Speak not against one another, brethren. He that speaks against [his] brother, or judges his brother, speaks against [the] law and judges [the] law. But if thou judgest [the] law, thou art not doer of [the] law, but judge.
Right after warning against the pride that exalts self, James turns to something most of us do without thinking: talking about a fellow believer behind his back. The reason he gives is startling — running a brother down seats you as a judge over God's law.
Why do people do it? The answer says more about the speaker than about the person spoken about.
To speak evil of others is an indirect attempt to exalt self. So evil-speaking is the outcome of self-importance. Love would not, and could not, speak evil. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. So evil-speaking is the sure sign that pride and malice, rather than love, have found a place in the heart.
James does not say the evil-speaker breaks the law. He says he speaks against it. The reason lies in the position the law gives your brother.
For the law, on God's part, presents our brother to us as an object of love and affection. He is not to be persecuted, ill-treated, or run down in the eyes of others. By doing this, we forget three things: the place the law has given our brother, our duty under the law, and our position as brothers.
Which law does James mean? The one that says love your neighbour as yourself. It leaves a choice: do it, or judge it.
The one who speaks evil of his brother has forgotten the royal law, which tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves. According to the standard of the law, our brother, far from being run down, is to be an object of love, and his reputation safe on the lips of his brothers... Clearly, then, to speak evil against our brother is to speak against the law. Instead of being doers of the law, we act as if we were above the law. We judge the law rather than allowing the law to judge us.
James wrote to people who honoured the law of Moses. That made the charge sharper for them — and the warning still reaches us.
They knew what the law said. So to speak evil of their brother and judge him would amount to speaking evil of the law and judging it. The law itself forbade it. Instead of obeying the law they would be setting up to make laws for themselves. These early Jerusalem Christians were "all zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). But that only made the matter more serious for them. We are not under law but under grace. Still it will do us all good to remember the word the Lord spoke to Moses: "You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people" (Lev. 19:16).
Does this forbid ever naming a wrong? The line falls between everyday talk and godly discipline.
The exhortation concerns our ordinary but God-fearing dealings with one another. The necessities of godly discipline are not in question. Holy love must rebuke what is wrong in those guilty of it, and warn those who may be in danger from the bad example. In these cases the wrong must be brought into the open, though it ought to be done in sorrow. We owe that to the Lord, and it is for the good of those concerned.
One question separates the two: what does the speaker want?
The one who speaks evil against his brother is not dealing with the evil and has no intention of doing so. He is simply speaking evil in order to run his brother down. When tempted to indulge a little spiteful malice by speaking evil of our brother, it is well to remember this. We not only sink below what is proper to a Christian; we do not even fulfil the righteousness of the law.
Twice the verse calls the other man a brother. That relationship tells against the speaker, not for him.
Being close to one another easily opens the way to free talk about each other. That closeness ought instead to press greater caution on us. "Do not speak evil against one another, brothers." Pleading or protest may be called for. But angry and especially habitual running-down is unworthy of those who bear the Lord's name... The brother spoken against may be innocent; the evil speaker is certainly in a false position and an injurious state.
- Pride starts it. Belittling someone else is a roundabout way of exalting yourself; love could not do it.
- Speech reveals it. The mouth speaks out of what fills the heart. Slander is the sure sign that malice, not love, has settled there.
- The law forbids it. God's law sets your brother before you as someone to love, and his reputation is meant to be safe on your lips.
- Judging replaces obeying. Once you rate the law instead of doing it, you have climbed above it and taken a seat that is not yours.
- Discipline is different. Naming a wrong for the good of those involved is a duty. Slander never meant to deal with the evil at all.
One is the lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and to destroy but who art *thou* who judgest thy neighbour?
Just before this verse, James warns believers not to speak against one another. Verse 12 gives the reason: the judge's seat is already filled, and not by us.
To pass sentence on a brother is not simply unkind; it is a move against the One who gave the law in the first place.
The law tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and it plainly says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." By the law's standard our brother is to be loved, and his reputation is safe on the lips of other believers. So to speak evil of our brother is to speak against the law. Instead of being doers of the law, we act as if we were above it. To break the law is to slight the Lawgiver and wrongly take His place. If our brother has done wrong, the Lawgiver is able to save or to judge according to His perfect wisdom. Who are we that we should judge one another?
The same point is put as a question of position. When we set ourselves up as judges, we are not obeying the law but standing over it.
If we set ourselves as judges and lawgivers over the law, we break it, we do not obey it or follow its instructions; instead we assume to be above it. There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to save and to destroy. Who are we that we should judge one another?
Two things fit Him to judge and rule us out: He knows the heart, and He can carry out what He decides.
There is One alone who knows the heart, and can give perfect judgment. So we must beware of taking the place of the judge instead of the place of obedience, which is our own. To act as if we sat in the judgment seat is, says the apostle, to judge the law itself. It takes the law away from the only One the law gives it to. Only One is Lawgiver and Judge, and He can carry out every decision: He "is able to save and to destroy." What right have we to run ahead of His judgment?
Some have supposed that "save" and "destroy" come to the same thing in the end.
The death of the soul, or its destruction, is never the appointed way of its salvation. The terms are opposites. When James says, "There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy," who would suppose that these were interchangeable terms after all?
A hasty critic forgets two things: what he is himself, and that the Judge he answers to is able to save as well as destroy.
If we realized what we ourselves are, we would not be so quick to criticize others. Honest concern for them is a different matter. But when someone speaks evil of another, he speaks evil of the law. Why? Because the law does not demand, as he does, that the other be judged at once. So he treats the law as if it were lax. The critic becomes the judge, instead of obeying the law himself. So if I judge another, my self-conceit exposes me to the judgment of the one Lawgiver. And notice too that He is not only able to destroy, but able to save.
This is not a call to pretend that wrong is right.
The requirements of godly discipline are not in question. Holy love must rebuke what is wrong in those who are guilty of it. It must also warn anyone whom the bad example may put in danger. In such cases the wrong must be brought into the open, though it should be done with sorrow. We owe this to the Lord, and it is for the good of those involved.
What the verse forbids is a specific act — handing down the verdict.
We must always judge evil, whether it is unsound teaching or wrong conduct. That is part of a believer's responsibility. But God alone, the righteous Judge, knows the heart and its motives. To speak against a brother and judge him is to pass a sentence of condemnation on him. That is the same as speaking against the law and judging the law.
The verse ends by turning the spotlight around, from the accused back onto the accuser.
How solemn too is the appeal to conscience! How serious is the rebuke to any who offend in this way! "But who are you to judge your neighbor?" Grace and self-judgment alone can enable us to hate what is evil and hold fast to what is good: may we cultivate both.
- One Lawgiver. The law came from God, so the right to sentence anyone under it stays with Him. He never hands it to us.
- One who sees. He alone knows the heart and its motives, and He alone can carry out what He decides. Our verdicts only run ahead of His.
- Two outcomes. "Save" and "destroy" are opposites, not two words for the same end. The verse calls Him able to save, not only able to destroy.
- One thing still required. We must still discern evil, rebuke it, and warn about it in sorrow. What the verse forbids is passing the sentence.
- One question left. "Who are you?" turns the case back on the critic. Only grace and self-judgment can make us hate evil without taking God's seat.