Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

Thus far in our series Engaging the Homosexual Movement we have looked at arguments/objections from nature and morality that are raised in favor of the normalization of the practice of homosexuality. The argument from nature might be phrased in terms of “This is just who I am” or, as we phrased it, “God made me this way.” We’ve learned that such an argument is fundamentally an appeal to the doctrine of creation, so we went back to Genesis 1 and 2 as well as other biblical texts and arrived at these answers:

1. From the perspective of humanity’s creation as male and female: It’s not true that God made anyone homosexual. In God’s finished good creation there was no homosexuality. Therefore, it must be a result of humanity’s fall into the estate of sin and misery. It is an unnatural and sinful perversion of what God made, including you.
2. From the perspective of the image of God and the one flesh union: It’s not true that God made anyone homosexual. The image of God in which humanity was created was expressed through the smaller husband and wife marriage community which was commanded to propagate a community of offspring. Homosexuality runs contrary to this expression. Therefore it must be part of the defacing of the image of God that occurred after the fall.
3. From the perspective of God’s intended end for his creation: If homosexuality runs contrary to this end, then it cannot be true that God made anyone homosexual. By appealing to Eph. 5 and Rev. 19 we see that homosexuality denies this end in at least three ways: (1) It denies the headship of Christ over his church, both in the sense of his deity and his covenantal authority, (2) It denies the one-body union of Christ with his church, and (3) Because of (1) and (2) it denies Jesus’ ability to save sinners unto the renewal of the expression of the image of God in being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth. 

The argument from morality might be phrased in terms of “Jesus never condemned it!” Last time we developed this answer to that argument: “No. Jesus did condemn it when he appealed to Gen. 2 in order to define God’s design for marriage and sexuality and when he spoke favorably of God’s destruction of Sodom. Besides these texts from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we should also receive the rest of the Bible as God’s authoritative word. In numerous other places the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as sin.”

In this lesson we’ll look at an objection from authority. This objection typically takes the form of Jesus’ teaching in his sermon on the mount. Matt. 7:1 and Luke 6:37 say in the KJV, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” This objection is essentially an appeal to authority. The basic idea is that no one has the right to judge anyone else’s behavior as good or bad. The reasons behind this objection vary. Some would say no one has the right to judge another because all people do bad things. This actually comes closest to what Jesus meant by “Judge not.” Others would say that no one has the right to judge another because such “religious” judgments are not based in fact but in personal, individual preferences. So what are we to make of such an objection?

We should begin with what Jesus actually meant by “Judge not.” Did he intend for this command to be taken in an absolute sense? In other words, did he mean to forbid all kinds of judging or a particular kind of judging? In John 7:24, Jesus teaches the crowd saying, “Judge not by appearances but judge with right judgment.” So in one passage he says, "Judge," and in another, "Judge not." What are we to make of this? If we believe that John’s gospel is just as authoritative as Matthew’s and Luke’s, we must conclude that Jesus’ command to “Judge not” cannot be meant in an absolute sense. Jesus must be forbidding a wrong kind of judgment. But what kind? Let’s look at Jesus’ teaching in context.

Luke 6:37-42: “‘Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.’ He also told them a parable: ‘Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,” when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.”

Jesus is forbidding an ungracious judgmental attitude that would cause one to hypocritically "look down his nose" at others. He is rejecting any spirit that would exalt itself as morally superior to another based on one’s own supposed righteousness. This was the spirit imbibed by Jesus’ chief antagonists, the Pharisees. This is the unrighteous judgment he is forbidding. The Apostle Paul rightly judges this same kind of judgment in Rom. 2:1 which says, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” Later he even uses the same illustration of spiritual blindness that Jesus uses in his sermon on the mount, writing in vv. 17-24, “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’”

If as Christians we ever hear the objection, “Judge not lest ye be judged,” we should first examine ourselves to make sure we are not approaching the subject in a self-righteous manner. To do so is to blaspheme God (i.e. the third commandment) by denying his law and gospel. It is a denial of the law in the sense that it requires one to exalt himself over the very law he purports to believe. If we are not judged and found guilty by the same law with which we judge, then we are not judging in a Christian manner. It is also a denial of the gospel. That person who judges in a self-righteous manner functionally rejects the need for the grace of God extended to him in Jesus Christ. Recently a popular politician was asked if he had ever asked God for forgiveness. He responded negatively, saying in effect that he had never done anything so bad that he felt he needed to be forgiven for it. That’s called self-righteousness. That’s what Jesus is forbidding in the sermon on the mount. Christian judgment must be filled with grace and rendered NOT for the purpose of condemnation but repentance and reconciliation with God. In other words, the only legitimate manner in which a Christian should ever pass such a judgment is gently with grace and love. And the only reason for passing such a judgment is to call a person to repentance and reconciliation with God.

So how should we respond to the person who objects to the Christian teaching that homosexuality is sinful by saying, “Judge not lest ye be judged”? We should say we agree with Jesus. Jesus did not mean to forbid all kinds of judging. He meant to forbid a particular kind of unrighteous judging, namely self-righteousness. We should explain that the same law by which we judge homosexuality as sinful condemns us as well. We are not the authority. God is the authority. His word is our only infallible rule for such judgments. And we should share the good news of forgiveness, the imputation of righteousness, and the transformation into a new creation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Never Condemned It!

Thus far in our series "Engaging the Homosexual Movement" we have looked at the argument from nature or identity. This argument might be phrased in terms of “This is just who I am” or, as we phrased it, “God made me this way.” We learned that such an argument is fundamentally an appeal to the doctrine of creation, so we went back to Genesis 1 and 2 as well as other biblical texts and arrived at these conclusions:

1. From the perspective of humanity’s creation as male and female we might answer: It’s not true that God made anyone homosexual. In God’s finished good creation there was no homosexuality. Therefore, it must be a result of humanity’s fall into the estate of sin and misery. It is an unnatural and sinful perversion of what God made, including you.
2. From the perspective of the image of God and the one flesh union we might answer: It’s not true that God made anyone homosexual. The image of God in which humanity was created was expressed through the smaller husband and wife marriage community which was commanded to propagate a community of offspring. Homosexuality runs contrary to this expression. Therefore it must be part of the defacing of the image of God that occurred after the fall.
3. From the perspective of God’s intended end for his creation we might answer: If homosexuality runs contrary to this end, then it cannot be true that God made anyone homosexual. By appealing to Eph. 5 and Rev. 19 we see that homosexuality denies this end in at least three ways: (1) It denies the headship of Christ over his church, both in the sense of his deity and his covenantal authority, (2) It denies the one-body union of Christ with his church, and (3) Because of (1) and (2) it denies Jesus’ ability to save sinners unto the renewal of the expression of the image of God in being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth.

In this lesson we will look at another common objection raised in favor of the normalization of homosexuality. It is an argument from morality, which is typically phrased as “Jesus never condemned it.” First, we’ll look at what Jesus said about human sexuality. Second, we’ll evaluate the legitimacy of those who might attempt to pick and choose which texts of Scripture they will accept as authoritative. Third, we’ll look at what the Scriptures have to say about homosexuality.

First, what did Jesus say about homosexuality? Only one of Jesus’ teachings deals with marriage and sexuality directly. This teaching is found in Matt. 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12. It is occasioned by a question. The Pharisees, in order to test Jesus, ask him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” In Matt. 19:4-6, he responds, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Mark 10:6-9 puts it like this: “From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Jesus appeals to the creation account in Genesis. God instituted marriage in the beginning. It is a creation ordinance and the only proper context for human sexuality (i.e. an aspect of the one flesh union). And who are the proper subjects of such activity? Jesus is clear. “God made them male and female.” One man and one woman may be joined together in the bonds of marriage, not one man and another man or one woman and another woman or any other possible combination. The subjects of the God-ordained institution of marriage and sexuality are one man and one woman. It is understood that any other arrangement is contrary to God’s design and law and, therefore, sin.

Jesus addresses homosexuality in an indirect way on three other occasions. On each of these occasions he references God’s destruction of Sodom favorably. Now, as we saw in our first lesson, when we compare Gen. 19:5, Ezek. 16:49-50, and Lev. 18:22 we come away understanding that the particular sin associated with Sodom was homosexuality. (This is where we get the term “sodomy.”) In Matt. 10:14-15 Jesus instructs his Apostles before sending them out, saying, “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” In Matt. 11:24 and Luke 10:12, Jesus pronounces woes upon cities that reject him, saying, “But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” In Luke 17:28-30 Jesus prophesies about his Second Coming, saying, “Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” In all of these examples Jesus speaks favorably of God’s judgment against Sodom and compares it to the final judgment.

So, even if we limit our testimony to the words Jesus spoke at his First Coming we have ample evidence that he viewed homosexuality as sinful. But why limit ourselves in this way? Isn’t all Scripture, including the passages we’ve read from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, equally authoritative. Isn’t every word of the 66 books of the Old and New testaments the inspired word of God? Yes. Jesus himself clearly believed all 39 books of the OT were the inspired and authoritative word of God. And the same Spirit that inspired those texts inspired the Apostles and their associates to write the 27 books of the NT. When we look at all those texts we find many clear statements about the sin of homosexuality.

We’ve already mentioned the sin of Sodom as well as Lev. 18:22, which was part of Israel’s civil law under the Mosaic covenant. Besides these, the seventh commandment (Ex. 20; Deut. 5) assumes that the only righteous context for human sexuality is marriage between one man and one woman. And when we fast forward to the NT we find the same teaching in Rom. 1:26-27, which describes human depravity saying, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” 1 Cor. 6:9 also says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.” And Jude 7 says, “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Finally, 1 Tim. 1:8-10a says, “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality.” The biblical evidence for the sinfulness of homosexuality is clear and undeniable. One might claim otherwise, but he cannot have the Bible as his authority and claim otherwise.

Therefore, our answer to the objection “Jesus never condemned it” is, “No. Jesus did condemn it when he appealed to Gen. 2 in order to define God’s design for marriage and sexuality and when he spoke favorably of God’s destruction of Sodom. Besides these texts from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we should also receive the rest of the Bible as God’s authoritative word. In numerous other places the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as sin.”

Now it should be noted, as we'll see in the next few weeks, that this isn’t where our answer ultimately ends. There is hope for those who struggle with same-sex attraction in the gospel of Jesus Christ. As we’ve seen in 1 Cor. 6:9, God clearly condemns homosexuality, saying that those who practice it “will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” However, in v. 11 he continues, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Sola Scriptura and Epistemological Religious Certainty

Recently I was asked by a Roman Catholic friend how I could escape Liberal and Unitarian arguments with sola Scriptura? I thought that was an excellent question! Here is my answer:

Both Liberalism and Unitarianism deny sola Scriptura by denying the sufficiency of Scripture, which is essential to a proper understanding of sola Scriptura. In other words, we may place both aberrations on the poles of a continuum defined by Scriptural sufficiency.

On one end is the denial of Scriptural sufficiency due to the denial that Scripture is our only infallible rule in matters of faith and practice (i.e. Liberalism). In this theory other authorities are accepted as infallible. In other words, Scriptural authority is supplemented with something else.

On the other end is a denial of Scriptural sufficiency due to the denial that Scripture was/is sufficient as our only infallible rule in matters of faith and practice in the same way over time (i.e. Unitarianism). In other words, the sufficiency of Scripture is denied for past generations of interpreters, completely undermining the authority of tradition (unless of course they were Unitarian!). This is sometimes referred to as solo Scriptura as opposed to sola Scriptura.

Of course there will always be difficulties with respect to the unity of the church. The question is not whether sinners will have difficulty confessing and living according to the truth of God's self-revelation. That is a given. Roman Catholics and Reformed catholics just resolve that tension differently.

Roman Catholicism posits epistemological religious certainty in an essentially perspicuous and self-authenticating Apostolic office (i.e. the Roman see). Reformed catholicism posits epistemological religious certainty in an essentially perspicuous and self-authenticating Apostolic teaching (i.e. the completed canon of Scripture).

Either way, at the end of the day Roman Catholics and Reformed catholics are trusting in someone else. We are slaves in need of a good master.

Roman Catholics have found that master in the Apostolic office, which they trust continues to the end of the age. Reformed catholics, on the other hand, have found that master in the God-breathed Apostolic teaching, the foundation of the church completed during the time of the Apostles (Matt. 16:18; 18:18; Eph. 2:20; Jude 3).