Toothless Lizards Full of Madness
Honzo April 16th, 2008
We, as Christians, are among the world’s best at sweeping, dismissive judgments. All one needs to do is subscribe to the Worldview Weekend newsletter to see that. This is not a new trend, however, as evidenced by the following quote by Epiphanius:
Passing this judgment [on them is like passing judgment] on a toothless lizard full of madness, I will go on to the next things, beloved, calling upon God to help our inadequacy and to enable us to fulfill our promise [i.e. to write this book] (Medicine Box, 49)
As dismissive judgments go, likening your opponent to a “toothless lizard full of madness” is pretty sweet. In this case the lizards in need of dentures were the Quintillians and they were dismissed because of their allowance of women as clergy and prophetesses.
I keep wondering how Luke 6:37 fits into all of this, if not in the 4th century, then in the current postmodern context in which we find ourselves.
Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven.
Here’s the rub: how can I actually not judge and still maintain myself?
I consider myself to be a collection of definitions. I am 6′1” tall. I like basketball; I hate baseball. I follow Christ. I determine that which I am. Well, the things that I can choose - I can’t choose to be a white male, for instance. I determine this by means of judgment. I judge for myself that baseball is three minutes of action crammed into three hours. I determine that math is a good way to use numbers. I determine that there is nothing sweeter than a drop step or a juke+spin+hook-shot in basketball. How am I not to judge, which is a command from the One that I follow when judgments necessarily make up an individual? In other places in the Bible, we are commanded to test the spirits, to determine what is right. How do we reconcile this?
As best as I can understand it, there is a distinguishment between moral and factual judgments. We are to make so-called factual judgments about matters and hold them over and above the judgments of others. On the other hand, we are to refrain from making moral judgments about people and their positions.
While this seems almost self-explanatory, I know I often need reminding of this. Just look through the archives of masstheology.com, hundiejo.com, or brendoman.com as evidence of this.
What do you do with Luke 6:37?
- Church Fathers , Unity , Women in Christianity
- Comments(14)
i don’t know if you can really seperate “moral” and “factual” judgments, because the act of judging something’s (or someone’s) ”fact”-ness is tied up in moral action. If I am making a “factual” judgment on someone’s worldview, I’m making profoundly (a)moral decisions. So-called “factual judgments” can be very violent. How does one even determine the difference between moral and factual judgment? I imagine Epiphanius would think himself to be making judgments of fact about women in ministry. Can we really draw such a line?
I’m a bit worried by statements like this: “We are to make so-called factual judgments about matters and hold them over and above the judgments of others.” Haven’t you just created a hierarchy were we are the bearers of ”fact” which we lord over others? We are the sole owners of truth, and we use that ownership to leverage ourselves into a higher position than the “other”. Aren’t there distinctly moral ramifications of such a rhetoric?
Sorry, I’m probably coming off as a bit alarmist around these parts lately. I just think there has to be a better way…I haven’t figured it out yet, but hopefully we can work toward something here.
Alright…back to my paper.
Too many times I think this exact text is used by an individual to tell others to not confront him/her about his/her sin. I can remember a specific incident at SBU where one student in the Redford School of Theology (the Bible college of SBU) told a friend of mine not to judge him for his sin. He knew that what he was doing was in violation of the agreement he made with the school and was being called out on it. He then cited this text from Luke 6 to my friend. I think too many times this is how this text is used by both Christians and non-Christians.
Rather, this text tells us not to condemn but to forgive. It assumes that we have made a judgment that something has been done that needs forgiveness or can be condemned. It does not say that we are not to confront sin, but to seek reconciliation and restoration and repentance from the sinner and to forgive him/her.
Some here might say, “Duh, dude.” But I think this needed to be said about this text and another that is used in the same way, Matthew 7:1-5. We must take the log out of our own eye so that we can clearly see the speck in our brother/sister’s eye and remove it.
Henry,
I think there are a couple of issues that we need to draw out and discuss before we place this text in our box of “we know it already.”
1. We are supposed to judge certain people. I hold my brothers in christ to a higher standard of living then the non-xian joe. This text is focusing on our relationship with outsiders. I will not judge a flaming non-xian homo who also does drugs and shoots other gangsters. But I will judge “hold” my brother in christ up and tell him that he should not be like this. Many other text get at the heart of the issue of holding brothers in christ to a higher standard of living. (Hank might be hitting at this point in his comment).
2. I think I understand your Factual and Moral arguements, but I think you should flip-flop your conclusion. Factual (as you defined it) conclusions are truly arguments that need never to hold above others. Following your examples…basketball vs. baseball or jump shot vs. alley-oop. Why would you hold these tings over others? Does the jump shot or alley-opp really make a difference. Is one truly better than the other?
But I do hold the moral judgment to everyone (including xian and non). I know that sex before marriage is something that God does not want for me. I know that murder is wrong. These are moral issues (or they not?). I have to hold these issues up and judge for myself am I going to follow or not. I have to hold these issues up to others and express my satisfaction for or against these things. Now doing so…in needs to be done in love and we need to use the model “love the sinner and hate the sin.” These are additional issues to think about (remember point 1).
Cheapham,
You bring up issues that need to be navigated in this debate (how to deal with opposing systems of thought). Who does not necessarily create personal hierarchies any time they think about anything? Must any stance on a difference be a lordship over another? I really think there is an error of degree here. We are in a contest of wills at every point in time - to think is to enter into this contest. What is the alternative? Do we render everything opinion, which is only a weak way of saying truth? Do we give in and accept the other’s view? This is only allowing the “lordship” of another to lord over all the other Others’ views and thoughts about Truth. Same thing is happening, just different actors.
I like a view where we all contend and argue for interpretations and hold that our is the best one, however, we withhold moral judgment (character, salvation, etc?) and leave it to God.
Hank, How much are we called to directly call out sin in non-Christian’s lives? In our community is one thing, but I think those outside our community is another.
Also, I just wanna note that the above was the result of some wanderings as I am doing some reading and not a well thought out exposition of points, so please forgive the hasty use of terms, etc.
(I have been trying to write this comment for some time and I keep getting inturupted with things like teaching sections and going to seminars and reading for those seminars, so if I am not coherent, that is why)
First, I should have qualified my statement on Matthew 7 because that text is definitely spoken within the context of those who are part of the Kingdom of Heaven/God.
If I cannot call a non-Christian a sinner and demonstrate to him/her that he/she is in fact in open rebellion against a loving and just God (cf. Romans 5:6-10) who has revealed his wrath against unrighteous sinners (cf Romans 1:18), then why do I need to call them to Christ to be justly reconciled to that God and his love through faith in Christ by God’s grace? Our mandate to preach the gospel and to call all men to repentance is at stake here. Christ’s death is not merely an example that we must follow (although we must have the same attitude as Christ who went to the cross in obedience to the Father) but it atones for sin. If we leave the atonement part out of the cross, we do not preach the full gospel as identified in 1 Corinthians 15. We loose all that the author of Hebrews teaches in Hebrews 7-10 if we don’t, not to mention Romans 1:18-3:20 and Galatians 3:10-14. It must and can be done lovingly but it must be done. For the Gospel’s sake, I must tell the world around me of their sinfulness and sins against a holy God so that the full glory of Christ is shown to them, that they see and savor Jesus for all that he claims to be.
(Please do not think I am just throwing texts out there, I am not. I am currently in the process of dialogging with some Mormon Missionaries and I have to back up everything I say to them with Scripture or they look at me funny and dismiss any argument I try to make.)
If we leave the atonement part out of the cross, we do not preach the full gospel as identified in 1 Corinthians 15
Then what of Luke, who specifically avoids “atonement theology” at all turns in his gospel? Is it not possible to have variable understandings of what the “gospel” means?…of what it means to be “Christian”?
Then I must ask, what did Jude mean in Jude 1:3 when he speaks of “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (NET)? Does Jude allow for variations to the one faith? Does Paul allow for variations in the Gospel in Galatians 1:8-9? I think one must be very careful about “variable understandings of…the ‘gospel’” and what that in itself can mean. I would be very quick to say that justification is not the gospel, it is part of it. In Isaiah 40:6 the gospel is “Behold your God!” In 2 Corinthians 4:4 it is the glory of Christ, the image-barer of God. Paul does use different terms to describe the gospel, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say the different descriptions, i.e. “the glory of the happy God” (1 Timothy 1:11 ESV), don’t imply each other. But that doesn’t mean we can say that the gospel doesn’t have to have “atonement theology” in it to be “gospel.”
I must also say that the atonement is a central part of the Good News of Jesus Christ, not the Gospel itself. Hence I stated “…we do not preach the full gospel…” when we leave out the atonement. We are not proclaiming all of the good news.
In regards to “Dr.” Luke,I agree that Luke has no explicit exposition of “atonement theology” but I have to ask, Brother ham, are you saying that Paul’s strong views of atonement would not be in Luke’s mind though he does not explicitly write out a doctrine of atonement in his works? I don’t think one could sit under Paul and not come away understanding Jesus’ death as an atonement and ransom for sinners. Would you say that we cannot form a systematic theology having done our biblical theological studies; that is to say can I not make a system of thought having examined each book on its own terms? Is there no unity within the pages of Scripture? I am curious not only for brother ham’s view to this question but the other authors here on the site. Can there be a systematic theology formed after doing proper biblical theology?
I must also ask, how did Jesus give his body and blood for his disciples as we see in Luke 22:19-20? Also, wouldn’t the predestined plan of God in Acts 4:27-28 include Isaiah 53 and Yahweh crushing his Servant? If so, then Luke would have atonement theology. He just did not devote a section of his work to explicitly state it.
Ok, firstly, I can’t read these good comments right, right now, (I just got back form real life and have to get up at 6 to go running with Meredith) and I will likely reading them tomorrrow morning before section.
With that said, I wanted to ask Cheapham, about violence. What are we calling violence here? I like the following definition: violence is any action that denies a person the image of God. Going off of that (and I am open to considering other deffinitions), I don’t see real disagreements (loving ones, mind you) about how the world is and how to operate in that world as violence towards someone.
How do other people see violence?
Oh, and everything I am saying, I am asking with the honest intention of boucing ideas off of you people. I like what you all have to say around here and I truly value what you all bring to the table. I like working out these things with you all. I know that sounds hoakey, but I can’t be any more sincere about it.
Then I must ask, what did Jude mean in Jude 1:3 when he speaks of “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (NET)? Does Jude allow for variations to the one faith? Does Paul allow for variations in the Gospel in Galatians 1:8-9? I think one must be very careful about “variable understandings of…the ‘gospel’” and what that in itself can mean.
Let me give an example to show what I am talking about by asking a question. Does this sound like an adequate understanding of the gospel if I were to define the Gospel as, “Heavenly Father’s plan to help us have peace in this life and joy in eternity. The gospel is centered on the Atonement of Jesus Christ and requires us to have faith in him, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end”? Think that one over and let me know.
In regards to “Dr.” Luke,I agree that Luke has no explicit exposition of “atonement theology” but I have to ask, Brother ham, are you saying that Paul’s strong views of atonement would not be in Luke’s mind though he does not explicitly write out a doctrine of atonement in his works? I don’t think one could sit under Paul and not come away understanding Jesus’ death as an atonement and ransom for sinners. Would you say that we cannot form a systematic theology having done our biblical theological studies; that is to say can I not make a system of thought having examined each book on its own terms? Is there no unity within the pages of Scripture? I am curious not only for brother ham’s view to this question but the other authors here on the site. Can there be a systematic theology formed after doing proper biblical theology?
Well, given Luke’s portrayal of Paul in Acts, he doesn’t really seem to have known him in any significant way. Paul (and his theology) are very different in Acts as compared with Paul’s letters. When it comes to Paul, Luke seems to be more interested in him as a rhetorical device rather than a “historical figure” (which isn’t a critique necessarily, such conventions were common in antiquity). Pauline influence can actually be difficult to trace out in Luke-Acts IMO.
As for Biblical Theology…I actually find the notion appealing, though in different ways than most. I see the Bible as a myriad of different voices and theological formations comining from very different historical and cultural places. “Biblical theology” is a rather chaotic thing, with many contradicting views and varying focuses. I actually like this. I think we should embrace contradiction, using the Bible as a foundation for forming an open theology encouraging different voices and experiences to express themselves. Can we make a “system?” Well…I don’t think such a thing is really possible or ultimately helpful.
I must also ask, how did Jesus give his body and blood for his disciples as we see in Luke 22:19-20? Also, wouldn’t the predestined plan of God in Acts 4:27-28 include Isaiah 53 and Yahweh crushing his Servant? If so, then Luke would have atonement theology. He just did not devote a section of his work to explicitly state it.
One can certainly read the atonement theologies of others into the few spaces in Luke-Acts that potentially could lead to such ideas (and you would not be alone in doing so). Yet, I think we must be careful, especially considering the atonement-heavy parts of Mark (deliberately?) left out in Luke. As for Luke’s references to the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53, that also requires a careful read…as Luke actually doesn’t explicitly connect it to Jesus’ suffering (a term Luke may not like for Jesus) and death (if I recall correctly). Despite the places for atonement within Luke…one must admit that he at the very least seems far less comfortable with it or far less willing to promote it compared to other NT writers.
Ham,
From what I read of your comments, Luke still has an atonement theology of Jesus’ death, it just isn’t the primary focus of his work. I have no problem with that. But Luke still has the theology.
As regards to the suffering servant. In Luke 4, Jesus is identified as the prophet in Isaiah 61, the one anointed by the Spirit. I would be prepared to argue that this prophet is the same servant that we call the suffering servant because in Isaiah 42, the servant is anointed by the Spirit of God and preaches the same message. This servant then would be the same servant of Isaiah 53. Also, would not the divine pronouncement at Jesus baptism in Luke 3:22 find its source in Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, again linking Jesus to the suffering servant in Isaiah?
Luke does hold to Jesus as the suffering servant, just not as loudly as Mark and Matthew and Paul would. If you aren’t careful, you will miss it. I wouldn’t build my doctrine of the atonement primarily on Luke’s corpus, but I will boldly proclaim that he holds to the doctrine.
I personally believe that Luke is incredibly uncomfortable with atonement theology and has gone to great lengths to keep it out of his gospel. I merely think if one really wants to, they can “fill the gaps” and read atonement into Luke’s gospel. Yet, without imposing Markan or Pauline theological formations I don’t think one arrives at anything resembling what we consider “atonement theology” in Luke.
Literary linking with the Suffering Servant is not enough, for Paul is linked with the Suffering Servant motif in Acts as well. Would you say that Atonement is found through Paul as well? Quoting Robert O’Toole on the comparison of Jesus in Luke with Paul in Acts: “Both have the Suffering Servant Motif; Jesus during his passion is suffering as does the servant (Isaiah 50:6; 52:14; 53:2-12); the Suffering Servant motif is explicitly brought out by the use of the same Greek words for “led” (Isaiah 53:7-8; Luke 23:1) and “handed over” (Isaiah 53:6, 12; Luke 23:25). Moreover, Jesus is silent before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9) as is the Lamb in Isaiah 53:7, and Jesus and the Suffering Servant are both innocent (Luke 23:4, 14-15, 22; Isaiah 50:9; 53:9; cf Acts 8:32-33). The Christ is also seen in Acts 26:23 to be the Suffering Servant who will bring light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6); he shares this task with Paul who is to open the eyes of the Jews and Gentiles (Acts 26:18; Isaiah 35:5; cf. 42:7; 61:1 LXX) to turn from darkness to light (Isaiah 42:16). Paul is “handed over” in Acts 28:17 and he too is “led” in (Acts 25:6, 23; cf. Luke 23:1; Isaiah 53:7) and declared to be innocent (Acts 25:18-20, 25; 26:31-32; cf. Isaiah 50:9; 53:9).”
Speaking broadly, it seems to be that Luke presents Jesus’ primary “atoning” (if that’s the proper word) work as done in heaven rather than on the cross. Jesus’ suffering and death is rather an example to be followed by the church as laid out in Acts.
While I don’t deny the literary connections made by Luke with Paul and the suffering servant of Isaiah, they are not as strong as the connections made with Jesus. Going back to the baptism scene and Jesus applying Isaiah 61:1 to himself makes the connection explicit, not just inferred. Also, how is it that Paul was “crushed by the Lord” and like the lamb? Also, one can infer that Israel and Isaiah himself are the servant as well from loose connections like Paul’s.
Also, on what grounds can one say that Luke is “incredibly uncomfortable” with atonement theology? How can one reach that conclusion just because it isn’t a prominent theme in his gospel? That seems reaching too much.
Can you also go a little bit more in depth by what you mean when you say, “Luke presents Jesus’ primary ‘atoning’…work as done in heaven rather than on the cross”?
In Acts, the suffering and death of Jesus wasn’t only an example to be followed, it was also proclaimed. Is this not one of the primary points in Peter and Paul’s sermons in Acts 2, 3, 13 etc.?