The Reason That Their Treatment Of Rich And Poor Is To Be Condemned And Will Come Into Judgment Is Now Given (James 2:8-13).
Having opened with an illustration so as to seize the attention, James now applies it. The Law declares that they are to ‘love your neighbour as yourself'. This is a requirement of Leviticus 19:18, of Jesus (e.g. Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27), and of Paul (Galatians 5:14). But to show respect of persons is not to be so even-handed as this law requires, and it therefore makes those who do so ‘transgressors'. They have broken the ‘royal law'. And to break one Law is to be guilty of being a lawbreaker. They are thus now guilty before God of being lawbreakers and will come under judgment.
a If you really (or ‘however, if you') fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself, you do well (James 2:8).
b But if you have respect of persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors (James 2:9).
c For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all (James 2:10).
d For he who said, “Do not commit adultery”, said also, “Do not kill”. Now if you do not commit adultery, but do kill, you are become a transgressor of the law (James 2:11).
c So speak you, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of liberty (James 2:12).
b For judgment is without mercy to him who has showed no mercy (James 2:13 a).
a Mercy glories against judgment (James 2:13 b).
Note how in ‘a' they are to love their neighbour as themselves, thus showing mercy and not judgment, and in the parallel mercy glories against judgment. In ‘b' showing respect of persons by maltreating the poor is to break that law, and in the parallel the one who has not shown mercy to the poor will be judged unmercifully. In ‘c' to break one law is to be guilty of all, and in the parallel, they have to have regard for they will be judged by the law, even though it is the law of liberty (not licentious freedom). Centrally in ‘d' the principle is established by comparisons, establishing the fact that to break one law makes a man a transgressor, a law breaker.