Home | About Us | Past Featured Subjects | Bulletins | Sermons & Audio | Studies In The Cross Of Christ

Click Here for the Latest Edition of the Charlottesville Beacon
 

Planning to Visit Us?

What to Expect
Current Class Information

Judge Righteous Judgment

By Edward O. Bragwell

 

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment" - John 7:24

Christians must judge. In the same chapter with Jesus' often quoted command, "judge not", is the admonition to "beware of false prophets, who come ... in sheep's clothing" (Matt. 7:1, 15). How can we do this without judging that somebody is false? How can we mark, avoid, and reject factious men (Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17), unless we judge them to be such? The church at Corinth was rebuked for not judging as it should
(1 Cor.5:1-13; 6:1-5).

It should be obvious by now that the Lord was not forbidding all judging, but a certain kind of judging. The next few verses show that it is hypo-critical (double-standard) judging that is the object of his condemnation.

Some of the most scathing judgments that we have heard spoken against brethren has been by those who have judged that others has violated the "judge not" passage! Thus, violating the passage with their double-standard judgment.

Jesus specifically enjoined "righteous judgment" upon us.

"Appearance" is from a word meaning: "1. seeing, sight. 2. face, countenance. 3. the out-ward appearance, look.", according to Thayer's Lexicon. The idea is that one should look at more than what may first appear on the surface before judging.

Jesus had been hastily and harshly judged as a Sabbath breaker. At another time, His disciples had been so judged. (Matt. 12:1-7). On the surface, it may have had that appearance - but when viewed in the light of all the facts it was not so.

Jesus said, "But if you had known what his means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned (judged) the guiltless." The critics had judged according to appearance (by that which first met the eye or that which seemed to be, on the surface) rather than looking deeper into the matter. Had they probed deeper into the scriptures, rather than making that snap judgment, they would have known that the mercy passage took precedence.

If they had honestly considered all the facts in the case they would not have condemned the innocent. They would have judged righteously. They needed to learn that things are not always as they seem to be - sometimes, maybe, but not always.

It is much easier to prejudge or to make snap judgments from what appears on the surface than to take the time and effort to gather the information needed to judge righteously. If we would more carefully get all the scriptural information bearing on the incident, all the facts about the incident itself, and any extenuating circumstances (such as ability and opportunity) that might bear on the incident then we would be less likely to "condemn the guiltless".

The critics of Jesus' disciples in Matt. 12 did not consider all the scriptures bearing on the alleged wrong before judging. Sometimes we do not consider all the circumstances in an incident. We heard of an elder who was severely criticized by a member of the congregation for not speaking to him when they met on the street. When approached about the matter, the elder admitted that he likely had failed to speak to this brother. You see, the elder was kind of preoccupied at the time - he was on his way to the funeral home to make arrangement for the burial of his mother!

Sometimes faithful brethren are unrighteously judged by well-intentioned brethren without considering all the scriptures and circumstances bearing on the incident. A brother may openly and publicly sin for many to see and hear; some faithful brother feels that he cannot let it pass without withstanding sin on the spot. The one who did the rebuking is judged a sinner because he did not tell him his fault between "thee and him alone" - without considering that the sin was not a private matter, between "thee and him alone", but was already open before the public and the church, for saint and sinner to see - like the one done by Peter that caused Paul to say what he had to correct him before all (Gal 2:14 ff.). If the critic would consider all the Bible says, he would judge more righteously.

Brethren have differences that result in open disputes. It is easy for a third party to make snap or prejudicial judgments in such cases. In this we should be extremely careful - lest we condemn ourselves by judging unrighteously and add fuel to a fire that may already be too hot. It is easy for us to assume that one of the parties is the offender in the case, because we have known him to have been guilty is some other, but unrelated matter - thus, prejudge him. It is easy and takes less time to just say that all parties to the dispute are wrong and should repent. It may, indeed, prove out to be that way. But, it is unrighteous judgment to make that judgment without knowing (not assuming) the facts in the case.

In some cases the most righteous judgment that one can make is to decide not to judge in the matter. There are some disputes that are simply none of my business - even disputes among brethren. I am in good company when I refuse to be a "judge or divider" in the matter (See Luke 12:13, 14). I don't know where some good brethren ever got the idea that they must take a stand (one way or the other) in every dispute between brethren that they may hear about. If it is an issue over what the Bible teaches about a subject - that would be one thing. I can and should always study such a controversy and take a stand on what the Book teaches. But in disputes over what brethren may have said or done - that is a different matter. Sometimes, with all the evidence one can gather, one still honestly cannot determine who really did or said what. And if one did, he still might not have any business in it - better leaving to the parties involved to settle. (Yes, I know that there are times when the parties are unable to settle their differences that, rather than go to world's courts, it is better to get a brother to act as judge in the matter — 1 Cor. 6.)

Having said all of that, we still need to be careful about dismissing a dispute with the blanket indictment: "They are all probably wrong". That is the easy way out, but it is not right. Good men have been involved in controversies that were not of their making. Because of their involvement they have been unfairly associated with troublemaking and strife in the minds of many brethren. Such unfair and unrighteous judgment would have indicted Elijah, Paul and even our Lord. I can just hear the brotherhood tongue-waggers as they blame both Elijah and Ahab for the problems between them, or both Paul and Peter for the incident at Antioch, or both Jesus and the Pharisees for their differences.

After careful consideration of all the available evidence, it may well be that the judgment will be the same - but then it will be righteous judgment and not judgment based on prejudice or a snap judgment based on misinformation or no information. Even a correct judgment without a proper basis is unrighteous judgment. – The Reflector, August, 1984

Other Articles by Edward O. Bragwell
Standing with Saints