Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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.
11. For he that said, Do not commit adultery ] The two commandments are chosen as standing first in the Second Table, the fifth being classed by most Jewish writers as belonging to the First, just as in Greek and Roman ethics, duty to parents came under the head of and Pietas, rather than under that of Justice (comp. 1Ti 5:4). This division is recognised by Josephus ( Ant. iii. 6. 6) and Philo ( De Decal. i.), and falls in better than the common one with the pentad and duad grouping that pervades the Law. It is singular that in all New Testament quotations from the Second Table “Thou shalt not commit adultery” precedes “Thou shalt not kill,” Mar 10:19; Luk 18:20; Rom 13:9; and the order is made the subject of direct comment by Philo ( De Decal. xii. 24). It may be inferred from this that there was, probably, a traditional order varying from that at present found in the Hebrew Pentateuch.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill – That is, these are parts of the same law of God, and one is as obligatory as the other. If, therefore, you violate either of these precepts, you transgress the law of God as such, and must be held to be guilty of violating it as a whole. The penalty of the law will be incurred, whatever precept you violate.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. For he that said] That is, the authority that gave one commandment gave also the rest; and he who breaks one resists this authority; so that the breach of any one commandment may be justly considered a breach of the whole law. It was a maxim also among the Jewish doctors that, if a man kept any one commandment carefully, though he broke all the rest, he might assure himself of the favour of God; for while they taught that “He who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt, and so has he done who has broken even one precept,” (Mechilta, fol. 5, Yalcut Simeoni, part 1, fol. 59,) they also taught, “that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law;” (Kiddushin, fol. 39;) and they give for example, “If a man abandon idolatry, it is the same as if he had fulfilled the whole law,” (Ibid., fol. 40.) To correct this false doctrine James lays down that in the 11th verse. Jas 2:11 Thus they did and undid.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All proof of what he laid down in the former verse, by instancing in these two commands, there being the same reason of all the rest, the same sovereignty and righteousness of God appearing in them, and it being the will of God to try our obedience in one as well as another.
Thou art become a transgressor of the law; viz. by contemning the authority and holiness of God, which appears in the whole law, and every command of it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. He is One who gave the wholelaw; therefore, they who violate His will in one point, violate itall [BENGEL]. The law andits Author alike have a complete unity.
adultery . . . killselectedas being the most glaring cases of violation of duty towards one’sneighbor.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For he that said, Do not commit adultery,…. That same lawgiver, who is but one, and is God, that gave out the seventh command, and forbids adultery,
said also, Do not kill; delivered the sixth command, which forbids murder.
Now if thou commit no adultery; do not break the seventh command;
yet if thou kill, break the sixth command,
thou art become a transgressor of the law; not of that particular precept of the law, the seventh command, for the contrary is supposed before, but of the sixth only; and yet by so doing, a man becomes a violator of the whole law; for the law is but one, though it consists of various precepts; and the breach of one precept, as well as of another, is the breach of the law: and besides, there is but one lawgiver, who has enjoined one command, as well as another, and whose legislative power and authority is despised and trampled upon by the violation of one command, as of another. This is the apostle’s argument, and way of reasoning, proving the above assertion, that he that breaks the law in one particular instance, is guilty of the breach of the whole law.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He that said ( )
–said also ( ). The unity of the law lies in the Lawgiver who spoke both prohibitions ( and the aorist active subjunctive in each one, , ). The order here is that of B in Ex 20 (Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9), but not in Matt 5:21; Matt 5:27 (with and future indicative).
Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest ( , ). Condition of first class with (not ) because of the contrast with , whereas would mean “unless,” a different idea. So in 1:23.
A transgressor of the law ( ) as in verse 9. Murder springs out of anger (Mt 5:21-26). People free from fleshly sins have often “made their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual sins” (Hort).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
A transgressor [] . From para, beyond, and bainw, to go. A transgressor, therefore, is one who goes beyond the line. So, also, trespass, which is trespass, from the Latin trans, across, and passus, a step. A similar word occurs in Homer, uJperbasia, a transgression or trespass, from uJper, over, and bainw, to go.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) The same law that forbids adultery also forbids murder, and one has only to break one of the laws to become a lawbreaker, a transgressor.
2) The term transgressor (Gk. parabates) means to step down below a stated standard of conduct or behavior. James therefore would emphasize the importance of attempting to keep and abide by all the high standards of all the laws of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3) The Master teacher, in the inaugural address to His church in the Sermon on the Mount, thus confirmed the need of Christian respect for Divine principles expressed by Divine Command.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11 For he that said, or he who hath said. This is a proof of the former verse; because the Lawgiver is to be considered rather than each particular precept apart. The righteousness of God, as an indivisible body, is contained in the law. Whosoever, then, transgresses one article of the Law, destroys, as far as he can, the righteousness of God. Besides, as in one part, so in every part, God’s will is to try our obedience. Hence a transgressor of the law is every one who offends as to any one of its commandments according to this saying,
“
Cursed is he who fulfills not all things.” (Deu 27:26.)
We further see, that the transgressor of the law, and the guilty of all, mean the same according to James.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(11) For he that said . . .All men have favourite vices and indulgences; and most
Compound for sins they have a mind to
By damning those theyre not inclined to;
forgetful that the same Lawgiver has laid His restrictions upon every sort and kind. Not that we can believe all sins are the same in their deadening effect upon the soul, or, further, in their punishment. The point which St. James urges is that sin, as sin, involves the curse of the law; and that respect of persons, with its unloving and unlovely results, must bring its deceived possessor into condemnation before God. Just as our Lord referred the Sixth and Seventh Commandments (Mat. 5:21-32) to the first issues of the angry or lustful heart, and by no means confined them as did the Rabbinical teachers to the very act, so now in like manner the Apostle takes his stand upon the guiltiness of any breach whatever of the Law. Love is its complete fulfilment, we are well informed (Rom. 13:10), but in that startling briefness lies comprehended all the decalogue, with its utmost ramifications; and men of the world would find a rule of the most minute and rigid ceremony easier to be followed than this simple all-embracing one. The fulfilling of the Law is very different from the substitution of a single plain command for a difficult code; this would seem to be the mistake of many, noisily asserting their freedom from the older obligations, who do not so evidently live under the mild bondage of the new.
A curious question may be raised upon the inverted order of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments in this passage, as well as in Mar. 10:19; Luk. 18:20; Rom. 13:9. (Not so however, observe, in the sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5:21-27.) Professor Plumptre says they are thus placed because standing first in the second table, the Fifth being classed by most Jewish writers as belonging to the first, and there was, probably, a traditional order of the Tenth, varying from that at present found in the Hebrew Pentateuch. The Greek version, known as the Septuagint, supports this theory, placing Thou shalt not commit adultery in Jas. 2:13 of Exodus 20, and Thou shalt not kill in Jas. 2:15.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. For It is not meant that you have committed each and every mentionable act of transgression. The ten commandments are but so many specifications under the one law of love; they are but specifications of various ways in which that one whole law can be violated. Every specific violation is a violation of that one whole law. He The same one undivided divine Authority is promulgator of the one law, which so branches into ten specifications. Violating any one specification impinges against that entire authority. It denies the supremacy of God. It is treason against the government of the universe.
No adultery You may be as chaste as “the icicle in Dian’s temple,” yet, if you murder, your virtue will not save you. There is to be no balancing of account with heaven between your vices and your virtues. Every vice breaks the whole law.
A modern American poem described a western steamboat pilot who closed a life of profligacy with being blown up in order to save the lives of the passengers on board his boat. It assumes that his self-sacrifice in death would atone for his profligate life, and concludes by declaring that Christ would not severely judge “the man who died for men.” But the death was scarcely less profligate than the life. It was simply that same desperate recklessness of life, acting under an impulse of professional pride, as he would show in a fray for supremacy or advantage in any other matter. No such act could atone for the crimes against temperance, chastity, the rights of his fellow men, and the laws of God, which, as described in the poem itself, formed the staple of this bad hero’s existence. The writing of such poetry is as profligate and demoralizing as the life it heroizes.
‘For he who said, “Do not commit adultery”, said also, “Do not murder”. Now if you do not commit adultery, but do murder, you are become a transgressor of the law.’
He then illustrates this from two basic laws, the law against adultery (the breaking up of a marriage relationship and the stealing of a man’s wife), and the law against murder (the stealing away from a man of his life by death, and of someone’s beloved relation by the ending of the life of that relation. Everyone murdered is someone’s son or daughter). The laws were carefully selected. No one would have denied that in these cases any guilty party, at least theoretically, deserved death. In the ancient Law these two crimes carried the death penalty. They were seen as the most serious crimes of all. But James’ point is that it is equally as heinous in God’s eyes to act in a way that reveals that we do not love our neighbours as ourselves in lesser thing, as it is to reveal that lack of love by murder or commit adultery. And we should note in this regard that Jesus had made clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan that our neighbours were men of all races. Thus our love is to be shown towards all, and especially towards those of good will like the Good Samaritan, and to fall short of this requirement is to be as bad as an adulterer or a murderer.
Jas 2:11 . The truth of the above thought is founded on the fact that all commandments proceed from one lawgiver.
, ] Baumgarten finds the reason why James adduces these two commandments, and , in this, because “the transgression of these two was punished with death;” Wiesinger, on the other hand, because was never laid to the charge of the readers, whereas had the command of love as its essence;” and Lange, because “to the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was likewise the prohibition of apostasy to heathenism, and the prohibition of murder was likewise that of uncharitableness towards our neighbour.” But the reason is rather because these two commandments are the first of those which refer to our duties to our neighbour (thus Brckner). That precedes the other has its reason in ancient tradition: see on both points Mar 10:19 ; Luk 18:20 ; Rom 13:9 (see Meyer in loc .); Philo, de decal. xii. 24, 32. With the words that follow: . . ., James draws the inference from the preceding. The negative after with the indicative is not surprising in the N. T. usage, the less so as here only a part of the conditional sentence is denied; see Winer, p. 423 ff. [E. T. 601]; Al. Buttmann, p. 296 ff. [E. T. 346 f. [127] ]. With the apodosis James refers to Jas 2:9 ; consequently not , as in Jas 2:10 , but is put.
The reason of the judgment here expressed is contained in . Since the law is the expression of the will of Him who gave it, the transgression of a single portion is disobedience to the one will, and consequently a transgression of the whole law. Bengel: unus est, qui totam legem tulit; cujus voluntatem qui una in re violant, totam violant. James might indeed have confirmed the idea by the internal connection of all commands, and by pointing out that the transgression of one commandment reveals a want which makes the fulfilment of the other commandments impossible; [128] but as he does not do so, these considerations are not to be arbitrarily introduced into his words.
[127] According to Buttmann, the negative here, even according to classic usage, is the more necessary, “when to the negative predicate another, still in the protasis, is immediately so appended with an adversative particle that the entire emphasis falls upon this second part” [E. T. 346]. It is indeed said in Thuc. i. 32: , ; but here the relation is different, as the contrast . . . could be left out without injury to the thought, which is evidently not the case with James.
[128] Augustine, in his Epistle to Jerome on this passage ( Opera Hieronym. , Francf. iv. p. 154 ff.), says: Unde fiet omnium reus, si in uno offendat, qui totam legem servaverit? An forte quia plenitudo legis charitas est, qua Deus proximusque diligitur, in quibus praeceptis charitatis tota lex pendet et prophetae, merito fit reus omnium, qui contra illam fecit, in qua pendent omnia? Nemo autem peccat, nisi adversus illam faciendo. Ticinus thus well expresses the unity of the law: lex tota est quasi una vestis, quae tota violatur, si vel unam ex ea partem demus; quasi harmonia, quae tota corrumpitur, si vel unica vox dissonet; and Gataker: quasi catena aurea, quae tota rupta est, si unicum nexum abrumpas. What Gunkel says is indeed correct: “The solidarity consists in this, that God has given with the equal obligation the one as well as the other commandment;” but the point of equal obligation is not here brought forward by James.
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.
Ver. 11. For he that said ] “God spake all those words, and said;” there is the same divine authority for one commandment as another, Exo 20:1 . The Pharisees had their minutula legis, insignificant laws, but Christ cries them down,Mat 5:20Mat 5:20 . The Jews to this day senselessly argue, “Cursed is he that abides not in all things,” therefore he is not cursed that abides in some things only.
Thou art become a transgressor of the law ] Now every transgression and disobedience receiveth a just recompence of reward, Heb 2:2 .
11 .] Reason for this assertion : the unity of the divine Author of the whole law, and of that law, as the exponent of His will: “Unus est, qui totam legem tulit: cujus voluntatem qui una in re violant, totam violant,” Bengel. Cf. also Aug [6] Ep. ad Hieronym. on this passage. For He who said, Commit not adultery, said also, Commit not murder; now if thou committest no adultery ( , and not , because the attention is fixed on the fact of no committal of adultery having taken place. It corresponds, in fact , to above in prohibition. See Winer, 55. 2, c. d : and cf. ch. Jas 1:23 ; Jam 3:2 ; 1Co 16:22 ), but committest murder, thou hast become a transgressor of the law . (Various fanciful reasons have been given for the selection of these two commandments: “because these two were punished with death,” Baumgarten: “because no one had laid a charge of adultery against the readers, but the other they violated by violating the law of love,” Wiesinger. But it is far more likely that they are alleged as the two first which regard our duty to our neighbour generally: being put first, as in Mar 10:19 ; Luk 18:20 ; Rom 13:9 ; Philo de Decalog. 10, 12, 24, 82, vol. ii. pp. 186, 189, 201, 207, who lays a stress on this order as shewing that adultery is : see also De Spec. Leg. ad 6 Est 7 Dec. Cap. 2, p. 300. So that this order must have been one preserved in ancient tradition: or perhaps found anciently in the LXX. The Rabbis have the same sentiment as this: Wolf quotes from the Talm. Sabbath, fol. lxx. 2, where R. Jochanan says of the 39 precepts of Moses, “Quod si faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium et singulorum reus est.”)
[6] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
Jas 2:11 . , etc.: for the order of the seventh commandment preceding the sixth, cf. the Septuagint (Exo 20:13-14 ), and Luk 18:20 ; Rom 13:9 . With this mention of adultery and murder together should be compared 9, 10 of the Apoc. of Peter ; in the former section the punishment of adulterers is described, in the latter that of murderers, while in 11 mention is made of the children who were the victims of murder. Possibly it is nothing more than a coincidence, but the fact is worth drawing attention to that in the Apoc. of Peter (or, more strictly, in the extant remains of this) the punishment is described only of those who had been guilty of evil speaking (blasphemy), adultery, murder, and the wealthy who had not had pity upon widows and orphans. These are the sins upon which special stress is laid in our Epistle; other sins receive only incidental mention.
said also, &c. See Exo 20:14, Exo 20:13.
no = not, Jam 2:4.
11.] Reason for this assertion: the unity of the divine Author of the whole law, and of that law, as the exponent of His will: Unus est, qui totam legem tulit: cujus voluntatem qui una in re violant, totam violant, Bengel. Cf. also Aug[6] Ep. ad Hieronym. on this passage. For He who said, Commit not adultery, said also, Commit not murder; now if thou committest no adultery (, and not , because the attention is fixed on the fact of no committal of adultery having taken place. It corresponds, in fact, to above in prohibition. See Winer, 55. 2, c. d: and cf. ch. Jam 1:23; Jam 3:2; 1Co 16:22), but committest murder, thou hast become a transgressor of the law. (Various fanciful reasons have been given for the selection of these two commandments: because these two were punished with death, Baumgarten: because no one had laid a charge of adultery against the readers, but the other they violated by violating the law of love, Wiesinger. But it is far more likely that they are alleged as the two first which regard our duty to our neighbour generally: being put first, as in Mar 10:19; Luk 18:20; Rom 13:9; Philo de Decalog. 10, 12, 24, 82, vol. ii. pp. 186, 189, 201, 207, who lays a stress on this order as shewing that adultery is : see also De Spec. Leg. ad 6 et 7 Dec. Cap. 2, p. 300. So that this order must have been one preserved in ancient tradition: or perhaps found anciently in the LXX. The Rabbis have the same sentiment as this: Wolf quotes from the Talm. Sabbath, fol. lxx. 2, where R. Jochanan says of the 39 precepts of Moses, Quod si faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium et singulorum reus est.)
[6] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
Jam 2:11. , for He who said) It is one and the same Being who gave the whole law; and they who violate His will in one point, violate it altogether.
transgressor
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
he said that, or, that law, which said
Do not commit: Exo 20:13, Exo 20:14, Deu 5:17, Deu 5:18, Mat 5:21-28, Mat 19:18, Mar 10:19, Luk 18:20, Rom 13:9
Now: Lev 4:2, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, Psa 130:3, Psa 130:4
Reciprocal: Gen 44:8 – how then Deu 28:1 – to do all Psa 51:4 – Against Mat 5:19 – shall break Rom 7:9 – but Rom 9:31 – hath Gal 5:3 – a debtor
Jas 2:11. The command at the end of verse 8 is not in that exact form in the first account of the decalogue but it is so worded in Lev 19:18. It is also virtually included in the last six of the ten, for if a man loves his neighbor as himself he will observe all those six. In our verse the writer mentions two of the original ten commandments. The point he is making is that since the same God who gave one of them gave the other also, therefore no matter which a person rejects he is rejecting God. So the verse has no application to the mistakes that all people are liable to make through forgetfulness or other weaknesses of the flesh. In other words, the whole matter that James is considering pertains to the question of the Lord’s authority.
Jas 2:11. For: the reason of the above assertion, arising from the unity of the Divine Author of the law.He, namely God, that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill (Exo 20:13-14). Various reasons have been assigned for the selection of these two precepts; but the most obvious is that these are the two first commandments of the second table of the law, containing our duties to our neighbour; the fifth being generally classed by Jewish writers as belonging to the first table.[1]
[1] The seventh commandment, Do not commit adultery, is also, as here, put before the sixth, Do not kill, in Mar 10:19, Luke xviii 20, Rom 13:9; whereas in Mat 19:18 the order in the Decalogue is retained.
Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. There is a Divine unity in the law, as well as in the Lawgiver. We must obey all the laws of God, without exception or limitation; if we offend in one particular, the law is broken and we become transgressors. A man who is a liar, although he may observe all the other precepts of the moral law, is evidently living in open violation of the law of God.
As if the apostle had said, “He that threatened adultery with death, threatened also murder with death; it is the same lawgiver that forbids both, and his authority is as truly contemned in transgressing one as both these laws. Disobedience to God, in any one law, is a virtual denying of his authority to prescribe any law to us, and lays a foundation for universal disobedience; for if Almighty God’s sovereignty be disowned in any one instance, it may as well be so in all other; the same reason that leads to the observation or violation of one law, doth oblige us to keep or break all the rest, and that is the authority of the lawgiver. The whole law hath an equal obligation upon the conscience.” From hence the apostle draws this inference, that persons should so speak and so do, so order their speeches and their actions, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Note here, 1. That all we say and do, all our actions and expressions, do fall under the judgment and sentence of the law of God.
2. That the law of God, in the hand of Christ, is the law of liberty; we are freed from it as a covenant, freed from its condemnatory curse, freed from its rigorous exactions, bondage, and terrors. The law to a believer is a law of liberty, and to others a law of bondage and death.
3. That it will be a great help to us in our Christian course, to think often that all our words and actions must come into judgment; it is agreeable to the liberty of the gospel to believe and remember, that all we say and do must be judged by the law of liberty.
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.
(See Exo 20:13-14 and Deu 5:17-18 for the basis of his comments. See also Mat 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” and Gal 5:3 “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”)
This is kind of like sailing through a red light at the proper speed limit. The fact that you were not speeding does not forgive the running of a red light (as many today must think 🙂
Here, James supports what I have just stated. In a sense we in America have one law, we call it big brother, that totality of government that we must answer to. We are moving toward God’s concept of one law in America. As my illustration pictures, if you are guilty of one, you are guilty of many, it is not hard to jump to the end result that littering will one day be considered the same as murder. Some environmentalists might suggest this now. Killing and/or abusing animals carry about the same sentence as some murders.
The emphasis seems to be placed on God’s statement of right and wrong. He has declared many things as off limits, thus one or the other matters little, failing in one is failing in all. Killing someone fails God, committing adultery fails God, as does a single lie – all fail God and His expectation for us.
Can you see a better indication in Scripture of our need to be totally pure – other than when we are told to be holy because God is holy? Purity of the individual is the standard set as it is for the church.
Think of the implications of this for the one that attempts to keep the law including worshiping on the Sabbath (Saturday). If you miss one week of church have you broken the entire law? It would seem that you have and that you are guilty of all.
There are those today that take one attribute of God or one command and make that their life’s work. This is wrong. We need to take God in His totality and serve Him in all that He is, not just one part of Him.
Paul, in I Corinthians, speaks of the importance of love but the whole book is not about love. There are those today that stress love to the ignoring of God’s judicial side, His retribution side, and His varied other sides.
Others take Christ’s interest in the social and physical side of people and exclude all other parts. They stress the social doing, rather than the gospel telling. The whole is needed.
2:11 {6} 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.
(6) A proof: because the Lawmaker is always one and the same, and the contents of the law cannot be divided.
James illustrated this point with a hypothetical case involving two very severe violations of the law. All sins are not equally serious in that the consequences of some sins are greater than others, but all sins are equally serious in that any sin is a violation of God’s will.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)