Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye (Matt. 7:1-5).

This text is one of the more abused texts in the Bible. One can expect to hear it quoted when a state executes a murderer, a church exercises discipline, and a preacher condemns false religion. These abuses of the text, however, do not change the fact that it is teaching that a certain kind of judging is sinful. We need to learn what kinds of judgment are wrong and what kinds are right.

The Bible Does Not Condemn All Judging

The word “judge” occurs 191 times in the Bible and its cognates increase the number to over 500. Though the judgment under discussion is occasionally God’s judgment, there are human judgments which are commanded of men. In whatever understanding of Matthew 7:1-6 we reach, we must not interpret these verses to condemn those actions elsewhere commanded. Here are some judgments commanded of men:

A church judging differences between brethren. In 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, Paul commanded the church to appoint judges to decide differences between brethren so that brethren would not take their differences before unbelievers.

Church discipline. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul condemned the church at Corinth for not withdrawing from the fornicator who had taken his father’s wife to be his wife. Whatever we understand Matthew 7 to teach, it cannot condemn the judgments which are essential in withdrawing from the impenitent wicked.

Judging men to be false prophets. John commanded that Christians “try the spirits” to see whether or not they were from God. He gave the criteria for making the determination. Even in Matthew 7, Jesus warned of the danger false prophets pose to his children (7:15). Hence, this passage cannot condemn the judgments made in ascertaining that a man is a false teacher.

Condemning sin. The work of a gospel preacher necessitates that he “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). In so doing, he will label certain kinds of conduct as “works of the flesh” which keep a person out of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21). Matthew 7 is not condemning the judgments necessary to condemn sin. The preacher only reports God’s judgment about sin; he is not merely expressing his own judgments.

A state punishing a criminal. Romans 13 instructs civil courts to administer God’s vengeance upon the criminal. Paul stated that the civil government did not “bear the sword in vain.” When a state punishes a criminal, even in the death penalty, it is only doing what God commanded. Its actions are not a violation of Matthew 7.

Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 were not designed to make men blind to the facts about us, ignore the information gathered by our senses, or make us tolerant of sinful conduct.

The Bible Condemns Sinful Judgments

There are some sinful kinds of judgment which we must avoid. Here are some of them:

1. Censoriousness. Some are hypercritical, fault finders and nit pickers. This passage condemns this kind of judgment.

Evil surmising (1 Tim. 6.4). This kind of judgment at-tributes bad motives to one’s fellow man without evidence to conclude that it is there. People who gossip usually at-tribute evil motives to other’s actions. This evil surmising is grounded in hatred for that person.

Self-righteousness (cf. Lk. 18:9-14). Some manifest a “holier-than-thou” disposition when they condemn the con-duct of others. Jesus forbade that self-righteous disposition in the parable of the Pharisee and publican who prayed in the Temple.

Hypocritical. In the text before us, Jesus exposed the sinful conduct of hypocritical judgments. He compared hypocritical judgment to the man who was trying to remove a speck of sawdust from another’s eye, while having a telephone pole in his own eye.

Fruits of Sinful Judgment

There are some things which sinful kinds of judgment pro-duce. Knowing its fruits should motivate us to avoid committing sinful kinds of judgment.

Sinful judgment obscures our moral vision. The hypocrite minimizes his own sin and maximizes the faults which are in others. He does not have clear moral vision. The censorious person has no even-handed balance in his assessment of other’s conduct.

Sinful judgment creates animosity toward oneself. Jesus warned that the same judgment we use on others will be used on us. Sinful judgments create animosity, hatred, and bitterness. We need to recognize that sinful judgments destroy the peace and harmony of a family and church.

How To Make Proper Judgments

Get all the facts. Jesus said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). Sometimes judgments are formed without knowing all of the facts and unrighteous judgments are made.

Use the right standard. The word of God is the only standard fitted to be used for judgment. My personal whims should not be used as a standard by which to measure others. If sin has not been committed, I would be best served by keeping my mouth shut and not condemning the person for his actions.

Look for contributing circumstances. Sin is sin. It is always wrong. However, sometimes the circumstances under which a sin is committed make for a gentler judgment of my fellow man. A dose of the Indian adage about walking a mile in my brother’s shoes would do each of us good.

Have the proper attitude. When sin is condemned and exposed, it should be done with meekness (Gal. 6:1) and love (Eph. 4:15). Arrogant, self-righteousness will embitter men.

Conclusion

Let us resolve to avoid sinful judgments and to manifest the right spirit in expressing God’s judgment against sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 2
March 4, 1993

By Dan King

One can picture in his mind a victorious Roman general returning to his beloved capitol to present the symbols of his battlefield glories before his Emperor and his people. He rides atop a white stallion, followed by his armies, cheered by the crowds, adored by all who behold his approach. He is a Conqueror.

This image provides the background for a key text in the book of Revelation. Thus John portrays the Christ in the Apocalypse (19:11-14):

“And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure.”

At that moment in time it must have been most difficult for those suffering Christians of Asia Minor tohave imagined their Christ marching in such grand royal splendor. All about them suggested otherwise. The church was considered an illegal entity. Christians were oppressed and persecuted. Their possessions were being confiscated, their careers ruined, their businesses wrecked. Some of them were even tried on unfair charges and put to death. Things looked pretty dismal.

Yet John’s book of prophecy suggested that this was only what things appeared to be on the surface. In reality things were quite different. For one to get this deeper perspective, the “heavens must be opened,” as they were for the Apostle John when he received his Revelation from God. Through the eyes of divine disclosure, the church was viewed as a mighty army “upon white horses” being led on to ultimate victory by their Savior and King.

Similarly, Paul puts even the severest of life’s trials (“. . . we are killed all the day long, we are ac-counted as sheep for the slaughter”) in their proper perspective, that is, through heaven’s eyes, and describes faithful Christians as “Conquerors”:

“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:37-39).

More Than Conquerors. Not only are we conquerors, says Paul, we are “more than conquerors.” Here the apostle uses the Greek term hupernikomen, translated by the Latin authors Tertullian and Cyprian as supervincimus. It means we are “supremely victorious” through him that loved us. This is a magnificent piece of spiritual eloquence! There is no victory like our victory. No one wins like we win. No earthly triumph can compare to our heavenly one.

2.No Power In Heaven Or Earth, Time Or Eternity, Can Separate Us From The Love Of God. What, or rather, who gives us this decisive victory? Paul answers, “Him that loved us.” And there is no thing, anytime or anywhere, that can separate us from him who grants to us the victory.

3. The Love Of God Is In Christ Jesus Our Lord. So declares the apostle. But what does he mean when he says the love of God is “in Christ Jesus our Lord”? From the remainder of Scripture (and that is how we ought always to interpret Scripture, i.e. in the light of the fullness of its teachings), we discover at least three senses in which this is meant.

First, the love of God is manifest toward us in that we are a part of the church, the spiritual body of Christ. Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it (Eph. 5:25). This is so because the church is that body of believers who have accepted him as Messiah and Lord both in word and deed: “… having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6).

Second, the love of God is shown in his providential care and spiritual guidance of those who are his children. No passage in the New Testament gives more consolation to a suffering Christian than the words of Romans 8:28-32: “And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called. and whom lie called, them he also justified: and whom he just if led, the,,, he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? if God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, ho iv shall lie not also with him freely give us all things?’

Third, God’s great love is extended to those who remain faithful in Christ’s service, Jesus pointed this out in his private moments with the disciples: 1-fe that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loved me: and he that love/h me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him Judas (not Iscariot.) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will Come unto him, and make our abode with bin,” (in. 14:21-23). God loves those who love him back. He also withdraws his love from those who pull away from him.

But all of this — and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough — is regardless of circumstances- Outward appearances do not reveal the true spiritual situation. Early Christians were embraced in the bosom of God’s love as they saw life as they knew it destroyed, as they gave up all their earthly possessions, and even as they were dying at the hands of Jewish or Roman persecutors. Even while they suffered they were ”more than Conquerors”’

If we can only keep this in our hearts, we also can weather even the most difficult of life’s challenges and maintain our faith to the very end.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 1
March 4, 1993

By David O. Bonner

On the nights of November 30, December 1, 3, 4, Jesse G. Jenkins of Oklahoma City, OK, met J. Marlon Cole of McKinney, TX, in a public debate on the class question. The first two nights Jenkins affirmed classes as practiced by the Eastside church in Denton, TX, are scriptural and Cole denied. This took place in the building of the LaPrada Drive church in Mesquite, TX. The last two nights J. Marlon Cole affirmed that when a congregation is taught the word of God it must remain in one assembly as practiced by the McKinney church in McKinney, TX. Jenkins denied. This took place in the building of the Main Street church in Lewisville, TX. Sam Potter moderated for Cole and I moderated for Jenkins. Good order prevailed although there were several points of order called for clarification. All who attended were of the very best behavior. Debates like this one should cause people to want to have more debates to learn and try for unity. Approximately 200 attended and some came from great distances. Every opportunity was extended Cole and those with him for future debates with any of us if they so desire.

Jenkins was asked to give up his classes for unity but Jenkins pointed out we would still be divided in belief. We know of four big areas of disagreement. We object to (1) their teaching that it is wrong for a local church to conduct Bible classes as we do, (2) they teach against what they call the “located preacher system,” (3) their practice of having social halls in their buildings and playground equipment out-side on the premises, and (4) their belief in “general benevolence” for a local church to practice. Perhaps some of these other questions may be debated with them in the future. We hope so!

An unusual agreement regulated charts which was insisted upon by Cole. No projectors were allowed and every chart introduced had to remain before the audience while that pro-position was debated. This made for a lot of paper charts hanging at all times. Some charts were copied and handed out.

In Jenkins’ affirmatives, he argued there is Bible authority for Bible classes by arguing the church must teach and some of the teaching may be done outside the assembly. He then argued our classes are an arrangement outside the assembly for teaching. He then argued that anything the church may support one to do, the church may do because the local church functions through oversight, treasury, and authorized agents. He then argued the church may support preachers to teach in the assembly and out of the assembly (Acts 20:17,20f, etc.). He concluded the church can teach in and out of the assembly. One of Jenkins’ arguments that the church can teach out of the assembly was based on 1 Peter 5:2. He argued that if elders went as elders to teach a saint, that would be the church doing it. Cole denied this and affirmed it would only be the elders going personally and doing their teaching, and not the church teaching. Jenkins could not get Cole to answer what it would be when elders teach in the assembly.

Cole tried to parallel 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to show both are assembly passages, then argued every class we have is a church assembly and should be regulated by both these passages. He claimed it would be wrong for women to even speak in our classes. Jenkins argued 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an assembly passage and our assembly is like theirs relative to women. Jenkins then showed 1 Timothy 2:11-12 regulates women every place where there is a woman, man, and Bible study. Jenkins showed that if this passage applies only in the assembly, then it only teaches women to be modest (v. 9) in the assembly and men are to pray in every place (v. 8) in the assembly. Cole wanted to know how we classify those in our classes (age, sex, knowledge, etc.). He tried to show no way would be good but then admitted he wished classes were scriptural because he knows they do good. I’ve never heard one of them make this admission. Cole said God had specified the arrangement for teaching and had condemned classes and he would show it the last two nights in his affirmative. If he did this, we missed it. Cole argued our classes are like denominational classes but Jenkins showed similarity is not identity for a denominational local church may be like us in some ways. Our classes are not an organization like the denominational “Sunday School” but are the local church at work teaching the Bible.

Jenkins tried to get Cole to show Scripture for his practice of having certain things based upon generic authority such as the church owning a building, a radio program, a baptistry, etc. Cole would not do this. He observed the passover.

Cole did say once he would not try to find a church building in Hebrews 10:25. We still wonder where he does try to find it since he would not tell. Cole called our classes a “divided assembly” but when Jenkins showed the Eastside church in Denton (church of the proposition) has classes on Sunday AM and Wednesday PM, such classes met before the assembly of the church. Cole would not after that make his divided assembly argument. Cole asked Jenkins if we can have the Lord’s supper in the classes, but Jenkins showed no class is the assembly where the Lord’s supper is to be taken (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20).

Cole argued anywhere a woman can teach, she can eat, and wondered why we don’t have food in our classes. Jenkins got on their large social hall and asked if women can teach in it! Cole affirmed anywhere a woman can teach, she can teach a man, and said he knew of no restrictive passage applying to women in a general way. Jenkins showed 1 Corinthians 11:3 is such a passage and then discussed 1 Timothy 2:11-12 showing it regulates women in Bible study with men anywhere. Jenkins showed anything right for both the church and a woman to do, the church may use a woman in doing. He showed teaching women the Bible is one thing both can do (Tit. 2:3-4). Jenkins also showed the word for silence in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not an absolute silence but means a relative silence as it does elsewhere (2 Thess. 3:12; Acts 22:2), but the silence of l Corinthians 14:34-35 is an absolute silence. Cole is much looser with women than are we, believing a woman could be the teacher for a class of men at home. He tried to support it with Acts 18:26. Jenkins used 1 Timothy 2:11-12 on this situation also.

This was Cole’s first debate and perhaps (?) is the reason he did not follow Jenkins in so many points and questions he was asked. The veteran debater, Jenkins tried to answer all Cole said, and I believe he did a good job getting to it.

Debates do good. The people with Cole who furnished the building the first two nights were very gracious to us in every way. We like them. (The Main Street church which furnished the building the last two nights was gracious too!) We hope there can be more debates with them. Surely in time with enough effort unity can be arrived at. Jenkins made it plain that giving up our classes would not bring unity for we would still be divided in belief on this and other practices they have.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 12-13
March 4, 1993

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

Personalities in journalism, which means naming teachers of error along with systems of error, are not any violation of courageous, dignified religious journalism. Naming the men who teach error and practice deception in religion, even in the church, “can be done in a courteous and Christian manner” — but it should be done.

To talk and write of courageous, dignified, courteous methods of religious journalism is to deal only in broad generalities. For some of our old landmarks as gospel papers to recede from former drastic policies and retreat behind the verbiage of carefully worded resolutions of editorial committees to restrain the power of pens, is a keen disappointment to many of us who have looked to these papers to take the lead in a major fight, without generalities, relentless offensives against false movements and the men who promote them.

Whether some “temptation or scheme of intimidation” has “seduced” and “provoked” the editors and publishers to modify policies we cannot say, but it is obvious that something has caused them to seek retrenchment. Our only point here is that it is no time to be saying pretty platitudes and dealing in generalities. We are in a fight for the truth and the cannon fire cannot cease until the enemies of the church stack arms.

Calling names of false teachers and their aides and sympathizers is neither undignified nor discourteous, because Paul did it — and he was courteous, dignified and educated. He said: “Demas forsook me having loved this present world.” It was hard on Demas for Paul to say that publicly. He should have taken that up with Demas privately! Again he said that Hymenaeus and Phyletus had shipwrecked their faith and were overthrowing the faith of others by their theory of the resurrection and he wrote it down in the New Testament (a rather dignified book) that he had turned those brethren of his over to Satan. He clashed with Barnabas upon one occasion and withstood Peter to his face and rebuked him publicly. Neither incident ruined the church, nor marred the dignity of the New Testament. He further said that Alexander the coppersmith did him much evil and declared that the Lord would reward him for what he did. Paul did not seem to covet the kind of reward he intimated Alexander would get. He told a perverter of the truth one time that he was full of guile and villany, called him a son of the devil, and asked him if he ever intended to quit perverting the way of the Lord. When a paper develops better manners than the New Testament and a preacher becomes more dignified than the apostles, neither is worth anything to the defense of the truth nor to the cause of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 3
March 4, 1993