Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2:10 - 2:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jam_2:10. Confirmation of the last expressed thought: For whosoever kept the whole law, and yet sinned in one (commandment), he is guilty of all (commandments). The conjunctives τηρήσῃ , πταίσῃ , certified by authorities, are not to be considered as an error of the scribe (as Winer, 5th ed. p. 356, was inclined to assume); but the particle ἄν is here, as frequently in the N. T. contrary to classical usage in hypothetical sentences, omitted when ὅστις stands, because “the universality was already sufficiently indicated by the pronoun (Buttmann, p. 197 [E. T. 229]).[123] ἀνθρώπῳ is not, with Schulthess, to be supplied to ἘΝ ἙΝΊ , but ΝΌΜῼ , with Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, Lange, and others, “from the preceding collective idea ΝΌΜΟς .” The following ΠΆΝΤΩΝ forbids us, with Schneckenburger and Kern, to understand ἙΝΊ as neuter. It is in entire conformity with the character of the thought as a general sentence to take ἙΝΊ quite generally, and not, with Theophylact, Oecumenius ( ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΕΡῚ ἈΓΆΠΗς ΕἼΡΗΚΕ ), Schol. Matthaei, p. 188 ( ἐν ἑνὶ πταίσειν ἐστὶ , τὸ μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην ), and some recent critics (Semler: in hanc unam et primam), to refer it to a definite commandment, particularly to that of love.[124] By this general sentence James seeks to confirm the thought that respect of persons includes in itself the transgression of the whole law, although it appears to be directed only against a single commandment.
The word ΠΤΑΊΕΙΝ is found in the N. T. only in a figurative sense; the construction with ἘΝ is only in this place; in chap. Jam_3:2 the reference of ἘΝ is different. By ΓΈΓΟΝΕΝ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ (sc. νόμων ) ἜΝΟΧΟς , James declares the transgressor of one commandment to be guilty of the transgression of all.
ἔνοχος ] is here, as in 1Co_11:27, used with the genitive of the thing against which one sins, in the guilt of which one is thus involved.[125] The same thought is also found in the Rabbinical writings, e.g. Cod. Talm. Schabbath, fol. lxx. 2; R. Johanan: Quodsi faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singulorum reus; see Wolf.[126]
[123] Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 386], explains the omission of ἄν , because in the writer’s conception the case is altogether definite; but then the future indicative would be put; also the case here stated, namely, that one may transgress one commandment and yet keep the whole law, is a case which cannot be imagined.
[124] Still more arbitrarily, Grotius, Morus, Stolz, and Jaspar limit the general expressions ἑνί and πάντων to such commandment, to the transgression of which the punishment of death is assigned.
[125] The punishment with ἔνοχος is usually in the genitive, with Mat_26:66, Mar_3:29; Mar_14:46; yet also in the dative, Mat_5:21. In classical language, the thing against which one sins is with ἔνοχος only in the dative, whilst the crime itself of which the man is guilty, as well as the punishment which he has to suffer, is added in the genitive.
[126] Köster (Stud. u. Krit. 1862, 1) to this passage cites the corresponding expression of Livy (Hist. xxxiv. 3) referring to the lawgiver: unam tollendo legem ceterae infirmantur.