44 - How Much Sin Violates God's RIghteousness

How Much Sin Violates God's Righteousness
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 2:10 ^NASB "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one {point,} he has become guilty of all. [11] For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."

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 1:25, "But one who looks intently [diligently] at the perfect law, the {law} of liberty…" to mentally evaluate something. This isn't just having a superficial quiet time in the morning where you read your ten verses, have a quick prayer, and off you go for the day; this is detailed studying of the perfect law, which he calls the law of liberty. It is the law of liberty because the completed canon of Scripture tells us how we can be free from the sin nature. The liberty for the believer is not that we are free to sin but that we are free not so sin because the power of the sin nature has been broken at the cross by our baptism in Jesus Christ, that the old man is crucified with Christ—retroactive positional truth, and so we are free from the power of the sin nature, we don't have to sin. Until salvation we always had to sin because there was no alternative—whatever we did flowed from the sin nature. It is only at salvation when we are given a new spiritual life with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit that we have the power not to sin. So the mandates, the absolutes that are given summarizing all of the imperatives in the New Testament express God's will and plan for the church age believer and the spiritual life of the church age. So the command here is to speak and act in conformity with those mandates and principles.

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 3:18 says that the one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is not judged. The basis for condemnation is "he has not believed," not because he has committed X, Y, or Z sins. So the only people who are showing up at the great white throne judgment are going to be unbelievers; b) This is the bema seat, the judgment seat of Christ. The problem here is the word KRINO, not found in passages that discuss the judgment seat of Christ. There a different Greek word is used. The verb is DOKIMAZO [dokimazw] which means to test for approval. So the judgment seat of Christ is our evaluation of what we have done in the spiritual life in our walk on earth; c) So the third option must relate to some sort of judgment that is taking place in time. So we should ask if there is ever a time when the believer is to judge himself or to be judged in time, and we find this same word group, KRISIS and KRINOMAI, in 1 Corinthians 11:31, 32. There the context is talking about the Lord's table, and in relation to coming to the Lord's table there is a mandate to self-judgment and self-evaluation. This relates to the basic principle of confession of sin, 1 John 1:9, simply to acknowledge or admit guilt. When we commit any sin we are going to come into the law of divine discipline and the law of reaping and sowing—whatsoever a man sows, this he shall also reap.

James 2:13 ^NASB "For judgment {will be} merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." This verse should really be the beginning of the next section, the next paragraph setting up the discussion and the reason for the question of verse 14.