No Condemnation

One side is always saying, "No judging!" Unfortunately, they say it as judges. But in logic you must disregard the person saying it and analyze the argument if you're going to be reasonable and rational. So, sure, they're judgmental in their nonjudgmentalism, but is the argument correct? Should we not be judging? Is ours supposed to be a life of "no condemnation"?

The argument stems from Jesus, so we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. He said, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" (Matt 7:1). What did He mean? Clearly He didn't mean "Don't evaluate sin" because He went on to describe how to do that properly (Matt 7:2-5) and then to practice it Himself (Matt 7:15-23). So what did He mean? He meant, "Judge the way you should be judged" (Matt 7:2). He meant, "Judge yourself first" (Matt 7:3-5). He meant to be slow to judge and careful and self-reflective. He meant to work first on yourself -- practice the holiness you expect in others.

"Oh, you're just dodging the issue," some will tell me (I note, in a very judgmental way). "Didn't Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery, 'Neither do I condemn you'?" Why, yes ... yes He did. Ignoring the fact that the text (John 8:1-11) is of questionable origin and, therefore, veracity, we should look at what actually occurred. Jesus was confronted by scribes and Pharisees who "brought a woman caught in adultery" (John 8:3). Caught in the very act (John 8:4). (Now, given the law that a man and a woman caught in adultery must both be stoned to death (Lev 20:10), I'm wondering. If it was "in the very act," where was the man? So I ask, "Was it really 'in the very act' or were the accusers lying?") They asked Him to okay stoning her to death. He said, "He who is without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Clearly, then, the principle is, "If you are not sinless, you cannot condemn." (Or, in modern parlance, "If sin fits, you must acquit.") Or is it so clear? Jesus did go on, after noting that the accusers all left, to say, "Neither do I condemn you" (John 8:11), but that's not the end of what He said. He finished the thought: "Go and sin no more." Now, if there was no sin, how was "no more" a reasonable thing to say? If He wasn't condemning sin, why tell her to sin "no more"? This isn't a blanket principle and it isn't what He intended.

Are we supposed to tell everyone, "There is therefore now no condemnation at all"? No. Not based on the rest of Jesus's teaching, who taught more about Hell than Heaven. Not based on Jesus's diatribe against the Pharisees (Matt 23:12-36). Not based on the rest of Scripture where we read, for instance, about the man in Corinth who was delivered over to Satan for his sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). Not based on the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Not based on the command to restore a believer caught in sin (Gal 6:1). And on and on.

The upshot, then, is this. When Jesus said, "Do not judge," what He meant was "Don't judge with hypocrisy. Don't judge others for things of which you yourself are guilty." So when someone judges you for being judgmental, they are practicing the very thing Jesus condemned. Self-righteous judgment is wrong (e.g., Luke 18:9-14). Unforgiving judgment is wrong (Matt 7:2). Hypocritical judgment is wrong (Rom 2:1). And, lest we miss it, we do do that from time to time -- far more often than we ought. But don't be suckered into thinking that we don't have the obligation to rightly, truthfully, lovingly, and self-reflectively recognize sin when we see it and seek the best for those in it to restore them or seek their repentance. The biblical message is not, "There is now no condemnation for all." To teach that is to hate the truth and refuse to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:1-2). "No, you go right ahead and step into that pit of rattlesnakes. They won't hurt you. Enjoy!"