02 Apr 08
1 edit
Over the years I've heard this as a defense for just about anything and everything. I must say that I've found this defense to be perplexing on a number of levels.
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judging" per se.
3) Realistically, the statement is a judgement that the other person is guilty of judging.
Often this verse is invoked as a defense against an accusation that the person is guilty of some sort of bigotry. However when faced with the fact that bigotry is in itself a judgement, the defender will often explain that he wasn't judging, but merely "shining the spotlight" (or some other euphemism).
Here's one that I recently read that is mind boggling:
"I don't pass judgement on people I don't agree with. Only God can judge in that way. But I reserve the right to judge what an individual may say or do."
Is there a distinction that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's a matter of not judging the person but still being able to make a judgment about what they are doing.
Over the years I've heard this as a defense for just about anything and everything. I must say that I've found this defense to be perplexing on a number of levels.
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judgin ...[text shortened]... ion that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?
We are not able to judge others because until we know the circumstances of that person's life we cannot know what has lead them to do what they did. Only God can judge in this way.
It's all about separating what a person does from who they are and seeing beyond their actions to the deeper reality.
Jesus was saying that if we put ourselves in a God like position and start passing judgement on people then we are on thin ice because we are thinking we are God. This does not mean though that we remain silent if someone is doing wrong.
In the context of our own on-going arguments I know I have been guilty of mixing up who you are with what you say. Despite my obvious animosity to your position I am called not to judge you as a person.
02 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhen would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense? Most of the time I've heard it was as a defense to something the person was guilty of. Sort of a defense of last resort.
It's a matter of not judging the person but still being able to make a judgment about what they are doing.
We are not able to judge others because until we know the circumstances of that person's life we cannot know what has lead them to do what they did. Only God can judge in this way.
It's all about separating what a person does from who they ...[text shortened]... say. Despite my obvious animosity to your position I am called not to judge you as a person.
Also, can you elaborate on the following:
"It's a matter of not judging the person but still being able to make a judgment about what they are doing."
In your mind, where's the dividing line?
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think you are probabaly right that it can be used as a defence.
When would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense? Most of the time I've heard it was as a defense to something the person was guilty of. Sort of a defense of last resort.
Also, can you elaborate on the following:
"It's a matter of not judging the person but still being able to make a judgment about what they are doing."
In your mind, where's the dividing line?
The dividing line for me is when a person is taking the "blame" approach and saying "because you have done X then you ARE X and should be condemned on the basis of X" . This is the lock him up and throw away the key mentality.
The other kind of judging is when someone says "what you are doing is abhorrent but I forgive you as a person because I recognise that you are still a creation of God"
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBasically the exhortation means that the kingdom people should be strict with themselves but accomodating to others.
Over the years I've heard this as a defense for just about anything and everything. I must say that I've found this defense to be perplexing on a number of levels.
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judgin ...[text shortened]... ion that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?
This is the opposite of human nature. We all tend to be loose and accomodating with ourselves but strict and exacting with others. Some people who are strict with themselves also expect others to be as strict as they are. This too is not what Christ teaches.
The disciple should hold themselves to the highest standard of morality. But the disciple is merciful towards others. This is the essense of the teaching to judge not that we would not be judged.
The judgment of which Jesus speaks is not the judgement to determine who has eternal redemption and who will perish forever. It is the judgement as to what reward or discipline the disciple will receive in the coming millennial kingdom of 1,000 years. This is a period before the eternal age.
If the disciple is strict in judging others she too will be dealt with by Christ in that manner. The merciful will obtain mercy themselves.
No unbeliever in Christ will be saved by being merciful. But the believer in Christ may avoid temporary discipline if he is strict on himself at the same time merciful with others.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLet's cite the source first so other people can participate: St Luke 7:37-42 and St Matthew 7:1-5.
Over the years I've heard this as a defense for just about anything and everything. I must say that I've found this defense to be perplexing on a number of levels.
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judgin ...[text shortened]... ion that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?
I think both of you are omitting a significant section of the passage, at verse 38b:
For the measure with which you measure will in turn be measured out to you.
ThinkOfOne is correct in that the issue is about hypocrisy; Jesus is admonishing people for judging
others for offenses which they themselves are guilty. The word 'hypocrite' is featured prominently
in both passages. So, a believer ought to have no problem judging others for those standards
which they uphold; if they themselves are liars, then they have no business chastising liars. If
they themselves are adulterers, they have no business chastising the promiscuous. If they
themselves are arrogant, then they have no business chastising people for pride. And so forth.
However, the righteous person has every business (and in fact a duty) to pronounce judgment
upon the sinful one. The mandate to advise a brother or sister in faith is patent throughout
the Pauline texts. Remember, the key is 'measure with which you measure will...be measured
out to you.' If you are confident that you are and will remain reasonably sin-free within a
certain arena of sinfulness, then a person of faith ought to have no problems speaking out against
that particular sin.
Nemesio
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillA person of faith is obligated and commanded to treat all others as if they were Jesus Himself.
No unbeliever in Christ will be saved by being merciful. But the believer in Christ may avoid temporary discipline if he is strict on himself at the same time merciful with others.
This is what it is to have a living faith. If you fail to reasonably treat others as if they were Jesus
(as per St Matthew 25:31-46), then you are not a believer, despite whatever 'Lord, Lord' cries
you claim to make.
Nemesio
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioMatthew 25:31-46 is not directed to those who knew who Jesus was but to those who did not know.
A person of faith is obligated and commanded to treat all others as if they were Jesus Himself.
This is what it is to have a living faith. If you fail to reasonably treat others as if they were Jesus
(as per St Matthew 25:31-46), then you are not a believer, despite whatever 'Lord, Lord' cries
you claim to make.
Nemesio
They did not know that what they were doing was in effect doing it unto the Lord Jesus. This would partially invalidate your interpretation.
"Lord, when have we seen You hungry and have fed you, or thirsty and have given you a drink ? ...etc. " (See vs.37-39)
Nice try to refute justification by faith. But not quite nice enough.
However, the principle you espouse is not bad.
02 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI've seen it used as an attempted defense quite a bit. That's not what I was asking. So again, when would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense?
I think you are probabaly right that it can be used as a defence.
The dividing line for me is when a person is taking the "blame" approach and saying "because you have done X then you ARE X and should be condemned on the basis of X" . This is the lock him up and throw away the key mentality.
The other kind of judging is when someone says "what ...[text shortened]... nt but I forgive you as a person because I recognise that you are still a creation of God"
I'm still having trouble understanding your dividing line. Let's try something more concrete: A person is in favor of the death penalty but says to himself, "I forgive you as a person because I recognise that you are still a creation of God". Which side is this person on?
02 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThis is a little off-topic, but it's interesting. What leads you to believe that Jesus means within a "certain arena of sinfulness"? It makes more sense to me as being more general. Take into account the "cast the first stone" passage. I look at it as a caution against pointing to others while you've yet to get your own house in order - the "there are others worse than me" rationalization.
Let's cite the source first so other people can participate: St Luke 7:37-42 and St Matthew 7:1-5.
I think both of you are omitting a significant section of the passage, at verse 38b:
For the measure with which you measure will in turn be measured out to you.
ThinkOfOne is correct in that the issue is about hypocrisy; Jesus is admonishing peo on of faith ought to have no problems speaking out against
that particular sin.
Nemesio
I'll ask you the same question as I asked KM: When would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense?
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywillI'll ask you the same question as I asked KM: When would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense?
Basically the exhortation means that the kingdom people should be strict with themselves but accomodating to others.
This is the opposite of human nature. We all tend to be loose and accomodating with ourselves but strict and exacting with others. Some people who are strict with themselves also expect others to be as strict as they are. This too is not w ...[text shortened]... may avoid temporary discipline if he is strict on himself at the same time merciful with others.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Matthew 25:31-46 is not directed to those who knew who Jesus was but to those who did not know.[/b]
This is totally invalidated by the text itself. Of course the people who
heard this parable knew Jesus, for if they didn't how could they ask,
'Lord, when did I see you hungry...?'
What they didn't know was how to see Jesus in other people. That's
the purpose of the parable, and that's why it was recorded by Saint Matthew:
to teach future disciples the meaning of discipleship.
Nice try to refute justification by faith. But not quite nice enough.
It's not a refutation of 'justification by faith;' I would never and have
never claimed that a believer need not have faith.
What I am saying is a necessary component of faith as articulated by Jesus
Himself in no uncertain terms is acts of charity. Saint James echoes
this in his epistle when he says that 'faith without works is dead.' This
is, of course, true and concords with what Jesus said about people who
say, 'Lord, Lord.'
Nemesio
02 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDisagreeing with someone's opinion or actions doesn't entail "judging" in the Biblical sense. It is something completely different.
Over the years I've heard this as a defense for just about anything and everything. I must say that I've found this defense to be perplexing on a number of levels.
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judgin ion that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?
"Don't judge me" usually is an authoritarian and sometimes even arrogant attempt to smother criticism.