How do you balance discernment with “judge not” without falling into hypocrisy?

General Faith
63

You’re viewing Sinai and Calvary as though they’re describing the same mountain. They’re not. Sinai is the covenant God made with Israel through Moses. At Sinai the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt and spoke the law: “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” ~Exodus 20:2 The people answered, “All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient” ~Exodus 24:7 Then Moses ratified it: “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words” ~Exodus 24:8.

Sinai’s covenant stood on obedience. Obey and live. Break it and you’re guilty. Law ALSO later makes it clear why God gave it. Not to save sinners but to show them they are sinners, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” ~Romans 3:20 God already promised they’d get another covenant. “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” ~Jeremiah 31:32 Jesus lifts the cup “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” ~Luke 22:20

God used Sinai to show us our inability. He used Calvary to provide His ability. The covenant of Exodus 24 is the LORD’s covenant with Israel through Moses based on the law. The New covenant found in Christ is NEW and the blood of Jesus actually removes sin.

64

So the preincarnate Christ wasn’t around when YHWH established and ratified the covenant with Israel, correct @bdavidc ?

J.

65

This is the problem here is you always go to someone like Utley who is not a trusted bible teacher. The video is not biblically correct. God does not present His Word as partly human memory, cultural borrowing, or uncertain process. He says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” ~2 Timothy 3:16 and “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” ~2 Peter 1:21. Either God spoke, or we are left with opinions about Him.

Exodus 24 is not a religious ceremony copied from the nations. God explains His own meaning: “the life of the flesh is in the blood… it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” ~Leviticus 17:11. That points straight to Christ, “without shedding of blood is no remission” ~Hebrews 9:22.

When a teacher replaces certainty with speculation, people stop standing on God’s Word and start standing on scholarship. But Jesus said, “thy word is truth” ~John 17:17. The issue is not whether parts sound helpful. The issue is whether we believe God actually said what He said.

If Scripture must be filtered through human theory before we trust it, then man becomes the authority. And the moment man sits in judgment over the Word, he has already stepped out from under it.

66

Utley, what an anointed man of God, and praise my Lord Jesus Christ daily for his team.

J.

67

No. The Son did not come into existence in Bethlehem. He came into flesh there.

Scripture opens with Him already present: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by him” ~John 1:1,3. If all things were made by Him, He was not standing outside Sinai watching history happen. He is the One history belongs to.

Paul removes all doubt about Israel: “they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” ~1 Corinthians 10:4. The God dealing with Israel in the wilderness was not a different deity later replaced by Jesus. It was Christ Himself.

Jesus said it plainly, “Before Abraham was, I am” ~John 8:58. Not began. Not was planned. I AM.

So the real issue is not whether Christ was present at the covenant. The issue is whether we accept that the LORD revealed in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament are the same divine Person revealed more fully in flesh. Scripture says yes. Deny that, and you are not just rearranging theology, you are separating the Savior from the very covenant that points to His blood ~Hebrews 9:22.

68

No, the Son did not begin to exist in Bethlehem. He did not come into being there. What happened in Bethlehem was not the origin of the Son, but the incarnation.

Scripture opens with His eternal preexistence: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”[1]. He is already there when “the beginning” begins. And John continues, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made”[2]. If all created things came into being through Him, then He Himself is not a created thing.

What occurred in Bethlehem was not that the Son “came into existence” or merely “entered flesh” as though stepping into something external to Himself. Scripture says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”[3]. He did not cease to be what He was. He assumed what He was not. He took to Himself a true human nature.

Paul speaks the same way: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”[4]. The Son is sent. He is already Son prior to being made of a woman. His person precedes His birth.

So Bethlehem marks not the beginning of the Son, but the beginning of His incarnate life. The eternal Word, through whom Sinai itself came into being, entered history by taking on flesh. He is not standing outside redemptive history as a spectator. He is the Lord of it.

Correct @bdavidc so the preexistent Messiah wasn’t around when YHWH ratified the covenant-s?

J.

  1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God - KJV ↩︎

  2. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made - KJV ↩︎

  3. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us - KJV ↩︎

  4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law - KJV ↩︎

69

Just because you say that does not make it true. You can tell by testing the teaching itself. “Try the spirits whether they are of God” ~1 John 4:1. If what they teach contradicts Scripture, they are false even if they seem kind, successful, or moral. I see why you are always confused, because of the teachers you listen to. Many appear righteous outwardly, yet Jesus said, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord… and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” ~Matthew 7:22-23.

When a person makes the text say what they want instead of what God actually said, that is what Scripture calls twisting it. God does not treat twisting Scripture lightly. “In which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest… unto their own destruction” ~2 Peter 3:16. The danger is not merely being mistaken. It leads to destruction.

It also misleads others. Jesus warned, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” ~Matthew 15:14. A distorted Word produces a distorted faith. And God holds teachers accountable. “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” ~James 3:1. The Word gives life when received as it is, but when altered it brings judgment instead of truth.

70

Utley, what an anointed man of God, my Lord Jesus Christ used him when I was young to break the Shackles of wrong theology, and by the anointing of the Spirit still teaching me wondrous truths contained in Scriptures!

J.

71

It looks like the focus is moving from the bible itself to teachers and explanations about the text. But God never told us to anchor faith in men. He said to test everything by Scripture: the Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” ~Acts 17:11, and “let God be true, but every man a liar” ~Romans 3:4. If the discussion keeps pointing to sources instead of opening the passages and letting them speak plainly, then the authority has shifted. “Thy word is truth” ~John 17:17. Truth is settled by what God said, not by who said it about Him. Thy looking to God and His actual word. That is where the gold is found.

In this parable the man recognizes the treasure’s value, and that realization changes what everything else is worth to him. “For joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field” ~Matthew 13:44. He is not forced. He gladly lets lesser things go because he has seen what is greater.

That is what happens when a person stops leaning on teachers, traditions, and opinions and goes straight to God’s Word. You are choosing the source instead of living off second-hand explanations. Scripture itself invites that: the Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” ~Acts 17:11. The authority is not the messenger but what God actually said, because “thy word is truth” ~John 17:17.

So “buying the field” looks like valuing the truth enough to let go of whatever competes with it. Not trusting a voice because it sounds spiritual, but testing it. Not settling for summaries, but opening the text. It costs comfort, pride, and sometimes favorite teachers, yet you gain certainty. As God says, “buy the truth, and sell it not” ~Proverbs 23:23.

The field is the place where the treasure is found. When you go to Scripture itself, you are going to the place God chose to reveal Christ, and everything else becomes secondary.

72

I asked you a simple question @bdavidc who ratified the covenant in Ex 24- with YisraEl? YHWH or Yeshua? Or both?

J.

73

You are asking a forced choice the Bible never makes. Who ratified the covenant in Exodus 24? The LORD. “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you” ~Exodus 24:8.

Now here is the issue. Scripture does not present Jesus as a different being arriving later. It identifies Him as that same LORD revealed in flesh. “The Word was God… and the Word was made flesh” ~John 1:1,14. Israel in the wilderness “drank of that spiritual Rock… and that Rock was Christ” ~1 Corinthians 10:4.

So the answer is not YHWH or Jesus. The answer is that the LORD who made the covenant is the One made visible in Christ. If they are separated, you now have two Lords instead of one, yet God says, “beside me there is no God” ~Isaiah 44:6.

The real question is not Exodus 24. The real question is whether you will let the New Testament tell you who the LORD is, or keep Him locked in the past.

74

So you deny the Triune Godhead, correct @bdavidc ?

J.

75

You left out a very important part in your quotation here @bdavidc

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
OJB

Joh 1:1 In Ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ was ἦν the ὁ Word, Λόγος, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος was ἦν with πρὸς - τὸν God, Θεόν, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος. was ἦν God. Θεὸς

Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
Tyndale

Triune or no?

J.

76

Brings me to a scripture i read a long time ago. Have not read it in a long time. Somthing about him not carring about there fasting. he dont care if there hungry. I took it like, why do you need to starve yourself. He wanted work done. Meaning he put somthing in them. A investment if you will. His own profits. He said this to. When does the church wake up and get er done.lol we read that the church works in season. And they rest.imagine a spirit of god waking up, the body of christ if you will. looking at the world today. And all her problems Lol. Them boys would be trippin. When does the kingdoms of the world united as one become the kingdom of the lord our god

77

Well said, with the appropiate scripture references brother @PeterC .

“Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”[1]

Greek detail matters here.

βλέπεις is present active indicative. You keep looking at. Ongoing fixation.
κατανοεῖς is also present active indicative. You are not carefully perceiving or reflecting. The verb intensifies observation.
κάρφος refers to a small dry particle, a speck.
δοκός is a structural timber, a massive beam. Deliberate hyperbole.
ἔκβαλε is aorist imperative. Cast it out decisively.
ὑποκριτά means actor, one wearing a mask.

The command structure is crucial. Jesus does not forbid correction. He commands it. But the sequence is morally ordered. First remove the beam. Then you will see clearly to remove the speck. Self judgment precedes brotherly correction.

Luke 6:41 to 42 repeats the same vocabulary and imagery, reinforcing the principle.

Romans 2:1 deepens the logic.

“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself”[2]

κρίνεις is present active indicative. You are judging.
κατακρίνεις intensifies it. You condemn.
πράσσων is a present participle. Practicing the same things. Ongoing action.

The participle exposes hypocrisy. The one judging is actively doing the same things.

Galatians 6:1:

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”[3]

καταρτίζετε is present active imperative. Restore or mend continually.
σκοπῶν is a present participle. Watching yourself carefully.
πειρασθῇς is aorist passive subjunctive. Lest you be tempted.

Restoration is commanded. Self vigilance is simultaneous and continuous.

James 1:22 to 24:

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves”[4]

γίνεσθε is present middle imperative. Become or keep becoming doers.
παραλογιζόμενοι is present middle participle. Reasoning falsely within yourselves.
The mirror imagery exposes self perception failure.

James 4:11 to 12:

“Speak not evil one of another, brethren… who art thou that judgest another?”[5]

καταλαλεῖτε with negative present imperative implies stop speaking against.
κρίνων is a participle. The one judging.

First Corinthians 11:31:

“For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged”[6]

διεκρίνομεν is imperfect middle. Were examining ourselves thoroughly.
ἐκρινόμεθα is imperfect passive. Were being judged.

The reflexive sense is central. Self examination prevents external judgment.

Second Corinthians 13:5:

“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves”[7]

Interestingly…

2Co 13:5 Examine πειράζετε yourselves [to see] Ἑαυτοὺς whether εἰ you are ἐστὲ in ἐν the τῇ faith; πίστει, test δοκιμάζετε· yourselves. ἑαυτοὺς vvv ἢ vvv οὐκ Can’t you see ἐπιγινώσκετε for yourselves ἑαυτοὺς that ὅτι Jesus Ἰησοῦς Christ [is] Χριστὸς in ἐν you — ὑμῖν; unless εἰ you ἐστε. actually μήτι fail the test? ἀδόκιμοί

πειράζετε is present active imperative. Test continuously.
δοκιμάζετε is present active imperative. Approve after testing.

Across these passages the grammatical pattern is consistent. Present imperatives require ongoing examination. Participles expose hypocrisy. Reflexive forms center accountability inward before it moves outward.

Scripture does not abolish correction. It establishes moral sequence. Remove the beam. Then remove the speck. The grammar itself disciplines the pride.

J.

  1. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? - KJV ↩︎

  2. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself - KJV ↩︎

  3. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted - KJV ↩︎

  4. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves - KJV ↩︎

  5. Speak not evil one of another, brethren… who art thou that judgest another? - KJV ↩︎

  6. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged - KJV ↩︎

  7. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves - KJV ↩︎

78

Sounds like you have a healthy, active Conscience already.

I’ve always said that if a Person “wears it on their wrist” then according as they appear; so shall they be supposed to be.

But there are exceptions. Such as the guy that talks very camp, but is straight and Married (Gil; from Frasier).

I try not to judge with respect to why or how, People are/became the way they are.

But sometimes we must be blunt. If a Guy is getting threatening and trying to control you, it may well be he’s building up to Robbing you. Which would make I’m a Robber and a Bad Hombre. We can safely save the non-judgemental sentiments until after the danger has past. Not forgetting, he may be a rotten apple. Genuinely.

79

YOU accused me of something. Now give me evidence.

Quote exactly where I said the Triune Godhead is a lie, then post the verse that those words go against. If you cannot post both then you are just making accusations.

We are told to prove Scripture, not talk in innuendos: “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” ~1 Thessalonians 5:21 and “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” ~1 Timothy 5:19.

So either post the quote with verse, or drop the accusation.

80

You continually demand “Triune or no?” as if the Bible can’t say what it wants until you learn your big words. It already did. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God” ~John 1:1. Not like God. Not God-like. God. And that Word “was made flesh” ~John 1:14. So the One preaching along the roads of Galilee is the same One who was in the beginning with God and who is God.

The Word doesn’t stop there. The Father says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” ~Hebrews 1: 8 and yet God says “I am the LORD, and there is none else” ~Isaiah 45:5. One God. The Father calls the Son God. You don’t get around that with made up quotes or Semantics 101. You bow down before it.

Here’s the question for you. Are you going to bow before what is plainly written, or are you going to continue trying to cram it into a box that diminishes Christ? Because John plainly tells us his purpose in writing: “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” ~John 20:31. Deny what is plainly written about Him and you are no longer debating theology. You are rejecting the testimony that God provided of His Son ~1 John 5:10.

82

It says somwhere judge with righeous judgment. In my opinion to judge with a righteous judgement one first must look at themselves before they speak.

83

I’m not dodging the issue. I will not replace Scripture with a slogan. You keep asking for a word. So I’ll answer plainly. If by “Triune” you mean what Scripture declares, that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is one God, then yes, I believe what is written.

“There is one God” ~1 Timothy 2:5
“The Word was God” ~John 1:1
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” ~Hebrews 1:8
“Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost… thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God” ~Acts 5:3-4

This is not philosophy. It is text.

The Father is called God ~Philippians 1:2
The Son is called God ~John 20:28
The Spirit is called God ~Acts 5:4
Yet God says, “I am the LORD, and there is none else” ~Isaiah 45:5

So I do not cling to a word as if a word saves me. I hold to Scripture. Scripture never uses the term “Triune,” but it shows one God with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit named together. When Jesus commanded baptism He said baptize “in the name” singular “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ~Matthew 28:19.

One name. Three named.

If you reject this, you must answer the verses. This is not semantics. This is whether you believe all that is written.