Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 1

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 1

Earlier I had posted a question on Facebook regarding the relationship of Scripture to the realm of politics. For purposes of recollection, or in the case of someone missing it, I had posed the question like this:

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics? If you have the guts to post them, what are your thoughts?” (September 20, 2012)

It was a rather provocative question, or so I had thought, but to my misfortune, it did not generate much in the way of discussion.

I had asked the question in hopes of talking about it. I enjoy talking to people about their political opinions, especially when they differ from my own. It does not bother me. Really, it is belligerence and incoherence that bothers me, when someone lacks respect for the individuals of “the opposing side.” When people’s heated passions extend out further than their brains—that’s when we have a problem. So I was hoping to collect more comments, but I will make do with what I have.

At any rate, I did receive a few interesting comments. I will share them here. Each of these statements consists of three different views from three different people. I will briefly comment on each of them for now and return to them later for further discussion:

Comment #1:  “I think at times they ( the religous leaders) tried to draw him in to the politcal realm. I can [not] help believing that those who followed him had the mind set that he was setting up his kingdom there and that he would lead them over the roman empire.”

What I understand about this comment is that the author of it sees Jesus as existing outside the political realm, since he mentions that the religious leaders tried to draw Him into it. The commentator does not define, exactly, what is meant by his use of the “political realm,” but seems to refer to it as the misapprehensions of mankind in the manipulation of others. He refers only to the religious leaders of that time and religious zealots who mistakenly believed that the Messiah would overthrow the Roman Empire and establish Israel as the elites of the world. So, in this view, politics is not perceived as a good thing, but as a form of estrangement from God.

Moving on:

Comment #2:  “I think he was as he is God, as he desperately encouraged the worship of The Father who is above all and should properly run governmental or state affairs. The old testament describes a conversatiin with a prophet during which the people didnt want God to run them, but they wanted a King [1 Samuel 8:1-22]. I believe Jesus wanted to see that reversed. Jesus frequently spoke of “social relations involving authority or power” which is what politics is in an attempt to make that a political reality.”

This comment is interesting and is directly backed up with Scripture. Here, politics is conceived of as a system that rejects God. The King, which the commentator uses as being analogous to government in general, is perceived as being a rejection of God—a turning away of true worship and praise to an idol, or a moving away from the heavenly and spiritual to that which is earthly and carnal. Politics itself is perceived as a form of control and coercion of the people to the idol of the state (government) away from the Creator. The writer indicates that he believe Jesus wanted to see the reversal of government—from the worship of the idol (the state or government) back to the centrality of God in the life of the citizen.

Unfortunately, the author does not specify precisely what that entails. To what extent should this be taken on this side of heaven? Does this involve a theocracy, like the one ancient Israel had, or something else? What form of government would it consist of?

It is an interesting and insightful comment, nonetheless, and the writer of it gives us plenty to discuss. I will definitely interact with it in more depth later on.

Comment #3: “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars anf that which is God unto God.” [Mat 22:21; Mark 12:17; and Luke 20:25]

In this comment, only a verse is posted, so I am unclear as to what was intended by it. On the surface of it, the verse means to pay your taxes, assuming Caesar is analogous to our current form of government. However, this verse, standing by itself, tends to raise more questions than it answers. For example, does it mean that there are things which are Caesar’s that are separate from the things of God? Does the one who posted it mean to indicate that there are things which belong to the government, which are outside of the scope of Christian living? Does it agree with the first two comments that say that political bodies are the result of sinful man rebelling and turning away from the things of God, which, according to this verse, would see government as a necessary evil? I don’t know. Perhaps the writer meant to indicate that government was a good thing. Either way, I’ll be certain not to exclude the verse from my own presentation, as I answer my own question.

What was that question again?

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics?”

Getting directly to the point, my answer to both parts of the question is “yes” and “yes.” Jesus was definitely a political figure and both He as well as Scripture talks about politics, without ceasing, from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. Actually, if one thinks about it, they are both the same question; meaning, that if one answers one way to one of the questions, they must answer that way to both of them. One cannot be a political figure without having something to say about politics; and one cannot say something about politics without being a political entity.

I submit that from cover to cover the Bible is a political book by its very nature. Indeed, it scarcely, if ever, talks about anything else. It is often said that religion should stay out of politics and that politics should stay out of religion. Many people, it seems Christians included, are quite content with that. But come now, let us reason together (Isa 1:18). Let us take a thorough account of the question I have set before us. Let us begin by asking another very basic question:

What is politics?

Let’s start by defining the term. I know some might criticize me for doing such an elementary thing in a paper, but the reality is that defining one’s terms is essential to any rational discussion, academic snobbery aside. Indeed, whenever the subject of politics arises in conversation, people usually have in mind politics, as the art of deception, propaganda, and control. But this is not at all what the term means. Even when I asked my question, the responses indicated that such was the definition of the term upon which their minds were operating, likewise with those who say that religion and politics should not mix. Obviously, defining our terms is necessary.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, politics is, a : the art or science of government;b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government (see footnote 1).

So when I ask questions such as, “Does Jesus or Scripture have anything to say about politics?” and receive an answer that indicates that He tried to stay out of politics, then doesn’t that mean that He had nothing to say concerning how human beings are to be governed, execute justice and laws, or power relations? Do people who say that religion should stay out of politics actually mean to indicate that the church should remain silent on how the government shapes policy? What if it had always followed such a precedent? What if it had, for example, remained silent on American slavery or Hitler’s eugenics programs? Does such a prescription seem either right or moral now?

Another part of the definition of our term is, likewise, informative. Consider the fifth entry of the dictionary, 5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society.

Should the church also remain silent about the social relations of those living in society?

There is politics, which is not only necessary but unavoidable, and there is the distortion of politics. One idea should not be confused with the other, or we open up a whole other realm of distortions and confusions. And it is precisely within such a Pandora’s Box that we are living. We confuse what politics actually is with how it is distorted. Then, with our distorted definition of politics, insist that the Christian religion has nothing to say about the matter except to condemn the practice.

One problem with such a view is that it has no coherent solutions to the distortion. It is based upon wishful thinking, utopian dreams, and does not acknowledge the presence of sin and evil in this world. Of course it is true that if all mankind inclined himself to God, and to God alone, as his ultimate purpose, there would be no need for laws. However, we would still need a political system. We would still need people to work, to exchange goods and services, to communicate, to participate in a, yes, political system. On top of this, there is sin and evil in the world, and they aren’t going to go away on this side of eternity. So we also need laws, rules and legislations to curb the tide of evil and to administer justice in the land.

The very body of Christ is a political system. We are citizens of a kingdom; and that kingdom has a firmly established King. This is the entire reason we even call Him “Lord.” Our political system, which is to be embodied by the Church, has all the variety of any secular system. We have divisions of labor, and individuals gifted for certain tasks, we have customs and rituals, we have a Legislator, and those gifted at interpreting and executing that legislation, we have teachers and an educational system…we even have a fire department.

I hope and pray the many of you will read what I have said…and seriously consider it. I hope that it is thought-provoking and causes you to re-imagine and to redefine your perspective on politics. In this paper, I have only begun to lay the groundwork for future writings on the subject. All I have done, so far, is to define politics—using a secular source—and to demonstrate that it has everything to do with the Christian faith and with Scripture. I hope this causes some further discussion and interests you enough to read part 2, where I will get deeper into the subject of politics—what it is, what its elements are, and what they are for. I look forward to your comments.

Thank you for reading.

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics

Does Matthew 7:1 teach that we should never judge others? (Round 2)

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged” (Matthew 7:1 NASB).

While I have already sufficiently dealt with this verse in a previous post, I continue to receive challenges or criticisms to my view on the role that judgment plays in the Christian’s life or in regards to my interpretation of this particular verse. While my prior writing on Matthew 7 has not been addressed in any serious fashion—the points made have simply been ignored or unread, but not actually dealt with—I thought perhaps it would be more helpful to give this particular section of Scripture a more thorough analysis as to its meaning, rather than mostly offering refutations and counterpoints to competing views.

Let’s take another look at the entire context of this verse:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:1–6)

The Greek word for “judge” used in this verse is “krino.” According to the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains (DBL), the word is a verb that can mean to “decide,” “to prefer,” “to evaluate,” “to hold or view,” or “to have an opinion,” “to make a legal decision,” “to condemn” or to “rule.” Clearly, the Greek word, if it were to stand by itself, has a wide range of meanings where each meaning often infers the other.  Now if this verse is to be taken from its actual context as a “proof text” for the purpose of proving that we should never, ever judge others, then we should also be consistent and never decide anything, or hold any opinions or views whatsoever, or prefer any one thing above another, etc….

Obviously, such an interpretation would be utterly ridiculous and even self-refuting. And while I have never met anyone who has actually taken such an extreme view on this verse, it demonstrates the need for context in order to figure out what it means.  Nonetheless, the objection I have encountered regarding my view of Matt 7:1 is that the verse forbids “passing judgment,” but it doesn’t forbid us from “making evaluations” or from “making assessments.”

I submit that this is an arbitrary distinction. It is made purely a priori and on the grounds that “judge” and “assess/ evaluate” are different words, despite the fact that they are synonyms, which share the same meanings.  Simply consulting a couple of dictionaries and a thesaurus would demonstrate this. But also, since the Greek word under consideration is “krino,” and also means “to assess,” then it would follow that we are forbidden to even make assessments by the same reasoning.

But let’s turn to a few respected bible commentaries and see what they say.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

“A final illustration of Pharisaic practices pertains to judging. The Pharisees were then judging Christ and finding Him to be inadequate. He was not offering the kind of kingdom they anticipated or asking for the kind of righteousness they were exhibiting. So they rejected Him. Jesus therefore warned them against hypocritical judging.”

“This passage does not teach that judgments should never be made; Matthew 7:5 does speak of removing the speck from your brother’s eye. The Lord’s point was that a person should not be habitually critical or condemnatory of a speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye when he has a plank—a strong hyperbole for effect—in his own eye. Such action is hypocritical (You hypocrite, v. 5; cf. “hypocrites” in 6:2, 5, 16). Though judgment is sometimes needed, those making the distinctions (krinō, judge, means “to distinguish” and thus “to decide”) must first be certain of their own lives.”

The New Bible Commentary:

“7:1–6 On judging other people (see Lk. 6:37–38, 41–42). 1–5 warn against criticizing other people without considering how open to criticism we ourselves may be; be judged may well refer to God’s judgment, as well as that of other people. But v 6 indicates that there is also a right kind of judgment which the disciple is called on to exercise (cf. also vs 15–20).”

The Pulpit Commentary:

“Judge not. Not merely “do not condemn,” for this would leave too much latitude; nor, on the other hand, “do not ever judge,” for this is sometimes our duty: but “do not be always judging” (μὴ κρίνετε). Our Lord opposes the censorious spirit. “Let us therefore be lowly minded, brethren, laying aside all arrogance, and conceit, and folly, and anger, and let us do that which is written … most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching forbearance and long-suffering; for thus he spake … ‘As ye judge, so shall ye be judged,’ ” Clem. Rom., § 13 (wheresee Bishop lightfoot’s note: cf. also Resch, ‘Agrapha,’ pp. 96, 136 ff.); cf. ‘Ab.,’ i. 7 (Taylor), “Judge every man in the scale of merit;” i.e let the scale incline towards the side of merit or acquittal. That ye be not judged; i.e. by God, with special reference to the last day (cf. Jas. 2:12, 13; 5:9; Rom. 2:3).”

In addition to these three commentaries, the IVP Bible Background Commentary: NT also offers some interesting, insightful aspects regarding the verse. The section is dealt with under the heading “Recriprocal Judgment” and demonstrates the biblical and cultural allusions made within that section. The IVP treats verses 1 and 2 as though they were part of the same point. Let’s take a look at what it says:

“7:1-2. The idea of a measuring scale (the image is taken from an ancient market place) was used elsewhere for the day of judgment or divine retribution; “As a man measures it will be measured back to him” occurs a number of times in later Jewish sources and may have been a maxim. For the principle, see Matt 5:7, 6:14-15, and Proverbs 19:17. Compare also the Old Testament principles that false witnesses were to receive the penalty they sought for the accused (Deut 19:18-21) and that God opposed unjust judges (Ex 23:6-8; Deut 16:18-20).”

The entire section of Matthew 7:1-6 is rich in imagery. The section would have conjured up all sorts of images and practices well known to Jesus’ audience. Scales were often used in the ancient marketplace, so why should they be mentioned here? Obviously, they are metaphors taken from the everyday lives and experiences of those whom He is addressing. Consider it this way: what would bad, dishonest business men have to do with Jesus’ point?  Well…don’t they rig their scales to tilt in their favor? And isn’t doing so cheating people, failing to measure properly or fairly?

Our disposition in our measuring or in our judging of others should be tilted favorably toward those we are judging, not toward ourselves at their expense. The verses indicated in the IVP Commentary concerning this principle are about mercy, forgiveness, and graciousness. We should incline ourselves (or tilt our scales) toward those virtues because we have received these from the Lord. We live and breathe out of His patience and mercy because we all deserve to die, right now, for our offenses against a holy God and cast into outer darkness. However, this does not mean that I cannot say, “A man who murders is a murderer and deserves death,” because it is a true and a just judgment. Scripture thoroughly testifies to this. But, my inclination should be toward graciousness, seeking to forgive, if possible. This mercy does not occur at the expense of justice, but at the expense of my own self-righteousness or personal benefit. Justice is to practice “an eye for an eye.” Justice demands that no crime goes unpunished in proper proportion to the crime committed. Anything else is mercy, where we are acknowledging that law and its rights over us; or it is a disregard of justice for others, which is unjust and wicked. Nobody is owed or deserves mercy. It is given as a matter of grace, an unmerited gift to the offender.

However, to those who deal unjustly or hypocritically in their judgments, to those who tip their scales to elevate themselves rather than to incline them for the good of others, they are wicked and vicious. They seek to condemn others by using the law to their advantage. They lie and judge falsely and will receive their just desserts:

15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. 21 Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Deut 19:15–21)

Is it alright for Christians to celebrate Halloween?–a challenge to other Christians.

Is it alright for Christians to celebrate Halloween?

I remember when I was child celebrating Christmas.  Like many families, we would open our presents, which had been under the Christmas tree, go to Grandma’s for the annual family dinner, and simply enjoy the company of family and loved ones.  However, Christmas could be a somewhat difficult time of the year for me, especially when I was a child. As much as I looked forward to opening presents and seeing family members, there was always this one point of contention that I had to struggle with every year.

Unlike all other families that I knew of at the time, my mother and father did not teach me to believe in Santa Claus. There were no reindeer and no fat, jolly Saint Nick visiting my house.  My parents simply could not bring themselves to lie to me about it. They also felt that the story of Santa Claus veiled the true meaning of Christmas, which is the birth of Christ. So, I knew my gifts were from my parents and, if they said “from Santa” on the label, an extended family member.  

This knowledge did not always sit well with some of my family. Some of them seemed to get annoyed and they would protest because I did not believe. On occasion, some of them tried to argue with my parents’ decision on the matter. Sometimes, they would attempt to challenge my belief that Santa was not real, when my parents were not around.  Strangely, although they knew I didn’t believe in Santa Claus, they would continue talking to me about him as though he was real.

As a child, I was very confused as to why a group of adults, whom I was supposed to trust, would have so much conviction about lying to kids about Santa. Even Christmastime television programs would often portray young boys, who did not believe in Saint Nick, as unappreciative and angry. If miracles did not come their way, it was due to their failure to believe in something good, like Santa Claus.  This felt uncomfortable, especially in school, where I was always instructed to keep my opinions about the matter to myself, and not to “argue” with the other kids. I never even started it, but I was always accused of being the one “arguing” and not the other boy.

So what does this have to do with celebrating Halloween?

Well…Christians who do not celebrate Halloween, but adorn their homes with Christmas trees and teach their children about Santa Claus, perplex me. They will not celebrate Halloween because of its pagan roots in Celtic mythology, but do not hesitate to adorn their homes with ancient pagan symbols and lie to their children about Santa, who practices magic (sorcery?). Furthermore, Christmas has just as many roots in ancient, non-Christian religions as Halloween.

October 31st was celebrated in Ireland and Scotland, around the time of Christ, as the end of summer.  This festival was called “Samhain,” pronounced “sow-ane,” and means the “end of summer.” It was the time of harvest and the time herders would gather up their animals and prepare for winter.  Samhain was seen as a day of “chaos.” The new year began on November 1st , so the day of October 31st was seen as the day in between the old year and the new year—a day of superstition,  fairies, practical jokes, and of disembodies spirits looking for hosts. The people would put on costumes, parading around, making loud noises to frighten away the spirits.

Halloween developed later, around the 5th century AD, by the Catholic Church in order to replace the older festival, Samhain.  Halloween, or “All Hallows Eve,” was the eve of “All Hallows Day,” or “All Saints Day,” when all the saints of the Catholic Church were remembered and honored. The custom of trick or treating may have developed later due to beliefs that the dead were walking in limbo. People would go to each other’s homes in order to exchange cakes for prayers for the salvation of dead family members.

The jack-o-lantern evidently comes from an old Irish story about a man named Jack, who tricked the devil into climbing a tree. When the devil was in the tree, Jack carved a cross on the trunk, and the devil could not get down.  Jack made a deal with the devil that if he’d allow the devil to come down, then the he would not take Jack to hell.  When Jack died, he could not go to heaven, but he could not go to hell either. So he was stuck in between, wandering in limbo with only a single candle for light, which was placed in a turnip to keep it burning. In the 1800’s, when the Irish were coming into America, the turnip was replaced with a pumpkin.

Winter solstice is the shortest day of the year and pagan celebrations for the decline of winter predate the time of Christ.  These winter solstice celebrations occurred around the time of December 21st and symbolized the lengthening of the days through various pagan religious imageries. This would make sense if one considers the dependency they had on agriculture and how their religions were inextricably tied with that way of life. For a few examples of these, December 25th actually coincided with the birth of the ancient Balkan sun-god, Phyrgia. Likewise, in ancient Roman belief, the winter solstice corresponded to the release of Saturn, the god of agriculture. During mid-summer, Jupiter would force Saturn out of the heavenly realm. During this time, the Romans would bind the statue of Saturn’s feet with chains in his temple to symbolize the shortening of the days. They would come off again to celebrate the approach of the warmer season and the lengthening of days, the release of Saturn.

By the time of Christ, the holiday was called Saturnalia. Even though Christ’s birth probably took place some time during the spring (April), the Catholic Church replaced this holiday in the 4th century with “The Feast of the Nativity,” or what we call “Christmas.”

The Christmas tree was an ancient symbol of life and renewal for the Roman religion. It was also an ancient fertility symbol of various ancient pagan cultures. It was decorated as a form of worship in some cultures. Then there is mistletoe, a parasitic plant which grows on trees, which was believed to have contained the soul of the host tree; interestingly, this belief was held by the Celts—the same group that celebrated Samhain. Also, druids would place the mistletoe above doorways to protect themselves from evil spirits.

As one can see, the origins of Christmas are not that much different than the origins of Halloween.  There is no biblical imperative to celebrate the birth of Christ and no records which indicate that the early church celebrated it. We do it as a matter of tradition; hopefully, with the intention of honoring Christ. However, these traditions, including Christmas, seem to stem directly from ancient pagan festivities which included idolatry, magic or sorcery, and such practices. What does Scripture say about these things?

“There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer  or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord” (Deut. 18:10-12).

This seems pretty clear to me. However, to make matters worse, what is Santa Claus about? We present our children with a mythical being, who seems to possess attributes such as omniscience—He knows when we are sleeping and awake. He knows when we’ve bad or good. He uses magic (sorcery?) and little elves (Celtic fairies?) to make toys for the good girls and boys. He has a bag that seems to have a bottomless pit, flying reindeer pulling a sleigh, and he is able get through any chimney no matter the size discrepancy. We attribute divine characteristics to a mythological demigod of toys, and teach our children to believe in him and revere him.  And if this wasn’t ironic enough, Santa knows another similar being called “Old Man Winter,” who has powers over seasons, like Jupiter and Saturn.

I do not lie to my children about Santa Claus. Actually, I find the real story of Saint Nick much more inspiring anyway. It is a story of profound charity toward orphans and I see no purpose in mythologizing it with pointless—or even potentially damaging—superstitions or beliefs about magic. Besides, the real St. Nick’s generosity was for the poor; the mythical one seems partial to the wealthy, since he gives them more expensive gifts.

Nonetheless, I celebrate not only Christmas, but also Halloween. I understand that it has very deep, cultic origins, but this is not why my family and I celebrate it. When we get together to carve pumpkins—which is a very odd tradition—it isn’t to commemorate the day Jack tricked the devil. (Indeed, the story doesn’t even make sense from a biblical world view). We carve jack-o-lanterns for precisely the same reasons we put up the Christmas tree (another odd tradition): Because it is fun, part of our heritage, helps us get through each season, and allows us to bond with each other. It is nice to have a festival, to have something to look forward, to eagerly anticipate. I can think of nothing cuter than a bunch of children dressed up in funny costumes going door to door for some treat.

To me, Halloween is a celebration of neighbors. We get together with friends, relatives, and neighbors and we treat each other kind and neighborly, once a year. It is really the only holiday we have left where we still do this. I very much cherish, and look forward to, mingling with different people who approach my home with their children, wanting some candy.  One day a year, many of our neighbors actually stop pretending that no one of importance lives around them, and this seems to result in a sense of belonging, friendship, and trust.

So what about the pagan origins of Halloween—or of Christmas for that matter?  Does it matter? It doesn’t to me because I partake in these things for the glory of God. It is the freedom given to me in Christ. Interestingly, the apostle Paul talks about these exact sorts of things in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”  If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.  But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?  If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?” (10:23-30).

He is referring to foods which are the meat of animals that have been sacrificed on altars. Notice how the issue is not with the food or even where it came from, but the conscience of another person. Eating meats sacrificed on altars does not corrupt me, confusing the good conscience of a weaker brother or sister, however, does. My actions, for example, could tempt them into committing idolatry, or some other sin against the living God:

“Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (7:4-9)

If a fellow brother or sister was previously engaged in cultic practices, and if either Halloween or some Christmas festivity tempted them into some former association, I would refrain for the sake of their conscience. However, this has rarely been the case in my experience. Rather, it is far more typical that other Christians, who do not struggle with such things, misunderstand that there is a difference between what something was in the past versus its significance today. And for me, I find that they are not consistent in their own applications…they won’t pass out the candy, but they’ll put up the Christmas tree and the mistletoe.  Then, to make matters even worse, lie to their kids about Santa Claus.

So here’s my question: Why is it okay to lie to children about an omniscient, magical figure or to use ancient pagan festivities and symbols on December 25th, but not on October 31st? I am not asking out of maliciousness, or to persecute anyone, but the Bible does instruct me to rebuke my brothers and sisters when they are in error….And the same Scriptures also tell us to accept such corrections and/or to provide a rational answer for our reasons to anyone who would ask.  I do not get offended when other Christians hold me accountable, nor should you.

Being loving VERSUS being rational? I think not….

Concerning faith and reason….

Recently, I stumbled upon a post warning Christians about the use of logic. Since it intrigued me, and since it is a common misconception within some Christian circles, I thought I would present my thoughts about it.

The post states:

“On this day, God wants you to know… that love is the opposite of logic. Logic is argumentative, aggressive upon the mind, splits the world into right and wrong, us and them. Love is generative, compassionate, embracing all creation. Logic pays attention to what is being said. Love pays attention to how things are said. Logic leads to debate. Love leads to communion. Practice love to be closer to God.”

It might surprise some of us to know that the word “logic” comes from the Greek word, “logos,” which usually translates as “word” in the New Testament. It appears, for example, in John 1:1, where the divine nature of Christ is strongly pronounced:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

A more common word used in the New Testament is “rhema,” meaning a “sound,” a “word,” or more generically an “utterance.” However, John does not use that particular word here, but opts for “logos,” which entails more than just a “sound” or an “utterance.”

“Logos” also conveys the idea of a coherent speech or a message. Unlike the word “rhema,” it intends to convey the idea that the word uttered is not just a sound, but a meaningful and rational articulation, meant to explain or reveal something. The word “logos” also means a “statement” or a “speech,” particularly of the kind intended for rational discourse.

Jesus is the very “logos” or “word” of God:

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18).

Turning our attention to the English word “logic,” it is important to mention what it means. Logic refers to the study of the principles of coherent reasoning. It is the process of proper inference. For an example of coherent reasoning or rational thinking, consider this: If we know that A=B and that B=C, then we can conclude, coherently, that A=C.

A classic example of a logical expression (in this case, a logical syllogism) is:

1)      Socrates is a man.

2)      All men are mortal.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

There are laws which govern rational thinking. We tend to abide by them intuitively, whether we are able to articulate them or not. For example, if I said that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal, but concluded that Socrates must, therefore, be immortal, then most of us would understand that my conclusion is incoherent: Either Socrates is not a man, or it is not true that all men are mortal, or both—one of these would need to be false in order for my conclusion to be valid. This has to do with the laws of logic:

The first law of logic is the law of identity.  It states that something is what it is, and is not what it is not.  For example, a rock is a rock and not a frog.

The second law of logic is the law of non-contradiction.  This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.  In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that a statement is either true or false.  “We are here” is a true statement.  “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement. (taken from carm.org/ questions-logic)

Now, in regards to the post above, it contains a certain kind of irony that actually undermines its entire claim. First, it attempts to construct a rational argument by making the statement that “God wants you to know… that love is the opposite of logic.” However, how does the author of the post know that God wants us to know or believe this particular message? Is it found anywhere in Scripture? Is it sent by some secret revelation to the author and not to us? The author simply does not legitimize their claim to speak for God, but expects us to accept the claim at face value.

Aside from that, is it actually true that love is the opposite of logic? If I took such a statement to heart, then could I not also conclude that love is not the opposite of logic—since logic adheres to the law of non-contradiction and the opposite of that is to contradict myself? Does love mean, then, that it is okay to contradict myself? What about God? The Bible teaches that “God is love” (1 John 4:8,16). Therefore, does this mean that God can also contradict Himself? Does this mean that God and logic are also opposites?

The trouble with such thinking is that nothing is true and nothing is false, including the statement I just made. To deny logic is to subject one’s self to an absolute chaos of the mind, where God created it to be orderly. This is not love, but sheer insanity.

The first sentence of the post requires that I consider it to be a logically valid claim. It states that logic and love are “opposites” and goes on attempting to demonstrate how that is so—Law of identity. However, I cannot consider it to be valid and invalid at the same time and in the same exact sense—Law of non-contradiction. Either the statement is rationally valid or it is not—Law of excluded middle.

Indeed, the claim that logic and love are opposites can be shown to be blatantly false. Consider the following logical argument:

1)      Scripture commands that the followers of Christ are to love their neighbors.

2)      I am a follower of Christ and Jane is my neighbor.

Therefore, Scripture commands that I love my neighbor, Jane.

I logically concluded that I am commanded, by Scripture, to love my neighbor, Jane. However, how can this be if love and logic truly were opposites?  By definition, opposites oppose one another. But here, we see no such opposition. This is because the actual opposite of logic is illogic, not love. Likewise, the opposite of love is not logic, but…well…it depends on how you define “love,” which the post we are investigating does not do. Is it “hate?” Is it “apathy?” Is it the opposite of whatever preconceived notions about “love” which the reader brings to the text?—Yes! It is.

The post goes on to say, “Logic is argumentative, aggressive upon the mind, splits the world into right and wrong, us and them.” Well, this is interesting. Isn’t the author engaging in an argument by insisting that logic is divisive? After all, not all people would affirm such a thing.

 How, exactly, is logic “argumentative?” Or rather—and this is probably what the author really intends to say—how are those that think logically “argumentative?” Actually, if one stops to think about this for a moment, would it not be that it is those who think illogically who would tend to be more argumentative? Three irrational people considering the same problem would be expected to arrive at three irrational, different, and contrary conclusions:

1)      2+2=8

2)      2+2=164

3)      2+2=3.6 x 10

So which is the correct answer? Couldn’t irrational people argue about this indefinitely, since they have no rational basis upon which to appeal to in order to resolve their argument?

Likewise, three rational people, using logic, would all agree that 2+2=4. So, what is there to “argue” about? If any argument erupts at all, it is because irrational people deny that which is logical. Also, if logic splits the world into “us” and “them” or “right” and “wrong” categories (something which the author of the post is actually doing irrationally), it is on the basis of what is rational versus what is not.

As far as the statement that claims logic is “aggressive to the mind” is concerned, I am not sure what is intended by this statement. Is it because the truth hurts? Because it’s hard to think? I do not know.

The author goes on to say, “Love is generative, compassionate, embracing all creation.” Generally, this is a true statement. However, it is spoken in order to be a contrast to further define what logic is not. It is offered as a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. I agree that love is “generative,” but it does not follow that logic is not (circular reasoning). Actually, logic helps generates correct answers to problems, which can be used to resolve differences or disagreements between people, as we saw above. Indeed, if disagreements are not discussed, or properly debated, then no resolution could ever be achieved and nothing would ever get done.

The issue of compassion and of logic not being “compassionate” is like comparing apples to oranges. Love and logic are two very different categories of existence. Nonetheless, in order to obey the biblical imperative to show compassion and mercy to others, I must read and apply the Bible in a rational manner—just like the example above, where I am instructed to love Jane, my neighbor. Compassion and rational thought are not mutually exclusive realities, but different aspects of one reality, or a biblical world-view.

Love embraces all of creation is an ambiguous statement—what is meant by it? Does it mean that I should love all of creation? Should I love devil worship, for example? Does it embrace logic? If the author intended Creation—that which God made before the Fall—then it might be theologically appropriate. If the author meant fallen creation, then do they embrace devil worship? The author simply does not distinguish between the two. Regardless, logic helps us to know God’s creation and that which He has revealed to us.

In the next couple of sentences, the author writes, “Logic pays attention to what is being said. Love pays attention to how things are said,” which is another example of a false dilemma. Is it true that those who love one another do not pay attention to WHAT is said? Of course not! Is it true that those who think logically do not pay attention to HOW someone might say something? Once again, this conclusion does not follow. In reality, love may motivate me to listen to what a person says and how they say it, while logic would indicate that I should pay attention to both and consider it in a coherent fashion. Ironically, the author of this post wants us to focus on WHAT is being said, while I am demonstrating HOW it is being stated irrational.

(Indeed, I am troubled that a person would choose to deny logic in order to establish “a communion” with God, when the Bible instructs us otherwise).

Since the statement “Logic leads to debate. Love leads to communion,” has been sufficiently dealt with above (I’ll leave to readers to use logic to understand why), let’s turn to the concluding sentence of the post, “Practice love to be closer to God.”

While there is nothing wrong with the statement in and of itself, the writer means to convey the idea that one should be “loving” and not its opposite, or what is allegedly “logical.” However, this is not an “either/or” sort of problem, but a “both/ and” communion between logic and love. The author has actually created an artificial problem to debate about. To be rational does not mean to be “devoid of love,” as the author falsely accuses. Likewise, to be loving does not mean to be utterly “irrational.” By setting an artificial wedge between these two concepts, the author merely redefines both words and prevents their readers from becoming more Christ-like.

God the Father is love (as stated earlier), but Jesus Christ is the Logos, who fully and rationally explains the Father to us (John 1:18). Theologically speaking, the problem with denying logic in order to appear as though we were promoting love is that such poor reasoning drives a wedge in the Trinitarian unity of God. For if Christ was not the rational expression of God the Father, it means that He is an unreliable expression of God’s very nature! Irrationality is not reliable, truthful, or trustworthy…but Christ claims to be these very things.

The notion of rational debate or logical argument is condemned as unloving in the post. However, when we read about Christ’s many, many debates in Scripture, should we conclude that they were irrational? If not, then should we say, then, that Christ was divisive, argumentative, and unloving? Or do we say that He was both rational AND loving?

Jesus uses the law of identity in Scripture (cf, Matt 5:37)

He uses the law of non-contradiction in Scripture (cf, Matt 7:15; 24:24; John 8:12, 32, 42-47)

He uses the law of excluded middle in the Bible (cf, Matt 12:30; Luke 11:23).

Now, as the verses above show, Jesus’ messages conform to the laws of logic. Had they not conformed to rationality, they would be irrational and we would be free to dismiss them readily. Does this mean I am elevating logic to godhood? Absolutely not! I agree that God is more than rational thought or logical reasoning. However, that does not make it necessary to conclude that He is, therefore, less than logical. God is the truth. This doesn’t just mean that He has the truth, but that He IS the truth—and truth is absolutely and eternally consistent, never contradicting or undermining itself.

One last point—some might feel that I am taking the post far too literally. Some might see the post and decide that the author’s “real” point was merely to contrast those who are argumentative versus those who “get along” or live “peaceably” with others. Assuming such an interpretation is correct, is it wise, then, to throw the baby out with the bath water? With such an interpretation, we are still left wondering why the author of the post would choose to approach the subject by attacking rational thought. Furthermore, does the Bible EVER command us to “get along” with others at the expense of doctrinal truth? No, it does not. Indeed, the command to love God with all of our hearts is actually part of the same commandment that instructs us to love Him with our minds. Whether I fail to do one part or the other, I have still broken the same commandment and elevate my interpretations over Him.

An outline of how the Trinity is derived from Scripture

Does Scripture teach the trinity? Yes, it is derived systematically and directly from Scripture. It is also written about in the works of Pre-Nicean Church Fathers, so it wasn’t “invented” by the Council of Nicea (AD 325) or by Constantine, for that matter. Consider the following outline:

A. The oneness of God (Monotheism) – Only one God in all of existence

   1) Old Testament 

          a) Ex 20:2-3 – ‏עַל־פָּנָֽ֗יַ (trans., “before me”; lit., “in front me”; meaning “in my presence”)

          b) Ex 3: 13-15 – “I AM” 

          c) Deut 6:4-5 – “The Shema” – God is one. 

          d) Ex 15:11; Lev 26:1; Deut 6:13-14; Deut 4:28; Zech 14:9; Isaiah 43:10-13; 44:6,8;

              Isaiah 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8

   2) New Testament

          a) Jas 2:19; 1 Co 8:4-6; 1 Tim 2:5-6; John 17:3; Gal. 4:8-9;

B. The deity of the 3 persons declared

   1) The Father

          a) 1 Co 8:4-6; 1 Tim 2:5 (above)

          b) Mt 6:26, 30-32 

          c) Mt 19:23-26; 27:46; Mk 12:17, 24-27 

   2) The Son (Jn 1:1, 14; Col 2:9-10; Jn 5:39

          a) Philippians 2:5-11 (The Carmen Christi)

               1. μορφή – nature, form, essence; not it’s schema, a superficial appearance or shape

               2. ἴσα – “equality”

          b) Hebrews 1 – superior to angels, heir of all things, the radiance and exact image of God

               1. Hebrews 1:3 – ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ ‎- means:

                   He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature

               2. Hebrews 1:8 from Ps 45:6 – attributed to the Son

               3. Hebrews 1:10 from Ps 102:25 – attributed to the Son

               4. Hebrews 1:13 from Ps 110:1 – “sit at my right hand,” but the Hebrews were Monotheistic

          c) Jesus’ own statements

               1. The angels of God (Lk 12:8-9; 15:10) were His angels (Mt 13:41) 

               2. Kingdom of God and the elect were His (Mt 12:28; 19:14, 24; 21:31, 43; Mk 13:20) 

               3. Jesus forgave sins (Mk 2:8-10) and accused of blasphemy

               4. Power to judge the world (Mt 25:31-46) and reigns over it (Mt 24:30; Mk 14:62) 

               5. Divine name from OT, He attributes to Himself: Jn 8:24 (cf. Isaiah 43:10 and

                   Deut. 32:39); Jn 8:58-59 (cf. Exodus 3:14)

          d) Jesus’ responses to those accusing Him of claiming deity (of blasphemy: Jn 10:32-33)

              and to those who said He was God

               1. Accused of claiming to be the Son of God at trial (Jn 19:7 and Mt 26:63-65), responds

                  “You have said it yourself)

               2. Jesus’ disciple calls Him “God” and worships Him (Jn 20:28) and Jesus affirms the

                   declaration in the very next verse: Jn 20:29 (had it not been true, why would Jesus

                   not correct doubting Thomas’ blashemy?)

               3. Again, Jesus is worshiped, but doesn’t rebuke it (Mt 28:9-10) 

   3) The Holy Spirit

          a) Holy Spirit used interchangeably with God (Acts 5:3-4) 

          b) Has the qualities and works of God

               1. Convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn 16:8-13) 

               2. Regenerates and gives new life (Jn 3:8) 

               3. Gives gifts to the church and has authority over it (1 Co 12:4-11) 

               4. Recieves honor and glory reserved for God alone

          c) The body is God’s temple, and the Holy Spirit’s dwelling (1 Co 3:16-17), but also the

              temple of The Holy Spirit (1 Co 6:19-20) 

          d) Holy Spirit put on equal footing with God (Mt 28:19; 2 Co 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2)  

C. 3 in oneness

   1) 1 Jn 5:7 (but verse seems to be added later, not present in earlier mss.)

   2) Elohym – expresses majesty and intensity of quality, but also seems to suggest a diversity

       within the unity

          a) “Us” and “our” and plural verb forms (Gen 1:26-27; 11:7; Isa 6:8)

          b) Echad means “one,” even with diversity (cf. Gen 2:24 and Deut 6:4) 

   3) Three persons in one 

          a) Mt 28:19-20 – One name shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

          b) Didache 7:1-3:

               1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts,

               baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running

               water; 2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou

               canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; 3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three

               times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

          c) Justin’s Apology (1.61.4):

               For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus

               Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

          d) 2 Co 13:14 – Pauline benediction

          e) Other passages: Lk 1:35, 24:49; Mt 3:16-17, 12:28; Acts 2:33, 38; 1 Co 12:4-6;

              Gal 4:6; Ro 15:16 

          f) Trinity involved in salvation: 2 Co 1:21-22; 2 Thess 2: 13-14; Eph 3:14-19; 1 Pet 1:1-2;

             Jude 20-21 

          g) Paul arranges his epistles in trinitarian patterns

               1. Romans: God’s judgment on all (Romans 1:18-3:20); Justification by faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-8:1);

                   Life in the Spirit (Romans 8:2- 30)

               2. Galatians: Justification by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:1-29); Adoption through Christ and sending

                   of Holy Spirit (Galatians 4:1-7); Bondage and freedom in Christ (Galatians 4:8-5:15); Life in The Spirit 

                   (Galatians 5:16-6:10)

               3. Occurs in 1 Corinthinas too

          h) The Gospel of John

               1. 3-fold formula: Jn 1:33-34; 14:16, 26; 16:13-15; 20:21-22 (cf., 1 Jn 4:2, 13-14) 

                    a. Son sent by Father (Jn 14:24) and proceeds from Him (Jn 16:28) 

                    b. Holy Spirit given by the Father (Jn 14:16), sent by Him (Jn 14:26), and proceed

                        from Him (Jn 15:26) 

                    c. Son is involved in the Spirit’s coming and prays for Him to come (Jn 14:16) 

                    d. The Father sends the Spirit in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) 

                    e. The Son sends the Holy Spirit from the Father (Jn 15:26) 

                    f. The Son must go away to send the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:7) 

                    g. The Holy Spirit is a continuation and an elaboration of the Son’s ministry (Jn 14:26;

                        Jn 15:26; 16:13-14) 

               2. Prologue (Jn 1:1, 14)

               3. Oneness (Jn 10:30; 14:9; 17:21) 

          i) Polycarp (c. AD 70-160) was the bishop of Smyrna and, as tradition has it, a disciple of the

             Apostle John. He writes about the trinity:

               O Lord God almighty…I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high

               priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the

               Holy Spirit, both now and forever.

          j) Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria (d. AD  107):

               We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son

               and Word, before time began,  but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

               For “the Word was made flesh.”Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible,

               He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He

               became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption,

               and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with

               ungodliness and wicked lusts.

          k) Alexandrian theologian, Origen (c. AD. 185-254) was already using the word “Trinity” well

              before the Council of Nicea:

               Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity

               alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all

               things which are worthy of sanctification, as it is written in the Psalm: “By the word of the

               Lord were the heavens strengthened, and all their power by the Spirit of His mouth.

On faith and the modern, Western church

Personally, I don’t define faith as a “leap into the dark” or “a jump into the unknown.” Faith is trusting what we think to be true. Even though we cannot foresee the outcome, we trust in the object of our faith. Faith is not irrational or unreasonable. And faith is not credulity or gullibility.

The object of our faith should be trustworthy. Therefore, our faith should be rational and reasonable. If we were scaling the walls of Mt. Everest, and I gave you the choice between old, worn-out bed sheets to tie together versus new, professional-grade climbing ropes, which of these would you choose? Those who are unreasonable, gullible, or irrational cannot tell the difference between the two. The faith itself is only as good as the thing we are trusting. Taking blind “leaps of faith” and hoping something will catch you is, quite frankly, dumb.

When the church, especially in the late 19th century, opted out of intellectual engagements with unbelievers, not only were they disobeying God (take every thought captive…baptize all nations…), but they abdicated the realm of ideas to pagan philosophers and scientists. They surrendered their intellectual property to the fickle winds of change, saying, “You just gotta have faith, man. Jesus loves you.”

Unfortunately, our disengagement from the world of ideas is, in my opinion, a big reason why the Western world is in the moral crisis it is now. You cannot just say, “Take a leap of faith.” This is unreasonable. Rather, you have to demonstrate why the climbing ropes are better suited to the task than old bed sheets. Otherwise, people may start asserting ridiculous notions like, “One’s just as good as any other. It is the faith that counts. It is the faith which produces the meaning of our existence.” Sound familiar? In a nutshell, isn’t this what we are doing now? Yes! it is! It’s called Postmodernism.

Nowadays, the church largely tries to cater to this very poisonous idea. They argue, “We have to make the word of God more relevant.” So they water down the message to cater to the misguided whims of their congregations, accompanying their milquetoast theologies with flashing, pretty lights and digital media. They don’t appeal to people’s minds–those have been lost to the devil and his lies about Postmodernism–but to their emotions and sense-perceptions. That’s why you can walk into so many churches today and see messages that suggest “Jesus is your buddy,” or “God wants you to believe in yourself,” or “God just wants you to be happy.” They dim the lights, creating an atmosphere that almost resembles a disco, and call it “praise and worship.” It all feels so grand and spiritual.

But they have no more discernment than they had when they entered!

How can a church be “relevant” when it fails to tell the truth? How can they say “we need to be more relevant?” Is the truth, holiness or the wrath of God not relevant to us? Of course it is! If a church really wants to be “relevant” today, then it needs to rescue the minds of its people. We need an Exodus from the current secular state. This means that we must faithfully engage in the important questions of our own day in a rational fashion. It is prime time to rescue our minds from the dark influences of these times. We need to stop acting like whiny consumers and start acting like bold Christians.

Does Matthew 7:1 teach that we should never judge others?

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. ” (Matthew 7:1, NASB)  

Matthew 7:1 has been one of those verses used to reinforce the very unbiblical notion that Christians are wrong to pass judgments concerning the moral character of others.  However, this a most unfortunate misinterpretation of the verse. 

Scripture interprets Scripture. When drawing conclusions about the teachings of the Bible, then whole counsel of Scripture should be taken into consideration. Otherwise, one might be completely baffled when they read verses such as this:

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. “So then, you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15–20)  

If one comes to this passage with the presupposition that judgment is categorically wrong, then how are they to heed Jesus’ exortation to beware of false prophets? Obeying such an imperative requires that I pass judgment about a person on the basis of what he or she says and does. According to this text, Jesus requires of those who follow Him to pass judgments concerning the morality of one’s actions whenever that person claims to speak for God. 

It gets even worse. Not only does the Bible tell us to pass judgments, but also to expose those we judge to be fraudulent. Consider what John writes in his epistle to the church:

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 9–11)  

Not only has John judged Diotrephes to be an evil man, who unjustly accuses others, but he names him specifically and pronounces his judgments about Diotrephes to the church–Diotrephes is evil, wicked, unjust, divisive, counterfeit, and fraudulent. We may also derive from the text that he lacks humility, is arrogant, self-serving, refuses to be accountable to others, and refuses correction from others. Afterall, the text says that he likes to be first and does not accept what John and others have said in a previous correspondence. Clearly, this is not a man who bears good fruit. 

Unfortunately, Diotrephes also appears to hold some manner of authority within the church, presumably an elder, since he is even able to be first amongst them, capable of forbidding other Christians to recieve their brethern, and has the power to put them out of the church. What would likely happen to this church if John did not pass judgment on Diotrephes? Obviously, Diotrephes would remain in power, teaching false doctrines, perhaps? or continue to persecute the men and women of God? 

It would have been unjust for John not to judge Diotrephes. 

To not pass judgments and expose falsehood is in itself unjust. To do so is to give evil men permission to do unjust and evil things without hinderance or exposure. We act in concert with our nature. Evil men do evil things; good men do good things. We judge them by their fruit. Christians should get very angry and upset when they see unjustice and wickedness in their midst. It is a righteous anger to posses. Likewise, it is a sign of inner death, decay, and corruption when we can look upon such things flippantly or apathetically. 

You see, as followers of an eternally righteous and holy God, we have a measuring stick; a straight edge, with which to judge. I cannot know what is crooked if I do not have something straight with which to compare it; and I cannot tell if something is short if I do not know how tall it ought to be. However, Jesus Christ is our standard and our example. We should compare ourselves to Him. Our moral judgments derive from his thoughts, words, and deeds as revealed to us in Scripture. Jesus saw falsehoods, wickedness, and evil in His midst and attacked these unjustices vigorously because they were in violation against the holiness and righteousness of the Father. We should do the same.

As I mentioned above, Scripture interprets Scripture. Therefore, we should take into consideration the whole counsel of God’s word. However, one could object that it was Jesus who said “Judge not lest ye be judged,” and if Jesus said it, then it should be obeyed. One could make the argument that I was merely turning Scripture against itself–and argue rightly so. It is one thing to seek the whole counsel of the Bible on a given issue, but another thing entirely to use one portion of God’s word as means of ignoring or dismissing the clear instruction of another. In other words, if what one reads in 3 John contradicts what one reads in Matthew 7, then it casts a hefty shadow on the ability of the Christian to judge, since his “measuring stick” is broken and cannot be reconciled. However, the immediate context of the verse within Scripture interprets the meaning of the verse.

Matthew 7:1 does not merely stand alone and should not be interpreted outside of its immediate context. Both Hebrew and Greek, which are the two main languages of the original writings, are extremely context-oriented. In addition to this, they also use different literary devices than modern, American English. The Jewish mindset during the time of Christ, for example, was very “black and white” in its thinking. It was not at all uncommon to compact an otherwise complex teaching into black and white statements. This can be confusing to many of us modern Westerners, whose languages tend to rely less on context and more on precision. Indeed, sometimes the Jews would make use of hyperbole to emphasize the importance of a statment or to draw attention to something being contrasted:

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”  (Luke 14:26)  

While some more literal-minded people have raised issues against this verse in Luke, it is not to be taken literally. It is a hyberbolic expression, meant to strongly emphazise and sharply contrast the loyalty of the disciple to Christ versus his loyalty to his own life and family. Family was perhaps the Jew’s greatest joy; and they certainly would have taken seriously the commandment to honor one’s father and mother. To not obey the commandment was punishable by death. Jesus knew the commandment clearly as shown in Matthew, when He says, “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death’” (15:4). Since Jesus always instructed others to obey God’s law, it is evident that He is commanding from His disciples a loyalty well beyond that of their own lives and their own families (cf., Mt 10:37), particularly since the rest of the context uses similar, non-literal speach to address the price of discipleship.

So the context of Matthew 7:1 is likewise important for discovering its meaning. Let’s have a look at it:

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”  (Matthew 7:1–6)  

The section opens with our verse, “Do not judge so that you might not be judged.” Then, Jesus explains His reason for saying it. The word “For” is the English translation of the Greek word “gar.” This word serves as a marker to indicate that an explanation is forthcoming. It can also be translated, “because.” In other words, Jesus is about to explain what He means by what He said. 

The way in which you judge others will be judged by God; and the standard in which you use can either be punishable or rewarding, depending upon the way in which you judge. Consider how Luke treats the same saying: “Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return” (Luke 6:38). 

The next verse identifies the actual problem when it says, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Jesus is talking about people who do not seem to notice even the rather prominent sins they have, but are willing to point out the minutia of others. Of course, He is speaking hyberbolic language here–the point is about hypocrisy. 

It is most unfortunate that this word has nearly lost its meaning in our times. For example, it is occassionally applied to people who may have repented for a sin and have made a sincere attempt to reconcile with whomever they offended. Sort of like when a teenager says to their parents, “Hypocrite, you used to do it!” However, this is NOT what the term means. Indeed, the passage we are examining makes it clear that once the sin has been dealt with, the person may then turn to deal with the sin of another. Actually, the hypocrite would be the teenager, who seeks to excuse his or her sinful actions on the basis that the parent once committed the act. 

The Greek word for “hypocrite” comes from the Greek theater. The word is “hupokrites” and literally refered to an actor. Now, in these Greek theatres, actors wore these often large masks to cover up their own identities, pretending to be someone else, while interpreting a story or play for their audiences. Obviously, the better and the more convincing the actor was at playing his part on the theater, the better his performance, and the better his reward. Jesus used the term to refer to morally duplicitous, self-righteous people. They put on great act to fool others, but God sees behind the mask:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.”  (Matthew 6:1–5)

A hypocrite does things for show, like an actor who wears a mask on a stage. But his righteousness is only a mask–it does not eminate from a heart of sincerety, love, truth, or compassion. His duplicity will not be rewarded, but his unrighteous judgments of others will be punished. He is blind to his own sins because he is self-righteous and self-exonerating. Think of how God considers his prayers:

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9–14)

I have always found it strange that Jesus should point out that the Pharisee was merely praying to himself. Evidently, he was soothed by the sound of his own self-righteous words. He spoke of no sins which he had committed, but thanked God for making him better than all those sinners and tax-collectors out there. Yet the other man, the publically despised tax collector, felt the gravity of his sins before the most Holy God; and the weight of it must have sunk him into such shame and dishonor that he most desparetly wailed, “God! Be mericful to me! the sinner!”

This is what judgment is all about.

The tax collector is free to judge, but the Pharisee remains in darkness. God is the standard of righteousness and the tax collector knows that he is not worthy and is not righteous compared to the holiness of God. However, hypocrites such as this Pharisee, judge as though they have no sin. They will remain as they are, condemned by the sins which they deny. But to those who confess their sins to God, are justified before God. He will exalt them.