Thou Shalt Not Judge...Swine?

I heard a really great teaching today from the Beatitudes on the oft quoted "thou shalt not judge lest ye be judged" scripture, a favorite scripture taken out of context and out of balance by liberal theologians, who, in the name of love, dispel with any kind of truth in order to be nice.  Reacting to the abuse of truth (without love), they often go to the opposite extreme, practicing love without truth - an equal error.

Matthew 7:1-7

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 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? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

What is Jesus talking about here?  He's saying that even after you have taken the beam out of your own eye, you may want to NOT speak to certain people about spiritual matters because in a spiritual sense, they are pigs and dogs.  How can He say such a thing right after "judge not"?  Because that's only one side of the truth here - and taking one side of a profound truth is always heretical.  Here's what John Wesley said about the above passage.

Yet even then, when the beam is cast out of thine own eye, Give not - That is, talk not of the deep things of God to those whom you know to be wallowing in sin. neither declare the great things God hath done for your soul to the profane, furious, persecuting wretches. Talk not of perfection, for instance, to the former; not of your experience to the latter. But our Lord does in nowise forbid us to reprove, as occasion is, both the one and the other.

Here's Albert Barnes' commentary:

Dogs signify men who spurn, oppose, and abuse that doctrine; men of peculiar sourness and malignity of temper, who meet it like growling and quarrelsome curs, 2Pe 2:22 Re 22:15. Swine denote those who would trample the precepts under feet; men of impurity of life; corrupt, polluted, profane, obscene, and sensual; who would not know the value of the gospel, and who would tread it down as swine would pearls, 2Pe 2:22 Pr 11:22. The meaning of this proverb then is, do not offer your doctrine to those violent and abusive men, who would growl and curse you; nor to those peculiarly debased and profligate, who would not perceive its value, would trample it down, and abuse you.

And John Calvin:

Christ appears to distinguish between the swine and the dogs: attributing brutal stupidity to the swine, and rage to the dogs And certainly, experience shows, that there are two such classes of despisers of God. Whatever is taught in Scripture, for instance, about the corrupt nature of man, free justification, and eternal election, is turned by many into an encouragement to sloth and to carnal indulgence. Such persons are fitly and justly pronounced to be swine Others, again, tear the pure doctrine, and its ministers, with sacrilegious reproaches, as if they threw away all desire to do well, all fear of God, and all care for their salvation.

Comments

[Louis]

Yep, "swine" and "dogs." Once again, xianity has shown its close kinship with the gentle tactics of islam. The humanity of those who disagree with you, who dare to express that disagreement, and who value individual liberty and freedom from the dumbing down tactics of your authoritarianism, is thus attacked and denigrated. And, once again, from the very mouth of its founder, xianity is revealed as an anti-human ideology. "Pigs" and "dogs," are its epithets for human beings - Jesus's words, the great so-called lover of mankind and savior. "If you don't agree with me, you're inhuman and bound for eternal torture." When read closely, xianity reveals its dark secret.

[Sam]

Seeker,

You love your Bible quotes. So what do you make of the scholars who argue that today's Bible bears little resemblance to the actual text? Scholars who argue that the mistranslations of 2000 years has left you with a book that could hardly be described as God's word?

For instance:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/sr=8-2/qid=1142831828/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8298181-6964917?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[seeker]

Ehrman is on my list to read. But the voracity of the scriptures is a different subject. My assumption here is that we are arguing about what the scriptures, and the reported words of Jesus, actually do say, rather than taking them out of context or in isolation, as many feel-good practitioners of faith like to do. Now, many fundies may want to ignore the nicer scriptures, including the implications of "do not judge", but both take them out of balance. That's the point of this post.

I am not one to hide from the Bible's, or Jesus' less than popular sayings. Truth doesn't always feel good, and Jesus often said things just to drive the disingenuous *away*. He purposely offends our religious AND humanistic tendencies to reveal our true lack of spirituality and faith. That's why he says things like "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part in me" and "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

When the disciples began to grumble about his "eat my flesh" comment, the bible reports (John 6):

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Do Jesus' words offend you? What if you saw Jesus at the right hand of power, waiting to judge the world? Waiting to separate the sheep from the goats, the "pigs and dogs" from those who believe?

While some may use Jesus' more offensive words to judge others and enjoy demeaning or dehumanizing them, those who understand their own sinfulness without Him merely use these words to discern what to do with themselves, and how be careful with those who are belligerent to the faith. But perhaps such pearls are wasted on some. If the hoof fits...

[seeker]

One more thing. How come people are OK with Jesus' castigation of the Pharisees, but not his castigation of those who reject his message? How is it that we are happy with his criticism of those who are unlike us, but feel that his criticisms of those like us are somehow judgemental? Easy. Human hypocrisy. We don't like the finger of truth pointing at us, and we sure don't like it when Jesus is less than "meek and mild."

[Sam]

Seeker,

I neither know nor particularly care about Pharisees. My issue with the Levitical laws is plain I think - I don't think it's fair that you pick and choose what you care about in the book.

But the bigger issue, and certainly what Ehrman's arguing, is that what is in today's Bible simply wasn't there 2000 years ago. Because of the numerous translations (and additons, and subtractions), there is no point believing that today's Bible actually resembles anything close to what once was. So how is this dealt with? Is this history just ignored?

[seeker]

Again, I'll have to read Erhman's claims before I answer. The point of this post, however, is not whether or not the scriptures accurately reflect Jesus' teaching, but the fact that Jesus' teaching scolds not only religious hypocrites, but humanistic ones as well, who fail to recognize sin, or the truth of Jesus' message of coming judgment and salvation.

[Aaron]

I will be posting shortly on the reliability of the NT. Tonight I am going to hear Dr. Norman Geisler speak about the historical reliability of the NT. I will post on that tomorrow. I have also been planning a big post on that topic, aside from Dr. Geisler's talk tonight, using several books and research I have done.

I want to read Ehrman's book, too. I find his life story ... interesting. Every scholar that I have ever read, who studied the historicity of the NT has come away even more convinced of their faith. The historical accuracy of the Gospels have caused many people to become a Christian.

[Louis]

The whole point is whether you can swallow this crap or not. And, it's shown up as a cult: if you don't belief in the great leader you are an outsider, less than human, and thus disposable. You have to believe patent absurdities and shut down your reasoning faculty altogether. Who did this guy think he was anyway? Oh wait...he thought he was God!! Thus, he can castigate and threaten and throw hate as much as he likes; and, more importantly, his followers can do the same! Praise God!

And, to top it off, if someone can't just swallow this nonsense whole, it means that God DOESN'T WANT HIM TO. God "enables" him to believe, ergo, if he doesn't believe that means that God doesn't want him to and is responsible for his damnation. STUPID. EVIL. HATEFUL. DUMB.

Thanks, you guys, for freeing me from this stuff. The obvious stupidity and irrationality and cruelty of it aren't immediately apparent. Only true xians can shed light on it.

The only true "faith" is in human reason: be skeptical, question authority, refuse to accept dogma, refuse to be intimidated, follow the flickering candle of truth. The unexamined life is not worth living. If your God is truly God, he will approve and reward; if not, screw him.