02.02. Chapter 2 - Verse 10

James 2:10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all. The connection between James 2:10 and James 2:9 is this: They had pleaded that their respect of the rich was but a necessary civility, and a duty of the law; or, at least, that it was but a small offence, such as might be excused by their innocent intention, and obedience in other things, which was an opinion rife in those days; and that some¹ make to the occasion of this sentence, that the apostle might disprove that conceit which was then so common, that obedience in some things did make amends for their neglect and disobedience in other things. That the conceit was common appeareth by several passages of Christ and the apostles. Our Saviour chargeth it often upon the Pharisees. Ben Maimon, in his treatise of repentance, hath such a passage as this is: ‘Every one,’ saith he, ‘hath his merits and his sins. He whose merits are equal to² his sins, he is tzadoc, the righteous man; he whose sins are greater than his merits, he is rashang, the wicked man; but where the sins and the merits are equal, he is the middle man, partly happy, and partly miserable.’ This was the sum of the Jewish doctrine in the more corrupt times; and some think the apostle might meet with this error in this verse, by showing that the least breach rendered a man obnoxious to the danger of the violation of the whole law. Rather, I suppose, it lieth thus: They satisfied themselves with half duty, using over-much observance to the rich, and to the poor nothing at all. He had before said, εἰ νόμον τελεῖτε βασίλικον, ‘If ye fulfil, or perfect, the royal law.’ Now, they minded that part of it that was advantageous to them; it was not full or perfect obedience to cut off so much of duty as was less profitable: therefore the law convinced them ‘as transgressors.’ The royal law saith, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;’ and man is not to make such exceptions as please him best, to defalcate and cut off such a considerable part of duty at his own pleasure. God saith, ‘thy neighbour;’ and I must not say, ‘my rich neighbour only.’ There must be an even and adequate care to comply with the whole will of God, or else it is not obedience, but you are in the danger of transgressors. This hint maketh much for the opening of the verse, a place in itself difficult. Augustine³ consulted with Jerome about the sense of it in a long epistle; and, indeed, at the first view, the sentence seemeth harsh and rough. I shall first open the phrases, remove false inferences from it, and then establish the true notes and observations, that this scripture may have its due and proper force upon the conscience.

¹ See Camero, the last edition of his works in folio, p. 170.

² Qu. ‘Greater than’? ED.

³ Aug. Retract., lib. 2. cap. 45 ; et Epist. 102 ad Evodium; et Epist. 29 ad Hieron.

Whosoever shall keep the whole law.—He speaketh upon supposition. Suppose a man should be exact in all other points of the law, which yet is impossible, we may suppose things that never shall be. Or else he speaketh according to their pretences and presumptions. They supposed they were not to be taxed or convinced as transgressors in any other matter: grant it, saith the apostle; or else he speaketh of the whole of this commandment, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour,’ &c. Suppose your duty to rich men, and where it may make for your advantage, be whole and entire.

Yet if he offend in one point.—Willingly, constantly, and with allowance from conscience; with thought of merit and excuse, because of his obedience in other matters.

He is guilty of all.—Liable to the same punishment, standeth upon the same terms of hope and acceptance with God, as if he had done nothing. A man may violate totam legem though not totum legis; sin against the dignity and authority of the whole law, though he doth not actually break every part of it. Ay! but you will say, as the apostles, Matthew 19:1-30, ‘Who then can be saved?’ Here is a terrible sentence that will much discourage God’s little ones, who are conscious to themselves of their daily failings. I answer—That which the apostle aimeth at is the discovery of hypocrites, not the discouragement of saints. As Zuinglius, when he had flashed the thunder and lightning of God in the face of sinners, he was wont to come in with this proviso, Bone Christiane, hœc nihil ad te—poor Christian, this is not spoken to thee. So this is not spoken to discourage God’s children, however it may be of use to them to make them more humble, cautious, and watchful, as lions will tremble when dogs are beaten. To clear the place, before I come to lay down the notes, I shall, according to promise, remove the false inferences. (1.) You cannot conclude hence that all sins are equal. They are all damning, not all alike damning. Some guilt may be more heinous, but all is deadly. And that is it which James asserteth: he saith, ‘he is guilty of all,’ but not equally guilty. The apostle would infer an equality of care and respect to the whole law, but not an equality of sin. All that can be collected is this, that one allowed, wilful, deliberate breach and violation forfeiteth our righteousness, and maketh us become obnoxious to the curse of the whole law, and the sinner shall no less die than if he had broken all by an actual transgression. So that, although all allowed sins deserve death, yet there is a difference still remaining in the several degrees of guilt and the curse. (2.) You cannot hence conclude that total rebellion is simply, and in itself, better than formal profession. Christ loved the man for the good things that were in him from his youth, and telleth him, ‘Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.’ We read of greater sins, and more intolerable judgment. Good moral heathens may have a cooler hell. (3.) You cannot apply it to them whose care of obedience is universal, though the success be not answerable: Psalms 119:6, ‘Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy commandments;’ not when I have observed, but when I have respect. Gracious hearts look to all, when they cannot accomplish all; and upon every known defect and failing they humble themselves, and seek mercy. It doth not exclude them, for then it would exclude all. But when men allow and please themselves in a partial obedience, without fore-care, present-striving, and after-grief, they come under the terror of this sentence. God will dispense with none that can dispense with themselves in any known failing. (4.) You must not urge this sentence to the exclusion of the comforts of the gospel, and the hopes that we have by the grace of God in Christ: for this sentence in itself is legal, the very rigour of the law, and such sayings brook the exceptions of repentance and free grace: for the rigour of the law can only take place on those that are under the bond of it, and are not freed by Christ. That this is the voice of the law is plain, because it consenteth with that sum and tenor of it which is laid down Deuteronomy 27:26, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them.’ If they failed but in a circumstance, in a ceremony, they were under the power of the curse. So the apostle urgeth it. Galatians 3:10, ‘As many as are under the works of the law, are under the curse; for cursed is he that continueth not in all things to do them.’ Now Christ hath redeemed all those that have interest in him from this curse, by being (as the apostle saith there, Galatians 3:13) ‘made a curse for us;’ so that there is a remedy in Christ, of which we are possessed by faith and repentance. And let it not seem strange to any that I say the sentence is legal, for many of that nature are here and there intermixed and scattered throughout the gospel, because they are of excellent use and service for gospel ends and purposes: as to convince hypocrites, whose obedience is always partial; to drive men to the grace revealed in the gospel; and for the guidance and rule of Christians, that they may know the whole will of God. For though we are freed from the rigour of the law, yet we ought to look to the whole rule, and, as much as in us lieth, to strive, μὴ πταίειν ἐν ἑνὶ, not to offend in one point and tittle, not to rest in their imperfections, but to strive against them. Christ hath again revived this strictness: Matthew 5:19, ‘Whosoever shall break one of these commandments, and teach men to do so, shall be least in the kingdom of God;’ that is, shall not be owned for a gospel minister. Christ is chary of his least saints and least commandments. Though there be a pardon, of course, for infirmities and failings, yet Christ hath not abated anything of the strictness of the law. The Pharisees thought that some commandments were little and arbitrary; and therefore the lawyer came to Christ: Matthew 22:36, ‘Master, which is the great commandment in the law?’ It is true, some duties are more excellent; but the question was propounded according the mind of the Pharisees, who accounted outward devotionary acts most singular, and their own traditions weighty things; now he cometh to see if Christ liked the distribution. (5.) You must not urge this sentence to pervert the order of the commandments; as if a man, in committing theft, committed adultery; and in committing adultery, he committed murder. It is notable the apostle doth not say, ‘He transgresseth all,’ but ‘he is guilty of all.’ The precepts are not to be taken disjunctim, but conjunctim and completivè; not severally, but altogether, as they make one entire law and rule of righteousness, the contempt reflecting upon the whole law when it is wilfully violated in one part; as he that wrongeth one member, wrongeth the whole man or body of which it is a part. The text being vindicated, I shall sum up the whole verse into one observation, which is:—

Obs. That voluntary and allowed neglects of any part of the law make us guilty of the violation of the whole law. Many reasons might be urged to mollify the seeming asperity and rigour of the point; as partly because the contempt of the same authority is manifested in the breach of one as well as of all: all the commands are equal in regard of God; they are all ratified by the same authority, which man contemneth when he maketh his own will the measure of obedience; and partly because the same curse is deserved, which, when neglects are voluntary, taketh place; partly because the law is but one copulation, like a chain which is dissolved by the loosening of one link; partly because all sin proceedeth from the same corruption: the least sin is contrary to love, as well as the least drop of water to fire;⁴ partly because amongst men it is counted equal: one condition not observed forfeiteth the whole lease; and partly because one sincere duty hath much promised to it, and therefore one sin hath its proportionable guilt. True love is called a ‘fulfilling of the whole law,’ Romans 13:8. And, in God’s account, he that sincerely repenteth of one sin, repenteth of all. And so, on the contrary, one allowed sin is virtually a violation of the whole law; and, therefore, when some went to gather manna on the Sabbath day, God said, Exodus 16:28, ‘How long will ye refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?’ implying that in the breach of that one they had broken all.

⁴ ‘Contra eam charitatem facit, in qua pendent omnia.’—Aug. Epist. 29.

There are many uses of this note: because they are of profit and concernment to you, in the right application of this place, I shall give them you in their order.

1. It showeth how tender we should be of every command: wilful violation amounteth to a total neglect; therefore, as wisdom adviseth, Proverbs 7:2, ‘Keep my law as the apple of thine eye.’ The least dust offendeth the eye; and so the law is a tender thing, and soon wronged. Lest you forfeit all your righteousness at once, it is good to be careful.

2. That partial obedience is an argument of insincerity. When we neglect duties that either thwart carnal desires or prejudice carnal concernments, we do not please God, but ourselves. We are to walk ‘in all God’s statutes,’ Luke 1:6. David fulfilled πάντα τὰ θελήματα, ‘all the wills of God,’ Acts 13:22.

3. That it is a vain deceit to excuse defects of one duty by care of another. Sometimes men ante-date, sometimes they post-date, an indulgence. They ante-date it when they sin upon a presumption they shall make amends by repentance, or that their future good deeds shall be a sufficient expiation or satisfaction. They post-date it when, from duties already done, they take liberty or an occasion to sin the more freely: Ezekiel 33:13, ‘If he trust to his righteousness, and commit iniquity,’ that is, if, upon that occasion of righteousness so done, called, or thought to be so in his apprehension, he shall adventure upon sin, the doom is, ‘he shall die the death.’ We see many men’s hearts grow loose and vain after duties, and they are the more presumptuous and careless out of a vain conceit that supererogating in some things will excuse obedience in others.

4. That upon any particular failing we ought to renew our peace with God. I have done that now which will make me guilty of the whole law; therefore, soul, run to thy advocate: 1 John 2:1, ‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.’ Oh! go to Christ that he may sue out your pardon; your hearts are not right with God if you do not use this course: after daily transgressions sue out a daily pardon. The children of God are like fountains; when mud is stirred up they do not leave till they can get themselves clear again. Particular sins must have particular applications of grace, for in themselves, in their own merit, they leave you under a curse. It is good to deprecate it, as David doth, Psalms 6:1, ‘O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger,’ &c.

5. That we must not only regard the work of duty, but all the circumstances of it; and so proportionably, not only the acts of sin, but the vicious motions and inclinations of it. One point is dangerous. The Pharisees were for external duties, and the avoiding of gross sins, but securely allowed themselves in sins more hidden, which yet are of a dangerous consequence. Malice is murder; and thereupon John saith, 1 John 3:15, ‘No murderer hath, eternal life.’ And lust is adultery, Matthew 5:28; a look, a glance, a thought, a desire, is in itself damnable, and brooketh only the exception of the divine grace.

6. That former profession will do no good in case there be a total revolt afterward. A little poison in a cup, and one leak in a ship, may ruin all. A man may ride right for a long time, but one turn in the end of the journey may bring him quite out of the way. Gideon had seventy sons, and but one bastard, and yet that bastard destroyed all the rest, Judges 8:1-35. It is said, Ecclesiastes 9:18, ‘One sinner destroyeth much good.’ Once a sinner, all is lost; the ancients expound it that way. So Ezekiel 33:13, ‘All his righteousness shall be forgotten;’ that is, all will be to no purpose. As the sins of one that repenteth are carried into a land of darkness, so are their duties who apostatise.

7. That the smallness of sin is a poor excuse; it is an aggravation rather than an excuse: it is the more sad, that we should stand with God for a trifle. Luke 16:21, he would not give a crumb, and this wonderfully displeased God; he did not receive a drop. God’s judgments have been most remarkable when the occasion was least. Adam was cast out of paradise for an apple; so gathering of sticks on the Sabbath day, looking into the ark, &c. God’s command bindeth in lesser things as well as greater; though the object be different, the command is still the same: ‘I tasted but a little honey (saith Jonathan), and I must die,’ 1 Samuel 14:43. It will be sad to you to go to hell for a small matter. One of the prophet’s aggravations is, that they ‘sold the righteous for a pair of shoes,’ Amos 2:6. Would you contest with God for a small thing and of little consequence? As it is imprudence, so it is unkindness.