Mat 7:1-2 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.
Mat 7:3-5 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.
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
These passages don’t seem too controversial in isolation, and they do impart a degree of wisdom, but when you butt the first two against the third, it presents a problem.
Isn’t determining who the dogs and the swine are a matter of judgment? He seems to be opening the door for judgment a bit with the beam and mote analogy, but still, he said “judge not”. And even if you do judge someone to be swine, how does that justify not attempting to offer them Truth.
BTW, I believe these are almost certainly Jesus’ words or paraphrase, not Paul’s.
The first question that comes to mind for me is the nature of judging. Is the judging that we should not do according to Jesus merely the forming and holding of an opinion about someone in our mind, or is it some external activity? Here’s what my Orthodox Study Bible says about Matthew 7:6
“Dogs and swine refer to heathen peoples, but would also include Jews who do not practice virtue. According to the Fathers, dogs are those so immersed in evil taht they show no hope of change, while swine are those who habitually live immoral and impure lives. The pearls are he mysteries of the Christian faith, including Christ’s teachings and the great sacraments. These holy things are restricted from the immoral and unrepentant, not to protect the holy things themselves, for Christ needs no protection. Rather, we protect the faithless people from the condemnation that would result from holding God’s mysteries in contempt.”
There’s a couple biblical citations there that I left out.
Whoa. That’s something I hadn’t thought of, and there may be something to it. I guess my only real problem is why Jesus/(Matthew?) didn’t just say that in the first place instead of something just for insiders.
Here is the commentary on Matthew 7:1-2, from the New American Bible:
This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Matthew 7:5, 6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.
And the note on Matthew 7:6:
Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for Gentiles. This saying may originally have derived from a Jewish Christian community opposed to preaching the gospel (what is holy, pearls) to Gentiles. In the light of Matthew 28:19 that can hardly be Matthew’s meaning. He may have taken the saying as applying to a Christian dealing with an obstinately impenitent fellow Christian (Matthew 18:17).
I think that Uccisore’s explanation fits better. Jesus almost certainly viewed his philosophy as a mystery religion: Mar 4:11-- And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
The early Jewish Church didn’t object outright to preaching to Gentiles, only to accepting them as part of Judaism as Gentiles, while uncircumcised and not adhering to at least the basic Noahide code.
Also, I disagree that Jesus would think in terms of things as applying to Christians. He was a Jew. Beyond that, preaching the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is an undeniable reference to the trinity at the end of Matthew and could only be a later redaction; the concept of the trinity being one that was devised centuries later in an effort to reconcile Jesus’ assumed divinity with the belief in One God. For a Jew, thinking in such terms would have been (and still is) blasphemy. The Jewish defining statement of faith is, “The Lord our God, the Lord is One.”
You don’t know what I’ve considered, and it appears all you care to do is throw mud.
The Bible is a book that contains some Truth and a lot of lies from many sources, rife with partisan editing, and thrown together forming a lot of contradictions. But it is possible, through archeology, study and scholarship, to separate the Truth from fiction which so far has only shown the Bible to be what I described, and ultimately, the Truth will open the minds of some and set them free from the tyranny of its sacrosanct position as the “revealed Holy Word of God”. Dismissing the Bible out-of-hand only draws attention to the weaknesses of your own dogma.
Just because most do that, doesn’t mean that all do.
I guess all I’d add in reference to Satyr’s point is that the interpretation I described is probably at least 14 or 15 centuries old. The Orthodox Church is not the sort to reinterpret a passage because of modern (past 500 years) sensibilities.
And that’s why the Orthodox Church is more backwards than the western ones.
Nevertheless apologists are those who offer reinterpretations for passages whose previous interpretatinos conflict with modern scientific insights.
The Chruch started losing power when men became more educated and information became more available, via the printing press.
It’s foothold amongst the miserable and the ignorant became more tenuous.
No. That is a wrong interpretation.
He is not saying “Judge not.” but rather he is saying “Judge not or else…” You are free to accept the “or else” if you want. He is just clarifying the consequences of your actions and the mode in which your actions will be judged upon you.