reason.cck.org.uk

“Judge not, lest ye be judged”

What a beautiful refrain

The studio audience disagrees

Have his lambs all gone astray?

(REM, New Test Leper)

As the above song lyrics illustrate, Matthew 7:1 is a verse which resonates in our culture and is familiar to people outside the Christian church. But what does it mean? Does it, as Leo Tolstoy suggested, mean that law courts should be abolished? Does it forbid criticism or negative evaluation of another person’s beliefs or lifestyle? How should those who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ seek to apply this message to their own lives?

The immediate context: Remove the log from your own eye

One unfortunate side-effect of the division of the New Testament into numbered verses in 1551 was that it became easier to isolate individual sentences and phrases from their wider context. I would argue that the “do not judge” of verse 1 should be interpreted in the light of the rest of the passage, especially verses 3-5 in which Jesus criticises those who seek to correct the minor faults of others (“the speck in your brother’s eye”) while remaining oblivious to their own glaring errors (“the log in your own eye”). Jesus denounces this selective criticism as hypocrisy, and argues that the critic should deal with his/her own issues before criticising someone else, so that s/he does not judge by appearances only but with “right judgement” (cf. John 7:24). However, the passage also indicates that the critic who has dealt with the log in his/her own will be able to see clearly (literally: ‘see through’ Greek: diablepeis) in order to help someone else who is offending.

Clues as to what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:1 can be found elsewhere in the gospels. In John 7:24, Jesus tells the crowd not to “judge by appearances but to judge with right judgement.”  Outward appearance does not necessarily conform to reality and any judgment of others which doesn’t take account of this is condemned. In Luke 11:39-52, Jesus opposes the Pharisees and experts in the law (which in itself implies that “do not judge” doesn’t mean, “never criticise anyone else”), saying of these religious leaders that they “load people with burdens hard to bear” but will not themselves lift even a finger to help. In the same way, it could be argued, the type of judgement which Jesus condemns in Matthew 7:1 is that, which seeks to put other people down and assert one’s own perceived moral superiority over them, rather than that which genuinely seeks to help them and others harmed by their actions.

The wider context: Church discipline

It is this concern for the offender, and for those harmed by his/her actions, which lies at the root of the procedure outlined in Scripture for church discipline. It is noteworthy that it is Matthew’s gospel which contains Jesus’ explanation of the procedure to be used by his followers in dealing with those who sin (Matthew 18:15-18), and this lends further support to the idea that it is hypocrisy and the desire to assert one’s perceived superiority to others which is condemned in Matthew 7:1, not the identification of people’s actions as sinful in itself. Of course, Scripture plainly tells us that we have all sinned and have fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23) and our attitudes toward others should reflect this.

The apostle Paul also has an interesting comment to make about how Christians should behave towards the wider community. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, he argues that the church should judge its own members. (indeed, he himself passes judgement on a serious offender in 5:5) but appears to deny himself the right to judge “outsiders”. This doesn’t mean, of course, that criticism of the wider culture is forbidden, but would imply that Christians should not spend their time railing against the wickedness of the world, but rather in working to establish an alternative society of righteousness and love, which will be a testimony to others.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would argue that, looking both at the passage itself and the wider context of the New Testament, that Jesus’ command not to judge in Matthew 7:1 is to be interpreted as a condemnation of hypocrisy and self-righteousness pride rather than a blanket rejection of bringing criticism or rebuke to others. Having said this, any such reproof should be done in love and in a context of accountability with the aim of restoring the offender to loving God and others, and of protecting others from harm (cf. Galatians 6:1). In all of this, it should be remembered that the mission of the Church is the advance of the gospel of Christ, who did not come into the world “to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17)

Further reading

John Stott, (1978) “The message of the Sermon on the Mount” (originally published as “The Christian counter-culture”), Inter-Varsity Press, pp 175-180

Originally there was only one Church, founded by the apostles. This was, from time to time, challenged by various groups who claimed to represent ‘true’ Christianity, but which rejected key teachings of the faith, an issue which I hope to touch on below. In 1054 A.D. the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) churches due to divisions over the precise relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other persons of the Trinity (the Filioque controversy) and the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome. The Western church was further split into Roman Catholics and Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and splits along denominational lines (especially among Protestants) have continued ever since. It could be argued that this disunity is a barrier to the credibility of the Christian message.

Not all disagreements are of equal importance

However, it should be noted that not all disagreements between different denominations are of equal importance. Many simply reflect different cultural practices or historical traditions rather than the core teachings of the faith. There are some doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which are essential (see 1 Corinthians 15:17). Others, such as whether Christ will reign for a thousand years on the earth (or whether the church age is that reign), while by no means trivial, do not have that central status.

Creeds and confessions

Historically, the Church has identified its core teachings in various statements of belief, called creeds (from the Latin credo, I believe), mostly written in order to defend particular important beliefs which were being controverted by opponents. The main creedal statements (all written prior to the East-West schism) are the Apostles Creed (which developed from the confession of faith recited by new converts at their baptism in the early Church), the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed – more commonly known as the Nicene Creed – (381 A.D.), the Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Quicumque Vult, more commonly known as the Athanasian Creed, which dates from the 5th century A.D.  The teaching of these documents forms the core of what C. S. Lewis termed ‘mere Christianity’ which all Christians who hold to the historic faith would maintain.

The later confessions of various denominations, written after the divisions described above, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the Confession of Augsburg, the Westminster Confession, and so on, all reflect, along with their own denominational emphases, the core teachings of the early Church, as summarised in the creeds. Even in areas of dispute, such as the manner and meaning of the sacraments/ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is a core of agreement which most churches would accept.

Within evangelical churches, in particular, there is a further emphasis on the central message of the gospel, the need of sinful human beings for forgiveness and freedom from the power and penalty of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sinners, and the free gift of salvation offered to all who repent (i.e. change their mind and turn away) from sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ. Given the centrality of the gospel, it is worth noting the Joint Statement on Justification issued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in 1999, which underlines the point that here also, as in other areas, there is a core of agreement across denominational lines.

Faith and morals

In addition to doctrinal unity on the more important teachings of the Christian faith, there is also a great deal of agreement on the moral implications of the Christian faith, both in terms of what it means for our individual lives (e.g. sexual morals, spiritual disciplines) as well as our social morality (e.g. the relief of poverty, social justice). Although we are not saved by doing good works (this is not taught by Scripture, and, as Catholic writer Peter Kreeft noted in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, who wants to be loved as someone else’s “good deed for the day” anyway?), the New Testament consistently teaches that genuine faith results in a changed life. It is only “faith working through love” which saves us (Galatians 5:6) and not mere assent to doctrinal statements. As a result of this underlying unity, it is often possible for Christian churches of different denominations to work together on issues.

Holding on to the faith

Of course, there is a temptation, particularly in the individualistic West, to underemphasize unpopular teachings, or beliefs which might open people up to ridicule, such as those relating to the final judgment, or eternal life in a renewed creation. While it is understandable for people to not want to give needless offence, not all differences of belief and practice are trivial, and there comes a point at which the message can be stripped of its historic content to such a degree that it is no longer “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Unity in relationship with Christ

Finally, it is worth noting that the very heart of the unity of Christendom can be found in our common love and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. One of the main reasons behind the creedal statements on the person and work of Christ is the conviction that the Jesus Christ of the Bible saves people from sin and hell, whereas false christs do not. All Christians, across denominational boundaries, believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live their lives for him.

Further reading

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, contains the texts of the major creeds in the original languages with notes and English translations. Some links are included below:

•         The Apostles’ Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.i.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Greek)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Latin) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.ii.html)

•         The Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html)

The Joint Declaration on Justification can be found on the Vatican website, at the link below:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Introduction

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not merely a human teacher. This central idea has long been challenged by opponents of Christianity, and opposition has again, in recent years, come to prominence with the appearance of books such as The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Jesus was a man

Of course, at the very outset of this discussion, it is worth remembering that Christians also believe that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood man. There were some early teachers (such as the “Docetists” and “Gnostics”) who denied this, arguing instead that Jesus merely appeared to be human (see, for example, section 93 of the Acts of John). It is curious to see such documents being referred to as evidence of early Christian belief in a merely human Jesus (see, for example, pages 231 and 234 of The Da Vinci Code), when this is something that their authors denied.

The Council of Nicaea of 325 A.D.

At the core of the dispute, however, is the idea that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. voted to make Jesus divine, when, previously, Christians had accepted him as a human teacher. This interpretation of history is largely supported by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and is a key aspect of the storyline of The Da Vinci Code.

The Council of Nicaea consisted of about three hundred bishops (tradition places the number at 318), and was convened by the emperor Constantine the Great in order to end the divisive disputes in the church, which arose from the teaching of Arius. It is interesting to note that only twelve years earlier, the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine the Great and his eastern counterpart Licinius Augustus, had granted toleration to Christians after centuries of persecution. Many of those who attended the Council of Nicaea had experienced persecution directly during the reigns of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, and it seems unlikely, having withstood such opposition in the past, that these church leaders would have been easily persuaded to abandon their belief for reasons of political expediency.

The teachings of Arius and the decision of the Council

Before looking at the decision of the Council, it is worth noting that Arius did not actually deny that Christ was, in some sense, divine. It was the nature of his divinity that was in dispute at Nicaea. Is Jesus eternally divine, or is he a lesser, created divinity? All of which is very far from the idea that a human teacher called Jesus was made God by a vote.

The debate centred on whether Christ was of the “same essence” (Greek: homoousious) as the Father, or whether Christ was merely of a “similar essence” (Greek: homoiousios) to the Father, as argued by the Arians. The majority of members of the council were not prepared to compromise on their beliefs, even by a single letter, and overwhelmingly accepted the final text of the Creed of Nicaea (not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed).  Although the character Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code speaks of “a relatively close vote” (page 233ff), there were only two bishops, Thomas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, who refused to accept the creed.

Earlier testimony to the divinity of Christ

In addition to the Creed of Nicaea, there is earlier testimony to the idea that Jesus was considered divine from among second century Christian writers. These include, among others, Irenaeus of Lyon (born early second century A.D.) who, commenting on John 1:1-2, noted that, “That, which is begotten of God, is God” (Adversus Haereses, I.8.5) and Justin Martyr (born circa 100 A.D.), who argued that, “The Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” (First Apology, chapter 63).

There are also hostile witnesses, including the second century pagan author, Lucian of Samosata (born circa 120 A.D.) who wrote about a cynic philosopher (and temporary Christian convert) called Peregrinus, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine … next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (The Passing of Peregrinus, section 11). Other pagan authors, such as Hiercoles and Celsus, also mocked the idea of Jesus being worshipped, and it is hard to understand why they would have done so if he had only been made divine by a vote in the 4th century.

Furthermore, while there is not space in this article to consider this point in any detail, the considerable testimony of the New Testament itself to the divinity of Christ should also be borne in mind (see, for example, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13 etc.). In this context, it is worth remembering that there are many early manuscript copies of the New Testament, or portions of it, including manuscripts which pre-date the Council of Nicaea.

Conclusion

I would argue therefore, that there is clear historical evidence to show that belief in Jesus as both fully human and fully divine is very far from being a 4th century invention, decided by the vote of a council. Rather, the followers of Jesus, from the very beginning, have acknowledged him to be, what he claimed to be, the eternal Word of God come in the flesh.

Suggested further reading:

J. Ed. Komoszewski et al., “Re-inventing Jesus”, especially chapters 14 – 15.

Carl E. Olson et al., “The Da Vinci Hoax”, especially chapter 4.