James 2:11 · Bible study
James 2:11 Commentary: The Unity of the Law and the Lawgiver
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why breaking one commandment makes you guilty of the whole law. James argues from the unity of the Lawgiver and the indivisible nature of God's law.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Breaking one command makes you a transgressor of the whole law because the Lawgiver is one.
- Key word: παραβάτης (parabatēs), a transgressor, one who steps beyond the line.
- Main debate: Whether James refutes a specific Jewish teaching (keeping one major command suffices) or makes a general theological point about the law's unity.
- Theological theme: The unity and indivisibility of God's law; the authority of the Lawgiver; the gravity of every sin.
- Best use: To counter selective obedience and to show all sin as a breach of God's authority, driving believers to seek mercy in Christ.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
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.
WEB World English Bible 2000
For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
KJV King James Version 1769
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
for He who is saying, `Thou mayest not commit adultery,' said also, `Thou mayest do no murder;' and if thou shalt not commit adultery, and shalt commit murder, thou hast become a transgressor of law;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
For he who said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become transgressor of [the] law.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
For he that said: Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also: Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Porque el que dijo: No cometerás adulterio, también ha dicho: No matarás. Ahora bien, si no hubieres cometido adulterio, pero hubieres matado, ya eres hecho transgresor de la ley.
Porque aquele que disse: “Não cometerás adultério”, também disse: “Não matarás”. Portanto, se não cometeres adultério, mas matares, te tornaste um transgressor da lei.
En effet, celui qui a dit: Tu ne commettras point d’ adultère, a dit aussi: Tu ne tueras point. Or, si tu ne commets point d’ adultère, mais que tu commettes un meurtre, tu deviens transgresseur de la loi.
Denn der da gesagt hat: “Du sollst nicht ehebrechen,” der hat auch gesagt: “Du sollst nicht töten.” So du nun nicht ehebrichst, tötest aber, bist du ein Übertreter des Gesetzes.
Want Die gezegd heeft: Gij zult geen overspel doen, Die heeft ook gezegd: Gij zult niet doden. Indien gij nu geen overspel zult doen, maar zult doden, zo zijt gij een overtreder der wet geworden.
Poiché Colui che ha detto: Non commettere adulterio, ha detto anche: Non uccidere. Ora, se tu non commetti adulterio ma uccidi, sei diventato trasgressore della legge.
Bo który rzekł: Nie będziesz cudzołożył, ten też rzekł: Nie będziesz zabijał, a jeźlibyś nie cudzołożył, ale byś zabił, stałeś się przestępcą zakonu.
Ибо Тот же, Кто сказал: не прелюбодействуй, сказал и: не убей; посему, если ты не прелюбодействуешь, но убьешь, то ты также преступник закона.
原來那說「不可 姦淫」的，也 說「不可 殺人」； 你就是 不 姦淫，卻 殺人，仍是成了 犯 律法的。
For he who said, Do not be untrue in married life, is the same who said, Put no man to death. Now if you are not untrue in married life, but you put a man to death, the law is broken.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · James 2:11
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that James 2:11 provides the logical proof for verse 10's claim: stumbling in one point makes a person guilty of the whole law. The reasoning hinges on the unity of the Lawgiver. Calvin calls the law an 'indivisible body of righteousness', whosoever transgresses one article destroys, as far as he can, the righteousness of God. Barnes presses the point: these are parts of the same law, and one is as obligatory as the other. Gill adds that the breach of one command despises God's legislative power no less than the breach of another. Clarke goes further, noting that James is correcting a Jewish teaching found in the Talmud: that keeping one principal command is equivalent to keeping the whole law. Against that, James insists that the law comes as a single whole from one authority. The word 'transgressor' (parabatēs), as Vincent notes, 'one who goes beyond the line', fits this unified framework: crossing the boundary anywhere is still a trespass. This truth humbles any pride in comparative obedience and directs believers toward the mercy that covers every failure (James 2:13).
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: Breaking any single commandment of God is a transgression of the whole law because the law has one divine Author, whose authority is violated by one act of disobedience.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Unity of the law | Christians agree the law is a single entity from one God; breaking one command is a breach of the whole. | Some traditions emphasize the legal guilt incurred by any specific violation, while others stress the relational rebellion against God's authority. Both affirm the law's unity. |
| Order of commandments | All note that adultery precedes murder in this verse and other NT quotations, differing from the Hebrew Decalogue order. | Some see a traditional catechetical order (Cambridge Bible); others view it as a rhetorical choice for contrast or emphasis. |
| Jewish teaching on one command | Commentators agree James corrects any notion that keeping one major command secures God's favor. | Clarke argues James directly counters a known rabbinic maxim; others see the verse as a general refutation of selective obedience without a specific Jewish source in view. |
| Meaning of 'transgressor' | Parabatēs means 'one who steps beyond the boundary' (Vincent). | Some focus on the act of crossing the line; others on the resulting status of being a lawbreaker. Both are present in the word. |
Historical & Cultural Context
James 2 stands within a sustained argument against partiality (2:1, 9). The rich are favored; the poor are neglected. James calls this a violation of the royal law, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' (2:8). In verses 10, 11 he sharpens the point: showing partiality is not merely a minor slip but a transgression that shatters the law's unity.
Verse 11 selects two commands from the second table of the Decalogue: 'Do not commit adultery' and 'Do not murder.' The Cambridge Bible notes that in every New Testament quotation of the second table (Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9), adultery precedes murder, an order different from the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:13, 14 and Deuteronomy 5:17, 18. Cambridge suggests a traditional order that may have been used in catechesis. James picks them not by accident: they represent two of the most visible violations of love toward one's neighbor, and the pair underscores that no command is optional.
The cultural background includes a Jewish maxim, cited by Clarke, that 'he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law.' The Talmud records examples: abandoning idolatry counts as fulfilling the entire law. James directly counters this mindset. His argument depends on the grammar of the Greek text: the participle eipōn ('having said,' aorist) points back to God's authoritative utterance at Sinai. The prohibitions use mē with the aorist subjunctive (the LXX's standard form for prohibitions), while the hypothetical description of the person uses ou with the present indicative, shifting from the language of command to the language of fact. Vincent's etymology of parabatēs (from para, beyond, and bainō, to go) paints the transgressor as someone who steps over the boundary line. The law's boundary is one continuous line; crossing it anywhere is a breach.
This context shows that James is not diminishing the law. He is elevating it, and by doing so, he exposes the rigor of God's standard and the universal need for the mercy that 'triumphs over judgment' (2:13).
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for James 2:11. The Greek text is stable across the major manuscripts, with no substantive differences in the wording of the prohibitions or the conditional clause.
Reception History
From the early church onward, James 2:11 has been used to underscore the unity of God's moral law and to counter any tendency to treat some commands as optional. Augustine and other church fathers cited it when arguing that all sin is a rebellion against God's authority. In medieval theology, the verse was discussed in the context of mortal versus venial sin, could a single transgression truly condemn? The Reformers, including Calvin, saw the verse as demonstrating the law's uncompromising demand, driving sinners to see their need for Christ's righteousness. The verse continues to appear in sermons and Bible studies on the seriousness of sin and the comprehensiveness of God's standard.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Lawgiver is One. James anchors his argument in the identity of the one who spoke both commands. The same God who said 'Do not commit adultery' also said 'Do not murder.' All authority resides in him. Selective obedience treats God as if he were multiple authorities with competing standards.
- Selective Obedience is Impossible. 'If you do not commit adultery but murder', the person keeps one command but breaks another. This is not partial obedience but rebellion against the Lawgiver's single will. The grammar shifts from prohibition (mē + aorist subjunctive) to description (ou + present indicative), making the contradiction plain.
- One Sin Breaks the Whole Law. The result: 'you have become a transgressor of the law.' The word parabatēs means one who steps across the line. Any step, in any direction, is still a trespass. The law is a fabric; tear it once, and it is torn.
Five-point outline
- The source: God spoke both commandments with equal authority.
- The equal weight: one command is as binding as another.
- The false distinction: people tend to rank sins as 'major' and 'minor.' James rejects this.
- The example: adultery and murder, two sins against the neighbor, show the law is indivisible.
- The consequence: being a transgressor of the law (not just of one rule).
Illustration hooks
- A driver who never speeds but runs red lights. Speeding and red lights are different rules, but both come from the same traffic authority. Breaking one is still breaking the law.
- A student who completes all assignments but cheats on the final. The teacher gave both the assignments and the exam; ignoring one shows disregard for the teacher's authority.
- A dieter who avoids sugar but eats deep-fried food every day. The goal is health; violating one rule while keeping another misses the point.
Questions your congregation is asking
- If I break one commandment, am I really as guilty as someone who breaks all of them?
- Does this verse mean there is no difference in the seriousness of sins?
- Where does grace fit in? If the law condemns me for one sin, is there any hope?
Leading a Discussion
This verse strikes at a comfortable assumption: that some commandments are optional. James presses the unity of God's law, and the unity of the God who gave it. The discussion will help your group see the seriousness of every sin and the beauty of the mercy that 'triumphs over judgment' (James 2:13).
Discussion questions
- Read James 2:10, 11. In your own words, what point is James making?
- Why does James choose the specific examples of adultery and murder? What do they have in common?
- The word parabatēs means 'one who steps beyond the line.' How does that image change the way you think about sin?
- How does verse 11 challenge the idea that some sins are 'small' and don't really matter?
- If the law is a unity, how does 'the law of freedom' (v.12) differ from the law that condemns? How does one law lead to both judgment and freedom?
- How does this passage prepare the way for James's later teaching on faith and works (2:14, 26)?
- In light of this verse, why is our only hope the mercy that 'mercy triumphs over judgment' (v.13)?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 20:13 | “You shall not murder. |
| Exodus 20:14 | “You shall not commit adultery. |
| Leviticus 4:2 | “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone sins unintentionally, in any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and does any one of them, |
| Leviticus 4:13 | “‘If the whole congregation of Israel sins, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and are guilty; |
| Leviticus 4:22 | “‘When a ruler sins, and unwittingly does any one of all the things which Yahweh his God has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, |
| Deuteronomy 5:17 | “You shall not murder. |
| Deuteronomy 5:18 | “You shall not commit adultery. |
| Psalms 130:3 | If you, Yah, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke highlights the Jewish teaching that careful obedience to one commandment could earn God's favor even if the rest were broken. James corrects this by insisting that the same divine authority gave every command, so breaking any one is a breach of the whole law.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes stresses that all of God's commands come with equal authority, so breaking one means breaking the whole law. Violating any single precept makes a person just as guilty before God as if they had broken every command, because the same divine lawgiver gave them all.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin stresses that the law is one indivisible whole because it comes from one Lawgiver. Breaking even a single commandment attacks God's complete righteousness and fails the obedience He demands in every part. A person who stumbles at one point is therefore guilty of all, just as James says.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator points out that every New Testament list of the second-table commandments places "Do not commit adultery" before "Do not kill," the opposite order from the Hebrew Pentateuch. This consistent pattern suggests there was a traditional arrangement of the commandments that differed from the one now found in the Old Testament.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note draws a sharp point: the same God who forbids adultery also forbids murder, so keeping one command does not excuse breaking another. A person who avoids adultery but commits murder is still a lawbreaker because the whole law comes from one authority.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill argues that the law is a single, unified whole because it comes from one divine Lawgiver. Breaking any one command, even while keeping others, makes a person a transgressor of the entire law, since all commands carry the same divine authority and contempt for one shows contempt for all.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB argues that because God is one, His law forms a complete and indivisible unity. Breaking any single command, even one as stark as adultery or murder, amounts to breaking the entire law. The examples of adultery and murder are chosen as the most glaring violations of neighborly duty.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry clarifies that James is not promoting contempt for the rich or partiality toward the poor. The royal law, loving your neighbour as yourself, applies equally to both groups. Christians must let Scripture, not human status or worldly wealth, guide how they treat everyone.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent draws attention to the Greek word for transgressor, which literally means one who goes beyond the line. He points out the same picture appears in the Latin word trespass and in an ancient Greek term used by Homer, all picturing sin as stepping over a boundary.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
For it is the same authority which establishes every commandment.