P
PaulDupre
Guest
That is a misinterpretation indeed. Taken in context, James is contrasting the law of love (love your neighbor as yourself) with the old law of works. He says that if you use the law of works as your standard and guide, then you will trip and fall, because no one can keep the whole law. Therefore if you break one rule, you are a rule-breaker, pure and simple. But if you follow the law of love, there is no rule-breaking involved, only goodness.James 2:10. However, the following verse makes it clear that it’s talking about different kinds of sin–you can’t pick which parts of the law to follow and claim credit for getting 8 out of 10 or something like that. I do not think that this passage is talking about the idea of “degrees of sin,” though many Protestants misinterpret it to support their view that all sin is equal.
Edwin
James’ point is about rules, not sins. The old law was 630 commandments about what bowls and cups you had to wash and what you had to cook together and separately and in what order etc, etc. There were so many rules that no human could keep them. You could even break a rule accidentally without ever intending to do so. There is none of that in the law of love.
James’ point is that love is better than rules, because “love never faileth” (to quote St. Paul). He certainly is not saying that all sin is the same, as that would contradict other parts of the scriptures, such as 1 John 5:16-17:
God bless,If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
Paul