- Jun 29, 2019
- 728
- 192
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Matthew 7:1-2 says “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” At first glance, that limits one to only passing judgement on the things one wants to be judged on. Calls to mind, to paraphrase an expression, “Before you criticize someone else, walk a mile in their shoes.” Seems that in many cases, as things get more complicated, it would take more than a mile—and at the end of the journey those shoes would be worn out. Or how about if a well-dressed person who knows nothing of poverty and homelessness walks by a couple living out of a cardboard box on a city sidewalk and says to them ‘It’s foolish that you live out here in a box. You should be ashamed of yourselves!’
Perhaps that mini-parable of sorts may well fit in the context of Matthew 7:1-2. After all, the well-dressed person may judge himself in the same way, which is why he doesn’t live in a cardboard box. And if you consider that what follows in the above passage is passing judgment in the context of hypocrisy, you can’t say the well-dressed person is a hypocrite either; he basically wishes that the couple in the box live in an apartment or similar dwelling, something which he most likely lives. Seems that he would be the type of judge that Matthew 7:1-2 and Verses 3-5 that follow, wouldn’t discard outright.
Matthew 7:3-5, though, calls to mind John 8:1-11, in which the scribes and Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulteress whom they judged should be stoned. They ask Jesus if it’s OK to stone her since the Law of Moses says so. He response in Verse 7 says “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And they, in Verse 9, “walk away” and Jesus in Verse 11 says to the woman to “go, and from now on sin no more.” In the context of what Jesus says to them who walked away, they would have been hypocrites if they passed judgement on the woman for sinning when they had sinned also. It is possible that some of them committed sins that they should be punished by being stoned. They would be perfect candidates of what Matthew 7:1-2 rejects as being a judge, if they surely don’t want to be similarly judged as they judged the woman.
Who would be left to pass judgment on the woman? After all, there isn’t an ordinary person in the world who hasn’t committed a sin at least once in their lives; Matthew 7:1-5 would reject them. Seems that the only person who can judge others without having similar judgment passed on themselves would be a spiritual person, described in 1 Corinthians 2:15.
Who is the spiritual person? Commentators suggest that it is one who has successfully strived to live a spiritual existence with Giod in mind. Problem is, everyone is prone to sin, for who can know all the sins that God would hold us accountable for? But as the Old testament, particularly Leviticus 19:15 implies, judges are needed to determine if people have followed or broken the laws that God would approve of abiding by. To be sure, it says “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” No discussion there as to whether the person may be a hypocrite and therefore disqualified from being a judge, nor is there any talk about the sins the would-be judge may have committed. Perhaps it is a given in the Bible that there are sins that are forgivable enough, upon the person’s asking, that are not serious enough for an individual to not make the cut. If Jesus was in the wilderness along with the wandering Jews, would he say to God that there are no Jews worthy enough to be judges since all (just like everyone else) have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God?
Jesus in Chapter 7 also says something interesting regarding those who, in a sense, presume to be holier than some and so they volunteer their words of wisdom and judgement to those who weren’t looking for any. It may serve as a warning to those who expect to be accepted in any crowd. Matthew 7:6 says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Certain people might be thought of in terms of dogs and pigs, in the worst context, whom it would be a waste of time to share your pearls of Godly wisdom, and you may find yourself in trouble. Best to know whom you speak to.
Perhaps that mini-parable of sorts may well fit in the context of Matthew 7:1-2. After all, the well-dressed person may judge himself in the same way, which is why he doesn’t live in a cardboard box. And if you consider that what follows in the above passage is passing judgment in the context of hypocrisy, you can’t say the well-dressed person is a hypocrite either; he basically wishes that the couple in the box live in an apartment or similar dwelling, something which he most likely lives. Seems that he would be the type of judge that Matthew 7:1-2 and Verses 3-5 that follow, wouldn’t discard outright.
Matthew 7:3-5, though, calls to mind John 8:1-11, in which the scribes and Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulteress whom they judged should be stoned. They ask Jesus if it’s OK to stone her since the Law of Moses says so. He response in Verse 7 says “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And they, in Verse 9, “walk away” and Jesus in Verse 11 says to the woman to “go, and from now on sin no more.” In the context of what Jesus says to them who walked away, they would have been hypocrites if they passed judgement on the woman for sinning when they had sinned also. It is possible that some of them committed sins that they should be punished by being stoned. They would be perfect candidates of what Matthew 7:1-2 rejects as being a judge, if they surely don’t want to be similarly judged as they judged the woman.
Who would be left to pass judgment on the woman? After all, there isn’t an ordinary person in the world who hasn’t committed a sin at least once in their lives; Matthew 7:1-5 would reject them. Seems that the only person who can judge others without having similar judgment passed on themselves would be a spiritual person, described in 1 Corinthians 2:15.
Who is the spiritual person? Commentators suggest that it is one who has successfully strived to live a spiritual existence with Giod in mind. Problem is, everyone is prone to sin, for who can know all the sins that God would hold us accountable for? But as the Old testament, particularly Leviticus 19:15 implies, judges are needed to determine if people have followed or broken the laws that God would approve of abiding by. To be sure, it says “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” No discussion there as to whether the person may be a hypocrite and therefore disqualified from being a judge, nor is there any talk about the sins the would-be judge may have committed. Perhaps it is a given in the Bible that there are sins that are forgivable enough, upon the person’s asking, that are not serious enough for an individual to not make the cut. If Jesus was in the wilderness along with the wandering Jews, would he say to God that there are no Jews worthy enough to be judges since all (just like everyone else) have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God?
Jesus in Chapter 7 also says something interesting regarding those who, in a sense, presume to be holier than some and so they volunteer their words of wisdom and judgement to those who weren’t looking for any. It may serve as a warning to those who expect to be accepted in any crowd. Matthew 7:6 says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Certain people might be thought of in terms of dogs and pigs, in the worst context, whom it would be a waste of time to share your pearls of Godly wisdom, and you may find yourself in trouble. Best to know whom you speak to.