Contact us

For any questions and//or inquiries:

icon_widget_image Phone: +40 21 223 53 66 icon_widget_image


Whoever Breaks One Part of the Law

Because he who observes the whole law and yet stumbles in one place is guilty of breaking everything. 16. The habit of passively receiving sentimental impressions from the sight of suffering without translating them into active habits only hardens the heart. One of you – James brings the matter home to his listeners one by one. Go in peace, as if all their desires were satisfied by simple words addressed to them. The same words in the mouth of Christ whose faith they claimed were accompanied by effective acts of love. be. warmed – with clothes instead of being „naked” as before (2:15, Job 31:20). Instead of being „penniless” (Matthew 15:37). What is the point, and concludes with the same question as at the beginning, James 2:14.

Fair remuneration: friendly professions without corresponding actions, since they have no „use” for the needy object, they are of no use to the teacher himself. Therefore, faith, which consists of mere confession, is unacceptable to God, the object of faith, and useless to the owner. 8. The Greek can be translated: „But if you accomplish” &c. that is, as Alford explains according to Esius: „I do not say yet, hate the rich (because of their oppression) and drive them out of your assemblies; If you decide to obey royal law. good and good; But respect for people is a violation of this law. I think the translation is: „If you fulfill royal law in one act (or `in fact on the one hand`). You do it well, but if you (on the other hand) respect people, you practice sin.

Jewish Christians boasted and rested in the „Law” (Acts 15:1; 21:18-24; Romans 2:17; Galatians 2:12). „You rest in the law): If you really do it, you do it well; but what if” &c. Royal – the law, which is queen of all laws, is the sum and essence of the Ten Commandments. The great king, God, is love; His law is the royal law of love, and this law reigns as himself. He „doesn`t pay attention to people”; therefore, respect for persons is contrary to Him and His royal law, which is at the same time a law of love and freedom (James 2:12). The law is the „whole”; „The (particular) scriptures” (Leviticus 19:18) are part of it. To break a part is to break the whole (James 2:10). You do good by being „blessed in your action” („doing,” margin) as a doer, not as a hearer who forgets the law (James 1:25). It is arguably the „ALL” part of the „covenant” that is a fundamental part of the „curse”—especially since God explicitly said they would not—almost in the same breath (Deuteronomy 30:16). 14.

James fights here, starting from the particular case of „mercy” or „love” violated by „respect for persons”, notwithstanding the confession of the „faith of our Lord Jesus” (James 2:1), the Jewish tendency (transplanted into their Christianity) to replace a lifeless and ineffective knowledge of the letter of the law with a change of heart to practical holiness, as if justification could be obtained (Romans 2:3; Romans 2:13; Romans 2:23). It seems unlikely that James saw Paul`s letters, given that he uses the same phrases and examples (compare James 2:21, James 2:23, James 2:25, with Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:17, and Hebrews 11:31; and James 2:14, James 2:24, with Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16). Whether James conceived him individually or not, the Holy Spirit does not fight Paul through him, but those who abuse Paul`s teaching. The teaching of both is inspired and must therefore be received without verbal quarrels; but each has a different class to deal with; Paulus, vigilantes; James, antinomian defender of a fictitious faith. Paul insisted as strongly as James on the necessity of works as evidence of faith, especially in later epistles where many misused doctrine (Titus 2:14; 3:8). „Faith and action are blood relatives” [RUTHERFORD]. What use is it – literally: „What is the gain?”, although a man says – James` expression is not: „If a man has faith”, but „if a man says he has faith”; refer to a simple profession of faith, as it was usually made at baptism. Simon the Magus „believed and was baptized” and yet he had „neither part nor much in this matter,” for his „heart,” as his words and works showed, was not right in the eyes of God. ALFORD falsely denies that „saying” is categorical.

The example, James 2:16, proves this: „When one of you said to a naked brother, `Be warm, even if you do not give what is necessary.` The ineffective confession of compassion that responds to the ineffectual belief. Can faith save him – rather: „Can such faith (literally `faith`) save him?” The faith you claim: the empty name of boastful faith, as opposed to true fruitful faith. Thus, what the self-deceitful claim is called „wisdom,” but not true wisdom, James 3:15. The „he” also in Greek is emphatic; The special person who professes the faith without having the works that prove its vitality. Ya`akov 2:10 (OJB) For he who is shomer on kol haTorah but stumbles in a mitzvah is condemned as ashem (guilty) of averoh (transgression) of kol mitzvot. If someone breaks a law, they have failed to .” this Act”. The apostle James writes in his epistle, „For whoever keeps all the law, and yet stumbles upon a point, is guilty of everything” (James 2:10). The apostle refers to the law of the Ten Commandments in this passage and gives two examples (James 2:11).

He who stumbles in a commandment breaks everything, because the law is not merely a separate set of principles; It is a perfect harmonious revelation of the divine will. James points out that he quotes the proverbial truth in verse 10–11 by interrupting the direct address of the second person plural of verses 8–10 and 12–13 with the third person singular of the „habitual” or „gnomic” truth (anyone). The hypothetical nature of the situation makes it unnecessary to follow Johnson by giving a conative meaning to the verb „keep” (for example, „undertakes to abide by all the law”). James does not imply that anyone actually meets all the requirements of the law; He simply makes a hypothesis „suppose it is so”. Would he stumble (i.e. disobey) even at a single „point” (or commandment); cf. 3:2; Romans 11:11; 2 Peter 1:10) is guilty of breaking everything. The VIN rendering here is very appropriate. Some versions simply translate „have become a lawbreaker” (NRSV), but omit the concept of judicial culpability that the word James seems to have here (enochos; cf. six of the other seven occurrences in the NT: Matthew 5:21, 22; 26:66 ; Mark 3:29; 14:64; 1 Corinthians 11:27; Hebrews 2:15 is less clear).

Violations of the law, whether civil or religious, do not have to be a violation of all laws – one crime is enough to convict the perpetrator. No earthly judge will forgive the violation of one law simply because the perpetrator obeyed many other laws. A chain is broken by the breaking of its weakest link. So stumbling into a commandment means that the whole law is broken for the transgressor.