Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: What meaneth this?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    We couldn't understand Viking language
    I figured it was something like that.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Nikos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    12,927
    Thanked: 7617
    Blog Entries
    49
    My pets will do it every time! A big thanks to Ali gay and Mr for their help.
    Last edited by Nikos; 06-04-2016 at 07:15 AM.

  3. #33
    Back to the passage in question...

    James 4:11-12 KJV
    (11) Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
    (12) There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?


    I came across this from Expositors Bible Commentary...

    In part and a little wordy...


    "Speak not against one another, brethren." The context shows what kind of adverse speaking is meant. It is not so much abusive or calumnious language that is condemned, as the love of finding fault. The censorious temper is utterly unchristian. It means that we have been paying an amount of attention to the conduct of others which would have been better bestowed upon our own.

    It means also that we have been paying this attention, not in order to help, but in order to criticise, and criticise unfavourably. It shows, moreover, that we have a very inadequate estimate of our own frailty and shortcomings. If we knew how worthy of blame we ourselves are, we should be much less ready to deal out blame to others.

    But over and above all this, censoriousness is an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. It is not merely a transgression of the royal law of love, but a setting oneself above the law, as if it were a mistake, or did not apply to oneself. It is a climbing up on to that judgment-seat on which God alone has the right to sit, and a publishing of judgments upon others which He alone has the right to pronounce. This is the aspect of it on which St. James lays most stress.


    "He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth a brother, speaketh against the law and judgeth the law." St. James is probably not referring to Christ’s command in the Sermon on the Mount. "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged". (Mat_7:1-2) It is a law of far wider scope that is in his mind, the same as that of which he has already spoken, "the perfect law, the law of liberty"; "the (Jas_1:25) royal law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself". (Jas_2:8) No one who knows this law, and has at all grasped its meaning and scope, can suppose that observance of it is compatible with habitual criticism of the conduct of others, and frequent utterance of un-favorable judgments respecting them. No man, however willing he may be to have his conduct laid open to criticism, is fond of being constantly subjected to it. Still less can any one be fond of being made the object of slighting and condemnatory remarks.

    Every man’s personal experience has taught him that; and if he loves his neighbor as himself, he will take care to inflict on him as little pain of this kind as possible. If, with full knowledge of the royal law of charity, and with full experience of the vexation which adverse criticism causes, he still persists in framing and expressing unfriendly opinions respecting other people, then he is setting himself up as superior, not only to those whom he presumes to judge, but to the law itself. He is, by his conduct, condemning the law of love as a bad law, or at least as so defective that a superior person like himself may without scruple disregard it. In judging and condemning his brother he is judging and condemning the law; and he who condemns a law assumes that he is in possession of some higher principle by which he tests it and finds it wanting.

    What is the higher principle by which the censorious person justifies his contempt for the law of love? He has nothing to show us but his own arrogance and self-confidence. He knows what the duty of other persons is, and how signally they fall short of it. To talk of "hoping all things, and enduring all things," and of "taking not account of evil," may be all very well theoretically of an ideal state of society; but in the very far from ideal world in which we have to live it is necessary to keep one’s eye open to the conduct of other people, and to keep them up to the mark by letting them and their acquaintances know what we think of them. It is no use mincing matters or being mealy-mouthed; wherever abuses are found, or even suspected, they must be denounced. And if other persons neglect their duty in this particular, the censorious man is not going to share such responsibility. This is the kind of reasoning by which flagrant violations of the law of love are frequently justified.

    And such reasoning, as St. James plainly shows, amounts really to this, that those who employ it know better than the Divine Lawgiver the principles by which human society ought to be governed. He has clearly promulgated a law; and they ascend His judgment-seat, and intimate that very serious exceptions and modifications are necessary; indeed, that in some cases the law must be entirely superseded. They, at any rate, are not bound by it.

    This proneness to judge and condemn others is further proof of that want of humility about which so much was said in the previous section. Pride, the most subtle of sins, has very many forms, and one of them is the love of finding fault; that is, the love of assuming an attitude of superiority, not only towards other persons, but towards the law of charity (Love) and Him who is the Author of it.

    To a truly humble man this is impossible. He is accustomed to contrast the outcome of his own life with the requirements of God’s law, and to know how awful is the gulf which separates the one from the other. He knows too much against himself to take delight in censuring the faults of others. Censoriousness is a sure sign that he who is addicted to it is ignorant of the immensity of his own shortcomings. No man who habitually considers his own transgressions will be eager to be severe upon the transgressions of others, or to usurp functions which require full authority and perfect knowledge for their equitable and adequate performance.

    Censoriousness brings yet another evil in its train. Indulgence in the habit of prying into the acts and motives of others leaves us little time and less liking for searching carefully into our own acts and motives. The two things act and react upon one another by a natural law. The more seriously and frequently we examine ourselves, the less prone we shall be to criticize others; and the more pertinaciously we busy ourselves about the supposed shortcomings and delinquencies of our neighbors, the less we are likely to investigate and realize our own grievous sins. All the more will this be the case if we are in the habit of giving utterance to the uncharitable judgments which we love to frame. He who constantly expresses his detestation of evil by denouncing the evil doings of his brethren is not the man most likely to express his detestation of it by the holiness of his own life; and the man whose whole life is a protest against sin is not the man most given to protesting against sinners.

    "One only is Lawgiver and Judge, even He who is able to save and to destroy."
    There is one and only one Source of all law and authority, and that Source is God Himself. Jesus Christ affirmed the same doctrine when He consented to plead, as a prisoner charged with many crimes, before the judgment-seat of His own creature, Pontius Pilate. "Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above". (Joh_19:11) It was Christ’s last word to the Roman Procurator, a declaration of the supremacy of God in the government of the world, and a protest against the claim insinuated in "I have power to release Thee, and I have power to crucify Thee," to be possessed of an authority that was irresponsible. Jesus declared that Pilate’s power over Himself was the result of a Divine commission; for the possession and exercise of all authority are the gift of God, and can have no other origin. And this sole Fount of authority, this one only Lawgiver and Judge, has no need of assessors. While He delegates some portions of His power to human representatives, He requires no man. He allows no man, to share his judgment-seat, or to cancel or modify His laws.

    It is one of those cases in which the possession of power is proof of the possession of right. "He who is able to save and to destroy," who has the power to execute sentences respecting the weal and woe of immortal souls, has the right to pronounce such sentences. Man has no right to frame and utter such judgments, because he has no power to put them into execution; and the practice of uttering them is a perpetual usurpation of Divine prerogatives. It is an approach to that sin which brought about the fall of the angels.


    "But who art thou, that judgest thy neighbor?" St. James concludes this brief section against the sin of censoriousness by a telling argumentum ad hominem. Granted that there are grave evils in some of the brethren among whom and with whom you live; granted that it is quite necessary that these evils should be noticed and condemned; are you precisely the persons that are best qualified to do it?

    Putting aside the question of authority, what are your personal qualifications for the office of a censor and a judge? Is there that blamelessness of life, that gravity of behavior, that purity of motive, that severe control of tongue, that freedom from contamination from the world, that overflowing charity which marks the man of pure religion?

    To such a man finding fault with his brethren is real pain; and therefore to be fond of finding fault is strong evidence that these necessary qualities are not possessed. Least of all is such a one fond of disclosing to others the sins which he has discovered in an erring brother. Indeed, there is scarcely a better way of detecting our own "secret faults" than that of noticing what blemishes we are most prone to suspect and denounce in the lives of our neighbors.

    It is often our own personal acquaintance with iniquity that makes us suppose that others must be like ourselves. It is our own meanness, dishonesty, pride, or impurity that we see reflected on what is perhaps only the surface of a life whose secret springs and motives lie in a sphere quite beyond our groveling comprehension. Here, again, St. James is quite in harmony with St. Paul, who asks the same question: "Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth…But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at naught thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God?". (Rom_14:4; Rom_14:10)
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  4. #34
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,273
    Thanked: 14130
    Blog Entries
    1
    "He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth a brother, speaketh against the law and judgeth the law." St. James is probably not referring to Christ’s command in the Sermon on the Mount. "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged". (Mat_7:1-2) It is a law of far wider scope that is in his mind, the same as that of which he has already spoken, "the perfect law, the law of liberty"; "the (Jas_1:25) royal law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself". (Jas_2:8)

    What is the higher principle by which the censorious person justifies his contempt for the law of love?
    I didn't think about the fact that James was the one that used the phrase "perfect law of liberty". That probably is what he's referring to when referring to the law. I need to go back and read the whole book though and see it in its whole context.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    The law according to its spirit and as written on the heart, per 2 cor 3

  6. #36
    Number 23:8
    "How shall I curse whom God has not cursed?
    And how shall I denounce whom the Lord has not denounced?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    I didn't think about the fact that James was the one that used the phrase "perfect law of liberty". That probably is what he's referring to when referring to the law. I need to go back and read the whole book though and see it in its whole context.
    This too...

    John Gill's Commentary

    James 4:11

    Speak not evil one of another, brethren,....
    The apostle here returns to his former subject, concerning the vices of the tongue, he had been upon in the preceding chapter, Jam_3:6, and here mentions one, which professors of religion were too much guilty of, and that is, speaking evil one of another; which is done either by raising false reports, and bringing false charges; or by aggravating failings and infirmities; or by lessening and depreciating characters, and endeavouring to bring others into discredit and disesteem among men: this is a very great evil, and what the men of the world do, and from them it is expected; but for the saints to speak evil one of another, to sit and speak against a brother, and slander an own mother's son, is barbarous and unnatural.

    He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law; he that is a talebearer and backbites his brother, his fellow member, and detracts from his good name and character, and takes upon him to judge his heart, and his state, as well as, to condemn his actions, he speaks evil of the law; and judges and condemns that, as if that forbid a thing that was lawful, even tale bearing and detraction, Lev_19:16, or by speaking evil of him for a good thing he does, he blames and condemns the law, as though it commanded a thing that was evil; and by passing sentence upon his brother, he takes upon him the province of the law, which is to accuse, charge, convince, pronounce guilty, and condemn:

    but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law; as is a duty, and would best become but a judge; and so such a person not only infringes the right of the law, but assumes the place of the Judge and lawgiver himself.
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  8. #38
    Senior Member Tehilah Ba'Aretz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    563
    Thanked: 647
    I think the instant rejection of what some consider, "The Law" is by far more concerning than anything else in the conversation here so far. It is simply a rejection of God's definition of sin. Make no mistake, God gets to make those decisions and any man's rejection of God's decisions is the very definition of foolishness.
    That being said, in these verses James is referring to Leviticus 19 and expounding, in a Rabbinic fashion, to the sins mentioned and the fact that they were compounding the sin by deliberately breaking the teachings of Moses in Leviticus. The teachings of Moses are the rules made by God and He the judge of what is acceptable speech.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Tehilah Ba'Aretz View Post
    I think the instant rejection of what some consider, "The Law" is by far more concerning than anything else in the conversation here so far. It is simply a rejection of God's definition of sin. Make no mistake, God gets to make those decisions and any man's rejection of God's decisions is the very definition of foolishness.
    That being said, in these verses James is referring to Leviticus 19 and expounding, in a Rabbinic fashion, to the sins mentioned and the fact that they were compounding the sin by deliberately breaking the teachings of Moses in Leviticus. The teachings of Moses are the rules made by God and He the judge of what is acceptable speech.
    Could you expound a little more on what you mean regarding Leviticus 19 and James 4- ?
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  10. #40
    Senior Member Tehilah Ba'Aretz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    563
    Thanked: 647
    There is a book by Dr. David Friedman named, "James the Just Presents Applications of Torah" that does a much better job than I can do on the subject. David is a friend and a brilliant scholar. He was raised as an Orthodox Jew but became a believer and has dedicated his life to teaching both the Jewish heritage in the New Testament and the Messianic content all of the older books of the Bible. I have both a paper copy and a Kindle copy of this book.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Nissan Sentra warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.