The Man of Lawlessness
Judging conduct requires a standard that stands outside our feelings about the person. Irritation can make a harmless action look sinister. Affection can make a serious wrong look excusable. In either direction, personal preference can take the place of the judgment Scripture requires.
John 7:14–24 records a dispute concerning Jesus' teaching and his healing on the Sabbath. His opponents are angry that he made a man completely well, while accepting circumcision on the Sabbath in order to keep the law of Moses. Jesus exposes the inconsistency in their assessment. He calls them to stop judging according to appearance and judge with righteous judgment.
The instruction does not forbid examining actions. It requires the examination to be right. A judgment that begins with hostility toward Jesus and then looks for a reason to condemn him fails that requirement. The same conduct would need to be assessed by the same standard regardless of whether the observer already likes its author.
First John 3:4 identifies sin with lawlessness. Calling an action sinful therefore makes a claim about its relation to God's will. We should be able to identify what happened, establish that it happened, and explain why God's instruction condemns it. Dislike cannot supply a missing commandment. A person's authority over an ordinary household responsibility does not become wicked merely because we resent being subject to it.
James 2:1–9 shows judgment distorted in the other direction. A gathering gives favorable treatment to a wealthy visitor while treating a poor person with contempt. James condemns that partiality as inconsistent with faith in Jesus Christ and with the command to love one's neighbor. Outward advantage has become a basis for assigning worth and treatment that the royal law does not authorize.
We should notice the reach of that example. Favoritism can operate through wealth, status, friendship, shared opinions, or the usefulness of a person to our plans. We may demand overwhelming evidence against an ally while accepting a rumor about an opponent. That is one standard for people we like and another for people we do not. Adding religious language to the verdict cannot make the procedure righteous.
Deuteronomy 19:15–19 gives Israel a judicial safeguard against unsupported accusations and malicious testimony. A charge requires witnesses, and a disputed case calls for diligent investigation. The church is not instructed to reproduce every feature of Israel's civil courts, but the passage makes the moral seriousness of false accusation unmistakable. An accusation has power to harm; establishing facts is part of justice.
Jesus also warns against hypocrisy in Matthew 7:1–5. A person trying to remove a speck from his brother's eye while ignoring the beam in his own is unfit to help. The instruction proceeds toward clear sight and useful correction after self-examination. We cannot use an accusation against someone else to escape the same standard ourselves.
Matthew 18:15–17 gives correction a responsible direction when a brother sins. The instruction begins with going to him and identifying the matter, then brings others into the process if necessary. It is aimed at gaining a brother. That aim differs from spreading a label that encourages everyone to interpret his future actions with suspicion. A specific account of conduct can be answered and addressed. A reputation assembled from insinuations may leave the accused person with nothing definite to answer.
Love also governs the way we handle uncertain information. First Corinthians 13:6 says that love rejoices with the truth rather than in unrighteousness. A damaging report should not become welcome merely because it concerns someone we dislike. We should want to know whether it is true, including when investigation clears the person. Disappointment at an innocent explanation can reveal that we had become more invested in condemnation than in the justice of the verdict.
The same discipline protects necessary correction from becoming vague hostility. If a teacher has made a false claim, quote it accurately and show why the passage does not support it. If money has been mishandled, establish the records and the responsibility. The biblical standard sharpens the charge by making it specific. It also limits the charge to what the evidence establishes. We do not honor God's authority by extending our verdict farther than his commands and the facts allow.
A practical judgment should distinguish fact, interpretation, and preference. State the action without loading the description with the conclusion you hope to reach. Identify the relevant biblical instruction. Consider whether the same reasoning would apply to a friend who did the same thing. If the charge depends on motives you cannot establish, acknowledge that limit rather than presenting suspicion as knowledge.
Where an action violates God's commands, name the wrong accurately and respond in the way Scripture requires. Where it merely offends our tastes, we have no authority to turn our discomfort into another person's guilt. Righteous judgment submits our feelings and our verdict to the Lord whose standards we claim to uphold.