinction perhaps to casting down his countenance.

Originally it was not a bad word at all; it simply meant to accept a person with favour. Malachi asks if the governor will be pleased with the people and will accept their persons, if they bring him blemished offerings ( Malachi 1:8-9). But the word rapidly acquired a bad sense. It soon began to mean, not so much to favour a person, as to show favouritism, to allow oneself to be unduly influenced by a person's social status or prestige or power or wealth. Malachi goes on to condemn that very sin when God accuses the people of not keeping his ways and of being partial in their judgments ( Malachi 2:9). The great characteristic of God is his complete impartiality. In the Law it was written, "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour" ( Leviticus 19:15). There is a necessary emphasis here. A person may be unjust because of the snobbery which truckles to the rich; and may be equally unjust because of the inverted snobbery which glorifies the poor. "The Lord," said Ben Sirach, "is judge and with him is no respect of persons" ( Sir_35:12 ).

The Old and New Testaments unite in condemning that partiality of judgment and favouritism of treatment which comes of giving undue weight to a man's social standing, wealth or worldly influence. And it is a fault to which every one is more or less liable. "The rich and the poor meet together," says Proverbs, "the Lord is the maker of them all" ( Proverbs 22:2). "It is not meet," says Ben Sirach, "to despise the poor man that hath understanding; neither is it fitting to magnify a sinful man that is rich" ( Sir_10:23 ). We do well to remember that it is just as much respect of persons to truckle to the mob as it is to pander to a tyrant.

THE PERIL OF SNOBBERY WITHIN THE CHURCH ( James 2:2-4 )

2:2-4 For, if a man comes into your assembly with his fingers covered with gold rings and dressed in elegant clothes and a poor man comes in dressed in shabby clothes, and you pay special attention to the man who is dressed in elegant clothes and you say to him: "Will you sit here, please?" and you say to the poor man, "You stand there!" or, "Squat on the floor beside my footstool!" have you not drawn distinctions within your minds, and have you not become judges whose thoughts are evil?

It is James' fear that snobbery may invade the Church. He draws a picture of two men entering the Christian assembly. The one is well-dressed and his fingers are covered with gold rings. The more ostentatious of the ancients wore rings on every finger except the middle one, and wore far more than one on each finger. They even hired rings to wear when they wished to give an impression of special wealth. "We adorn our fingers with rings," said Seneca, "and we distribute gems over every joint." Clement of Alexandria recommends that a Christian should wear only one ring, and that he should wear it on his little finger. It ought to have on it a religious emblem, such as a dove, a fish or an anchor; and the justification for wearing it is that it might be used as a seal.

So, then, into the Christian assembly comes an elegantly dressed and much beringed man. The other is a poor man, dressed in poor clothes because he has no others to wear and unadorned by any jewels. The rich man is ushered to a special seat with all ceremony and respect; while the poor man is bidden to stand, or to squat on the floor, beside the footstool of the well-to-do.

That the picture is not overdrawn is seen from certain instructions in some early service order books. Ropes quotes a typical passage from the Ethiopia Statutes of the Apostles: "If any other man or woman enters in fine clothes, either a man of the district or from other districts, being brethren, thou, presbyter, while thou speakest the word which is concerning God, or while thou hearest or readest, thou shalt not respect persons, nor leave thy ministering to command places for them, but remain quiet, for the brethren shall receive them, and if they have no place for them, the lover of brothers and sisters, will rise, and leave a place for them ... And if a poor man or woman of the district or of other districts should come in and there is no place for them, thou, presbyter, make place for such with all thy heart, even if thou wilt sit on the ground, that there should not be the respecting of the person of man but of God." Here is the same picture. It is even suggested that the leader of the service might be liable, when a rich man entered, to stop the service and to conduct him to a special seat.

There is no doubt that there must have been social problems in the early church. The Church was the only place in the ancient world where social distinctions did not exist. There must have been a certain initial awkwardness when a master found himself sitting next his slave or when a master arrived at a service in which his slave was actually the leader and the dispenser of the Sacrament. The gap between the slave, who in law was nothing more than a living tool, and the master was so wide as to cause problems of approach on either side. Further, in its early days the Church was predominantly poor and humble; and therefore if a rich man was converted and came to the Christian fellowship, there must have been a very real temptation to make a fuss of him and treat him as a special trophy for Christ.

The Church must be the one place where all distinctions are wiped out. There can be no distinctions of rank and prestige when men meet in the presence of the King of glory. There can be no distinctions of merit when men meet in the presence of the supreme holiness of God. In his presence all earthly distinctions are less than the dust and all earthly righteousness is as filthy rags. In the presence of God all men are one.

In James 2:4 there is a problem of translation. The word diekrithete ( G1252) can have two meanings: (i) It can mean, "You are wavering in your judgments, if you act like that." That is to say, "If you pay special honour to the rich, you are torn between the standards of the world and the standards of God and you can't make up your mind which you are going to apply." (ii) It may mean, "You are guilty of making class distinctions which in the Christian fellowship should not exist." We prefer the second meaning, because James goes on to say, "If you do that, you are judges whose thoughts are evil." That is to say, "You are breaking the commandment of him who said, 'Judge not that you be not judged'" ( Matthew 7:1).

THE RICHES OF POVERTY AND THE POVERTY OF RICHES ( James 2:5-7 )

2:5-7 Listen, my dear brothers. Did God not choose those who are poor by the world's valuation to be rich because of their faith and to be heirs of the Kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you dishonour the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and is it not they who drag you to the law-courts? And is it not they who abuse the fair name by which you have been called?

"God," said Abraham Lincoln, "must love the common people because he made so many of them." Christianity has always had a special message for the poor. In Jesus' first sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth his claim was: "He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor" ( Luke 4:18). His answer to John's puzzled inquiries as to whether or not he was God's Chosen One culminated in the claim: "The poor have good news preached to them" ( Matthew 11:5). The first of the Beatitudes was "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" ( Matthew 5:3). And Luke is even more definite: "Blessed are you poor; for yours is the Kingdom of God ( Luke 6:20). During the ministry of Jesus, when he was banished from the synagogues and took to the open road and the hillside and the seaside, it was the crowds of common men and women to whom his message came. In the days of the early church it was to the crowds that the street preachers preached. In fact the message of Christianity was that those who mattered to no one else mattered intensely to God. "For consider your call, brethren," wrote Paul to the Corinthians, "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth" ( 1 Corinthians 1:26).

It is not that Christ and the Church do not want the great and the rich and the wise and the mighty; we must beware of an inverted snobbery, as we have already seen. But it was the simple fact that the gospel offered so much to the poor and demanded so much from the rich, that it was the poor who were swept into the Church. It was, in fact, the common people who heard Jesus gladly and the rich young ruler who went sorrowfully away because he had great possessions. James is not shutting the door on the rich--far from that. He is saying that the gospel of Christ is specially dear to the poor and that in it there is a welcome for the man who has none to welcome him, and that through it there is a value set on the man whom the world regards as valueless.

In the society which James inhabited the rich oppressed the poor. They dragged them to the law-courts. No doubt this was for debt. At the bottom end of the social scale men were so poor that they could hardly live and moneylenders were plentiful and extortionate. In the ancient world there was a custom of summary arrest. If a creditor met a debtor on the street, he could seize him by the neck of his robe, nearly throttling him, and literally drag him to the law-courts. That is what the rich did to the poor. They had no sympathy; all they wanted was the uttermost farthing. It is not riches that James is condemning; it is the conduct of riches without sympathy.

It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name Christian by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for called (epikaleisthai, G1941) is the word used for a wife taking her husband's name in marriage or for a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.

The rich and the masters would have many a reason for insulting the name Christian. A slave who became a Christian would have a new independence; he would no longer cringe at his master's power, punishment would cease to terrorize him and he would meet his master clad in a new manhood. He would have a new honesty. That would make him a better slave, but it would also mean he could no longer be his master's instrument in sharp practice and petty dishonesty as once he might have been. He would have a new sense of worship; and on the Lord's Day he would insist on leaving work aside in order that he might worship with the people of God. There would be ample opportunity for a master to find reasons for insulting the name of Christian and cursing the name of Christ.

THE ROYAL LAW ( James 2:8-11 )

2:8-11 If you perfectly keep the royal law, as the Scripture has it: "You must love your neighbour as yourself," you do well. But if you treat people with respect of persons, such conduct is sin and you stand convicted by the law as transgressors. For, if a man keeps the whole law and yet fails to keep it in one point, he becomes guilty of transgressing the law as a whole. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but kill, you become a transgressor of the law.

The connection of thought with the previous passage is this. James has been condemning those who pay special attention to the rich man who enters the Church. "But," they might answer, "the law tells me to love my neighbour as myself. Therefore we are under duty to welcome the man when he comes to Church." "Very well," answers James, "If you are really welcoming the man because you love him as you do yourself, and you wish to give him the welcome you yourself would wish to receive, that is fine. But, if you are giving him this special welcome because he is a rich man, that is respect of persons and that is wrong--and so far from keeping the law, you are in fact breaking it. You don't love your neighbour, or you would not neglect the poor man. What you love is wealth--and that is not what the law commands."

James calls the great injunction to love our neighbour as ourselves the royal law. There can be various meanings of the phrase. It may mean the law which is of supreme excellence; it may mean the law which is given by the King of the kings; it may mean the king of all laws; it may mean the law that makes men kings and is fit for kings. To keep that greatest law is to become king of oneself and a king among men. It is a law fit for those who are royal, and able to make men royal.

James goes on to lay down a great principle about the law of God. To break any part of it is to become a transgressor. The Jew was very apt to regard the law as a series of detached injunctions. To keep one was to gain credit; to break one was to incur debt. A man could add up the ones he kept and subtract the ones he broke and so emerge with a credit or a debit balance. There was a Rabbinic saying, "Whoever fulfils only one law, good is appointed to him; his days are prolonged and he will inherit the land." Again many of the Rabbis held that "the Sabbath weighs against all precepts," and to keep it was to keep the law.

As James saw it, the whole law was the will of God; to break any part of it was to infringe that will and therefore to be guilty of sin. That is perfectly true. To break any part of the law is to become a transgressor in principle. Even under human justice a man becomes a criminal when he has broken one law. So James argues: "No matter how good you may be in other directions, if you treat people with respect of persons, you have acted against the will of God and you are a transgressor."

There is a great truth here which is both relevant and practical. We may put it much more simply. A man may be in nearly all respects a good man; and yet he may spoil himself by one fault. He may be moral in his action, pure in his speech, meticulous in his devotion. But he may be hard and self-righteous; rigid and unsympathetic; and, if so, his goodness is spoiled.

We do well to remember that, though we may claim to have done many a good thing and to have resisted many an evil thing, there may be something in us by which everything is spoiled.

THE LAW OF LIBERTY AND THE LIFE OF MERCY ( James 2:12-13 )

2:12-13 So speak and so act as those who are going to be judged under the law of liberty. For he who acts without mercy will have judgment without mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

As he comes to the end of a section, James reminds his readers of two great facts of the Christian life.

(i) The Christian lives under the law of liberty, and it is by the law of liberty he will be judged. What he means is this. Unlike the Pharisee and the orthodox Jew, the Christian is not a man whose life is governed by the external pressure of a whole series of rules and regulations imposed on him from without. He is governed by the inner compulsion of love. He follows the right way, the way of love to God and love to men, not because any external law compels him to do so nor because any threat of punishment frightens him into doing so, but because the love of Christ within his heart makes him desire to do so.

(ii) The Christian must ever remember that only he who shows mercy will find mercy. This is a principle which runs through all Scripture. Ben Sirach wrote, "Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven. One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek pardon from the Lord? He showeth no mercy to a man who is like himself; and doth he ask forgiveness for his own sins?" ( Sir_28:2-5 ). Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy" ( Matthew 5:7). "If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" ( Matthew 6:14-15). "Judge not that you be not judged, for with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged" ( Matthew 7:1-2). He tells of the condemnation which fell upon the unforgiving servant and ends the parable by saving, "So, also, my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart" ( Matthew 18:22-35).

Scripture teaching is agreed that he who would find mercy must himself be merciful. And James goes even further, for in the end he says that mercy triumphs over judgment; by which he means that in the day of judgment the man who has shown mercy will find that his mercy has even blotted out his own sin.

FAITH AND WORKS ( James 2:14-26 )

2:14-26 My brothers, what use is it if a man claims to have faith and has no deeds to show? Are you going to claim that his faith is able to save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear, and if they have not enough for their daily food, and if one of you says to them, "Go in peace! Be warmed and fed!" and yet does not give them the essentials of bodily existence, what use is that? So, if faith too has no deeds to show, by itself it is dead.

This is a passage which we must take as a whole before we look at it in parts, for it is so often used in an attempt to show that James and Paul were completely at variance. It is apparently Paul's emphasis that a man is saved by faith alone and that deeds do not come into the process at all. "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" ( Romans 3:28). "A man is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ...because by works of the law shall no one be justified" ( Galatians 2:16). It is often argued that James is not simply differing from Paul but is flatly contradicting him. This is a matter we must investigate.

(i) We begin by noting that James' emphasis is in fact a universal New Testament emphasis. It was the preaching of John the Baptist that men should prove the reality of their repentance by the excellence of their deeds ( Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8). It was Jesus' preaching that men should so live that the world might see their good works and give the glory to God ( Matthew 5:16). He insisted that it was by their fruits that men must be known and that a faith which expressed itself in words only could never take the place of one which expressed itself in the doing of the will of God ( Matthew 7:15-21).

Nor is this emphasis missing from Paul himself. Apart from anything else, there can be few teachers who have ever stressed the ethical effect of Christianity as Paul does. However doctrinal and theological his letters may be, they never fail to end with a section in which the expression of Christianity in deeds is insisted upon. Apart from that general custom Paul repeatedly makes clear the importance he attaches to deeds as part of the Christian life. He speaks of God who will render to every man according to his works ( Romans 2:6). He insists that every one of us shall give account of himself to God ( Romans 14:12). He urges men to put off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light ( Romans 13:12). Every man shall receive his own reward according to his labour ( 1 Corinthians 3:8). We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that every one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body ( 2 Corinthians 5:10). The Christian has to put off the old nature and all its deeds ( Colossians 3:9).

The fact that Christianity must be ethically demonstrated is an essential part of the Christian faith throughout the New Testament.

(ii) The fact remains that James reads as if he were at variance with Paul; for in spite of all that we have said Paul's main emphasis is upon grace and faith and James' upon action and works. But this must be said--what James is condemning is not Paulinism but a perversion of it. The essential Pauline position in one sentence was: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" ( Acts 16:31). But clearly the significance we attach to this demand will entirely depend on the meaning we attach to believe. There are two kinds of belief.

There is belief which is purely intellectual. For instance, I believe that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides; and if I had to, I could prove it--but it makes no difference to my life and living. I accept it, but it has no effect upon me.

There is another kind of belief. I believe that five and five make ten, and, therefore, I will resolutely refuse to pay more than ten pence for two fivepenny bars of chocolate. I take that fact, not only into my mind, but into my life and action.

What James is arguing against is the first kind of belief, the acceptance of a fact without allowing it to have any influence upon life. The devils are intellectually convinced of the existence of God; they, in fact, tremble before him; but their belief does not alter them in the slightest. What Paul held was the second kind of belief For him to believe in Jesus meant to take that belief into every section of life and to live by it.

It is easy to pervert Paulinism and to emasculate believe of all effective meaning; and it is not really Paulinism but a misunderstood form of it that James condemns. He is condemning profession without practice and with that condemnation Paul would have entirely agreed.

(iii) Even allowing for that, there is still a difference between James and Paul--they begin at different times in the Christian life. Paul begins at the very beginning. He insists that no man can ever earn the forgiveness of God. The initial step must come from the free grace of God; a man can only accept the forgiveness which God offers him in Jesus Christ.

James begins much later with the professing Christian, the man who claims to be already forgiven and in a new relationship with God. Such a man, James rightly says, must live a new life for he is a new creature. He has been justified; he must now show that he is sanctified With that Paul would have entirely agreed.

The fact is that no man can be saved by works; but equally no man can be saved without producing works. By far the best analogy is that of a great human love. He who is loved is certain that he does not deserve to be loved; but he is also certain that he must spend his life trying to be worthy of that love.

The difference between James and Paul is a difference of starting-point. Paul starts with the great basic fact of the forgiveness of God which no man can earn or deserve; James starts with the professing Christian and insists that a man must prove his Christianity by his deeds. We are not saved by deeds; we are saved for deeds; these are the twin truths of the Christian life. Paul's emphasis is on the first and James' is on the second. In fact they do not contradict but complement each other; and the message of both is essential to the Christian faith in its fullest form. As the paraphrase has it:

Let all who hold this faith and hope

In holy deeds abound;

Thus faith approves itself sincere,

By active virtue crown'd.

Profession And Practice ( James 2:14-17)

2:14-17 My brothers, what use is it, if a man claims to have faith and has no deeds to show? Are you going to claim that his faith is able to save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and if they have not enough for their daily food, and if one of you says to them, "Go in peace! Be warmed and fed!" and yet does not give them the essentials of bodily existence, what use is that? So, if faith too has no deeds to show, by itself it is dead.

The one thing that James cannot stand is profession without practice, words without deeds. He chooses a vivid illustration of what he means. Suppose a man to have neither clothes to protect him nor food to feed him; and suppose his so-called friend to express the sincerest sympathy for his sad plight; and suppose that sympathy stops with words and no effort is made to alleviate the plight of the unfortunate man, what use is that? What use is sympathy without some attempt to turn that sympathy into practical effect? Faith without deeds is dead. This is a passage which would appeal specially to a Jew.

(i) To a Jew almsgiving was of paramount importance. So much so that righteousness and almsgiving mean one and the same thing. Almsgiving was considered to be a man's one defence when he was judged by God. "Water will quench a flaming fire," writes Ben Sirach, "and alms maketh an atonement for sin" ( Sir_3:30 ). In Tobit it is written, "Everyone who occupieth himself in alms shall behold the face of God, as it is written, I will behold thy face by almsgiving" ( Tob_4:8-10 ). When the leaders of the Jerusalem Church agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles the one injunction laid upon him was not to forget the poor ( Galatians 2:10). This stress on practical help was one of the great and lovely marks of Jewish piety.

(ii) There was a strain of Greek religion to which this stress on sympathy and almsgiving was quite alien. The Stoics aimed at apatheia, the complete absence of feeling. The aim of life was serenity. Emotion disturbs serenity. The way to perfect calm was to annihilate all emotion. Pity was a mere disturbance of the detached philosophic calm in which a man should aim to live. So Epictetus lays it down that only he who disobeys the divine command will ever feel grief or pity (Discourses 3: 24, 43). When Virgil in the Georgics (2: 498) draws the picture of the perfectly happy man, he has no pity for the poor and no grief for the sorrowing, for such emotions would only upset his own serenity. This is the very opposite of the Jewish point of view. For the Stoic blessedness meant being wrapped up in his own philosophic detachment and calm; for the Jew it meant actively sharing in the misfortunes of others.

(iii) In his approach to this subject James is profoundly right. There is nothing more dangerous than the repeated experiencing of a fine emotion with no attempt to put it into action. It is a fact that every time a man feels a noble impulse without taking action, he becomes less likely ever to take action. In a sense it is true to say that a man has no right to feel sympathy unless he at least tries to put that sympathy into action. An emotion is not something in which to luxuriate; it is something which at the cost of effort and of toil and of discipline and of sacrifice must be turned into the stuff of life.

Not "either Or", But "both And" ( James 2:18-19)

2:18-19 But some one may well say, "Have you faith?" My answer is, "I have deeds. Show me your faith apart from your deeds and I will show you my faith by means of my deeds." You say that you believe there is one God. Excellent! The demons also believe the same thing--and shudder in terror.

James is thinking of a possible objector who says, "Faith is a fine thing; and works are fine things. They are both perfectly genuine manifestations of real religion. But the one man does not necessarily possess both. One man will have faith and another will have works. Well, then, you carry on with your works and I will carry on with my faith; and we are both being truly religious in our own way." The objector's view is that faith and works are alternative expressions of the Christian religion. James will have none of it. It is not a case of either faith or works; it is necessarily a case of both faith and works.

In many ways Christianity is falsely represented as an "either or" when it must properly be a "both and".

(i) In the well-proportioned life there must be thought and action. It is tempting and it is common to think that one may be either a man of thought or a man of action. The man of thought will sit in his study thinking great thoughts; the man of action will be out in the world doing great deeds. But that is wrong. The thinker is only half a man unless he turns his thoughts into deeds. He will scarcely even inspire men to action unless he comes down into the battle and shares the arena with them. As Kipling had it:

O England is a garden and such gardens are not made

By saying, "O how beautiful," and sitting in the shade;

While better men than we began their working lives

By digging weeds from garden paths with broken dinner knives.

Nor can anyone be a real man of action unless he has thought out the great principles on which his deeds are founded.

(ii) In the well-proportioned life there must be prayer and effort. Again it is tempting to divide men into two classes--the saints who spend life secluded on their knees in constant devotion and the toilers who labour in the dust and the heat of the day. But it will not do. It is said that Martin Luther was close friends with another monk. The other was as fully persuaded of the necessity of the Reformation as Luther was. So they made an arrangement. Luther would go down into the world and fight the battle there; the other would remain in his cell praying for the success of Luther's labours. But one night the monk had a dream. In it he saw a single reaper engaged on the impossible task of reaping an immense field by himself The lonely reaper turned his head and the monk saw his face was the face of Martin Luther; and he knew that he must leave his cell and his prayers and go to help. It is, of course, true that there are some who, because of age or bodily weakness, can do nothing other than pray; and their prayers are indeed a strength and a support. But if any normal person thinks that prayer can be a substitute for effort, his prayers are merely a way of escape. Prayer and effort must go hand in hand.

(iii) In any well-proportioned life there must be faith and deeds. It is only through deeds that faith can prove and demonstrate itself; and it is only through faith that deeds will be attempted and done. Faith is bound to overflow into action; and action begins only when a man has faith in some great cause or principle which God has presented to him.

The Proof Of Faith ( James 2:20-26)

2:20-26 Do you wish for proof, you empty creature, that faith without deeds is ineffective? Our father Abraham was proved righteous in consequence of deeds, when he was ready to offer Isaac his son upon the altar. You see how his faith co-operated with his deeds and how his faith was completed by his deeds, and so there was fulfilled the passage of Scripture which says, "Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness and he was called the friend of God." You see that it is by deeds that a man is proved righteous and not only by faith. In the same way was Rahab the harlot not also proved righteous by deeds, when she received the messengers and sent them away by another way? For just as the body without the breath is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James offers two illustrations of the point of view on which he is insisting. Abraham is the great example of faith; but Abraham's faith was proved by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac at the apparent demand of God. Rahab was a famous figure in Jewish legend. She had sheltered the spies sent to spy out the Promised Land ( Joshua 2:1-21). Later legend said that she became a proselyte to the Jewish faith, that she married Joshua and that she was a direct ancestress of many priests and prophets, including Ezekiel and Jeremiah. It was her treatment of the spies which proved that she had faith.

Paul and James are both right here. Unless Abraham had had faith he would never have answered the summons of God. Unless Rahab had had faith, she would never have taken the risk of identifying her future with the fortunes of Israel. And yet, unless Abraham had been prepared to obey God to the uttermost, his faith would have been unreal; and unless Rahab had been prepared to risk all to help the spies, her faith would have been useless.

These two examples show that faith and deeds are not opposites; they are, in fact, inseparables. No man will ever be moved to action without faith; and no man's faith is genuine unless it moves him to action. Faith and deeds are opposite sides of a man's experience of God.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

James 2:10

For whoever shall keep -- The best manuscripts [ à B, C. - old, but which are not necessarily the best, - WG] read, “Whosoever shall have kept the whole law, and yet shall have offended (literally, ‘stumbled’; not so strong as ‘fall,’ Romans 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; - JFB

the whole law -- The law was considered an interdependent whole, and any infraction constituted a breaking of the law as a whole. Jesus said, “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18). Thus favoritism (James 2:9) makes one “accountable” (Gk. enochos, a legal term for “liable” or “guilty” before God’s court) for the whole law. - ESVSB

    The Law was express on the need of keeping all the commandments; see Leviticus 19:37 (the same chapter to which St. James has already referred). - PC

stumble in one point -- Partial obedience, or temporary obedience, was never enough to be accepted by God through the Mosaic covenant (cf. Matthew 5:19; Galatians 5:3). This type of summary statement about keeping the whole law (from bar mitzvah [boys from age 13] and bath mitzvah [girls from age 12] now responsible to keep the law) is the theological basis of Paul’s strong statements of mankind’s sinfulness in Romans 3:9-23. - Utley

is guilty of all -- (accountable for all - ESV) --

    Reflects the belief that the OT law was to be kept in its entirety (Galatians 5:3) - FSB

    Not in the sense of having violated every command, but in the sense of having violated the law’s unity. One transgression makes fulfilling the law’s most basic commands—to love God perfectly and to love one’s neighbor as oneself—impossible. - MSB

    “Our obedience to God’s will cannot be on a selective basis; we cannot choose that part that is to our liking and disregard the rest. God’s will is not fragmentary; the entire law is the expression of His will for His people; it constitutes a grand unity. To break out one corner of a window pane is to become guilty of breaking the whole pane. He who crosses a forbidden boundary at one point or another is guilty of having crossed the boundary. - 94{ Hiebert, James, p. 148} - Constable

    A golden chain whose completeness is broken if you break one link [GATAKER]. ... If any part of a man be leprous, the whole man is judged to be a leper. - JFB

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

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, John 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, Matthew 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.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:   9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.   10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.   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.   12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.   13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

      The apostle, having condemned the sin of those who had an undue respect of persons, and having urged what was sufficient to convict them of the greatness of this evil, now proceeds to show how the matter may be mended; it is the work of a gospel ministry, not only to reprove and warn, but to teach and direct. Colossians 1:28, Warning every man, and teaching every man. And here,

      I. We have the law that is to guide us in all our regards to men set down in general. If you fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, you do well,James 2:8; James 2:8. Lest any should think James had been pleading for the poor so as to throw contempt on the rich, he now lets them know that he did not design to encourage improper conduct towards any; they must not hate nor be rude to the rich, any more than despise the poor; but as the scripture teaches us to love all our neighbours, be they rich or poor, as ourselves, so, in our having a steady regard to this rule, we shall do well. Observe hence, 1. The rule for Christians to walk by is settled in the scriptures: If according to the scriptures, c. It is not great men, nor worldly wealth, nor corrupt practices among professors themselves, that must guide us, but the scriptures of truth. 2. The scripture gives us this as a law, to love our neighbour as ourselves it is what still remains in full force, and is rather carried higher and further by Christ than made less important to us. 3. This law is a royal law, it comes from the King of kings. Its own worth and dignity deserve it should be thus honoured; and the state in which all Christians now are, as it is a state of liberty, and not of bondage or oppression, makes this law, by which they are to regulate all their actions to one another, a royal law. 4. A pretence of observing this royal law, when it is interpreted with partiality, will not excuse men in any unjust proceedings. In is implied here that some were ready to flatter rich men, and be partial to them, because, if they were in the like circumstances, they should expect such regards to themselves; or they might plead that to show a distinguished respect to those whom God in his providence had distinguished by their rank and degree in the world was but doing right; therefore the apostle allows that, so far as they were concerned to observe the duties of the second table, they did well in giving honour to whom honour was due; but this fair pretence would not cover their sin in that undue respect of persons which they stood chargeable with; for,

      II. This general law is to be considered together with a particular law: "If you have respect to persons, you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors,James 2:9; James 2:9. Notwithstanding the law of laws, to love your neighbour as yourselves, and to show that respect to them which you would be apt to look for yourselves if in their circumstances, yet this will not excuse your distributing either the favours or the censures of the church according to men's outward condition; but here you must look to a particular law, which God, who gave the other, has given you together with it, and by this you will stand fully convicted of the sin I have charged you with." This law is in Leviticus 19:15, Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt though judge thy neighbour. Yea, the very royal law itself, rightly explained, would serve to convict them, because it teaches them to put themselves as much in the places of the poor as in those of the rich, and so to act equitably towards one as well as the other. Hence he proceeds,

      III. To show the extent of the law, and how far obedience must be paid to it. They must fulfil the royal law, have a regard to one part as well as another, otherwise it would not stand them in stead, when they pretended to urge it as a reason for any particular actions: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,James 2:10; James 2:10. This may be considered, 1. With reference to the case James has been upon: Do you plead for your respect to the rich, because you are to love your neighbour as yourselves? Why then show also an equitable and due regard to the poor, because you are to love your neighbour as yourself: or else your offending in one point will spoil your pretence of observing that law at all. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, if he offend in one point, wilfully, avowedly, and with continuance, and so as to think he shall be excused in some matters because of his obedience in others, he is guilty of all; that is, he incurs the same penalty, and is liable to the same punishment, by the sentence of the law, as if he had broken it in other points as well as that he stands chargeable with. Not that all sins are equal, but that all carry the same contempt of the authority of the Lawgiver, and so bind over to such punishment as is threatened on the breach of that law. This shows us what a vanity it is to think that our good deeds will atone for our bad deeds, and plainly puts us upon looking for some other atonement. 2. This is further illustrated by putting a case different from that before mentioned (James 2:11; James 2:11): 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. One, perhaps, is very severe in the case of adultery, or what tends to such pollutions of the flesh; but less ready to condemn murder, or what tends to ruin the health, break the hearts, and destroy the lives, of others: another has a prodigious dread of murder, but has more easy thoughts of adultery; whereas one who looks at the authority of the Lawgiver more than the matter of the command will see the same reason for condemning the one as the other. Obedience is then acceptable when all is done with an eye to the will of God; and disobedience is to be condemned, in whatever instance it be, as it is a contempt of the authority of God; and, for that reason, if we offend in one point, we contemn the authority of him who gave the whole law, and so far are guilty of all. Thus, if you look to the law of the old, you stand condemned; for cursed is every that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them,Galatians 3:10.

      IV. James directs Christians to govern and conduct themselves more especially by the law of Christ. So speak and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty,James 2:12; James 2:12. This will teach us, not only to be just and impartial, but very compassionate and merciful to the poor; and it will set us perfectly free from all sordid and undue regards to the rich. Observe here, 1. The gospel is called a law. It has all the requisites of a law: precepts with rewards and punishments annexed; it prescribes duty, as well as administers comfort; and Christ is a king to rule us as well as a prophet to teach us, and a priest to sacrifice and intercede for us. We are under the law to Christ. 2. It is a law of liberty, and one that we have no reason to complain of as a yoke or burden; for the service of God, according to the gospel, is perfect freedom; it sets us at liberty from all slavish regards, either to the persons or the things of this world. 3. We must all be judged by this law of liberty. Men's eternal condition will be determined according to the gospel; this is the book that will be opened, when we shall stand before the judgment-seat; there will be no relief to those whom the gospel condemns, nor will any accusation lie against those whom the gospel justifies. 4. It concerns us therefore so to speak and act now as become those who must shortly be judged by this law of liberty; that is, that we come up to gospel terms, that we make conscience of gospel duties, that e be of a gospel temper, and that our conversation be a gospel conversation, because by this rule we must be judged. 5. The consideration of our being judged by the gospel should engage us more especially to be merciful in our regards to the poor (James 2:13; James 2:13): For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath shown no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. Take notice here, (1.) The doom which will be passed upon impenitent sinners at last will be judgment without mercy; there will be no mixtures or allays in the cup of wrath and of trembling, the dregs of which they must drink. (2.) Such as show no mercy now shall find no mercy in the great day. But we may note, on the other hand, (3.) That there will be such as shall become instances of the triumph of mercy, in whom mercy rejoices against judgment: all the children of men, in the last day, will be either vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy. It concerns all to consider among which they shall be found; and let us remember that blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.