In James 1:25 and 2:12 the author of the Epistle talks about the law as “the law of freedom” or as most translators put it “the law of liberty” (“But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does.” [I: 15] “So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.” [2: 12]). While in James 2:12 the law is described as “the royal law” (“If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well.”). Thus far, James has described the law as “perfect law” (1 :25), “kingly law” (2:8), and “law of freedom” (2: 12). Has he done this because there are three different laws he refers to? What is the function of the adjective “royal” in the phrase “royal law” or the adjective perfect in the phrase “perfect law?” Does the term law need to be understood from the background of the Old Testament, Stoicism, Hellenistic Judaism, or early Christianity itself?