Howbeit (). Probably not adversative here, but simply confirmatory, “if now,” “if indeed,” “if really.” Common in Xenophon in this sense. See the contrast () in verse 9.

If ye fulfil ( ). Condition of first class, assumed as true with and present active indicative of , old verb, to bring to completion, occurring in Ro 2:27 also with (law). Jesus used in Mt 4:17. James has in 2:10.

The royal law ( ). Old adjective for royal, regal (from king), as of an officer (Joh 4:46). But why applied to ? The Romans had a phrase, lex regia, which came from the king when they had kings. The absence of the article is common with (4:11). It can mean a law fit to guide a king, or such as a king would choose, or even the king of laws. Jesus had said that on the law of love hang all the law and the prophets (Mt 22:40), and he had given the Golden Rule as the substance of the Law and the prophets (Mt 7:12). This is probably the royal law which is violated by partiality (Jas 2:3). It is in accord with the Scripture quoted here (Le 19:18) and ratified by Jesus (Lu 10:28).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Fulfill the royal law [ ] . The phrase occurs only here and Rom 2:27. Telein, fulfill, is stronger than the more common word threin, observe or keep, which appears in ver. 10.

Compare, also, Mt 19:17; Mt 23:3; Joh 14:15, etc. James here speaks of a single commandment, the proper word for which is ejntolh, while nomov is the body of commandments. It is appropriate here, however, since this special commandment sums up the entire law. See Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14. It is the royal law; the king of all laws. The phrase royal law is of Roman origin (lex regia). In the kingly period of Roman history it did not signify a law promulgated by the absolute authority of the king, but a law passed by a popular assembly under the presidency of the king. In later times the term was applied to all laws the origin of which was attributed to the time of the kings. Gradually the term came to represent less of the popular will, and to include all the rights and powers which the Roman people had formerly possessed, so that the emperor became what formerly the people had been, sovereign. “It was not,” says Gibbon, “before the ideas and even the language of the Romans had been corrupted, that a royal law (lex regia) and an irrevocable gift of the people were created…. The pleasure of the emperor, according to Justinian, has the vigor and effect of law, since the Roman people, by the royal law, have transferred to their prince the full extent of their own power and sovereignty. The will of a single man, of a child, perhaps, was allowed to prevail over the wisdom of ages and the inclinations of millions; and the degenerate Greeks were proud to declare that in his hands alone the arbitrary exercise of legislation could be safely deposited” (” Decline and Fall, ” ch. 44).

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) Hypothetically, James then asserted, “if you, all of you dispersed Christians should fulfill the kingly, regal or royal love, “thou shalt love thy neighbor, or near place one to you, as thyself, ye do well.”

2) The regal or royal law (Gr. basilikon) concerns treating one’s neighbor as if he were in his neighbor’s shoes in the church fellowship, (Joh 13:34-35). On this link of the new law hung or was the hinge of all of their conduct of Christian church life. Mat 7:12 illustrates this principle in what is termed the Golden Rule, given by our Lord to His church in the Sermon on the Mount, Mat 22:40; Lev 19:18; Luk 10:28.

3) Rom 12:9; Rom 12:21 is a Pauline admonition for Roman Church Christians to practice or demonstrate love, by which they might demonstrate that they were justified before God – such conduct brings justification before one’s fellow man.

“If thou neglectest thy love to thy neighbor, in vain thou professest thy love to God; for by thy love to God, the love to thy neighbor is begotten, and by the love to thy neighbor, thy love to God is nourished.”

Quarles

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Now follows a plainer declaration; for he expressly points out the cause of the last reproof, for they were officiously attentive to the rich, not from love, but on the contrary, from a vain desire of attaining their favor: And it is in anticipation, by which he obviated an excuse on the other side; for they might have objected and said, that he ought not to be blamed, who humbly submiteth himself to the unworthy. James, indeed, concedes that this is true, but he shews that it was falsely pretended by them, because they shewed this submission of homage, not from love to their neighbors, but from respect of persons.

In the first clause, then, he acknowledges as right and praiseworthy, as the duties of love which we perform towards our neighbors. In the second, he denies that the ambitious respect of persons ought to be deemed as of this kind, for it widely differs from what the law prescribes. And the hinge of this answer turns on the words “neighbor” and “respect of persons,” as though he had said, “If you pretend that there is a sort of love in what you do, this may be easily disproved; for God bids us to love our neighbors, and not to shew respect of persons.” Besides, this word “neighbor” includes all mankind: he, then, who says, that a very few, according to his own fancy, ought to be honored, and others passed by, does not keep the law of God, but yields to the depraved desires of his own heart. God expressly commends to us strangers and enemies, and all, even the most contemptible. To this doctrine the respect of persons is wholly contrary. Hence, rightly does James assert, that respect of persons is inconsistent with love.

8 If ye fulfill the royal law. The law here I take simply as the rule of life; and to fulfill, or perform it, is to keep it with real integrity of heart, and as they say, roundly, ( rotunde 😉 and he sets such a keeping in opposition to a partial observance of it. It is said, indeed, to be a royal law, as it is the royal way, or road; that is, plain, straight, and level, which, by implication, is set in opposition to sinuous by-paths and windings.

Allusion however is made, as I think, to servile obedience which they rendered to the rich, when they might, by serving in sincerity their neighbors, be not only free men, but live as kings.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(8) If ye fulfil the royal law.Better paraphrased thus, If, however, ye are fulfilling the Law, as ye imagine and profess ye are doing, the royal law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye are doing well; but . . . . Mark the touch of irony in the defence which St. James puts into the mouths of his hearers. It were certainly a sweet proof of neighbourly affection, that exemplified in Jas. 2:3. The royal, or kingly law, is, of course, Gods, in its highest utterance; and may be taken as an illustration of what a law really consists: viz., a command from a superior, a duty from an inferior, and a sanction or vindication of its authority. There is much confusion of thought, both scientific and theological, with regard to this; were it not so we should hear less of the laws of nature, and divers other imaginary codes which the greatest legist of modern times has called fustian. The sovereign law of love, thus expressed by the Apostle, is one so plain that the simplest mind may be made its interpreter; and the violation of it is at once clear to the offender.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

5. And violating the divine law on this or any one point breaks the whole law, Jas 2:8-13.

8. Our apostle here states and denies an excuse of theirs, that their treatment of the rich was accordant with the law of love.

The royal law The golden rule, called royal because, perhaps, first clearly proclaimed by the royal Jesus; or, more probably, because it is the supreme law which comprehends the entire law over the relations of men to men.

Do well Your conduct is right if it accord with the royal law. But the question is, Does it accord with that law? He denies it, (9-13,) declares that it is such a transgression as makes them condemnable by the whole law, being a violation of the law of mercy, (Jas 2:13,) namely, mercy to the poor man, so cruelly slighted.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘If you really (or ‘however, if you’) fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, you do well, but if you have respect of persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.’

The basic principle here is simple. If they keep the law which says, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ by treating all impartially they ‘do well’. But if they show partiality and reveal respect of particular persons such as the rich then they fail to keep that law, and they therefore become lawbreakers. They do ill. The law then convicts them of breaking the law, of being transgressors. This is even more emphasised by the fact that the law forbade showing discrimination against the poor (e.g. Lev 19:15).

‘The royal law (nomon — basilikon).’ The order of the words shows either that basilikon is accessory to nomon (“a law, a royal one”), or that it has a special force, it is a law which merits being called “royal.” But the question is, why is it royal? One answer may be because it was pronounced by the King as the guiding law with respect to our attitudes towards our fellowman (Mar 12:31; Luk 10:27). Another may be that it is because it is the ‘king of laws’. It rules over and takes in all the others. Indeed both meanings may be intended by it, for they both merge. As Paul says, whoever fulfils this law has fulfilled the whole law, for ‘the whole law is fulfilled in this word, You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Gal 5:14). It is another way of saying, ‘do to others what you would have them do to you’ (Mat 7:12).

‘If you really fulfil –.’ That is, in relation to what is in mind here. Thus it can be said of them that they ‘do well’ as compared with those who show respect of persons. Had it meant that they fulfilled that law in all its aspects he would have said, ‘you have done amazingly well’. It was one of the two commandments, of which Jesus said that on them hung all the Law and the Prophets (Mat 22:40). A royal law indeed!

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Reason That Their Treatment Of Rich And Poor Is To Be Condemned And Will Come Into Judgment Is Now Given ( Jas 2:8-13 ).

Having opened with an illustration so as to seize the attention, James now applies it. The Law declares that they are to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. This is a requirement of Lev 19:18, of Jesus (e.g. Mar 12:31; Luk 10:27), and of Paul (Gal 5:14). But to show respect of persons is not to be so even-handed as this law requires, and it therefore makes those who do so ‘transgressors’. They have broken the ‘royal law’. And to break one Law is to be guilty of being a lawbreaker. They are thus now guilty before God of being lawbreakers and will come under judgment.

a If you really (or ‘however, if you’) fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, you do well (Jas 2:8).

b But if you have respect of persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors (Jas 2:9).

c For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all (Jas 2:10).

d For he who said, “Do not commit adultery”, said also, “Do not kill”. Now if you do not commit adultery, but do kill, you are become a transgressor of the law (Jas 2:11).

c So speak you, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of liberty (Jas 2:12).

b For judgment is without mercy to him who has showed no mercy (Jas 2:13 a).

a Mercy glories against judgment (Jas 2:13 b).

Note how in ‘a’ they are to love their neighbour as themselves, thus showing mercy and not judgment, and in the parallel mercy glories against judgment. In ‘b’ showing respect of persons by maltreating the poor is to break that law, and in the parallel the one who has not shown mercy to the poor will be judged unmercifully. In ‘c’ to break one law is to be guilty of all, and in the parallel, they have to have regard for they will be judged by the law, even though it is the law of liberty (not licentious freedom). Centrally in ‘d’ the principle is established by comparisons, establishing the fact that to break one law makes a man a transgressor, a law breaker.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Path of Death – Those who continue to show partiality commit since by breaking the royal law, which teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. This will result in judgment without mercy (Jas 2:8-13).

Jas 2:8  If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Jas 2:8 Exo 1:1-17 records the Ten Commandments that Moses received on Mount Sinai. The heart of these laws serve as the foundation of the man’s faith in God in both the old and new covenants. They establish the divine principles by which man should live throughout the ages, from Genesis to Revelations.

The major theme of the Pentateuch is the delivering of the Mosaic Law to the children of Israel. On Mount Sinai, Moses gave the people the Ten Commandments, which can be referred to as the “Moral Law.” He then delivered to them many statutes and ordinances regarding daily living and service in the Tabernacle. This set of rules and regulations can be referred to as the “Civil Laws.” The Ten Commandments became the foundation for the Jewish civil laws. Thus, the Ten Commandments dealt with a man’s heart, while the civil laws dealt with a man’s actions. When a man held the moral laws within his heart, he would then be willing to follow the civil laws. Moses repeats the giving of the Ten Commandments in Deu 5:1-22 to the new generation of people who will go in to possess the Promised Land.

When questioned by the Jews about the greatest commandment, Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments into two great commandments, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” (Mat 22:34-40, Mar 12:28-34, Luk 10:25-28) Thus, we can understand that the first four commandments deal with our relationship to God. Jesus summed these four up with the statement that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

1st Commandment (Exo 20:3) – No other Gods before Me. Love God with all your heart.

2nd Commandment (Exo 20:4-6) – No worship of graven images. Love God with all your soul.

3rd Commandment (Exo 20:7) – Do not take God’s name in vain. Love God with all your mind.

4th Commandment (Exo 20:8-11) – Keep the Sabbath. Love God with all your strength.

This order of heart, soul, mind and strength helps us to understand our make-up. When we set our heart on something or someone (1 st commandment), we begin to think about it (2 nd commandment). Our thoughts lead us to speak about it (3 rd commandment). Our words direct our actions (4 th commandment). The last six commandments deal with our relationship with our fellow man:

5th Commandment (Exo 20:12) – Honour father and mother.

6th Commandment (Exo 20:13) – Do not murder.

7th Commandment (Exo 20:14) – Do not commit adultery.

8th Commandment (Exo 20:15) – Do not steal.

9th Commandment (Exo 20:16) – Do not bear false witness.

10th Commandment (Exo 20:17) – Do not covet.

Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments in Mat 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” He made a similar statement in Luk 6:31, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

In Rom 13:9-10 Paul summed up the last six commandments with the same statement that Jesus had taught, which says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Rom 13:9-10, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

James describes the Ten Commandments as the “royal law” (Jas 2:8-11).

Jas 2:8, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:”

Jas 2:9  But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Jas 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.

Jas 2:11 Comments – They become transgressors of the law just like an adulterer, by showing partiality.

Jas 2:10-11 Comments We Have All Transgressed the Law The Law of Moses was one overarching mandate to love God with all of our heart, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Andrew Wommack compares the Law to a large piece of glass, so that if one piece of this glass is broken, then the entire piece is broken and needs to be replaced. [106] If we have ever lied or cheated someone, or disobeyed our parents, then we are guilty of breaking all of the laws of God; murder, idolatry, adultery, stealing, covetousness, etc. In coming to Jesus as a sinner, we come to Him guilty of everything.

[106] Andrew Wommack, Gospel Truth Conference, Kampala, Uganda, 26 October 2012.

I once questioned the Lord about feeling so much like a failure as a Christian, and He seemed to quicken to me Jas 2:10-11.

Jas 2:12  So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Jas 2:12 “as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” – Comments God gives a greater grace. Jas 4:6 and Rom 5:17 says that we have received abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness. We are now to live and talk as if we are about to be judged by the law of liberty.” No more living like those who are under the law of sin and death.

When we abide in the perfect law of liberty, we will be blessed

We are to submit to man’s ordinances for Jesus’ sake, as free people, being servants of Christ Jesus (1Pe 2:13).

1Pe 2:13, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;”

Thus, we are judged either by the law of liberty (in Jesus Christ) or by the law of sin and death.

Scripture References Note:

Rom 8:2, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

Gal 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ .”

Jas 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty , and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”

Jas 2:12 Comments The law of liberty will show mercy to believers on Judgment Day (Heb 2:17).

Heb 2:17, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God , to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

Jas 2:13  For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Jas 2:13 Comments If a sinner is still in his sins, he will be judged by the law of sin and death on Judgment Day. This judgment will be merciless to you who shows (or does) no mercy. However, if you are under the law of Jesus Christ, the law of liberty, God’s mercy towards you will triumph over this judgment. Therefore, “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” (Gal 6:9)

If God shows us mercy in the law of liberty, let us show mercy to poor, or else, God will not show us mercy on the day of judgment.

Sowing and reaping:

Psa 18:25, “With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;”

Forgiving:

Mat 18:21-35

Our judgment for sin took place on Calvary (Eph 2:4, Jas 5:11).

Eph 2:4, “But God, who is rich in mercy , for his great love wherewith he loved us,”

Jas 5:11, “Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy .”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Jam 2:8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law The whole of the apostle’s argument depends upon that sacred maxim so frequently introduced in a direct or indirect manner by the infallibly inspired writers of the New Testament, That love is the fulfilling of the law. St. James considers the whole duty of man to man as contained in one law, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: and then of course he argues rightly, Jam 2:10. He who offends in one point, is guilty of the whole law: for whether it be theft, or murder, or adultery, that you commit,any of these crimes is inconsistent with the law, which contains, and is, the whole, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, &c. But read the apostle’s own words. In Jam 2:8 he observes, If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, &c. Where first you are to observe, that he calls this the royal law, not because given by Christ the King, for all laws are, in that sense, royal; but because it is the first supreme law, from which all others proceed, as distinct branches, and by which they must all be governed. Secondly, you must take notice what stress the apostle lays upon their fulfilling this royal law: If ye fulfil the royal law,ye do well: that is, “if you attend to it in all instances, so as not to offend against it in any case, ye then will do well.” The apostle proceeds, Jam 2:9. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, &c. The law mentioned in this verse, is the same law which was mentioned before; that is, the royal law. “If (says he,) you have any partial regards, you will not then fulfil the law of love, but will be found transgressors of that law; for as it follows, Jam 2:10 whosoever shall keep the whole law, &c.” In this verse he considers the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, as the whole law; and all particular commandments, as points of that law. And what he says amounts to this: “Whatever regard you may have to the law of loving your neighbours, which all profess to walk by, yet assure yourselves you cannot keep that law, if you offend against any one rule of charity; for every such single offence is a breach of that whole law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, &c.” In Jam 2:11 he gives the reason of his assertion, For he that said, do not commit, &c. “For it is certain, that he disregards the authority of the Lawgiver which has established every precept; as it is evident, He that says, Thou shalt not commit adultery, hath also said, &c. Hence it appears, that it is not by a regard of the Divine authority that thou abstainest from the former crime, since that would equally have preserved thee from the latter.” And if you go on to the latter part of the verse, you will find it exactly suited to the whole thread of the discourse which went before: for thus it follows, Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law; that is, of that general law of loving thy neighbour, which said as well to thee, Thou shalt not kill, as Thou shalt not commit adultery. How this royal law speaks to us in the language of all particular laws and precepts, is easily understood, and is distinctly explained by St. Paul, Rom 13:9. In short, what the apostle teaches, is plainly this: One great and fundamental law of the gospel is; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The force of this all see, and all acknowledge; and while they pretend to be Christians, all must pretend at least to obey it. But, says he, whoever in any manner offends, injures, or oppresses his brother, it matters not in what way, whether it be by undue and partial preference of one to another, by contempt or slander, by theft, adultery, or murder; whoever, I say, in any of these instances sins against his brother, will be found to be a transgressor against this great, this vital principle of religion, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, &c. For this reason he tells them, the way to do well was to fulfil the royal law, that is, to observe all points of it; because no point could be transgressed, but the transgressor must be found guilty of the law, which is a general law of love, extending to all points. There is nothing hard in this sense, nothing but what any man may see the reason of: for certainly, to injure our neighbour in any way, makes us guilty of a breach of the law, which commands us to love our neighbour; for one injurious action is as inconsistent with love as another; and, in this respect, injurious actions have no difference; for they are all equally, inconsistent with the great law of love.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Jas 2:8-9 . With these verses James meets the attempt which his readers might perhaps make to justify their conduct toward the rich with the law of love; whilst he, granting to them that the fulfilment of that law is something excellent, designates directly as a transgression of the law. This explanation, which among ancient expositors, particularly Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Laurentius, Hornejus, and among the moderns Hottinger, Theile, Wiesinger have recognised as the correct one, is justified both by the particle and by the phrase .

has in the N. T., where besides the Gospel of John it only elsewhere occurs in 2Ti 2:19 and Jud 1:8 , always the meaning yet, nevertheless; but this meaning is not here suitable, as Jas 2:8 contains no contrast to what goes before. [120] It is therefore to be retained in its original classical meaning, assuredly, certainly , and points out that James grants something to his readers, having, however, in view the contrast which he expresses in the following . . . [121] This is also indicated by the expression (see Jas 2:19 ), which is evidently too feeble for an earnest enforcement of the law of love. Wiesinger correctly observes that the hypothetical dilemma carries in itself unmistakably an ironical character. [122] James calls the law . . ., which is cited from Lev 19:18 , , because it is the most excellent of all laws, ceterarum legum quasi regina (Knapp; so also Theile, Wiesinger, de Wette, Bouman, and others), inasmuch as all other laws are contained in it; see Rom 13:8-10 ; Gal 5:14 (1Ti 1:5 ; Mat 22:39 ). It is far-fetched to explain the attribute , because it was given by God the great King (Raphelius, Wetstein, Wolf, Baumgarten), or by Christ (Grotius), or because it applies to kings (Michaelis), or quia reges facit (Thomas; Lange combines all these explanations); also Calvin’s remark is to be rejected as too artificial: regia lex dicitur, ut via regia , plana scilicet, recta et aequabilis, qui sinuosis diverticulis vel ambagibus tacite opponitur.

is here (see also Jas 2:9 ), as in Jer 31:33 (Heb 8:10 ; Heb 10:16 ), used of a single commandment, instead of (which Lange wrongly denies). The expression is found only here and in Rom 2:27 ; it is a stronger expression than (Jas 2:10 ).

] is not to be combined with , nor is the mode of thereby stated, but it is the simple formula of citation.

[120] Brckner finds the contrast in love being the reverse of partiality; but does not simply express the opposite, but the adversative meaning of the particle in the N. T. is of this nature, that it only occurs when the sharp contrast to an “although” is to be filled up or expressed; it is arbitrary to explain it as equivalent to “on the contrary.”

[121] Some interpreters explain here, contrary to linguistic usage, as equivalent to igitur.

[122] When de Wette, against this explanation, says: “How could those blamed appeal to this law for their partiality?” it is to be observed that they seek thereby to justify only their conduct to the rich, by which certainly they leave their conduct to the poor unjustified.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Ver. 8. If ye fulfil the royal law ] Acknowledging God’s sovereignty, and sending a lamb to the ruler of the earth, Isa 16:1 , seeking the help of that free or noble spirit of his, Psa 51:13 , that royal, ruling spirit, as the Greek version there hath it.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

8 11 .] Proof that this behaviour is a transgression of God’s law . The connexion is somewhat recondite. The adversative clearly takes exception at something expressed or understood. Calvin, Corn. a-Lap., Laurentius, al., and Theile, Wiesinger, and Huther, suppose the Apostle to be meeting an objection of his readers: “But thus, according to you, we should be breaking the injunction, Love thy neighbour &c., for we should view the rich with hatred and contempt.” Then he replies, “Certainly, if ye &c. ye do well:” understanding . as a very feeble approbation. But this seems to me very unnatural. It contains indeed the germ of the true view, which appears to be this: The Apostle is not replying to a fancied objection on the part of others, but is guarding his own argument from misconstruction: q. d. ‘All this is true of the rich. Still I do not say, hate them, drive them from your assemblies &c.: if you choose to observe faithfully the great command, Love others as yourselves, in your conduct to all, well and good ( ): but respect of persons, instead of being a keeping, is a breach of this law; for I have proved it to be sin, and he who commits sin is a transgressor of the law, of the whole law, by the very terms of legal obedience.’ Thus the context seems to run smoothly and naturally.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

8 .] Yet (for the connexion see above. Keen, Schneckenburger, al. try to make mean “ igitur ,” which it never can: see reff.) if ye fulfil (emphasis on , as put before the epithet; if ye really choose to fulfil in its completeness that law) the royal law (the law which is the king of all laws, as the old saying makes law itself king of all: . Love fulfils the whole law, , Rom 13:10 . See similar expressions in Wetst. and Kypke from Plato, al.: the most remarkable being this: , , , . . Plato, Minos, pp. 566 f. The explanations, Because it proceeds from God, the great King (Raphel, Wetst., Wolf, al.), from Christ (Grot.), because it applies to kings as well as other men (Michaelis), because “reges facit” (Thomus), Calvin’s, “Regia lex dicitur, ut via regia , plana scilicet, recte et quabilis, qui sinuosis deverticulis, vel ambagibus tacite opponitur,” &c., are all objectionable, as not bringing in any epithet contextually justified, or peculiarly belonging to this and not to other laws: whereas “that first of all laws” fits excellently the requirements of the context), according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well (i. e. well and good : see above: if you choose to do this, ‘ do manus ,’ I have nothing to object. But then, this you can never do, as long as you respect persons):

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Jas 2:8 . : “nevertheless” there is a duty due to all men, even the rich are to be regarded as “neighbours,” for the precept of the Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev 19:18 ), applies to all men. : “There is no difficulty in the anarthrous being used (as below, Jas 4:11 ) for the law of Christ or of Moses on the same principle that could be used for the King of Persia, but the addition of an anarthrous epithet should not have been passed over without comment, as it has been by the editors generally” (Mayor). The reference is to the Torah , as is obvious from the quotation from Lev 19:18 , and therefore if this was the original reading must refer to God, not (in the first instance) to Christ; the Peshit reads: “the law of God”. : in Rom 2:27 we have the phrase . : cf. 1Co 15:3 . On a papyrus belonging to the beginning of the Christian era, the phrase is used in a legal sense in reference to a contract, i.e., something that is binding (Deissmann, Neue Bibelst. , p. 78). When used in reference to the Torah , as here, it was of particular significance to Jews who, as the “people of God” were bound by the Covenant. : Cf. Act 15:29 ; 2Pe 1:19 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jas 2:8-13

8If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

Jas 2:8 “If” Both Jas 2:8-9 start with first class conditional sentences which are assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. His hearers/readers were fulfilling the royal law if they loved appropriately.

“royal law” This concept goes by several names (cf. Jas 1:25; Jas 2:12; Rom 8:2; Gal 6:2). It obviously points back to the Ten Commandments (cf. Jas 2:11) but reaches into the inaugurated New Age of Jesus’ teachings, a new way of treating God and our covenant partners (cf. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7).

“according to the Scripture” This is a quote from Lev 19:18, but with an eye toward Lev 19:15 (i.e., you shall not be partial).

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” Appropriate self-love, in a Christian sense, is crucial in appropriately loving others (cf. Mat 19:19; Mar 12:31; Luk 10:27; Rom 13:9). Jesus often used Lev 19:18, along with Deu 6:4-5, as summaries of the whole law (cf. Mat 7:12; Mat 22:40).

Jas 2:9 “if you show partiality” This is another first class conditional sentence, like Jas 2:8. It is a strong word for the church today. We dare not play favorites with those for whom Christ died (cf. Rom 14:15; Rom 14:20; 1Jn 2:9-11; 1Jn 3:9-18).

“you are committing sin” “Sin” is in an emphatic position in the Greek sentence. Showing partiality was a violation of the Mosaic covenant and the law of love (the royal law).

“convicted by the law as transgressors” Transgression means to “step over a known boundary” and was one of the OT definitions of sin. Notice this is not ignorance, but willful action against God’s revealed will.

Jas 2:10 “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” This is an important verse in helping to explain the theological difficulty of righteousness by human merit and the purpose of the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 3:15-29). Partial obedience, or temporary obedience, was never enough to be accepted by God through the Mosaic covenant (cf. Mat 5:19; Gal 5:3). This type of summary statement about keeping the whole law (boys from age 13) and (Jewish girls from age 12) is the theological basis of Paul’s OT quotes and strong summary statement of mankind’s sinfulness in Rom 3:9-23.

Jas 2:11 This is the order of the Ten Commandments in the Septuagint (which shows James’ early Jewish flavor), which was the Greek translation of the OT begun about 250 B.C. and is quoted by most NT authors.

Jas 2:12 “So speak and so act” These are both present active imperatives. Believers’ words and lives must agree. We must practice what we preach (cf. Matthew 7). This is the major theme of the book!

“who are to be judged” All humans will be judged (cf. Mat 25:31-46; Act 17:31; Rom 2:6; Rom 2:16; Rom 3:6; Rev 20:11-15). Even Christians will be judged (cf. Rom 14:10; 2Co 5:10), but apparently not for sin, but for their attitudes, availability and for the use of their spiritual gifts.

Jas 2:13 “judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy” This is the spiritual principle that humans reap what they sow (cf. Mat 6:14-15; Mat 7:1-5; Mat 18:22-35;Gal 6:7). It may have been a well-known proverb in Palestine. It is the negative of Jesus’ statement in Mat 5:7. This is not works-oriented salvation, but the family characteristics of God should be evident in His children’s lives (cf. Mat 7:13-27; 1 Corinthians 13).

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.

1. How do we discriminate in our churches today?

2. Why has God chosen the poor to be blessed and saved? Why is it so hard for the rich to become believers? Why did this shock the Jews of Jesus’ day?

3. Why is Jas 2:10 so important?

4. How do the OT commandments relate to “the law of liberty”?

5. How do Jas 2:12-13 relate to justification by faith?

CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS INTO Jas 2:14-26

A. This section of James has caused major theological controversy. This comes not so much from the passage, contextually understood, but from our theological presuppositions and dogmatic systems of proof-texted, western theology.

B. James and Paul do not contradict, but complement one another. The seeming contradiction comes from a misunderstanding of (1) the purpose; (2) the recipients; and (3) definitions of key words (i.e., faith, works) of the NT books of Romans and James.

1. Paul is writing to Jews who believe that they are right with God on the basis of (1) their race (nationality) and (2) their keeping the law of Moses (legalism). Paul speaks of entering into the Christian life. He uses Abraham’s life as an OT example of being declared right with God before circumcision and before the Mosaic Law (cf. Gen 15:6), based solely on God’s initiating grace and the appropriate faith response (cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6).

2. James is writing to church people who are making Christianity a creed instead of a lifestyle (antinomians or intellectualists, Jewish Gnostics). These folks are asserting orthodoxy as the basis for their assurance of salvation. The books of James and 1 John assert that daily love in action is not an option for Christians, but is the evidence of their being Christians. For James, “works” are not Jewish rules, but love in action (cf. 1 Corinthians 13).

3. Paul and James are not giving two ways of salvation, but two aspects of one salvation. Paul speaks of the beginning of Abraham’s walk of faith (cf. Genesis 15), and James speaks of its ongoing characteristics (birth of Isaac versus offering of Isaac, cf. Genesis 22).

4. It is not “faith or works” but “faith and works.” Not only is faith without works dead, but works without faith is also dead (cf. Mat 7:21-23; Joh 15:1-6). Being a carnal, weak, baby Christian is possible (cf. 1Co 3:1-3; 1Co 3:10-15; Heb 5:11-14), but it is the exception, not the norm.

5. John Calvin said “faith alone justifies but the faith which justifies is not alone.”

C. This section functions as an encouragement to active faith. In a sense it is a passage on assurance not assurance as a doctrine, but as a lifestyle. Assurance is surely a biblical truth, but only in connection with daily Christlikeness, not systematic theology! We are saved to serve. Service is the evidence of salvation. It is never the means, but it is the goal, the fruit (cf. Eph 2:8-10). This truth is much needed in our day of (1) easy believism and (2) assurance as a denominational theological tenet (usually given as a dogmatic statement at the beginning of the Christian life).

D. The entire book of James deals with the practical issue of how believers use their resources (physical and spiritual) on behalf of the Kingdom. Allocation of physical resources reveals the heart!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

royal. Greek. basilikos. See Joh 4:46.

according to. App-104.

Scripture. Greek. graphe. The quotation is from Lev 19:18.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

8-11.] Proof that this behaviour is a transgression of Gods law. The connexion is somewhat recondite. The adversative clearly takes exception at something expressed or understood. Calvin, Corn. a-Lap., Laurentius, al., and Theile, Wiesinger, and Huther, suppose the Apostle to be meeting an objection of his readers: But thus, according to you, we should be breaking the injunction, Love thy neighbour &c., for we should view the rich with hatred and contempt. Then he replies, Certainly, if ye &c. ye do well: understanding . as a very feeble approbation. But this seems to me very unnatural. It contains indeed the germ of the true view, which appears to be this: The Apostle is not replying to a fancied objection on the part of others, but is guarding his own argument from misconstruction: q. d. All this is true of the rich. Still I do not say, hate them, drive them from your assemblies &c.: if you choose to observe faithfully the great command, Love others as yourselves, in your conduct to all, well and good ( ): but respect of persons, instead of being a keeping, is a breach of this law; for I have proved it to be sin, and he who commits sin is a transgressor of the law, of the whole law, by the very terms of legal obedience. Thus the context seems to run smoothly and naturally.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Jam 2:8. , the royal law) which does not allow itself to be enslaved at the will of man; but is itself the law of liberty, Jam 2:12, and the sum of the (ten) commandments, ordering, as it does, that all shall love, and be loved-the greatest law of the Supreme King, who is Love, with whom there is no accepting of persons, and who exalts all His people to liberty and a kingdom, who orders them to avoid the accepting of persons, and has power to punish transgressors. Comp. note on Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, p. 443, respecting the epithet , royal.-, ye fulfil) even by avoiding the respecting of persons.-, according to) This word particularises: the law is the whole; that Scripture, thou shalt love, etc., is a part. Comp. Jam 2:10-11.-, thou shalt love) even in paying honour. The royal law is a law of love:[19] comp. 2Co 2:8, note.- , thy neighbour) even though poor.-) excellently, rather than in the sense which is noticed in Jam 2:3 [sit in an honourable place]: comp. Jam 2:19; Jam 2:7.

[19] Thus Luther: die Liebe ist Kayserin.-Love is supreme.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jas 2:8-13

JasTHE ROYAL LAW

Jas 2:8-13

8 Howbeit.—This word, (not translated in the King James’ Version), from the Greek mentoi, indicates the connection between that which follows, and that which precedes it, in the text. It appears to be used adversatively, and to imply. that James’ readers were attempting to justify their conduct toward the rich on the ground that they were simply obeying the royal law of love which requires one to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. In this event, the statement is to be understood in the light of the following facts: The writer had condemned all undue regard for men simply because they are rich. The disciples might say, in reply: “Our regard for them is no more than we are expected to exhibit, in view of the fact that the law requires us to love our neighbor as our selves.” The apostle answers: “It is good if you keep the law; however, since your neighbors include those both rich and poor, why have you honored those who are rich, and have despised the poor? It is all very well to plead the law in justification of your acts, but ‘If ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.’ Thus, the very law which you offer as justification of your act condemns you because it forbids respect of persons, and so convicts you of being transgressors of the law.”

Less likely is the view that the statement is designed merely to confirm what had earlier been penned. Favoritism and partiality toward the rich, and a corresponding disregard for the poor, by Christians, is a violent perversion of the law of love, and is thus sinful. In this event, the meaning would be: “If you really fulfill the royal law, which requires you to love your neighbor as yourself, it is good; but, if you continue to show respect of persons, as you have been doing by favoring the rich and dishonoring the poor, you commit sin, and transgress the law of God yourselves.” The law, which they affected to observe, positively for. bade all such distinctions: “Thou shalt not wrest jutstice: thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a bribe; for a bribe doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the yvords of the righteous.” (Deu 16:19-20.) It is highly inconsistent to cite the law in justification of one’s actions in one matter, and disregard and violate the law in another matter.

if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the Scriptures,—“Fulfil,” (teleite, present active indicative of teleo, to bring to completion, perfect, fill full), designates the obligation all sustain to the law. It is our responsibility to permit it to accomplish in us its futl purpose, and to see to it that its requirements are met as fully as it is possible for us so to do. “I ye fulfil,” is a condition of the first class, and thus the conclusion which follows is assumed to be true; i.e., if the law is fulfilled, “ye do well.” It is always well to do right. One who fulfills the law does right. James’ readers might properly feel secure in any course which involved fulfilling the law. In showing respect of persons, however, they were not fulfilling the law; they were, instead, disobeying it which forbade all such distinctions.

That which Christians are to fulfill is the “royal Law,” (noinon basilikon), a kingly law. Why is it thus designated? There are numerous reasons why it may be so described. ( 1) It is the law of the kingdom of Christ ; and, in summary, involves man’s entire duty to those about him ; (2) it is a law which originates with the King of the universe ; (3) it stands at the head of all other laws respecting man’s obligation to his fellows; (4) it surpasses in nobility, all other obligations, and leads to the fulfillment of all others. (Gal 6:2.) Thus, whether James meant that it is a law such as is proper even for kings to follow : or, that it is the king of all other laws, his purpose is quite obvious, the design being to indicate the supreme position which this law should have in the hearts and lives of us all. Notwithstanding its greatness, it must be obeyed; and, any action which violates its spirit, such as favoritism for the rich, because they are rich, is a violation of it.

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,—This is a portion (by no means all) of the “royal law,” and that portion especially involved in the matter under discussion-respect of persons. This law is timeless in nature, it being incorporated in the law of Moses (Lev 19:18), and confirmed, sanctioned and made a part of the New Covenant by our Lord. (Luke IO : 28.) Jesus, indeed, taught that love is at the base of every duty, whether to God or man. In response to the lawyer’s query, “Teacher, which is the great commandment of the Jaw?” Jesus answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.” (Mat 22:35-40.) Let us imagine a nail driven into the wall, and a string draped over it, the two ends hanging downward. Let one of these strings represent the command to love God supremely; the other, our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus tells us that these two conunandments hold up all that is in the law and the prophets. The law, comprising the five books of Moses, constitutes a vast segment of the Old Testament; and, when to this is added the prophets, major and minor, the mass is greatly enlarged; yet, the Lord declares that these two embrace the whole of the law and the prophets. The meaning is that these two duties are so comprehensive they sum up, and include, all else. He who loves God supremely will discharge fully his duty to God; he who loves his neighbor as himself will, in similar fashion, perform every obligation owed to his neighbor. A Gentile, desiring to make fun of the tremendous mass of material assembled by the Jews in their traditions, once said to a rabbi, “Rabbi, teach me the law, provided you can do so while standing on one foot!” (The Gentile felt that the eminent scholar could not long speak in this position!) The rabbi answered, “Love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul; and your neighbor as yourself; that is all of the law; the rest is mere commentary.”

The first appearance of the statement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self,” is in the Old Testan1ent (Lev 19:18), but Jesus quoted, confirmed and ratified it, and made it a part of the “law of liberty” applicable to us today. (Mat 18:19; Mat 22:34-40; Luk 10:26-28; Mar 12:28-34.) It is significant that Jesus designated, as the foundation of all true religion, these basic principles involving love for God and man which, when properly observed, lead to the performance of every duty in both spheres, and neither of which was a part of the decalogue (the ten commandments). It is noteworthy that Jesus said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self,”-not instead of thyself! It is not wrong for one to entertain proper regard for one’s self; indeed, this becomes the standard by which we are to gauge our actions toward others. It is the application of the Golden Rule to life; which, when faithfu,lly followed, will prompt to the performance of every duty owed. “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luk 6:31.)

ye do well:—Your actions are approved and are above reproach. Far from being subjects of rebuke, as in the case involving an unseemly attitude toward the rich, if you obey the royal law which bids you to love your neighbor as yourselves, you shall enjoy the approbation of both God and men. To love others less than we love ourselves is to fail to measure to the standard offered; and, he who fails so to do, is in disobedience to him who erected the standard; i.e., to God himself. Hence, to fall short of this requirement is to be deficient in the performance of duty to God and man. On the other hand, he who properly fulfills his obligation in this area, will be blessed in the fact that in doing his duty to his neighbor he is also obeying God. (1Pe 2:20.) Compare, also, Php 4:14; 1Co 7:7; and Act 10:3. Any action, which has, as its design, the fulfillment of the law of God, is excellent; James had no word of condemnation for any who thus did; it was the violation of the law of love (as evidenced in favoritism for the rich and contempt for the poor) being practiced by those to whom he wrote which occasioned his treatment of the matter. One does not obey one portion of the law of God by disobeying another; and, it is highly inconsistent to quote one law in an effort to justify the violation of another law. Balaam, who wanted to see what the Lord had more to say, has had imitators in every age and dispensation. (Num 22:1-41.)

9 but if ye have respect of persons,—(ei de prosopolepteite, condition of the first class, and thus assumed a true that they were doing this), the verb of which is. from the same root as the noun in Jas 2:1. It means to judge people on the basis of outward appearance, rather than on the condition of the heart. The Greek verb is a compound term, occurring no where else in the New Testament, and signifying, literally, face-accepting. This, those to whom James wrote, were doing, in the contrasting attitudes they were exhibiting toward the rich and the poor. This is not an unusual attitude on the part of people of the world. Many are much more interested in what people appear to be, than in what they really are. The accidental circumstances of life, including wealth, fame, social position, and the like, are to many people of greater value than the enduring qualities of the soul and of the heart. To honor one person more than another simply because one has material means, and the other does not, is to be “face-accepting,” and is sinful.

ye commit sin,—(hamartian ergazesthe), literally, “Ye work sin,” you participate habitually in it. It was not an occasional lapse into the very human weaknesses, of which J arnes deals; it was a deliberate and calculated course of action which these disciples followed in fawning upon the rich and in showing contempt and disregard for the poor. Moreover, it was not simply or merely a “fault,” in which they were engaging; it is by James designated as sin. The word “sin,” being without the article in the Greek text, signifies it in the abstract; they were not only committing acts of sin (earlier described), they were in sin, in the practice which the writer so severely condemns.

being convicted by the law as transgressors.-The law which bade them to love their neighbor as themselves convicted them in their practice, inasmuch as it forbade all respect of persons. (Lev 19:15.) It was therefore, not possible for them properly to appeal to the law in support of their conduct, since the law to which they would thus appeal, condemned them. To transgress, is to cross over; i.e., to violate; sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jn 3:4.) Thus, when these to whom James wrote violated such laws as that set out in Lev 19:15 (forbidding respect of persons), they demonstrated themselves to be sinners. However much they may have adhered to the law in other matters, in this respect they stood condemned by it. The conditions of one who thus does is clearly indicated in the verse following.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law,—“For,” (gar), introduces the reason for the conclusion drawn in the verse preceding. “Whosoever shall keep…” is an indefinite relative clause, the verb of which (“shall keep,” aorist active subjunctive of tereo, to guard), means to observe carefully with the view of adhering tenaciously to that which is kept; “the law,” is the royal law earlier mentioned, and summed up, as it relates to duties by men to men, in the edict, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.” The argument of James here appears to be this: “You appeal, for support for your practice (in showing special regard for rich people), to the law which you claim to be observing. But, if you are to justify your action by the law, you must keep the law perfectly. It is most incon!?istent for you to claim justification for your acts by quoting the law, when your actions are flagrant violations of this same law which you affect to follow, with reference to showing respect of persons. (Lev 19:18.)

and yet stumble in one point,—“Stumble,” (ptaisei, first aorist active subjunctive of ptaio, to trip,) denotes a lapse from that which is right. (Jas 3:2; Rom 11:1.) It will be observed that the word “point,” in our English text, is in italics, thus indicating that there is no corresponding word for it in the Greek text. “Trip, moreover, in one,” is the literal rendering of the phrase; however, the context clearly shows that some such word is needed to complete the sense. One might properly translate, ”Stumble in one precept.”

he is become guilty of all.—“He”; i.e., the one who claims to be keeping all of the law, and yet is violating one of its precepts. Such a one has become guilty ( gegonen, second perfect indicative of ginoniai, stands guilty) of all. That is, the position which he occupies is that of one who is guilty of all. All of what? Certainly not guilty of having transgressed every specific commandment of the law. Obviously, one who steals does not, by such an act, become a murderer; one who lies does not, in so doing, become a drunkard. How then does one become guilty of “all,”‘ by violating one precept of the law? The meaning is, he stands condemned by all of the law when he violates any portion of it. This principle is universally recognized. Some members of our society are styled criminals. These are those who violate the law of the land. What makes them criminals? Their infractions of the law. How much of the law? Any portion thereof. A murderer is no less a criminal because his only crime is murder. He need not to this add other violations of the law in order to acquire this classification. A lawbreaker is one who breaks the law. There may be, and doubtless often is, but one law involved ; nonetheless, such a person is properly regarded as a lawbreaker. What is the relationship of such a person to the law? He is a law violator. While one must keep all of the law to be lawful; one need break only one precept of it to be a law violator. Thus, one may keep much of the law with great consistency, yet violate one portion of it, and stand condemned by the law as a breaker of it. To illustrate: A flock of sheep in a pasture surrounded by a paneled fence are in the pasture. If they leap over one of the panels, they are out of the pasture. It is, of course, not necessary for them to leap over every section of the fence around the pasture to be outside. One leap puts them out. Similarly, one violation of God’s law, unforgiven, puts one in the position of being condemned by it as a violator of it; disobedience to one precept puts the person who thus does in an area outside that which is characteristic of those who keep it.

The vital lesson taught here is that all of the law of God is pertinent to us, and that we must not feel at liberty to tamper with any portion thereof. He who seeks to pass judgment on the validity of God’s laws, and to regard some as essential and others as unnecessary, is most presumptuous, and has officiously invaded the realm of God. One does not justify the violation of one law, by citing another observed. It is not a valid defense against the charge of theft that one did not get drunk, slander another, or commit murder. Obedience to God’s law involves submission of the will. Those who keep only such laws as those which they approve, or in which they find satisfaction, have repudiated the will of God, and stubstituted their own. Such a disposition is presumption of the most objectionable type. It is not our prerogative and privilege to pass judgment on the propriety of any law of God. The fact that they are his is sufficient reason for unquestioned obedience thereto. God’s will must be obeyed, not because it commends itself to our sense of what is right and proper, but because it is God’s will! No other reason need be assigned. Here, indeed, is the acid test of faith. Here, too, many stumble and fall, because such walk by sight and not by faith. Only those who can truly say, “Speak, Lord; thy servant heareth; command, and he will obey,” can ever get to heaven.

11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.—These two commandments, from the second table of the law (man’s duty to man), are cited to show that the law is one, because it originated from one source. Inasmuch as the whole of it came from the same God, what ever portion one violates is transgression of the will of the one God. It is, therefore, absurd to assume that one portion of the law, issuing from such a lawgiver, is valid and vital, whereas, another from the same divine source, may be disregarded with impunity. The law of Jehovah is one; it is the single expression of the divine will. It must be regarded as a -unit, and respected on this basis.

The order in which these commandments appear is not significant; here the seventh comes before the sixth (the arrangement in which they originally appear in the decalogue), but the order followed here is that of the Greek Version of the Old Testament. Jesus cited them in this order in Luk 18:20, as did Paul in Rom 13:9.

now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law.—The meaning is, Though you meticulously observe the first of these commandments, but disregard and disobey the second, you are a transgressor of the law, because the law which forbids adultery, also forbids the unlawful taking of human life. It is all the same law; and, it originated with the same lawgiver. It is no defense against the charge of drunkenness, that one is not a thief, not a murderer, not an embezzler, etc.; the law which forbids these, forbade that, also. In the final analysis, law exists as a disciplinary measure for the good of man. In an important sense, all commandments are, in principle, included in each one, inasmuch as each is a expression of the authority of the lawgiver; and, to violate one puts the violator in conflict with the will of him who originated all of them.

It would be an extension of the principle here taught beyond that intended and beyond that which is right to assume from this that one is as guilty who violates but one precept of Jehovah, as one who has violated a thousand such precepts; or, that there is but one plateau of depravity, and that one reaches it on the occasion of the first sin. Such is not taught, in any sense, here. What is taught is that any sin, however insignificant it may appear to the sinner, or to those about him, is as much a violation of God’s will, (which is an expression of his authority and sovereignty), as any other would be. It is obvious that James has under consideration here presumptuous actions engaged in by individuals who have passed judgment on God’s laws, and who have decided some of them are important, and others not. These considerations could not apply to good people who are sincerely desirous of doing all of the will of God, ancl who seek daily to do exactly this, but who through weakness, inadvertance, and ignorance unwittingly transgress his will. For these, provision has been made through the continuous cleansing of the blood of Christ to those who luep on walking in the light. (1Jn 1:7-9; 1Jn 2:1-4.) The writer has under contemplation here those who keep the law in those instances in which they approve of what God has said, and who hesitate not to violate it in those instances in which they disapprove, or which they regard as of little consequence. David said, “Blessed is the man that feareth Jehovah, that delighteth greatly in his commandments.” (Psa 112:1.) ‘I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. I will meditate on thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself in thy statutes : I will not forget thy word.” (Psa 119:14-16.) May we ever seek to imitate the Psalmist in this respect.

12 So speak ye and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.—- The verbs “speak,” and “do,” are present active imperatives, and thus designate habitual activity. “Ever speak and ever do as men that are to be judged ….. ” There is a day of judgment coming. (Dan 12:2; Rom 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5 :I0.) It is, therefore, vitally important that we should keep on ~peaking and keep on doing in a fashion dictated by the realization that one day we must give an account for our speaking and our doing before the Judge of all the earth. To speall and to do, sums up all that we do and all that we say. Here, as often elsewhere in the Epistle, the writer emphasizes the importance of proper speaking and doing; and, thus repeats the principles which the Lord himself taught: “And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and hy thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Mat 12:36-37.)

That by which all men are to be judged is “a law of liberty.” It is, therefore (a) law (a rule of action); (b) a law of liberty, in that it leads to liberty for those formerly enslaved by sin. For the significance of the word law, see comments on Jas 1:25. The “law of liberty” is the same as the gospel, “the implanted word” (Jas 1:21), and the “word of good tidings” ( l Pet. 1: 25). Those who humbly submit their wills to Christ, and who become obedient to the principles contained in the law of God, do not enslave themselves; on the contrary, they come into possession of true liberty, obtainable in no other way. This liberty is not license; the ideas are mutually exclusive; the liberty thus enjoyed necessitates restraints without which man could not survive in a state of society, nor be happy. “For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love, be servants one to another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” (Gal 5:13-14.) By the law of liberty we are to live, and by it we are to be judged. Fortunate indeed are we that it is not the law of Moses, since none can keep it perfectly today (Act 15:10) ; and, since any violation thereof puts us under the condemnation of the whole. ‘We may indeed rejoice that in Christ we have been delivered from the law of Moses and are privileged to approach God through the great sacrifice which he made in our behalf. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death …. ” (Rom 8:1-2.)

13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy:—There will be mercy shown in judgment for those who have faithfully served the Lord, and whose lapses were unintentional and absolved in the blood of Christ; but, those who have shown others no mercy need not expect mercy themselves when before the judgment seat of Christ they come to stand. (Act 17:30; 1Co 5:10.) The word translated “mercy.” eleos, means pity for those in distress. The close connection between this statement and that appearing in Jas 2:2, should be observed. Instead of showing compassion on the poor, as they ought to have done, James’ readers had treated them with contempt, and had turned their attention to the rich simply because they were rich. They had shown no pity for the poor; if they persisted in this course, no pity would be shown for them in the judgment! It is remarkable that our Lord, in his description of the Judgment, affirmed precisely this same principle: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.” (Mat 25:41-45.) It is the merciful who shall obtain mercy (Mat 5:7) ; those who have been merciless need not expect it when they need it most. To be forgiven, we must forgive others; to avoid condemnation, we must not exercise adverse judgment toward others. (Mat 6:15; Mat 7:1.) The debtor, forgiven of his great and hopeless debt, need not expect God, at the last day, to lift his own tremendous obligation, if he will not mark off an insignificant debt (of sin) owed him by one of his brothers. (Mat 18:23-25.) This principle the text teaches with great clarity. Indeed, the Greek’. is even more emphatic than the English translation, signifying, “For the judgment shall be merciless to him that worked no mercy.” Here, again, there is obvious reference to our Lord’s teaching in the mountain instruction (Matthew 5, 6, 7), to which James so often reverts.

mercy glorieth against judgment.— For “glorieth,” some translations have “rejoiceth,” “triumphs,” “exults over,” and the like, all of which point to the fact that where mercy can express itself, it always transcends judgment. Mercy cancels out judgment (condemnation) ; those who have been merciful, may properly exult in the mercy which they shall receive at the judgment. None of us can hope to stand before God on our own merit; we all are in need of the divine mercy. But, to enjoy it ourselves, we must show it to others. Mercilessness in us toward others, whether rich or poor, will effectively close the door of mercy to us when we need it most. Let us, at this moment, memorize the following words, and make them a part of our daily devotions: “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” (Mat 5:7.)

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the royal: Jam 2:12, Jam 1:25, 1Pe 2:9

Thou: Lev 19:18, Lev 19:34, Mat 22:39, Mar 12:31-33, Luk 10:27-37, Rom 13:8, Rom 13:9, Gal 5:14, Gal 6:2, 1Th 4:9

ye do: Jam 2:19, 1Ki 8:18, 2Ki 7:9, Jon 4:4, Jon 4:9, Mat 25:21, Mat 25:23, Phi 4:14

Reciprocal: 1Ch 22:13 – to fulfil Psa 119:34 – I shall Mat 5:43 – Thou Mat 19:19 – Thou Mat 22:40 – General Luk 6:31 – General Luk 18:20 – Do not commit Joh 13:34 – That ye love Rom 3:31 – yea Eph 6:9 – the same Phi 2:4 – General 2Ti 3:2 – lovers 2Pe 1:19 – ye do 1Jo 2:7 – but

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jas 2:8. Royal means kingly and the greatest laws ever given to men have come from the King of heaven. Among those laws is the one which commands to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” James says if we obey this we will do well.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jas 2:8. If. The connection has been variously understood. Some suppose that St. James is anticipating an objection of his readers, that by showing respect of persons to the rich, they were obeying the royal law, in loving their neighbour as themselves; others think that he is guarding his own argument from misinterpretation.

ye fulfil the royal law; the law which is the king of all laws, which includes in itself all other commandments. Others understand the expression, the law which like the royal road is plain, straight and level; others, the law which proceeds from the great King, whether God or Christ; and others, the law which applies to kings as well as to other men. But all these meanings are objectionable, because they do not discriminate this special precept. It is to be observed that love to our neighbour is not so much a single command as the principle of all true obedience; it is the chief of all laws; all other laws are its ministering servants. All the law, says St. Paul, is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Gal 5:14).

according to the scripture; here not according to the Gospelthe words of Jesus; but according to the law of Moses (Lev 19:18).

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. For then it would follow that if you did so, you would not have this respect of persons.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. The honourable title put upon the law of God a royal law: Royal in its author, Jesus Christ, Heb 12:25. Christ’s voice shook Mount Sinai: Royal in its precepts, the duty it requires of us is noble and excellent, nothing but what is our interest as men, our honour and happiness as Christians, and what tends to the perfecting and ennobling of our natures: Royal in its rewards: true, our work can deserve no wages; however, our royal Master will not let us work for nothing. Satan, as a master, is bad, his work much worse; but his wages worst of all. Christ is a royal Master, obedience to his law is royal service: and how royal is his reward, in making us kings and priests unto God on earth, and crowned kings and princes with God in heaven!

Observe, 2. Our duty declared, with relation to this royal law, namely, to fulfil it: If ye fulfil the royal law, according to the Scriptures, that is, if ye pay a sincere respect to the whole duty of the law, if you come up in your obedience to that universal love of God and your neighbour which the law requires, ye do well; where by neighbour, we are to understand every one to whom we may be helpful; the command to love him as ourselves shews the manner, not the measure, of our love; the kind, not the degree; the parity and likeness, not the equality of proportion; we must mind the good of our neighbour as really and truly, though not so vehemently and earnestly, as our own.

Observe, 3. How the apostle convicts them for walking contrary to this law, in honouring the rich and despising the poor, and in judging according to men’s outward quality and condition: If ye have respect to persons in this manner, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. How does the law convince? Not only by reproving, but by proving: it shews us a rule, and faith, “There ye have departed from it; here is a line, and there ye have transgressed it; either gone over it, or gone beside it.”

Learn hence, that the rule of the word discovers wickedness fully to the conscience of the sinner who winks hard, and is loth to lie under the convictions of it.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Royal Law

James seemingly anticipated their response. Perhaps they would say they were only following the law, fit for kings, which said they should love their neighbor as themselves ( Lev 19:18 ). James said it would be fine if they really practiced that law. He just did not want them to do so to the exclusion of one class of people. The law also forbade prejudice ( Deu 16:19-20 ). Woods says “you commit sin” literally translated is you “work sin.” They apparently did not just slip into sin but intentionally practiced it ( Jas 2:8-9 ).

Since they might appeal to the law of Moses, James showed that one who breaks one part of the law is a law breaker. Thus, he would stand condemned by the law. The law is taken as a unit because it all comes from one source, God. To violate one part is to stand condemned by the whole law as a transgressor. Ultimately, we should speak and live as those who will be judged by the perfect law of liberty. In Christ, we are free from the condemnation of sin ( Rom 8:1-2 ). Of course, being free should not make us want to abuse our freedom and return to bondage ( Jas 2:10-12 ; Gal 5:13-14 ).

Each person’s judgment will be based upon how he has dealt with others. If he has failed to show pity on those in need, he can expect no pity. Jesus’ parable of the judgment shows the importance of caring for the needs of others. Those who failed heard, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me” ( Mat 25:41-46 ; Mat 18:23-35 ). Mercy will stand above judgment, so those who have been merciful have no need to fear ( Jas 2:13 ; 1Jn 4:16-18 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Jas 2:8-11. If ye fulfil the royal law The supreme law of the great King, which is love; and that to every man, poor as well as rich; ye do well The phrase, , royal law, here admits of three interpretations. 1st, As the Greeks called a thing royal which was excellent in its kind, it may mean an excellent law. 2d, As the same Greeks, having few or no kings among them, called the laws of the kings of Persia, , royal laws, the expression here may signify, the law made by Christ our King. 3d, This law, enjoining us to love our neighbour, may be called the royal law, because it inspires us with a greatness of mind, fit for kings, whose greatest glory consists in benevolence and clemency. The law or precept here spoken of was enjoined by Moses, but Christ carried it to such perfection, as it was to be practised among his followers, and laid such stress upon it, that he called it a new commandment, Joh 13:34; and his commandment, Joh 15:12. But if ye have respect to persons In this partial manner, ye commit, , ye work, sin That is, ye do a sinful action; and are convinced Or rather convicted, by the law, which I have just now mentioned: for that law enjoins you to love your neighbours as yourselves, and consequently to do them justice. For whosoever shall keep the whole law In every other instance; and yet offend in one point Knowingly; he is guilty of all He is liable to condemnation from the lawgiver, as if he had offended in every point. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that by observing any one precept of the law with care, men secured to themselves the favour of God, notwithstanding they neglected all the rest. Wherefore they recommended it to their disciples to make choice of a particular precept, in the keeping of which they were to exercise themselves. Whitby says, they commonly chose either the law of the sabbath, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of tithes, because they esteemed these the great commandments in the law. This corrupt Jewish doctrine St. James here expressly condemns; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill The apostles meaning is, that all the commandments being equally enjoined by God, the man who despises the authority of God so far as to break any one of them habitually, would, in the like circumstances of temptation and opportunity, certainly break any other of them; consequently, in the eye of God, he is guilty of breaking the whole law: that is, he hath no real principle of piety or virtue in him.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 8

The royal law; the first and highest law.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

What is the “royal law” referring to? A regal law or the law of the king. Some suggest “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev 19:18) as the law spoken of here. From the context this is part of the royal law at the very least if not all of it.

The construction seems to me to show that if we obey the law, then the love will be the outworking of our fulfilling, thus indicating that the royal law is actually something else. The fulfilling is a present tense and the loving is a future tense, again indicating that the loving is an outworking of the fulfilling.

Verse nine seems to me to indicate the law of the Old Testament, or some law that is set and that is to be obeyed, and that will convict us if we don’t. At the very least this is a set of commands which cause us to sin, if unfulfilled, as well as have the capability of convicting us of our transgressions.

The Old Testament law certainly fits into this set of requirements. We will see more about this law in the application section.

How do you love that neighbor that sticks a running hose into your open car window and fills your car with water? How do you love that neighbor that knowingly blocks your car in so you can’t move it? How do you love that neighbor that knowingly borrows things and does not return them?

Some might suggest that you love them very grudgingly, but I doubt that is what God meant when He moved James to pen the words.

We should love them as if they have done nothing, especially if we ever want to witness to them about the Lord that we serve.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

2:8 {4} If ye fulfil the {f} royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

(4) The conclusion: charity which God prescribes cannot agree with the respecting of people, seeing that we must walk in the king’s highway.

(f) The law is said to be royal and like the king’s highway, in that it is simple and without changes, and that the law calls everyone our neighbour without respect, whom we may help by any kind of duty.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

4. The Christian’s duty 2:8-9

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

James did not mean Christians should avoid honoring the rich but that we should love everyone and treat every individual as we would treat ourselves (Mat 7:12; cf. Lev 19:18). The "royal" (Gr. basilikos) law is royal in that it is the law of the King who heads the kingdom (Gr. basilikon) that believers will inherit (Jas 2:5). [Note: Motyer, pp. 96-97.] It is also royal in that it is primary; it governs all other laws dealing with human relationships (Mat 22:39; cf. Lev 19:18). Moreover it is "conduct of a high order that is worthy of a king." [Note: Hodges, The Epistle . . ., p. 53.] The phrase "royal law" reflects the Latin lex regia, which was known throughout the Roman Empire. [Note: Blue, p. 825.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)