James 4,1-4 in the Light of the Jewish Two Ways Tradition 3,1-6 57 James sets the royal love commandment as a significant criterion by which all action should be measured. The contrast between v. 8 and v. 9 is that of “really” keeping the law of love (v. 8), while at the same time disobeying one of its provisions (v. 9). He emphasizes that those who claim to live within the kingdom defined by the “royal” law of love cannot practice partiality. The halakha was to be expounded within the parameters of the love commandment, but the prominence of love does not nullify concern for the observance of specific regulations and precepts. In James’ opinion observance of the Torah without love is as inconceivable as the neglect of minor commandments. In 2,10-11 James argues that failure to obey even “one point” (ejn eJniv) of the law is to be guilty of all of it. In fact he agrees with a traditional Jewish view that “whoever violates one commandment, will end up by violating them all” (56), as proven by v. 11. As long as commandments are viewed as nothing more than a series of individual commands, it is possible to think that disobedience to any particular commandment entailed being guilty of having violated that commandment only. James, however, emphasizes obedience to the entire law which is to be fulfilled in all its parts. The Torah is indivisible. The command against partiality (ejn eJniv) is connected explicitly with the above mentioned standard Jewish view that the law is to be considered a unity. James suggests that favouritism be condemned as severely by the law as the major transgressions of adultery or even murder. This argument concurs with the common Jewish distinction between minor and major commandments (57). Seemingly negligible minor commandments, like the instruction against partiality, are to be included within the scope of the commandment “do not commit adultery” and “do not kill”. In another passage of James focussing on the law, a prohibition against slander is found. In 4,11-12 it reads: Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbour? (56) See for instance DIBELIUS, James, 144-146 with reference to b. Hor 8b and elsewhere. See also Y. BAER, “The Historical Foundations of the Halakha”, Zion 27 (1962) 127-128 (Hebr.). (57) See DIBELIUS, James, 144-145 and n. 113; MOO, The Epistle of James, 95.