How Much Sin Violates God's +R; James
2:9-13
James 2:9 NASB
“But if you show partiality, you are committing sin {and} are convicted by the
law as transgressors.” There is a contrast, you are either in one status or the other. Either
you are applying the Word or you’re not. “But if you show partiality” is the
word PROSOPOLEMPTEO [proswpolhmptew] and it has to do with looking on the face, to look on someone’s face favorably and that means to show them favouritism, to show
partiality. So if you show favoritism you are indeed
committing sin. The word for convicted is not a verb, like it appears in the
English, it is a present passive participle of the verb ELEGCHO [e)legxw]. What
we see in this kind of construction when there is a main verb—ERGAZOMAI [e)rgazomai]—and
is followed by an anartharous participle (no definite
article), the anartharous participle is adverbial and
it further defines the main verb. When it is set up in this kind of syntactical
relationship it is an adverbial participle of result. “But if you show
partiality you are committing sin with the result that you are convicted by the
law as transgressors.” The law is stated here as the absolute standard for
judging man. It is not the Mosaic law per se. James is
not going back and saying Christians are to be under the law. Remember these
are Jewish believers, and they respect the Mosaic law
just as we do, not as a means of the spiritual life, not as the means of
salvation, but as the expression of God’s will. They know that all but one of
the ten commandments, the sabbatical principle, are
reiterated in the New Testament and are mandatory upon believers in the church
age. So what James is telling them is that if you show partiality, which is
considered by some people as just a minor offence, you are convicted by the law
as a transgressor. The word “transgressor” here means someone who has violated
the law, and to a Jew this is a terrible thing to be convicted of. We must
remind ourselves that here we are talking about believers, not unbelievers.
These are believers and they are engaged in behaviour that doesn’t measure up
to the perfect righteousness of God.
How much sin does it take to
violate the righteousness of God? Any sin violates the standard of God and
therefore if we commit any sin our fellowship with God is lost. God is absolute
righteousness and He cannot have fellowship with any creature that doesn’t meet
His standards. The point is that there are some people who think that as long
as their underlying attitude is that they want to obey God that if they commit
a little sin here or an unknown sin there then they are still in fellowship. It
is only when they commit a wilful sin of a certain magnitude (and they can’t
define what that magnitude is) it is only then that you start becoming carnal.
So becoming carnal is a process, and they define carnality not as being under
the control of the sin nature but as being an excessive sin—what we would call
backsliding or reversionism because we have reversed
our course so much. But the problem here is that they fail to take into account
how much sin it takes to violate the standard of God. Does the fact that you
don’t know it is a sin change the fact that it violates that standard? Of course not. And darkness cannot have any fellowship with
light. The second problem is that carnality/carnal translates the Greek word SARX [sarc] which refers to the flesh as the description of the
sin nature, and why we call it carnality is because at that point rather than
being influenced and walking by means of the Holy Spirit we are now walking by
means of the sin nature. This is now thew primary influence in the life, so we
cannot please God at all because we are in darkness. Carnality is not extreme
sinfulness, it is any sinfulness. James
Then we come to an interesting verses in v. 12 which expresses the
consequences of that sin, NASB “So speak and so act as those who are
to be judged by {the} law of liberty.” It is a conclusion which reads funny in
the English when it says “So speak and so act.” There is an emphasis going on
here. There are two verbs and a particle of inference. The first verb is LALEO [lalew], to speak, and the second verb is POIEO [poiew], act, meaning to apply doctrine, the theme of this
whole section. Notice how James uses great literary skill in the way he
continually weaves these words in and out of his narrative to make sure we
understand what the point is. The way it is translated “so” is funny in English;
it is a conclusion—thus. Because of what we have said, that if you violate the
law in one minor point you violate the whole law, therefore because that proof
speaks a certain way then act or apply doctrine a certain way. He repeats for
emphasis the HOUTOS [o(utwj]
twice to make sure we get the point: Therefore speak and therefore act, or do,
or apply, as those who are to be to be judged by the law of liberty. Notice how
he is very particular in referring to the law here as the law of liberty and
not the Mosaic law, because he has used the Mosaic law
in vv. 10 and 11 for illustrative purposes, because that is a point of common
ground that we all have, respect for the ten commandments and the Mosaic law,
the revelation of God and His absolute standards to Israel—but no longer
related to the church age. He refers to this now as the law of liberty and we
have to go back to what he said in
It is interesting that in the
Greek these two imperatives are present active imperatives. James stylistically
shifts back and forth between aorist imperatives and present imperatives. The
aorist imperative gives specifics, it usually expresses urgency to apply that principle,
whereas the present imperative emphasises a characteristic, that these are mandates
that express general principles for the spiritual life, specifically for habits
or behaviour patterns that should characterize our life: we need to make this a
habit to speak and act a certain way; this is to characterize our life, to be a
part of our character, the idea of the customary present that we should continue
this throughout our life, to train ourselves to make this a habit pattern. “…act
as those who are to be judged by {the} law of liberty.” Here we find the verb KRINO [krinw]; we are to be judged. This is a perfect passive infinitive, that we are going to be judged by the law of
liberty. KRINO means to decide a question of legal right or wrong
and thus determine the innocence of guilt of the accused and assign appropriate
punishment in retribution.
What judgment is this? What
does James mean when he says that we are going to be judged by the law of
liberty? Theologians offer three options: a) the great white throne judgment
which is covered in Revelation chapter 20. The problem with that: John
James