What is judging?

[Endtime Survivors]

Yes. They are both, in the English language, judging. One is fair, encouraged. One is not fair, warned against.

The problem is that now a days most Christians think that both of them are against tbe bible, when this is not true.

Hi JL. Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I think we are moving closer together now. I hope you don't mind if I elaborate a bit more on some earlier comments between us. I realize you talked about two different words for judgment, each representing a different kind of judgment and that I have not specifically commented on that issue in the same terms you used (i.e. the two different words) but I believe my comments here will address the spirit behind those words.

Judgment of any kind has gotten a pretty bad name over the years because it is so easily abused, especially by the ones who should be the most responsible with it (Christians). The word "judgemental" almost always has a negative connotation to it and it's nearly always synonymous with Christianity. But, judgement is a good thing. Justice is impossible without it. We should not let the abuse and counterfeits steal it's meaning and purpose from us.

I'm reminded of Paul's admonishment to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 6:1-6) where he says that we are meant to judge the nations of the world. One day they will come to us for righteousness. Paul asks, "Isn't there a wise person among you who can judge"?

Jesus continues this theme from Revelation 2:26-27 where he says those of us who overcome will be given authority over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron.

We have a lot of training to do if we want to be worthy of that authority. This is why I was so concerned about that friend of mine who said she doesn't judge but rather only "reaches conclusions". If we can't be honest with ourselves about what we're doing (i.e. judging), then how can we expect the nations of the world to ever respect us?

It's a bit like the difference between someone who's boasting about their charity giving vs. someone who's "sharing their testimony" about their charity giving. They amount to the same thing in practical terms, but one gives the impression of goodness while the other sounds bad. Maybe a wise judge could discern some legitimate difference between the two, but for the most part people who make these kinds of "distinctions without a difference" do so as a way of hiding behind jargon (i.e. "I want to judge but I don't want people to think I'm judging so instead I'll 'reach a conclusion'".

There may be circumstances where a softer presentation (like "reaching conclusions") will actually be helpful for the person who is being judged, but within ourselves we should never, ever deceive ourselves into thinking that reaching conclusions isn't the same as rendering a judgment.

We'll make a lot of mistakes along the way. Sometimes our judgments will be too harsh, biased, unfair, inaccurate, ignorant or just plain hateful but failure is a part of learning, too. The more we practice judgement in the spirit of sincerity the better we will become at rendering wise judgements. Instead, the majority of the church world appears to be running away from such accountability.

I think this is why Jesus' reference to taking the beam out of our own eye is so important. Self-examination is the starting point for all wise judgment. I do not want to be condemned for my mistakes, therefor I also should not condemn others for their mistakes. To me, that is one of the most basic, milkiest lessons in Christianity.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

If someone is stealing they are a thief, are they not? There is actually absolutely nothing to judge about it.

Actually, I think there is plenty of room for questioning. Why did they steal? Who did they steal from? What did they steal? Even in our imperfect worldly system of justice those kinds of questions are standard.

Shouldn't we, members of God's heavenly Kingdom of love, light, mercy and justice put in even more diligence when it comes to discerning the truth of any particular situation?

And further, when you say, "If someone is stealing they are a thief, are they not? There is actually absolutely nothing to judge about it" is that the kind of standard you want God to use with you? "You did wrong and there is nothing more to consider"? No way. You will want God to consider the context, the circumstances, and all the surrounding evidence as part of the overall case.

If that is the kind of diligence we want for ourselves, then we should also be prepared to give more than that to others. That is what fair judgment is all about.

 

[Jim Langston]

Hi JL. Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I think we are moving closer together now. I hope you don't mind if I elaborate a bit more on some earlier comments between us. I realize you talked about two different words for judgment, each representing a different kind of judgment and that I have not specifically commented on that issue in the same terms you used (i.e. the two different words) but I believe my comments here will address the spirit behind those words.

Judgment of any kind has gotten a pretty bad name over the years because it is so easily abused, especially by the ones who should be the most responsible with it (Christians). The word "judgemental" almost always has a negative connotation to it and it's nearly always synonymous with Christianity. But, judgement is a good thing. Justice is impossible without it. We should not let the abuse and counterfeits steal it's meaning and purpose from us.

I'm reminded of Paul's admonishment to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 6:1-6) where he says that we are meant to judge the nations of the world. One day they will come to us for righteousness. Paul asks, "Isn't there a wise person among you who can judge"?

Jesus continues this theme from Revelation 2:26-27 where he says those of us who overcome will be given authority over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron.

We have a lot of training to do if we want to be worthy of that authority. This is why I was so concerned about that friend of mine who said she doesn't judge but rather only "reaches conclusions". If we can't be honest with ourselves about what we're doing (i.e. judging), then how can we expect the nations of the world to ever respect us?

It's a bit like the difference between someone who's boasting about their charity giving vs. someone who's "sharing their testimony" about their charity giving. They amount to the same thing in practical terms, but one gives the impression of goodness while the other sounds bad. Maybe a wise judge could discern some legitimate difference between the two, but for the most part people who make these kinds of "distinctions without a difference" do so as a way of hiding behind jargon (i.e. "I want to judge but I don't want people to think I'm judging so instead I'll 'reach a conclusion'".

There may be circumstances where a softer presentation (like "reaching conclusions") will actually be helpful for the person who is being judged, but within ourselves we should never, ever deceive ourselves into thinking that reaching conclusions isn't the same as rendering a judgment.

We'll make a lot of mistakes along the way. Sometimes our judgments will be too harsh, biased, unfair, inaccurate, ignorant or just plain hateful but failure is a part of learning, too. The more we practice judgement in the spirit of sincerity the better we will become at rendering wise judgements. Instead, the majority of the church world appears to be running away from such accountability.

I think this is why Jesus' reference to taking the beam out of our own eye is so important. Self-examination is the starting point for all wise judgment. I do not want to be condemned for my mistakes, therefor I also should not condemn others for their mistakes. To me, that is one of the most basic, milkiest lessons in Christianity.

Consider your friend who is coming to a conclusion as sitting on a jury. The jury is given the facts and comes to the determination if they are guilty or not. In a legal sense, did your friend who wrote "guilty" render judgement? No, the judge does that. After the jury makes it's determination the judge then imposses a sentence, or not. The judge passes judgement.

Now, are you saying you could not sit on a jury because it is against your religion not to pass judgement, or do you recognize that you wouldn't be passing judgement, the judge would.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

n a legal sense, did your friend who wrote "guilty" render judgement? No, the judge does that.

Sorry, JL, but your metaphor doesn't work. If the jury is not responsible for rendering the verdict, then what is the point of them even writing "guilty" or "not guilty"? Of course they render the verdict. That's what jury deliberation is. The jury never openly participates in the trial. Their sole purpose is to listen to the evidence, consider how it all fits together, and judge guilty or innocent. The judge confirms the verdict and then dishes out consequences.

The judge, jury and lawyers all have an important role to play that makes up what it means to discern justice. This is similar to the method Jesus gave his followers for dealing with problems. Step 1. Go to the person privately. Step 2. Bring in two or three witnesses (i.e. judges). Step 3. Bring in the whole church to act as one judge on the issue. Step 4, if the person in question still refuses to hear after all this, then kick them out (Matthew 18:15-17). At each step along the way a judgement must be made in order to either accept that the problem is fixed or kick it up to the next stage.

The role of the witnesses in Jesus' example is comparable in function to the jury in the worldly court system. Everyone in God's court is expected to learn how to exercise wise judgement, or at least try their best to do what they are capable of in the process.

 

[Jim Langston]

Sorry, JL, but your metaphor doesn't work. If the jury is not responsible for rendering the verdict, then what is the point of them even writing "guilty" or "not guilty"? Of course they render the verdict. That's what jury deliberation is. The jury never openly participates in the trial. Their sole purpose is to listen to the evidence, consider how it all fits together, and judge guilty or innocent. The judge confirms the verdict and then dishes out consequences.

The judge, jury and lawyers all have an important role to play that makes up what it means to discern justice. This is similar to the method Jesus gave his followers for dealing with problems. Step 1. Go to the person privately. Step 2. Bring in two or three witnesses (i.e. judges). Step 3. Bring in the whole church to act as one judge on the issue. Step 4, if the person in question still refuses to hear after all this, then kick them out (Matthew 18:15-17). At each step along the way a judgement must be made in order to either accept that the problem is fixed or kick it up to the next stage.

The role of the witnesses in Jesus' example is comparable in function to the jury in the worldly court system. Everyone in God's court is expected to learn how to exercise wise judgement, or at least try their best to do what they are capable of in the process.

Again, you are making no distinction between the two types of judgement given two different words in the Greek. Without you actually looking at the two different uses in the bible we will never be able to agree.

I agree that any conclusion we come to needs tonbe done with care. But reaching a conclusion is not spoken against in the bible, passing judgement is.

I'm going to have to dig deeper to find that one verse that spells this out. It says something to the effect, do not make a determination on someone then feel distain forvthem because of it. It is not the making a determination that is spoken against but the distain. I'll try to find it again.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Hi JL. I'm feeling rather confused by your position, now. Your standards for judgment seem to shift from post to post. Sorry, I hope that doesn't come across as inflammatory. It's just what I see happening.

For example, in your first post you said...

If I say "you are not suppsed to commit homosexual acts, and because you do you are not welcome as a member of our church" is that judging? Yes, although rightously.

But then later you gave a similar example with the opposite conclusion...

I.E. You are a murderer ... and because you did this you can't come to our church (passing judgement, not okay/warned against, we also call this judging).

It looks like an inconsistency in your standard for judgment. This kind of shifting will make it almost impossible for any mind of meaningful progress in the discussion.

 

[Bible2+]

Jim Langston said in post 85:

I'm going to have to dig deeper to find that one verse that spells this out. It says something to the effect, do not make a determination on someone then feel distain for them because of it. It is not the making a determination that is spoken against but the distain.

Are you thinking of one of the following verses, or some combination thereof?

Galatians 6:1 ¶Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin . . .

--

(Old Covenant)

Deuteronomy 25:2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.

 

[Jim Langston]

Are you thinking of one of the following verses, or some combination thereof?

Galatians 6:1 ¶Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin . . .

--

(Old Covenant)

Deuteronomy 25:2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.

None of those. It says, to the effect, if you come to the conclusion that someone has sinned then have distain for them because of it, that is wrong.

 

[Jim Langston]

Hi JL. I'm feeling rather confused by your position, now. Your standards for judgment seem to shift from post to post. Sorry, I hope that doesn't come across as inflammatory. It's just what I see happening.

For example, in your first post you said...


But then later you gave a similar example with the opposite conclusion...


It looks like an inconsistency in your standard for judgment. This kind of shifting will make it almost impossible for any mind of meaningful progress in the discussion.

Because kicking someone from the membership because of immorality we are supposed to do, according to Paul. Yes, this is the type of judgement warned against.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Consider your friend who is coming to a conclusion as sitting on a jury. The jury is given the facts and comes to the determination if they are guilty or not. In a legal sense, did your friend who wrote "guilty" render judgement? No, the judge does that. After the jury makes it's determination the judge then imposses a sentence, or not. The judge passes judgement.

Now, are you saying you could not sit on a jury because it is against your religion not to pass judgement, or do you recognize that you wouldn't be passing judgement, the judge would.

First any type of judgement would be only to a believer because non-believers don't believe.

Second, we are told in God's Word to respect government and the authority of government. So this disqualifies are not sitting on a jury. Plus lawyers have proof and witnesses, totally different than gossip and thinking someone did something.

I don't see the jury argument as being valid for an example.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Because kicking someone from the membership because of immorality we are supposed to do, according to Paul. Yes, this is the type of judgement warned against.

What am I missing, here? You say we're supposed to do the kind of judgment we're warned against? Again, this is the kind of confusion that comes from trying to make ourselves look better by pretending we don't judge.

 

[Jim Langston]

What am I missing, here? You say we're supposed to do the kind of judgment we're warned against? Again, this is the kind of confusion that comes from trying to make ourselves look better by pretending we don't judge.

Because judgement in the bible is warned against, not forbidden. We are told to judge not lest we be judged. We are told by which manner we judge others we will also be judged. We are not told never to judge.

Lets take, for example, someone kickong someone out of chirch for sexual immorality as Paul tells us to to. If you were to kick someone out of the congregation for sexual immorality, yet you did the same type of thing yourself, it would be wrong. He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Unfortunately it's not quite a black and white issue. The bible says judge not lest ye be judged, yet it also says kick the sexually immoral from the congregation.

If you do not know what the bible actually says about judging but one verse how can you accuse anyone of unjusitifiably judging?

Also, again, I am not discussing what Christians do, but what people ate supposed to do.

This type of confusion actually comes from people not knowing the word God they're quoting from.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Actually, I think there is plenty of room for questioning. Why did they steal? Who did they steal from? What did they steal?

This just reminded me of a point that I would like to make. I will put it in my own words and then if someone wants the scripture after they read it, I can look it up.

It is what happened in the Bible to David, I think before He was King David. He was running from someone, I think King Saul was trying to kill him and he stopped into a temple. On the offering table in the holy place there was bread that had been blessed and was to be used as an offering to the Lord.

When the person who was the holy person of that temple saw David and I believe a few others were with him and that they were starving, they had to make a decision of how to handle this bread. Should it be given to those who are starving which they would then eat the bread meant for sacrifice or would the holy person withhold the bread from them and only give it to the Lord.

I believe that the person did choose to give the bread to David and the others, because if they died of starvation, would the bread meant for sacrifice to God have been good to just submit as a sacrifice only.

I believe that God was pleased and was glad that this bread had been used to save His people from starvation.

 

[Jim Langston]

This just reminded me of a point that I would like to make. I will put it in my own words and then if someone wants the scripture after they read it, I can look it up.

It is what happened in the Bible to David, I think before He was King David. He was running from someone, I think King Saul was trying to kill him and he stopped into a temple. On the offering table in the holy place there was bread that had been blessed and was to be used as an offering to the Lord.

When the person who was the holy person of that temple saw David and I believe a few others were with him and that they were starving, they had to make a decision of how to handle this bread. Should it be given to those who are starving which they would then eat the bread meant for sacrifice or would the holy person withhold the bread from them and only give it to the Lord.

I believe that the person did choose to give the bread to David and the others, because if they died of starvation, would the bread meant for sacrifice to God have been good to just submit as a sacrifice only.

I believe that God was pleased and was glad that this bread had been used to save His people from starvation.

I actually believe God was disappointed that his king would steal his food. The priesthood couldn't really do anything about it because David was king of all the Isrealites, including the house of Levi which was the priesthood. The only one here other than God who could do any judging was the King, and it was the king breaking the law. Which, I believe, was the point Jesus was trying to make. David was allowed to do as he did because of his authority. If you knew by what authority I (Jesus) do things you would not question me.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Lets take, for example, someone kickong someone out of chirch for sexual immorality as Paul tells us to to. If you were to kick someone out of the congregation for sexual immorality, yet you did the same type of thing yourself, it would be wrong. He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Unfortunately it's not quite a black and white issue. The bible says judge not lest ye be judged, yet it also says kick the sexually immoral from the congregation.

The Bible doesn't say "do not judge lest you be judged". That interpretation makes no sense. It says, "Judge not that ye be not judged". In other words, "Do not think you are above judgment, because you will be judged and it will be according to the measure you judged others". He concludes by saying that we should judge ourselves first so that we will understand how to fairly judge our brother.

To summarize: We should not think we're above judgement. We should strive to judge fairly because we'll be judged the same way. The way to judge fairly is to start by judging ourselves. All of that is clear and consistent. No confusion there. It makes sense.

The confusion comes when you try to pretend that you're not doing something that you really are doing, e.g. "We're supposed to judge but we're not supposed to judge and it doesn't make sense because it's not black and white."

Look at all that confusion and ambiguity; perfect for hiding a little hypocrisy here and there. It's like you're saying, "No, No I'm not one of those bad people who judges, because the Bible says not to, but I do think that person should be kicked out because the Bible says so".

How much better to drop all the pretense. Yeah, I judge, and I'm gonna do my best to judge fairly because the exercise of fair judgment is a part of growing spiritually mature.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I believe that the person did choose to give the bread to David and the others, because if they died of starvation, would the bread meant for sacrifice to God have been good to just submit as a sacrifice only.

I believe that God was pleased and was glad that this bread had been used to save His people from starvation.

Exactly. There is context to the story which must be examined before we're able to make a fair judgment.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Which, I believe, was the point Jesus was trying to make. David was allowed to do as he did because of his authority.

I don't think so. David also used his authority to steal another man's wife, and he was punished for it.

David was allowed to take the Bread because the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.

Authority was only an issue because that's what it took (i.e. a kings authority) to challenge the already twisted tradition.

 

[Jim Langston]

I don't think so. David also used his authority to steal another man's wife, and he was punished for it.

David was allowed to take the Bread because the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.

Authority was only an issue because that's what it took (i.e. a kings authority) to challenge the already twisted tradition.

One correction: David was not yet king when he ate the showbread.

Let's take a look at the scripture, shall we? Read it in context. Is Jesus also praising the priests who profane the sabbath?

Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

I agree that Jesus isn't condemning but that is only because of his pisition, not what he did.

 

[Jim Langston]

The Bible doesn't say "do not judge lest you be judged". That interpretation makes no sense. It says, "Judge not that ye be not judged". In other words, "Do not think you are above judgment, because you will be judged and it will be according to the measure you judged others". He concludes by saying that we should judge ourselves first so that we will understand how to fairly judge our brother.

To summarize: We should not think we're above judgement. We should strive to judge fairly because we'll be judged the same way. The way to judge fairly is to start by judging ourselves. All of that is clear and consistent. No confusion there. It makes sense.

The confusion comes when you try to pretend that you're not doing something that you really are doing, e.g. "We're supposed to judge but we're not supposed to judge and it doesn't make sense because it's not black and white."

Look at all that confusion and ambiguity; perfect for hiding a little hypocrisy here and there. It's like you're saying, "No, No I'm not one of those bad people who judges, because the Bible says not to, but I do think that person should be kicked out because the Bible says so".

How much better to drop all the pretense. Yeah, I judge, and I'm gonna do my best to judge fairly because the exercise of fair judgment is a part of growing spiritually mature.

Since this thread is about people accusing others of judging I think your post is right on target.

Yes, we judge, and we are supposed to, although we need to judge rightously when we do. A lot of things people say are judging are not.

I believe "judge not lest ye be judged" and "forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those that tresspass against us" go hand in hand. You will be judged the way you judge others. Your sins will be forgiven the same way you forgive others who sin against you.

We wish it wa as easy ad if I never judge anyone for anything God won't judge me at all, but it doesn't quite work that way. I think we can get more judgement for judging others unfairly, bit not less for judging others.

This is a hairy topic for me because of Ezekial 3:18 where I am required as a prophet to warn others of their sins, then hear a cry of "Why are you judging?!?" from Christians.

Ezekial 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

I would rather judge unrightously than have someone else's sin on my head.

 

[Jim Langston]

I think Jesus makes a good point on this matter, "Do not condemn the guiltless". He does not say do not judge, but more like judge rightously.

It may be very possible when a Christian unrightously says "do not judge" they mean the rightous saying of "do not judge the guiltless". Perhaps a change of what we say would be benefitial.