Often, people are unintentionally promoting lawlessness to proclaim their innocence, and James 2:10 is an excellent example of scriptural abuse in the church.
Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10
A common argument stems from this verse; it is rationalized that if you try to keep any of the law and break one, you become guilty of breaking the entire law, so it's better not to keep any of it. Believe it or not, we hear this argument a lot from anti-Torah Christians and apologists. Let's separate ourselves from presuppositions and apply the same logic to another story and see if we maintain our position:
Matthew had just gotten his driver's permit, and as his father explained the rules of the road, Matthew exclaimed, "This is impossible! There are thousands of laws!" His father said, "These laws are required to keep everyone safe. And if you break any of these laws, you will become a lawbreaker and go to jail or be fined." Matthew took the car keys and went out for his first drive without a guardian; he drove through 3 red lights, hit a pedestrian, and unintentionally crashed his vehicle right into a police station. A few days later, Matthew was in court. He heard from numerous witnesses and saw camera footage of the destruction he had caused. The judge asked Matthew, "How do you plead?" Matthew smiled and said, "Obviously, I'm not guilty. I don't keep any of your laws."
Are our logic and rationale the same? If not, we have to ask why. Just because you decided not to keep the law doesn't mean you are immune from breaking it. The story above serves as an example to explain why this is illogical.
In interpreting James 2:10, it is essential to consider the broader context of the passage and the teachings of Yeshua. Yeshua himself emphasized the importance of keeping the commandments and upholding the Torah:
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19-20 ESV
Therefore, as a follower of Yeshua, I would strive to live according to the Torah and its commandments.
However, it is also crucial to recognize that no human being is perfect and capable of observing every aspect of the law flawlessly. James 2:10 reminds us that even if one diligently follows most commandments, a single violation still renders them accountable for the entire law. This verse emphasizes the holistic nature of the Torah and highlights the need for sincere repentance and seeking forgiveness for any transgressions.
Still, some also argue that James and Jesus only speak about what they've considered the ceremonial and civil laws, not the moral ones. Thus, if you break a moral law, it's not as if you broke all of them. Instead, only if you violate a ceremonial and civil law would you be guilty of breaking the entire law. But James is talking about the law as a whole, encompassing even what many have classified as 'the moral laws'.
If you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted as transgressors of the law. Whoever keeps the whole law but 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 commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. James 2:9-11
Breaking Everything to Avoid Breaking One Thing...
The argument is often, "If you keep the law, and violate one thing then you break the entire law - so it's better not to keep any of it". But this logic implies, "we should break all laws to avoid breaking a single law." That's a ridiculous assumption that can only go from lips to ears but should be rejected upon entry into the brain as it is entirely illogical.
But let's entertain this ridiculous notion made by many at the pulpit. If we stop keeping all laws to avoid "breaking one," then we should (for the sake of not 'keeping them') start committing adultery, murder, and showing favoritism based on wealth, class, gender, etc. After all, James is speaking of every law from G-d. As James states, "For he who said.... also said..." This is speaking of every law that G-d said.
Let's demonstrate how fallible this approach is. G-d commands us not to add or remove a command from the Torah:
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2
Ignoring the blatantly obvious issue of claiming we should "remove all laws" from our lives, let's apply this "don't follow the law" logic to the scripture at hand. If we were to deduce the logic of James' writings, then we would have something like this:
If you [commit any sin], you sin and are convicted as [sinners]. Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. It was G-d who said, "Do not [add to my commands]," also said, "Do not [remove any command]" If you do not [add to the commands], but [remove a command], you have become a lawbreaker.
What does James mean? How is someone who adds to or removes a command guilty of both? How is it that one who says "I am going to murder" is just as guilty as someone who says "I don't need to keep the sabbath"? Because all the laws come from a single root: making oneself a god in one's own eyes. When you sin, you proclaim and confess to the world that you make the rules.
It is for this reason that the confession of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon contains both the statements "that which You prohibited, I permitted" and its opposite "That which You permitted, I prohibited." It is just as much of a sin to prohibit that which HaShem permits as it is to transgress His prohibitions, for both misdeeds come from a single root - one's belief that he may decide what G-d has permitted and forbidden. Sichos Mussar 5731:25
When you sin, it is as if you are playing the role of the Divine. So, if you break a single law, you essentially say that you determine what is best for you, and you've thrown out all of G-d's laws. It doesn't matter that you keep the Sabbath while gossiping about others. You've made a new law for yourself where Sabbath and gossiping are good. Can you reject submission to G-d and still be rewarded for keeping the sabbath? Even your sabbath is no longer G-d's law; it has been encompassed in your own laws, which you deem fit to follow based on your sense of morality. Therefore, when you sin (by removing or adding to the commands), you are guilty of breaking the entire law because you've (essentially) created a new law for yourself and called yourself the judge of morality.
The Atheist Believer
One who speaks lashon hora is considered as if he had transgressed the 5 books of Torah (Vayikra Rabbah 16:6)
Speaking lashon hora is considered a denial of G-d’s existence because when speaking ill of someone, you often look around to make sure they aren’t listening. However, G-d is everywhere, and you don't care that he is listening. Thus, you must not believe that G-d Himself hears all things, so clearly, you must think He does not actually exist.
If you don't think G-d exists, then you aren't following His law; you are just living and coincidentally aligning on occassion. Acknowledgment of authority is required to be a follower of that authority.
The Connectivity of Torah
The law-to-law relation goes even further, though. It is truly a transgression of every law. If you eat bacon, you've now transgressed all ten commandments. That may seem like a stretch, but once you understand the connectivity of the laws, you'll realize it isn't.
“Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. [...] And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you." Leviticus 11:2-3, 7-8
The pig is not food for you; it is unclean for you. Eating bacon would directly violate this dietary law, but is that it?
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s. Exodus 20:17
G-d did not give it to you to be food, yet you covet the food of the nations who eat them. Are you guilty of coveting your neighbor's diet? If it belonged to you as food, it would not be coveting - but because you want something that isn't yours, it is a form of coveting. But it doesn't stop there.
You shall not steal. Exodus 20:15
What's an example of stealing? Taking something to be food that G-d did not give to you to be food. After coveting, you then "steal" and partake in it.
You've then said, "I make the rules, Bacon is good for me. G-d said it's not food, but I say it is." The definition of "god" is a mighty judge, a ruler, a great power. If you exalt your law above G-d's, are you not becoming a god in your own eyes?
You shall have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3
And while doing so, you proclaim you love G-d, you use the name of G-d, pray to the name of G-d while also claiming there is a better law, a law you created, a law that allows you to eat what you want and declare non-food as food. If you were to claim "bacon is good" and believe the G-d who said "bacon is bad," then you've nullified His authority. You've essentially become a false witness while also making His name vain.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Exodus 20:7
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16
We can go much further into the commands, but this is just an example of the connectivity of the commands. This is also the point that James is making in chapter 2 of his letter. Your actions aren't isolated, you have to think about who is affected. Sin affects everyone around you, everyone who has heard of it, everyone who has seen it, and everyone who suspects it. What is the mindset you have when committing the sin, how many additional sins are you breaking with your mind? Your eyes? Your heart? Is your body not a temple? Is your mouth not an altar to offer praises to G-d? Have you placed a pig on the altar of G-d? Have you desecrated all the holy objects in the temple? Think of how many laws are connected to other laws. You can start connecting all 613 commands together to the point at which a single law is a violation of every law.
The Two Commands
It is important to note that if the law is summed up as two laws; love G-d and love neighbor.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:37
Loving neighbors is a form of loving G-d. It's not a difficult connection to make. If you murder someone that G-d created, do you really love G-d? If G-d gives someone something and you steal it from them, are you showing your love for G-d who gave it?
If a roof depends on a support beam, and you remove the support beam, the roof will come down. If you are brought to a judge for the destruction of the roof, would you dare say, "I didn't destroy the roof! I only destroyed one pillar!" Of course not! Your actions caused the entire thing to fall. If the entire law depends on two commands, what happens when you violate them? If both of those laws are summed up as "Love G-d" and you disobey any of his commands, what have you truly broken? In the spirit of the law, you've broken everything.
Think About It...
Anti-Torah Christians often eventually use this verse from James as a proof text to try and illustrate the futility of trying to keep the Torah. Sadly, this is also an attempt to make Torah practice a sin. However, as we have illustrated above, if anything, this verse should compel a Christian to be even more careful and observant of the Torah. This verse demonstrates that keeping the moral law but breaking any other aspect of the law renders your moral practice null and void because you still violate the law.
Sin is a serious matter; the law should not be taken lightly. The laws of G-d bring life and peace; they are our connection to G-d, and they are G-d's love language. The law in itself is spiritual and for the spiritual; it is only the untrained flesh that rebels against it. Can you really claim to follow the "spirit of the law" if you've tossed the law out? Can you claim to be obedient while also promoting rebellion to commands? Can you claim to be a servant of G-d when you refuse to follow his instructions?
"We must obey G-d, rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
I encourage you to read "False Prophets and Foundations," which further demonstrates why the law cannot be changed.
Thanks! This was very insightful.