The apostle James implies by the form itself of the question that man doesn’t only have to, but is not also simply in the state to judge the neighbor. On one hand, to judge the neighbor means appropriating the right belonging only to the Creator...
The apostle James implies by the form itself of the question that man doesn’t only have to, but is not also simply in the state to judge the neighbor. On one hand, to judge the neighbor means appropriating the right belonging only to the Creator. On the other hand, it means trying to make what we cannot.
Do we have the right of our opinion on the acts of another person? Certainly, yes. But then the right to judge the neighbor is obviously not given to us: about this is spoken not only in this verse of James' epistle, but also in some evangelic passages, above all, in the sermon on the Mountain. In what is thus the difference?
Probably, in which status we assign to ourselves furthermore. Our opinion is and remains our opinion, the opinion isn’t qualified for absolute justice. And so, when we judge, we take the position of the bearer of the absolute knowledge about truth and righteousness (it is natural that with such a position we don’t only judge, but condemn!). But only God can have such a position, and it is of this that reminds us the apostle James. It is still advisable to remind here that God is not only the Lawgiver and the Judge, but also perfect love, that is why we can hope in His judgment (Ps. 119:43). The judgments of men are never executed with love, we can only be afraid of them.
4
4:12 There is one lawgiver that is able - To execute the sentence he denounces. But who art thou - A poor, weak, dying worm.