All for one. One for all.

We entered into a discussion this weekend over James 2:10.

Who can explain specifically how breaking one command makes you guilty of all?

If you're pulled over for a speeding ticket and in turn charged with tax evasion, mail fraud, purgery and everything else, how do you explain this?

I'm looking for an explanation specifically of how one broken command equals the breaking of them all.

I have an idea, but I'd like to hear what others' think.

Hey there,

Not totally sure whether this is the correct answer. But I'll give it a shot....

I think of it in terms of the 'capacity to break all laws' once we have 'broken any law' (In other words when we are a sinner and therefore have a sinful nature...we are a 'law breaker by nature')

Just a few thoughts :-)

In Jesus,

John

Hi imnowhere...

Have you considered that the Law really comes down to two commands? You should love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength. The second is like the first in that you should love your neighbor as yourself.

If you break any single command of the Law, you are really guilty of breaking the Law itself -- especially in regard to the essence of the Law as described by these two principles.

Just a thought.

Both interesting replies. My thoughts were more along the 'capacity' reply but the other one rings noteworthy as well.

It seems as its a 'legal' type verse, saying we've broken all if we've broken one. It doesn't say 'it's like' we've broken all either, but rather that we 'have'.

I also think that a good understanding of this verse and the reason it's true would help in defending the guilt of mankind before God to those that downplay or whitewash their sins.

Being guilty of 'all' the law before God is a sobering fact.

But how?

Perhaps a clearer meaning can be obtained by taking the verse in its context: Favoritism is forbidden, or more precisely, it is against God's law to favor the rich over the poor.

[i]Jas 2:1-13 "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"[/i]

Verse 10 was written to emphasize the gravity of committing the sin of discrimination against the poor. In essence James was saying that if you show favoritism towards the rich, it is as if you committed murder or adultery -- it is just as abhorrent to the Lord who will judge you. There is no such thing as a "little" sin.

In essence James was saying that if you show favoritism towards the rich, it is as if you committed murder or adultery -- it is just as abhorrent to the Lord who will judge you. There is no such thing as a "little" sin.

But James doesn't say, 'it is as if' you broke them all. He says you 'did'. That's a big difference. It's not hypothetical, its reality.

imnowhere wrote:

In essence James was saying that if you show favoritism towards the rich, it is as if you committed murder or adultery -- it is just as abhorrent to the Lord who will judge you. There is no such thing as a "little" sin.

But James doesn't say, 'it is as if' you broke them all. He says you 'did'. That's a big difference. It's not hypothetical, its reality.

[i]For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.[/i]

You posted them, feel free to tell me what they mean.

How does the verse you posted change the fact that James didn't say 'it's as if' you broke them all, but rather you have?

Apples and Oranges in my opinion.

God's law > man's law. The two cannot stand together on every topic. If you break the law by speeding, you will not be judged for tax evasion. You have only broken 1 law, not all.

As in the Lord's kingdom, breaking one of His laws is breaking them all.

It is one law with many commands.
Brake one command, you brake the law.

The law is love, the commands are to keep us with in the law of love.

[b]Mat 5:21[/b] [color=660000]Whoever commits murder shall be in danger of the Judgment.[/color]
[b]Mat 5:22[/b] [color=660000]Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.[/color]
If you hate your brother with out a cause, you murder him, which is against the law of love.

I do realize it says that if you break one you've broken them all. What I don't understand is how or why that is. Maybe God doesn't tell us, but I was curious if any had an idea.

imnowhere wrote:
You posted them, feel free to tell me what they mean.

How does the verse you posted change the fact that James didn't say 'it's as if' you broke them all, but rather you have?

When you started this thread, you said:

I have an idea, but I'd like to hear what others' think.

That's fine, you don't have to answer what your verse means that you posted.

Also, if it's all the same, feel free to ignore all my posts in the future and refrain from responding. I'm okay with that.

As far as 'what we think' and 'our ideas not acceptable', it's more just yours. I thanked the others for responding and genuinely appreciated their responses. I don't know if you are speaking for the others when you use the terms 'we' and 'us' or if you feel you are protecting them from my terrible question.

Thank you leo for your understanding and future restraint.

When this topic came up after church last Sunday, we began talking about it durring lunch. As we talked, I thought of comments made from an Auschwitz survivor that talked of how those that were in that terrible prison, who had been somewhat pleasant in more comfortable scenarios, became monsters when their comforts were taken away and their lives endangered. He spoke of how no one could be trusted because any would stab you in the back to make any gains for themselves.

I thought maybe that is why James said what he did. Maybe God is saying that if you will commit sin A, then under difficult circumstances or a time of distress, your heart would be revealed that you would commit the worst sins, or all of them.
That if there is sin in your heart, all it would take is strain to reveal the extent of that sin. That if you will steal when its not neccessary, under duress you would kill someone.

It seems that under comfortable circumstance and prosperity, it is easier to mask what's really in the heart. But God sees through us. He sees that if we will sin small, we would assuredly sin big. If we will break one command, under different circumstance we would break them all. But because God doesn't need circumstance to reveal what 's in the heart like we do, He can declare that if you break one, you've broke them all.

That's why I found the 'capacity' response interesting from live4jc. The 2 command response was enlightening too.

Thank you leo for your understanding and future restraint.

No need to thank me. I will not be restrained by you or anyone else who likes to play around with this forum. I will respond as I see fit.

So, where is your idea that you said you had at the start of this thread? Is it not fit to post?

----EDIT:
Oh, I see you posted it while I was typing.
Let me read then I'll comment as I see fit.

Hmmm...

Your "idea" seems to exactly the same as what the others had posted, yet you seemed unsatisfied and you responded to them with this:

It seems as its a 'legal' type verse, saying we've broken all if we've broken one. It doesn't say 'it's like' we've broken all either, but rather that we 'have'. I also think that a good understanding of this verse and the reason it's true would help in defending the guilt of mankind before God to those that downplay or whitewash their sins. Being guilty of 'all' the law before God is a sobering fact. [b]But how?[/b]

Your idea is:

[b]Maybe[/b] God is saying that if you will commit sin A, then under difficult circumstances or a time of distress, your heart would be revealed that you would commit the worst sins, or all of them. That if there is sin in your heart, all it would take is strain to reveal the extent of that sin. That if you will steal when its not neccessary, under duress you would kill someone. It seems that under comfortable circumstance and prosperity, it is easier to mask what's really in the heart. But God sees through us. He sees that if we will sin small, we would assuredly sin big. If we will break one command, under different circumstance we would break them all. But because God doesn't need circumstance to reveal what 's in the heart like we do, [b]He can declare that if you break one, you've broke them all[/b].

The long "Maybe" part is dangerous conjecture because no one, nowhere, can know the mind of God.

Your "idea" seems to exactly the same as what the others had posted, yet you seemed unsatisfied and you responded to them with this:

My guess was 'exactly' the same as the other answers given?

See what I mean by playing around? Although their answer was the same as your idea, you push them playfully with another: But how?

Are you bipolar or just paranoid or what? What is this? Can I ask for a genuine discussion on a topic without you always popping up telling me about my alterior motives?

The last part of your "idea" that I marked in bold font is the correct answer, which is the same as everybody else's answer.
The long "Maybe" part is dangerous conjecture because no one, nowhere, can know the mind of God.

First, thanks Ms. Leo for marking my paper's correct spots with bold ink. That was helpful.
Second, it was dangerous conjecture to put down my idea peppered with 'maybes'?

Do you have a lot of time on your hands?

I see the suggestion to ignore my posts didn't fare too well.

If you brake one command, you brake the law.
If you brake another command, you brake the law.
If you brake a different command, you brake the law.

Therefore, when you brake a commandment, you brake the whole law.

Are you bipolar or just paranoid or what? What is this? Can I ask for a genuine discussion on a topic without you always popping up telling me about my [b]alterior[/b] motives?

Second, it was dangerous conjecture to put down my idea peppered with 'maybes'?

God is saying that if you will commit sin A, then under difficult circumstances or a time of distress, your heart would be revealed that you would commit the worst sins, or all of them. That if there is sin in your heart, all it would take is strain to reveal the extent of that sin. That if you will steal when its not neccessary, under duress you would kill someone.

imnowhere wrote:

I do realize it says that if you break one you've broken them all. What I don't understand is how or why that is. Maybe God doesn't tell us, but I was curious if any had an idea.

As for breaking all the laws if you've broken one, I think that by the Lord stating this, it shows His heart in the matter of sin.

The pharisees would break certain laws, for example divorce, and be ok with it. But when it came to adultry, they would stone others for it. I think that the Lord was stating that ALL sin is bad, and that the severity of sin is not based on what we mortals believe, but what He says.

Not sure if this helps or hurts your question, but God bless anyways! :-)