We are back to our study in James so we're getting fairly close to the end got one more chapter to go after we finish this one and we are in James four tonight with just a couple of verses that we want to look at James four verse eleven and twelve speak not evil of one another brethren he that speak of evil of his brother and judge of his brother speak of evil of the law and judges the law but if thou judge the law thou art not a doer of the law but a judge there is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy who are thou that judges another well it's an interesting text we're dealing with the subject of judging one another all right Wesley let me go there for a sec there we go if this is working Remember that we have just gotten through with a section that dealt with the the indwelling sin. We would call it a sin nature that resides in us. And we have this spirit that James says lust to envy. It desires to in this always wanting things of the world. And that is what we would call indwelling sin. There is a solution to this. And that is our God is a God who gives more grace. But then that brings up another problem is that God gives grace to the humble. He resists the proud. And we then saw the solution is that James has given us a number of steps or qualities that are associated with humility. And number one is to submit yourselves to God to resist the devil. Draw near to God to cleanse your hands and turn from a giddy laughter to a serious mindedness. All of those are involved in the process of seeking humility. So that's what we've just come through. Notice now the subject sort of abruptly changes. And that's been true throughout the book of James. In that way, it looks a whole lot like the book of Proverbs, where you're on one subject and the next verse you jump to another. You're just jumping all over the place, it seems to us. And again, this is very similar to the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. So now we jump to a new subject tonight. And the question I would ask you, is this absolute? Are we never, ever supposed to judge a brother? What do you think? Charles says no. Barry's got his hand. OK, Barry, I'll let you go first, since you're the old man, the elder, Barry, the elder. That's going to be your new nickname, Barry, the elder. I'm judging. OK. How would you define it? I wasn't pleased. I don't remember. I mean, there's there's the question. Are we supposed to suspend all moral judgment? Charles, what were you? You're shaking your head. No, you were. Yeah. Matthew 7 1 is judge not that you be not judged. and this is very similar. I would just wanted to point out there are many examples of judging in the book of James. For instance back in chapter one you remember he says when you sin don't say God made me sin don't blame your sin on God or all the devil you you're the one that said so there is something you are. This is a moral command. This is something you're not supposed to do. Remember in chapter two verse one don't be a respecter of persons If we are not supposed to judge you wouldn't have any rules would you you wouldn't have anything like this obviously this is saying it's wrong to be a respect your person. He mentions in chapter two verse eleven adultery and murder being forbidden. I think we would all agree with that. Then in chapter three verse two we have that long section dealing with offending with our tongues not controlling our tongues not bridling our tongues I mean, clearly, James says there are some things that are wrong. And so notice the very statement that it's evil to speak evil is a judgment, isn't it? Aren't you making a judgment when you say it's wrong? For instance, the person who says it's wrong to judge is making a moral judgment, right? Yeah, Brenda? In other words, you become judge, jury and executioner. In other words, it is you're not making a exactly if he can't just say you're at fault there. Well, that's the point that if you suspend all moral judgment, then a lot of the New Testament makes no sense whatsoever. The same text Charles is referencing, judge not that you be not judge. Just a few verses later he says don't cast your pearls before swine. Well I've got to make a judgment who swine. You know. If you have no judgment that he's at fault how could you possibly restore. Yeah you're exactly right. And so I think as you can just see in other places in the book of James there's clearly things that James is condemning you for doing not bridling your tongue. respecting persons treating a rich man differently than you'd treat a poor man when he comes into your assembly. Those are things that James is condemning in the Christian church. Well they do mash into each other and it's sort of hard for us to it's sort of a fine line isn't it when our judgment moves from simply making moral discretion discretions and then as Brenda was saying punishing the person you know we want to meet out justice clearly that belongs to the Lord the vengeance belongs to the Lord he's the one to whom they must answer now tonight looking at this text though and there's a number of things in what's being stated here that I think I can see what James is saying and that this has to do with this question. Notice he says there is one lawgiver in verse 12. There is a law that notice that if you speak the middle part of verse 11 you speak evil of the law when you judge your brother. That's a strange way of putting things. Why would judging my brother be a judge or a speaking evil of the law. This is triggering some ideas in my mind about the kind of judgments James is dealing with here because normally we are we would think that to judge your brother that he's done wrong. Why do you do that because the law says it's wrong. Right. The law is condemning. So what it appears to me, in other words, we ask ourselves, who is the lawgiver that's being referred to in verse 12? God, well that's safe. Yeah, ultimately. But is this Moses? Or is this Jesus? And the insinuation in my thinking is that when you look at the way the term law is used in the book of James, that he never refers this to the law of Moses. For instance, in chapter 2, verse 8, he talked about the royal law. In chapter 1, verse 25, the law of liberty. Those are strange expressions that don't apply to the Mosaic concept of law. This sounds to me like what we would call New Testament law, or as we would put it, the law of Christ. In other words, this is Christ's law. Do you understand my reasoning here? Because of the way James uses the term law elsewhere in this treaties that when we get here then that we're specifically dealing with what we might call new covenant law the law of Christ what does Christ what what demand what load what burden does Christ put on us and so that we're dealing in the historical place of James of the conflict between those who are living by the law of Moses and those who are living by the law of Christ. Here's the issue going on here. Those living by the law of Moses, I think, are guilty of judging those who are living by the law of Christ. They are condemning the Christian for his liberty which they are saying should not be allowed under the law of Moses. And once you sort of start down that highway, the things that James says here then make sense. Let me, I'll say this in a minute. In other words, my point is it refers to things that Jews would observe that are now not binding on Christians. They've been abolished by the law of Christ. you are you with me in other words that Christ then is the new Moses he's the new lawgiver and there were things that were laid on Jews by the law of Moses that have now been lifted by the law of Christ give me an example circumcision that's the biggie what you say sacrificing okay in the temple now although they still did that in Jerusalem eaten certain foods what you eat what you drink Sabbath observance you got a whole list of things that Jews under the law of Moses were required to do and it was those things in particular that separated them from the Gentiles around that set them apart as a peculiar separate people it kept them separate but when Christ comes clearly how for instance how would we know that circumcision is no longer in effect. There you go. Out of the Book of Galatians. You got a whole book on the fact that circumcision doesn't amount to a hill of beans anymore. OK, what about food laws? Peter had the vision of the unclean animals, remember? Arise and eat. That's one place. You remember Paul saying all creatures are good if it's received with Thanksgiving and so forth. No, nothing's to be refused. of the one I like the best is Romans fourteen the kingdom of God is not meat and drink but in righteousness joy and peace of the Holy Ghost the words clearly that's a distinction Sabbath of course we would have arguments with some of our reform brethren about that issue but in my understanding that been abolished in Christ that he is the rest that we are to observe not a day specifically But again there would be a difference opinion on that with a number of reform people. So yes Charles. Yeah. Exactly. We're under a new system and there are certain things that are still empowered. It's not that you throw out everything moral law for instance is still in effect. But there's a number of things that are clearly not imposed upon Gentiles. Now the biggie was circumcision and it was the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 where that question was decided once and for all by the apostles. Now the Judaizers however continued to judge that Gentile believers who weren't circumcised weren't say you understand that's what's going on in Galatians that they are judging that if you don't observe circumcision you're out. Even though the council has ruled another way. These judy eyes are still out there in the Gentile world dogging Paul around. So. The question of circumcision we've just mentioned that in X 15. Look at this charge that's brought against Paul in X 21. And as you're turning to X 21. That. judgment that takes place at the Council in Jerusalem in Acts fifteen is huge because once they say that a Gentile is not required to be circumcised that then places the law of circumcision into a category that we generally use the term things in different by things in different we mean they don't make you any better or any worse in the side of God let me let me state that again you realize that the Council of Jerusalem that that's what was the question is is this imperative that gentile believers be circumcised they said no and once they said no that means the commandment that the observance of circumcision was purely voluntary you didn't have to do it you have placed that commandment into a category that you don't get better or worse in the sight of God what you do they know we call that things in different that they means not necessarily that I need to be indifferent to it but that God is indifferent to It doesn't make you better or worse in the sight of God and moving circumcision into that category is a huge, huge thing in the history of New Testament Christianity. So then circumcision purely is either it's a matter of expediency that we usually say, wait a minute, you know, we're not supposed to let expediency rule our thinking and our conduct and our practice. But if you're dealing with something indifferent, it doesn't make you any better or worse in the sight of God, then expediency is the rule. That's why Paul would say, to the Jew I became a Jew, to the Gentile I became a Gentile. Why? Because it's expedient. In other words, I don't want to hinder the gospel. So when I'm with the Jews, I'm not munching on a ham sandwich. You understand? going to I I'm going to give up my freedom my liberty to enjoy a ham sandwich but I will give that up if that becomes a barrier in the reception of the gospel so everything is subjugated to the chief in not you having a lot of liberty to do whatever you please but the the in of advancing the gospel so what ever hinders that in this category of things in different whatever hinders that I give it up it the under you understand the principal. The charge in Acts twenty one and this is James that we're dealing with here. Let's back up to. About verse seventeen that gives us a running jump at it acts twenty one seventeen when we were come to Jerusalem this is after Paul's third missionary journey he's come back to Jerusalem the brethren received us gladly in the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. So this is Paul reporting, as it were, to the elders of James and the elders there at the Jerusalem church. And it says, And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of the that thou teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs. Now notice they're saying these Jews here in Jerusalem are all gung ho about the law. Now was it wrong for a Jew to be gung ho about the law for instance to circumcise their children. Is that wrong. If they're trusting in it for their salvation, then that's a hindrance. If they're simply saying, this is our custom as Jews. In other words, the point is they're at liberty to do it or not. It makes them no better, no worse. As long as they understand that they are free to continue circumcising their children, just as Jews had done for generations after generation. In other words, the charge is that Paul is out there in the Gentile world telling Jews not to circumcise their children. That's a false charge. What Paul had been doing is telling Gentiles they don't have to be circumcised in order to be saved. He wasn't bringing up the question of whether a Jew shouldn't circumcise their children. You see the difference here, that once you have placed circumcision in this category of things indifferent, then it becomes merely a matter of expediency. they did you realize that right after the jerusalem council in acts fifteen when they said no gentiles don't have to be circumcised paul and silas head right back up through cilicia derby pick up timothy in the first thing they do is have been circumcised he for so i i i'm saying paul gave up his liberty i think it's more like timothy paul gave up timothy's liberty in this case uh... that's pretty good sacrifice but but think about it why Would they, after you have settled the question, know you don't have to be circumcised to be saved? Why then, the first thing he does is have Timothy circumcised? You're going to minister in the synagogue to the Jews. His mother was a Jew. You remember? So in other words, what Paul is saying, Timothy, you want to come with us, the expedient thing is for you to be circumcised. Because to not be circumcised is going to put a huge barrier between you ministering in a Jewish synagogue to a bunch of Jews. You get the picture? How do they know? Only Cheryl would ask that question, yes. Well, let me just say they knew. They could tell. You remember those public bathhouses? There were... Yeah, there were ways. Let's put it that way. I won't go into all the details, but there were ways. So, in other words, yeah, circumcision is a strange thing to be talking about, isn't it? But of all the rituals, why did we get on that one? But do you see the principle that now that circumcision has been placed in the category that it doesn't make you any better in God's sight any worse then you're at liberty to either do it or not depending on if is it expedient will it advance the gospel. OK. And that appears to be exactly Paul's reasoning why he insisted that Timothy be circumcised. And notice James is here saying, they've heard that you're saying that we should not observe the law and keep and circumcise our children. And that was a false charge. Paul was not saying that. What he was saying is, your observance of the law isn't going to make you any better in the sight of God. That's what he was saying. And if you trust these things, then you are, well, And he says in Galatians if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing. Now that sounds like an absolute statement. But really what he's really saying is if you're being circumcised thinking that's going to save you. Christ will profit you nothing because a few verses later Charles quoted this earlier. He says in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything. It makes no difference whatsoever in the sight of God. So that seems to be the case here. Let's go a little further. Those are these verses where we look in Galatians at what Paul actually taught, and it was basically not to trust in one's circumcision. Now, what happens when we judge a brother in the area of Christian liberty? In other words, if I am a Jew in Jerusalem, where James is, And I am saying that those Gentiles are filthy dogs because they're not circumcised. OK. Or they don't keep the Sabbath. Or they eat pork. Any of those matters. Then what's going on? What is happening? And this is why I think the context sort of demands that we head down this road because of what then James goes on to say. Notice that we are now judging a brother for whom Christ died. We are making an issue that Christ himself did not make an issue of. Okay? So we are setting ourselves up as a judge of a brother. Further, and this is the critical thing, and notice the statement James makes here, that to judge evil, to judge a brother, in the middle of verse 11, he speaks evil of the law. use of a weapon but i thought that's why i judge my brother's because i have a high view of the law but if i think the law should have demanded circumcision when it doesn't demand circumcision now i'm judging the law as being deficient other words well it should have been a law and that's exactly what the judy isers were saying what do you mean you can suspend that you can not impose this on gentile believers If it's not the law, it ought to be the law. Anybody ever thought like that? In other words, I've got my scruples. I've got my conscience. I've got my conscience, my convictions about things that I do and don't do. Well, are these forbidden by the law of Christ? Well, not really. But if they're not, they ought to be. Do you understand the danger here? that now you're saying there's a deficiency in the law itself, which then is to say that the judge who gave the law was himself negligent. He should have outlawed some stuff and he didn't do it. And do you understand how a Jew would think exactly that way? At least he would be tempted to think that way towards a Gentile brother who is not observing these matters of food and drink and the way they dress, the way their Sabbath keeping, their ceremonial. In other words, the tendency of a Jew is to look down his nose at a Gentile brother who is not observing these things and saying, well, he ought to be. And if the law doesn't demand that, it should have. And what you're really saying is the one who gave the lawgiver then was negligent. And notice, it is also then to set oneself up, not as a doer of the law, but a judge. You have taken on the role of laying down the law yourself. And so that's why then he would respond in verse 12, there is just one lawgiver. And the implication is that this is Christ's role, not yours. He's the one who lays down the law for his disciples. And he's the one the next verse he's able to save or to destroy. That fits very nicely with what Paul said to the Athenians on Mars Hill that God is appointed a day in which you will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he have ordained concerning which he's given us assurance in that he's raised him from the dead. In other words God is put law judge. He's made his son judge. And there's just one judge. There's just one lawgiver. And yours is not to lay down your law, your convictions, on another and condemn them when they don't measure up to whatever your scruples might happen to be. We tend to be very selective in what we think other Christians ought to be doing. We tend to be very regional. I call it regional morality. And you grew up like I did in a very rural conservative community. There were certain things you just didn't do if you're a good Baptist. Now, the Methodists, we were just sure they were going to hell because all those things we good, bad, for instance, dancing. We bad. No, we would. I remember going to a birthday party and being scandalized because they were up. The only ones that ever danced were the Methodists. And we just knew they were going to hell because they dance. And you laugh at that, but that's what you would call a very regional, parochial way of looking at things. That it's the right thing to do is what we do. That that determines right and wrong. Now, if you're in my community and they're playing some music, maybe if you're with the Baptists, you might not want to dance. Do you understand? You ought to give up. Is it because you can't? Is that immoral? Or do you simply say, no, for the sake of the gospel, there are things I won't do when I'm with this crowd. That's what Paul is saying. When I'm with the Jews, there are things I won't do. And when I'm with the Gentiles, I live a completely different way, depending on the circumstances, so that the gospel is not hindered. Now, the problem with this is that too many Christians, once they hear of Christian liberty, want to turn liberty into license. In other words, all right, anything goes. And that's not what we're saying. That's not what Paul was implying, and it's certainly not what James is saying here. It's not that anything goes. What goes is whatever furthers the gospel. That's what goes. We have Christians over the world differ. I remember a very funny story about a fundamentalist Baptist. And I was just telling the folks at supper tonight, the church I was in last week, Beacon Baptist, is a very conservative church. Every man there Sunday morning has a coat and tie. And it's like a scene right out of the 1960s to me. It's like I remember Southern Baptist churches in the South being exactly like this. And it's like a time warp. And I like, I mean, I felt very much at home there. It's like what it was when I was growing up. It's the same feeling. But, and so when I'm there, do I want to go up there with my flip-flops and muscle shirt, you know? Probably not, you know. No, you'd highly recommend I don't. You know, this is not the place for the the who was the guy in california what rick warren this is not the time for rick warren style dress i did you understand they're just certain expectations that people have and the question is am i there to rock their boat or am i there to preach the gospel and if i'm there to preach the gospel then whatever i'm fine in my making sense of the word you say well you're just being wishy-washy no you're being making a discretion that the gospel is more important than my individual conscience. Yes, ma'am. Mm hmm. Well, I was about to tell about the fundamentalist missionary in over in the southeast that he had just had a big controversy in his church about women wearing pants. And of course, that was a huge thing. Not that many years ago. I mean, my grandmother would have had a cow. She'd have seen their daughters and granddaughters in pants in church. I mean, that was just not done. Well, this guy had just preached this sermon about his women all be wearing dresses and so forth. They had a missionary they supported in Africa. So he made a trip over to visit his missionary. And they were having a baptismal service this day. And the people lined up to be baptized without one stitch on. And he, you know, wait a minute. Pants would probably have been a good idea there. But you understand, in that culture, that was not a stigma. David Sitton, I don't know if I better tell this one or not, but David Sitton, when he was first converted, I think he was 18, 19 years old, went to New Guinea. I mean, just thrown into the mix there. And he was in his very first church service. He's sitting on the front row like a good little missionary kid supposed to be, you know. And he hears this slurping going on behind him. And he turns around and it is a New Guinean woman naked down to her waist, suckling a baby on one breast and a pig on the other. He turned back around and said, what have I done? Well, you understand different cultures accept different things. And modesty has a different definition in certain cultures than it has in our culture. What is appropriate, food and drink and dress and so forth, varies among Christians all over the world. And I think this is precisely what James is talking about here in the case of Jewish believers looking down their noses and judging Gentile believers who are not observing kosher Sabbath so forth. And it makes perfect sense with the argument that he's making here. that when you do that, you're basically saying the law itself is deficient and the lawgiver made a mistake. He should have put this down as a law, and he didn't do it. That's rather hubris, you know what that is? Pride, arrogance, to think, if I'd been looking over Jesus' shoulder, I'd make sure somebody wrote that law down. Well, who are you to correct the lawgiver? That's James' point. There's just one lawgiver. That's his duty, his job. So, we have to be careful on the one hand that we don't throw out moral discretion. There are things morally wrong. There are things that the New Testament clearly reveals are immoral. And we don't condone those things. We don't say, oh well, that's just your Christian liberty. When it comes to things like murder and adultery and so forth, no, that's not That's not the field of Christian liberty but there is a whole big area out there. I give an example my friend Harold Rudolph. He said he told me one time I used to be so spiritual I prayed about what color a tie wore on Sunday morning. Now think about that. In other words when he got in front of the mirror on Sunday morning he's praying about what color a tie to wear. Is that spirituality? Do you think God really cares about what color tie you wear? Or whether you drove a Ford or a Chevrolet. Right? Do you understand? Are those things matters of importance to God, or do they fall into this realm of things indifferent? That you're neither better nor worse. Now, if your dress is immodest, that's a different story. If you have greed, avarice, that's a different story. But in the normal course of life, God has given us freedom liberty to make discretions make decisions in this area of things in different. Clearly Paul deals with the fact of vegetarianism and eating meat in Romans 14. You've got that freedom but don't look down your nose if you're a vegetarian at those that eat meat. Because I'm going to eat my meat anyway. Do you understand? In other words, to think that whether I'm a vegetarian or a meat-eater matters to God. I mean, you say, well, if you think that's a healthy diet, go for it. But to think that somehow that gives me a spiritual leg up on someone else? Remember that verse out of Romans 14. The kingdom of God is not in meat and drink, but in righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost. That's what we ought to be focusing on. And that's the difficult thing, whereas these is just nitpicking over things that in the long run don't matter. Now, we are clearly told that we're set at liberty, yet Paul gives us grounds of don't let your liberty become your idol. In other words, you say, oh, I can drink all the alcohol I want. You become an alcoholic, you've made that your idol. We make soap opera. You make Facebook your idol. Now I'm stepping on toes here, yeah. You understand? Whatever thing, something made can become your idol if it's in control of you instead of you in control of it. Once you start serving it rather than it serving you, it has become your idol. Just as much as Baal or one of the other idols in the Old Testament. You're serving the creature rather than the creator. We're not to let our liberty become a stumbling block to those that are weak. We've got to be sensitive to the fact that other Christians don't necessarily see things the way I do. So I don't flaunt my liberty. I don't rub your face in it if I have a different conviction as you. I'm willing to forego my liberty to advance peace in the church and to advance the gospel. Okay. I think that's it. Yes, sir. Yeah. We like to have some way of looking, making ourselves higher on a higher plane than our Christian brother and sister. We're looking for some way to do that. And that's the danger. That's what changed. I think you're right that legalism and by legalism, I mean the fact that by some doing whatever it is and and the fact of asceticism, denying the flesh some good thing. If I deny myself this that's going to make me look better in the sight of God. Though I mean we we have a devious heart. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're judging the one as James says that Christ died for. Yeah. And did the same thing for him as you did for you. And if I want to continue to observe those things that's my freedom. It's interesting that right after this encounter with James you remember James asked Paul to be at charges for these men that had the Nazarite bow and so it was in it I know John racing or he once told me Paul never should have done that but I see it differently that Paul was again saying when I'm with the Jews I can do this as long as I don't trust it as long as this is just an optional thing that the culture the practice of Jews observes then I'm I'm free to do it or not do it depending on whether it will further the gospel and in this case James is saying it was sure help if you would do this because it would quiet this criticism that you're getting from these quarters here well this is a huge area very practical though and I've I mean boy that week we can't even get into all the areas where the shows up but we can you know we we don't want to imply that a Christian has no obligation to please Christ but the question is what pleases Christ and what does what has Christ said this is what I would have you do and the problem is when we want to impose our judgments in addition to what Christ has said that you should have said this you should have condemned this and you did. All right probably horse will come back here and. Go a little further in James very very practical do you understand now why I'm saying that it appears to me that the context here in James is especially the attitude of Jewish believers towards Gentile believers. Okay let's. And so.