← Back to sermon library

In paragraph 12, it admonishes 
or it encourages persons to pursue church membership, and as a result 
of that membership, they are blessed recipients of the privileges 
of the church, but as well, they are subject to the liabilities 
and responsibilities involved in the church. And one of those 
liabilities, and it's a blessed liability, if I could use that 
convention, is church discipline. So we looked at church discipline 
the last two times, as I said, under Matthew 18, and the process 
that is to be employed. Now this morning I just want 
to look at the conduct of the offended brother in paragraph 
13, and then I want to show that this is all consistent with Matthew 
7 verses 1 to 6. So that's sort of the map as 
to where we're going this morning. But note the conduct of the offended 
brother. We're dealing with discipline, 
When there is a matter of discipline, there is an offender, the one 
who does something wrong, and the offended, the one to whom 
the wrong has been done. And that's what paragraph 13 
addresses. It says, no church members, upon 
any offense taken by them, having performed their duty required 
of them towards the person they are offended at. So the supposition 
and the assumption is, is that they have followed Matthew 18. 
Remember that first step, or that first point in the process. 
If your brother sins against you, go to him. If he hears you, 
and the implication is if he repents, then you have won your 
brother. And so that's what's envisioned 
here. The person is engaged in doing their particular part. 
If the brother doesn't hear, then you take two or three witnesses. 
If he still doesn't listen to the witnesses, then you tell 
it to the church. So the assumption here is that 
the person who has been offended has performed their duty required 
of them towards the person they are offended at. And I think 
the assumption here, and I think the Bible everywhere holds forth 
this reality, that there will be persons who sin against you. 
One of the things that I've been reminded of as we've gone through 
the David narratives, especially the last few weeks, is don't 
take this the wrong way, but we ought to lower our expectations. I mean, when the man after God's 
own heart turns into something of a thug and a tyrant and a 
despot in the country that he rules in terms of committing 
adultery and then murder to cover up his act, it ought not to surprise 
us when the lesser people of God sin? Now, I'm not saying 
that we excuse it, I'm not saying that we justify it, I'm not saying 
that we ever make allowances for it, but I think there is 
in us this idea that how in the world could anybody ever sin 
against me? Well, perhaps we ought to, in 
a righteous way, lower our expectations a little bit, realize that persons 
are going to sin against you. I know that might upset your 
day and it might upset the apple cart and make you feel terrible 
and that I'm invading your safe space, but if you read the Bible 
properly, you have to come to that conviction that the people 
of God even sin. Robert Robinson wrote, and we 
just sang, prone to wander, prone to leave the God I love. Now 
that wandering from God and that leaving God isn't just our vertical 
sins, but it could be in the way that we treat other people. 
So we need to understand that it's most likely that persons 
are going to sin against us. Again, don't say Butler doesn't 
care about sanctification, he justifies sin on the part of 
the people, but lower your expectations to some degree. Be more severe 
in your judgment, your self-judgment than in the judgment of others. 
We'll see that more as we move along. Again, not negating the 
reality that if your brother sins, you go to him, you engage 
in the process, but realize that your brother is going to sin 
against you. Realize that your wives, or your husbands, or your 
children, or your parents, they're going to sin against you. Realize 
that within the context of the local church, persons are going 
to sin against you. I'm going to sin against you. 
You're probably going to sin against me. It is the nature 
of the case. Remaining corruption is not vanquished 
until that day of judgment when the Lord Christ Most High will 
secure us and confirm us in a state of holiness and righteousness. But no! this particular person 
has been offended, they have performed their duty required 
of them, now note what is given to them in terms of a prohibition. 
They ought not to disturb any church order, or absent themselves 
from the assemblies of the church, or administration of any such 
ordinances, upon the account of such offense at any of their 
fellow members. This is a piece of advice, or 
encouragement, or biblical admonition that is necessary for today, 
because what is likely our response when things don't go our way. 
We pout, we take our marbles and we run home. We don't go 
to church, we don't go to the supper, we don't engage ourselves 
with other brethren. And the point of this particular 
paragraph is to tell us or to prohibit us from engaging in 
such sort of pouting. That's not becoming the people 
of God. If we have done what we're supposed 
to do, if we have used the means we're supposed to employ, we 
need to wait upon Christ. That's what the admonition or 
the positive injunction states. Sam Waldron gives this piece 
of encouragement in his commentary on the confession. He says, the 
person has not satisfied them by his repentance. He's addressing 
paragraph 13. So the person who has sinned 
against the person who's offended has not satisfied the person 
who is offended by his repentance. Waldron goes on to say, at this 
point the confession is not clear. Perhaps the people have not yet 
taken the matter to the church. Perhaps they have, but the church 
has not yet acted, at least not to their satisfaction. The confession 
assumes that these people belong to a church that has manifested 
a commitment to church discipline. The confession also is assuming 
that the church is led by faithful, though, of course, fallible pastors. 
You see, you're probably never going to get as fair a shake 
as you think you should because you're dealing with sinners. 
It's never the case that you will be fully satisfied on this 
side of judgment. Again, lower the expectations, 
not to excuse sin or judicial lack of process or failure on 
the part of elders and pastors, but realize, brethren, we're 
on this side of the eschaton and it's not the perfect state 
yet. He goes on to say, the confession or the great question facing 
these people is what do they do now? The prohibition issued 
informs such church members what they should not do. The substance 
of the confession's prohibition is that there must be no anarchy, 
no revolution against the discipline of the church. There must be 
no disturbance of the church order by public demonstrations. 
I worked with an old fellow when I worked at Northrop Grumman 
in Palmdale and this guy bought a lemon from a car lot and he 
stood out in front of their place of business with a sign that 
said, I bought my lemon here, go buy yours elsewhere. I think 
the confession is telling us we're not supposed to do that. 
And as you'll see as we move along, there is redress, there 
is recourse, there are things in place so that persons who 
have been wrong have an avenue to pursue. So let's just continue 
here. He says, there must be no disturbance 
of the church order by public demonstrations, whispering or 
letter writing campaigns or gossip. there must be no absenting of 
themselves from the church's meetings or abstinence from the 
church's ordinances." This is good counsel, and I realize it 
goes against the grain, because if we feel that we have been 
wrong, it is difficult for us to throw ourselves into the worship 
of God. But if we've used the means that 
God's ordained, if we've done what we have been able to do, 
then we are positively, note the end of the paragraph, to 
wait upon Christ in the further proceeding of the church. Very 
often such decisions are not made overnight. Very often there 
needs to be time and prayer and counsel and counseling and all 
those sorts of things. So if somebody wrongs you, you 
bring it to the church, it's probably not the next Lord's 
Day when the hammer is going to fall. I mean, we're dealing 
with persons' souls, and we're dealing with, you know, competing 
accounts of differing stories, and we need to be legit and just 
and upright. So if your mindset is they've 
got to be expelled from the church immediately, the Confession says, 
wait upon Christ in the further proceeding of the church. And 
as I said, we ought to praise God that we are part of an association. Paragraphs 14 and 15 deal with 
the fraternal relations among churches. The fraternal relations 
among churches. Notice specifically in paragraph 
14, when, or so the church is about the midway point, when 
planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity 
and advantage for it, they ought to hold communion among themselves." 
Now Baptists have historically held to an independent form of 
church government. Independent not being, you know, 
we just do whatever we want. Christ rules each local church 
by his word and through his spirit, He has set elders and deacons 
in the midst to engage in ministerial aspects. But in terms of independence, 
too much is not to be coveted. There is associationalism taught 
here in paragraphs 14 and 15. Note the specific reasons for 
these associations. Paragraph 15. In cases of difficulties 
or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, 
wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any 
one church in their peace, union, and edification. We had something 
like that happen in our association over the last couple of years. 
There was a difference There was a difficulty involved in 
the interpretation of chapter 2, paragraph 1. God is without 
body, parts, and passions. What does it mean that God is 
without passions? Well, the association sought 
to deal with that. answer the question and rectify 
the difficulties and the differences that had emerged as a result 
of that controversy. So it was a blessed thing. Those 
churches holding communion together were able to work through an 
issue, work through a problem, and come to some resolution. 
That's a blessed and a good thing. We're not an island unto ourselves. We're not the only church on 
the face of the earth. The moment we begin to think 
that way, we're in big trouble. And then notice what it goes 
on to say in the same paragraph, "...or any member or members 
of any church are injured in or by any proceedings and censures 
not agreeable to truth and order." You see, it's not just Cam and 
me that are part of ARCA. Now, we're the messengers that 
attend the General Assembly, but the church is a member of 
ARPCA, church members who have been wronged. They have gone 
through the process, they are waiting upon Christ, and it's 
as if everybody's forgotten these things. It may not happen on 
this Sunday, but if it doesn't happen for six months and twelve 
months and two years, well, hopefully it would never get that far. 
But churches holding communion together can be appealed to in 
the spirit of fraternal relations, and these things can be presented 
to them. You all have access to ARBCA, 
pastors, there's a website. If Cam and I start preaching 
that Jesus is a creature, or, you know, we come up and speak 
in tongues and, you know, bang a tambourine, please, call an 
ARBCA pastor. Well, first come to us, because 
that's what the scripture does say. But if you do not get what 
you think is a biblical resolution, call Don Lindblad and Stephan 
Lindblad and Tom Lyon, they're close by, they're nearby. We 
have invoked this clause before in our own experience as a church. 
We had a member who thought that there was something wrong and 
we convened a church council and we sought to deal with it 
in a manner that brought resolution. It's a good thing. So that's 
a summary statement of where we've been in terms of church 
discipline. As I said, I want to look at Matthew 7. specifically 
for the remainder of our time. I think there's a lot of practical 
things that we ought to learn when it comes to this whole idea 
of our attitude when it comes to discipline. and as well to 
a very misunderstood passage of Scripture. In other words, 
we're talking about discipline, we're talking about going to 
brethren who have sinned against us, and if they do not hear us 
and repent, then we're talking about taking two or three witnesses 
with us, and if they still don't hear those two or three witnesses, 
then we're talking about telling it to the church, and if they 
still refuse to hear even the church, then we're saying that 
we need to ban them or identify them as heathen and tax collector. 
Well, that flies against the spirit of our age, doesn't it? 
I mean, that's not something we would ever want to do. You 
can't judge a man who wants to use a woman's bathroom. You can't 
judge a man who wants to be a woman. You can't judge a woman who wants 
to be a man. You can't judge people. Isn't that the the modern 
cry of this particular era? I mean, the only people you can 
righteously judge are Christians. I mean, you know, they're the 
blight on society, and they're the reason that everything is 
the way it is. So it's perfectly legitimate 
for media and politicians to blame Christians, but when Christians 
start talking about any sort of moral objective truth or absolute 
reality, we're bandied as a judgmental, horrific lot. And oftentimes, 
Matthew 7-1 is taken right out of its context and used as a 
sledgehammer to beat us on the head. Jesus says, judge not that 
you be not judged. How do we interpret that in light 
of this whole idea of church discipline? I mean, doesn't church 
discipline assume judgment? Doesn't it assume discrimination? 
Doesn't it assume that we have made the decision to deal with 
a person based on their misconduct? Jesus says, "...judge not that 
you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, 
you will be judged. And with the measure you use, 
it will be measured back to you." And why do you look at the speck 
in your brother's eye? but do not consider the plank 
in your own eye. Or how can you say to your brother, 
let me remove the speck from your eye? And look, a plank is 
in your own eye. Hypocrite, first remove the plank 
from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the 
speck from your brother's eye. Do not give what is holy to the 
dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them 
under their feet and turn and tear you in pieces. So as I said, 
this is a passage that is oftentimes used against Christians by non-Christians, 
but it's oftentimes misunderstood by Christians. Could you imagine 
going to a brother and saying, you know, brother, I believe 
that you've sinned against me. I don't think it would be out 
of the ordinary to hear that brother say, yeah, but you're 
not supposed to judge me, right? Or if we tell it to the church, 
I could hear the fellow stand up and say, but you're all not 
supposed to judge me. Jesus says that in Matthew 7. 
Don't you interpret? Don't you listen? Don't you heed 
the word of Christ? So it's important for us to get 
a grip on what Matthew 7, 1 to 6 says. concerning this whole 
issue. And there are three things we 
ought to consider with Matthew 7, 1 to 6. First, the prohibition. Secondly, the explanation. And 
thirdly, the illustration involved. Note the prohibition. Do not, 
or judge not that you be not judged. J.C. Ryle made this comment 
on this text in his context in the 1800s. The first portion 
of these verses is one of those passages of scripture which we 
must be careful not to strain beyond its proper meaning. It 
is frequently abused and misapplied by the enemies of true religion. 
It is possible to press the words of the Bible so far that they 
yield not medicine but poison. I think Ryle's right, and if 
that was the case in the 1800s, it's certainly the case in the 
21st century where we can never, ever, ever offend the delicate 
sensitivities of the snowflakes that populate college campuses 
and, unfortunately, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. What 
the text does not mean. It's always a helpful thing. 
Judge not that you be not judged. What does it not mean? It does 
not mean that we can never exercise judgment in this world. Right? Doesn't mean that, does it? In 
the first place, we are called to judge who may be a dog or 
a pig. It's an interesting thing that 
the abuse of verse 1 comes with an utter neglect of verse 6. 
Jesus certainly has a judgmental spirit when he identifies certain 
persons as dogs or swine. He's not suggesting literal dogs 
or literal pigs. He's not suggesting that our 
problems or our temptations or our issues are to take holy things 
and throw them before canines or swine. That's not what he's 
talking about. He's using the terminology with reference to 
men, dogs, or swine. Secondly, we are called to judge 
in matters of doctrinal orthodoxy. We are called to judge in matters 
of doctrinal orthodoxy. Notice in verse 15 in chapter 
7, beware of false prophets. How can we possibly do that without 
judging in a matter of doctrinal orthodoxy? Consider the Apostle 
Paul in Galatians chapter 1, verses 8 and 9. What does he 
say to those who preach another gospel? Well, I don't want to 
judge them. I don't want to make them feel bad. No, let them be 
anathema. Let them be condemned to hell. 
Let them be devoted to destruction. That sounds like judgment with 
reference to doctrinal orthodoxy. Thirdly, we are called to judge 
in matters of church discipline. That's what we've seen in our 
studies, in the Confession, which I think accurately summarizes 
what the Bible says, specifically in Matthew 18. We make judgment 
calls. We look at the Word of God, and 
we see that somebody has fallen short, so we go to them. As well, 
we are called to judge in matters concerning sins in the eldership. 
1 Timothy 5.19, do not receive an accusation against an elder 
except on the basis of two or three witnesses. What is implied? 
That there's a judgment, there is discrimination, there is a 
distinction made between Elders sinning and elders not sinning. 
There is process. Do it on the basis of two or 
three witnesses. Elders are afforded the same protection as other 
persons are. They're not to be lambasted by 
virtue of their, you know, particular authority or position in the 
church. And as well, we are called to judge in civil disputes in 
the church. 1 Corinthians chapter 6. Whatever 
Paul means there in terms of believers not going to unbelieving 
courts, but adjudicating within the context of the church, it 
certainly highlights the reality that there are judgments involved. 
As well, if a man is a civil governor, if he is a civil magistrate, 
does he occupy a position on the bench and say, well, I'd 
like to render a verdict, but, you know, I can't judge because 
Jesus told me not to judge. That's nonsense. It's a reductio 
ad absurdum. When somebody takes 7-1 to you, 
you need to show them the futility of the position. Does that mean 
you can never call an axe murderer a bad guy? Well, no, it doesn't 
mean that. Okay, so it's not this blanket 
universal prohibition that means we can never exercise judgment. 
Well, no, I guess it's not. So it behooves us to understand 
what it does mean in the context to bring it alongside of our 
understanding of those passages that deal with church discipline. 
It is not an unqualified and universal prohibition to never 
engage in judgment. It is rather a prohibition against 
a particular activity that we are all prone to do when dealing 
with our brothers in Christ. Calvin said it this way. These 
words of Christ do not contain an absolute prohibition from 
judging, but are intended to cure a disease which appears 
to be natural to us all. We see how all flatter themselves, 
and every man passes a severe censure on others. This vice 
is attended by some strange enjoyment. See what Calvin's saying? There's 
a sick and twisted and demented enjoyment in the hearts of persons 
who engage in what Jesus is condemning here. He says, for there is hardly 
any person who is not tickled with the desire of inquiring 
into other people's faults. You say, yeah, that's been my 
experience with the mass of humanity. Well, brethren, maybe it might 
be the experience in your own heart if you're being honest 
and open. I mean, there is a sense where 
the ears tingle when we get a dose of gossip. Gossip is condemned 
not only by propagation, but gossip is condemned by reception. Don't receive it. Don't listen 
to it. Don't give in to it. I think 
Calvin is right. This vice is attended by some 
strange enjoyment. Now the specific meaning of the 
text is that it forbids a nit-picking, fault-finding, petty approach 
to our brother's shortcomings. That's what's in view in the 
text. As Calvin said, that is often attended by some strange 
enjoyment. It involves an utter disregard 
for that principle of love indicated in 1 Corinthians 13, 7. Love 
does what? picks on everybody, finds fault with everything, 
is a nitpicker, walks around with a magnifying glass, that's 
not what love is or love does. It bears all things, it believes 
all things, it hopes all things, it endures all things. Remember, 
much of the Sermon on the Mount has to do with interpersonal 
ethics and relationships, and it's not to be extended lawlessly 
into spheres that it doesn't apply. As well, it is contrary 
to what Paul the Apostle tells us in Colossians 3.13. We are 
to bear with one another and forgive one another. Again, we 
looked at when do we go to a brother when it's a bigger than normal 
sin. talking about sin like that, 
or garden variety sin, it always seems to minimize it or belittle 
it, but I think you all know what I mean. The garden variety 
of a sin in a home is the man doesn't put his socks in the 
dirty clothes basket. Wifey can choose not to deal 
with every instance of that, but if he comes home and he confesses 
or he says that he's laid with prostitutes, well then wifey 
wants to deal with that. I mean, there's a gravity issue 
And there's a repetitiveness issue as well that I think need 
to be taken into consideration. But this whole interpersonal, 
the way that we relate to one another, judge not that you be 
not judged. Ryle again says, what our Lord 
means to condemn is a censorious and fault-finding spirit, a readiness 
to blame others for trifling offenses or matters of indifference. a habit of passing rash and hasty 
judgments, a disposition to magnify the errors and infirmities of 
our neighbors and make the worst of them. This is what our Lord 
forbids. It was common among the Pharisees. 
You see, that's what's in view here. Osborne adds, the key component 
is the absence of love. That's what's missing in this 
attitude of censoriousness and of judgmentalism. Note the reason 
for the prohibition that he gives. Judge not that you be not judged. 
I think the judgment in view there isn't versus the person, 
it is via God. You will be judged by God. And 
there are temporal judgments by God for the sins of persons. You see that in the account of 
David. David sinned against the Lord. The Lord imposed temporal 
consequences. The sword will not depart from 
your house. There will be an insurrection or adversity that 
rises up from your house, and your wives will be publicly humiliated 
or defiled before all Israel. There were temporal consequences, 
even though the spiritual element, his sin, was forgiven by God. 
It was put away. As well, you see this in 1 Corinthians 
11, those unworthy participants in the Lord's Supper. For this 
reason, some are sick, some sleep among you. There are temporal 
consequences, and if we have a censorious, nitpicking, fault-finding 
mentality, it may be the case that our way will be hard. It 
may be the case that there will be consequences, and if this 
is the pattern and overarching theme of our lives, it may evidence 
the reality that we've never been born again, and the judgment 
of God will be certain and fierce upon us for having violated His 
law. Now note the explanation that 
Jesus gives, and this is what's in view specifically. For with 
what judgment you judged, you will be judged. And with the 
measure you use, it will be measured back to you. Again, Jesus is 
not saying don't judge ever. Jesus is saying that the standard 
that you employ must be Scripture. In John 7 at verse 24, a passage 
that, you know, if we were not doing any biblical exegesis or 
if we were not thinking at all, would look to be completely contradictory 
to 7.1 in Matthew. John 7, 24, Jesus says, do not 
judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. That's what's in view here as 
well in Matthew 7. We're going to judge, but we 
need to do so by the standard of God's law, not our interpretation 
that yields this nitpicking, censorious, critical mindset 
concerning the things that our brethren do to us. James 2, 12 
and 13. So speak and so do as those who 
will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without 
mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over 
judgment. Jesus is simply highlighting 
the fact that when you have this nitpicking critical spirit, it's 
going to ultimately backfire in your face. with the measure 
you use, it will be measured back to you. You need to judge 
with righteous judgment. You need to operate strictly 
according to the law of God. Remember, that was the first 
and foundational principle when we looked at that first step 
in church discipline. If your brother does what? You 
go to him. If your brother does things differently 
than you, If your brother chooses a different path that is different 
than you, if your brother opts to do things in a way that doesn't 
subscribe to the Butler family code, no, if your brother sins 
against you, brethren, get this down. Probably a large part of 
the things that people actually do to us that bother us aren't 
sins. So you get a couple of rules 
today. Lower your expectations. This is a self-help sermon for 
you. And realize that most of what 
people are doing are violations of our preferences and not the 
law of God. You know, if Jehovah hasn't spoken, 
then we have no place to speak. We have preferences, we have 
the ways we do things, but if somebody doesn't do those things 
the same way, we don't need to be critical and fault-finding 
and nitpicking and censorious upon them. We need to understand 
that it's to the law and to the testimony. If the Word of God 
says that something is sin, then we need to deal with it. If the 
Word of God does not say it's a matter of sin, then we need 
to stop. With the measure you use, it 
will be measured back to you. And I think that's a reference 
to God's dealings with you. In other words, if that's your 
attitude, if that's your mindset, God will deal with you accordingly. Now note the illustration that 
he gives in verses 3 to 5. You know, a beautiful illustration. Our Lord Jesus was certainly 
not against the use of sarcasm to illustrate spiritual points, 
was he? I mean, verses 3 to 5 are one 
of those. And why do you look at the speck 
in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your 
own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, let me remove the 
speck from your eye, and look, a plank is in your own eye. Hypocrite, 
first remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see 
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. You see, 
He's not saying don't deal with persons and sins. He's dealing 
with this hypercritical, censorious spirit. This type of fault finding 
that Jesus condemns here, wherein we've got a plank hanging out 
of our eye, and we go and tell our neighbor, let me just fix 
that speck. Do you see that? That's outlandish, 
right? It's kind of like in Matthew 
23 when Jesus says they strain at gnats and they swallow camels. Brethren, that's funny. People 
that were faithful got a chuckle when Jesus said that. And most 
likely people that were faithful got a chuckle when Jesus said 
that because it's outlandish, isn't it? Guy's got a log hanging 
out of his eye and he comes over to me and says, look, I want 
to fix that speck in your eye. or the man that's blind that's 
going to give me an eye exam and say, I'm going to fix your 
eyes and give you glasses that are going to correct you. No, 
it's probably not going to happen. A couple of things we ought to 
appreciate. This type of fault finding takes 
effort on the part of the judge, doesn't it? If you're looking 
for specs in brethren's eyes, you've got way too much time 
on your hands. You should have shown up yesterday 
and done all the work on your own, because you've got lots 
and lots of time on your hands. This takes effort to find specks 
of dust in person's eyes. Is this really how you should 
occupy your time? Does not Proverbs 4 tell you 
to keep your heart with all diligence? Solomon doesn't say go out and 
keep the hearts of every human being that you've ever met. That's 
not it. You keep your own heart, which 
is a 24-7 job. This type of fault-finding takes 
effort on the part of the judge. Secondly, this type of fault-finding 
is a betrayal of the law of liberty. It's a total disregard for the 
law of liberty to function in this capacity where you've got 
this plank hanging out of your eye and you are going after the 
specks in another person's eye. As well, this type of fault finding 
is a rejection of biblical procedure. We're so quick to assume that 
that speck is necessarily a sin against us. The first to plead 
his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him. 
We need to make sure that we follow biblical process in all 
of its detail. And as well, this type of fault 
finding is a failure to come to grips with one's own shortcomings, 
failures, and sins. If you're tripping over the plank 
that's hanging out of your head to go after the speck in someone 
else's eye, you are living ignorantly. You've got problems. John Stott's 
right. We have a fatal tendency to exaggerate 
the faults of others and to minimize the gravity of our own. screw 
tape to wormwood, said, aggravate that most useful human characteristic, 
the horror and neglect of the obvious, like the plank hanging 
out of the eye. He says, you must bring to him 
a condition in which he can practice self-examination for an hour 
without discovering any of those facts about himself which are 
perfectly clear to anyone who has ever lived in the same house 
with him or worked in the same office, of course. He's got a 
plank hanging out of his eye. Everybody sees it. Everybody 
knows it, but he himself. I've shared with you before that 
illustration from Mark Sarver's sermon on pride. He says, pride 
is like bad breath. Everyone knows you have it, but 
you. You don't typically walk out of the house knowing that 
you smell like a sewer and wanting to get close to people and talk 
to them. They know what your problem is. 
The same is true with pride. The same is true with this plank 
hanging out of our eyes as we're busily and dutifully and censoriously 
trying to fix the specks in other people's eyes. This type of fault 
finding as well may be a means of hiding one's own sin. And 
it's easier to fix people's specks than to deal with your own plank, 
isn't it? I mean, that's going to take 
some plank, you know, ectomy that you may not engage in willingly. Note, Jesus' indictment with 
reference to this particular situation. Hypocrite. He says 
hypocrite. He's talking to believers in 
this particular passage. It's applied to unbelievers in 
the sermon in Matthew 6, 2, 5, and 16. Those persons who, you 
know, go out and stand in the public and pray and thank God 
how great they are, or those people who give and they sound 
the alarm so that everybody will see how much they give, or those 
persons who fast and they walk around and moan and whine and 
grumble and complain and say, well, you know, I'm fasting, 
so in order to draw attention to themselves. So they're condemned 
in Matthew 6, but here Jesus is talking to the people. to 
disciples, to those of us who engage in such fault finding. 
Again, this may not be you. You may never have had a plank 
hanging out of your eye and gone after the speck of others. So, 
you know, pray for the rest of us who struggle with these particular 
temptations at times. But Jesus says, hypocrite, Spurgeon, 
Jesus is gentle, but he calls that man a hypocrite who fusses 
about small things and others and pays no attention to great 
matters at home in his own person. I think that's accurate. I think 
that's what Jesus is dealing with in the admonition, judge 
not that you be not judged. You're not dealing with, you 
know, the planks of others here. You're dealing with their specks. 
You need to make sure you deal with your own plank first before 
you get involved in that sort of thing. And now note the exhortation. 
He calls hypocrite, verse five, and then says, first remove the 
plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to 
remove the speck from your brother's eye. Don't you love Jesus? I 
mean, isn't it beautiful? Take that plank out, and then 
you might be better poised to actually go after specks in person's 
eyes. See, Jesus isn't saying leave 
your brother with specks in his eyes. No, try and help him. But 
don't do him by hitting him in the head with your plank. Deal 
with your plank, and then help him with his speck. Now, the 
plank may have general reference to sin, just a reference to sin 
in itself. I've got to deal with my sin 
and then I'll go after the particular specks involved. Or the plank 
has specific reference to the attitude condemned in verses 
1 and 2. That's the way Lloyd-Jones in 
France takes it. In other words, make sure you don't have this 
nitpicking, critical, censorious spirit wherein you've got a plank 
hanging out and you're going to go after the spec. Deal with 
the plank. Make sure you're not of the censorious, 
critical, and nitpicking frame. And if you are not and it's still 
a problem, then deal with them by all means. Lloyd-Jones says, 
if you really do want to help others and to help to rid them 
of these blemishes and faults and frailties and imperfections, 
first of all, realize that your spirit and your whole attitude 
has been wrong. In other words, check your motives. 
Judge not that you be not judged. But if you have considered the 
law, you have considered your place, you have considered your 
disposition, am I going to him to bash him over the head because 
he's got a speck in the eye, or am I genuinely concerned and 
want to help him see better? You see, there's a difference 
there, isn't there? If I go after you in your sin 
because I want to best you, or I want to be better than you, 
or I want to grind you into the floor, that's not a good attitude. But if my legitimate desire and 
concern is to try and help you brush a speck out of your eye 
so that you can see more clearly, will you have a problem with 
me in that case? No. I hope to think that anybody 
who gets some help and, you know, wife being on a few specks along 
the way are thankful people. We all need brethren to take 
that, you know, hanky out and help us get rid of those specks. 
So I think it is, make sure that you're checking your own heart 
before you go to this particular person. He says, the spirit of 
judging and hypercriticism and censoriousness that is in you 
is really like a beam, contrasted with a little mote in the other 
person's eyes. Frantz says, while it is possible 
that the critic here is to be understood as aware of his own 
failings, but concealing them, the whole idea of sin in general, 
He says it is more likely that he is criticized for failing 
to apply the same standards to himself that he applies to others. He says like David in his response 
to Nathan. Remember David's response to 
Nathan when he tells him the parable? He's outraged. That man deserves to die. Well, David wasn't thinking properly. David neglected the plank that 
was in his eye, having just committed adultery with Bathsheba and having 
committed murder against Uriah, and he's flipped out about it.