PROVING CREATION AND REFUTING EVOLUTION

Introduction

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?  Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?  Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it.  The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record.”1

No one would argue with the fact that the geological record is much stronger today than it was when Charles Darwin uttered these words over 150 years ago.  In 1988, after searching for evidence of evolution for forty years, Nils Heribert-Nilsson wrote, “The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.  The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”2  Even with the discovery of these deficiencies, the geologic record 150 years ago was plenty strong to discredit the theory of evolution.  The earth has had thousands of years of life, resulting in thousands of years of fossils.  How many of these fossils have to be uncovered before a transitional form shows up?  Common sense says that it is absurd to blame this lack of transitional fossils on an “imperfect geological record.”  It seems that Darwin was beginning to realize that his theory did not add up; and instead of admitting to a lack of supporting evidence, he blamed something else.

It would seem that this would be a precursor to teaching the theory of evolution in public schools, but how many are aware that even Charles Darwin knew he did not have the most necessary evidence to prove his theory that species change over time to produce other species?  Instead, textbooks are full of drawings that seemingly prove the existence of transitional forms—all of which have been proven false.  (This fact will be addressed later, in greater detail.)  The truth is, the theory of evolution—though full of holes—has been presented as fact, while creationism has been discounted as fantasy.3

The purpose of this article is to show that the theory of evolution is false and to reveal the trustworthiness of the biblical creation account.  Simply put, either the Bible is true or the theory of evolution is true; the one cancels out the other.  Richard Dawkins has arrogantly boasted that anyone who believes in Creation is “ignorant, stupid, or insane.”4  There could be nothing further from the truth.  This article, however, will prove that science, when done correctly, always affirms the biblical creation account.

What is Evolution?

This article will be addressing macroevolution, not microevolution.  Microevolution describes the minor variations within a species (i.e., adaptation).  Such adaptation harmonizes with Creation and is scientific because it can be measured and observed.  Macroevolution, however, teaches that species gradually change—or evolve—from one species to another.  An example of microevolution would be Darwin’s finches.  An example of the theory of macroevolution would be a fish turning into a horse.  Dr. J.P. Moreland said that macroevolution is, “the general theory that all life arose from nonlife in some prebiotic soup (where chemical reactions plus some form of energy gave rise to the first life), and all life evolved from the first life up to Homo Sapiens.”5

Transitional Forms

The first evidence—or lack thereof—that discredits the theory of evolution is the lack of transitional forms.  This lack of evidence was briefly addressed in the introduction, but will now be addressed in greater detail.  It has been pointed out that textbooks generally do not mention the significance of the absence of transitional forms in the geologic record.  It is quite unfortunate that this absence has been left out.  Common sense would alert anyone that it is highly improbable to have uncovered so many fossils, with none of them being a transitional form.  Thus, the theory of evolution would be discredited from its inception.

Instead of addressing this lack of evidence discrediting evolution, many textbooks include stories of possible “Missing Links.”  The existence of this missing link is necessary if the theory of evolution is to be accepted as truth.  After all, evolution teaches that man evolved from apes.  If this example of evolution is true, the fossil record should reveal a multitude of transitional forms, especially since it is taught that humans evolved relatively recently, allowing less time for fossil decay.6  Logically, the textbooks had to include these stories of “missing links.”  If they did not, they would be less able to promote their theory.  A brief examination of each of these missing links will quickly prove that they are still missing.

Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth discovered in Nebraska.  Instead of belonging to a “man,” the tooth belonged to an extinct pig.  Piltdown Man was a hoax from the beginning.  The skull fragment came from a modern human, and the jawbone portion and two teeth came from an orangutan.  It was discovered that the construction of Java Man came from widely scattered bones—which turned out to be parts of a human being and a giant gibbon.  Peking Man was based on skulls similar to monkeys.  They were found with various other animal bones along with tools, so it was assumed that these were man’s ancestors because they used tools.  It was discovered that these animals were actually man’s meal, and the tools were used on them, rather than by them.  It was determined that the bones of Neanderthal Man came from a modern human who suffered from dietary deficiencies.7  Lucy has also been discredited as a “missing link.”  Well-known fossil-anthropologist, Richard Leakey, said that the skull of Lucy is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris.”8

Despite the desperation within the community of evolutionists to produce transitional forms, none have been produced.  How long can this theory survive before common sense destroys it?  A basic understanding of probability reveals that if the theory of evolution were true, it would be absolutely necessary that a transitional form be uncovered by now.

The Law of Probability

The theory of evolution is full of problems concerning probability.  Problems are found not only in the lack of transitional forms, but also in the theory that life arose from non-life.  According to the Law of Probability, this is impossible.  Sir Frederick Hoyle proposed that “the number of trial assemblies of amino acids needed to give rise to the enzymes required for life, and their discovery by random shuffling, turns out to be less than 1 in 1 x 10^40,000.”9  Even Richard Dawkins’ criterion for something being impossible is anything over 1 chance in 1 x 10²⁰.10

According to Dawkins, it is acceptable to believe something that contradicts a basic law in your belief system, yet it is unacceptable to believe that the answer is God, who made the laws of nature.  Put simply, something cannot come from nothing unless there is a God who can create something from nothing.  The remainder of this article will be devoted to giving proof that a Creator did bring everything into existence.

The Law of Cause and Effect

The Law of Cause and Effect states that for every material effect, there had to be a cause.  If he wants to remain credible at all, Dawkins has to acknowledge this law.  Ben Stein, in his Documentary Expelled, asked him what he thought the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics and evolution.  Dawkins answered, “Well, it could come about in the following way.  It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.  Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.  And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that.  If you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”11  Apparently, Dawkins is talking about aliens.  The immediate observation one should have from this statement is that it still does not help him with his problem with the Law of Cause and Effect.  If aliens created mankind, who created aliens?

Through observation of Richard Dawkins, it becomes quite apparent that he will believe anything, as long as it does not include the existence of God.  Dawkins is fixed in his stance.  Unfortunately, this immovable stance of evolutionary scientists ruthlessly forces the indoctrination of this theory into the minds of millions and disallows the introduction of the logical truth that God created everything.  The only logical answer to the Law of Cause and Effect is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”12  The Bible is more valid than any textbook ever written, yet it is the one book that most universities simply will not tolerate.

The Evidence of Design

British astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, said, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.  The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

When common sense is evoked, the biblical account of creation truly is beyond question.  To say that such an intricate universe is the product of chance would be similar to looking at a grandfather clock and assuming that it came together by chance.  No logical, rational person would think such a thing about a clock because of the intricate design of the clock.  However, which is more detailed?  A clock or a giraffe?  How could anyone say that a clock has a designer, yet a giraffe came together by chance?  The giraffe truly is a marvelous specimen, an examination of which provides evidence that disputes the theory of evolution.

The Giraffe

The design of the giraffe is mind-boggling.  Studying this animal single-handedly disproves evolution because it had to be created as a fully functional and unique animal.13  A mature bull giraffe is around eighteen feet tall.  In order to pump blood up its long neck, this animal needs a very large heart so powerful that, as he bends down for a drink, the blood pressure could easily burst the blood vessels in his brain.14  Giraffes need a functional brain and have to drink water to survive.  A dead giraffe cannot evolve.

God created the giraffe with a protective mechanism to close the valves in some of the arteries in its neck as it bends down for a drink.15  As blood beyond the last valve continues moving toward the brain, it is collected by a group of vessels similar to a sponge.  This design could create another problem.  If he is startled and has to quickly lift his neck, the lack of blood flow to his brain would cause him to pass out, possibly leading to his being a lion’s lunch.  Again, a dead giraffe cannot evolve.

However, our Creator designed the giraffe with another protective mechanism.  When the giraffe lifts his head, the “sponge” squeezes its blood into the brain; the veins in the neck contain some valves, which shut to help level out the blood pressure, and the giraffe can quickly be up and running without passing out.16  Does this sound like the product of chance or of a brilliant Designer?  It is quite obvious that a giraffe had to have been created with all of its complex features fully functional.

Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”  People want proof.  The proof is in the design and is “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”  Evolutionists look at the giraffe and say that it evolved from a lesser creature; they say it developed these mechanisms, little by little.  Such an idea seems preposterous when one studies the intricate details that went into the design of the giraffe.  These details dispute the theory of evolution.

The giraffe had to have been made, fully functional, or it would have never survived.  Evolution basically says that when a need arises in an organism, mindless, random chance processes provide exactly what the organism needs to alter and improve it so that it will survive.17  How does a giraffe know it needs all of these mechanisms?  A dead giraffe cannot evolve.  This is a very simple concept.  As the Apostle Paul said, “men are without excuse,” but that does not mean they will not make them anyway.

The Moral Law

The final category that this article will address is the moral law, written on the hearts of every human being (Romans 2:14-15).  No one can argue that man is a moral being, yet evolution has no answer for where man has developed this sense.  C.S. Lewis said, “This rule of Right and Wrong…must somehow or other be a real thing—a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves…It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour, and yet quite definitely real—a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.”18

How does the existence of a moral law prove the biblical creation account?  This moral law had to come from somewhere.  Did it come from mindless, random chance processes or did it come from a Source of morality?  As it has been shown, an object or organism revealing evidence of design supports the existence of a Designer.  If the design exhibits intelligence, then obviously the Designer must have intelligence.  Likewise, if the design exhibits morality, its Designer must be moral.  And if this Designer is moral, then He has to be just.  That explains why mankind, though without excuse, has come up with one thing after another that cancels out the existence of God.

Conclusion

Lewis also said that “human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way” and “they do not in fact behave in that way.  They know the Law of Nature/ they break it.  These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”19  This is the core reason that so many do not want to accept the existence of a designer.  They know that there is a God, that He has given a standard, and that they have broken that standard.  However, instead of humbling themselves and surrendering to Him, they justify their behavior by “disproving” His existence.

This article has given ample evidence to refute evolution and to prove the biblical account of creation.  Not only were humans fearfully and wonderfully made by a Creator, but His glory is seen in all of creation.  He has set certain laws of nature, all of which point to His majestic hand in creation.

It is no surprise that creation is not allowed to be taught in our schools.  When true science is presented, evolution does not stand a chance.  Even a child can see this.  It might be said better that especially a child can see this.  Unfortunately, far too many have become over-educated, blinding them to the truth of our Creator.  This writer suggests that deep down, most evolutionists know the truth but choose to suppress it.

CITATIONS

¹ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6^th ed. (London: John Murray, 1872), 49.

² Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildting (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1953), 1185

³ Neil Campbell, Biology 2^nd ed. (San Francisco: Benjamin/Cummings, 1990), 434.

⁴ Richard Dawkins, “‘Book Review’ of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint,” The New York Times, April 9, 1989, section 7.

⁵ J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1987), 220.

⁶ Mark Cahill, One Heartbeat Away (Rockwall: BDM Publishing, 2005), 38.

⁷ Mark Cahill, One Heartbeat Away (Rockwall: Biblical Discipleship Publishing, 2005), 38-39.

⁸ Richard Leakey, The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, 3.

⁹ Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wikramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1981), 24.

¹⁰ Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1996), 146.

¹¹ Kevin Miller, Ben Stein, and Walt Ruloff, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, DVD, Directed by Nathan Frankowski (Salt Lake City: Rocky Mountain Pictures, 2008).

¹² Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations will be from the New International Version ©1984.

¹³ Bob Devine, God in Creation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 35-37.

¹⁴ Jobe Martin, The Evolution of a Creationist (Rockwall: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2002), 131.

¹⁵ Jobe Martin, The Evolution of a Creationist (Rockwall: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2002), 132.

¹⁶ Jobe Martin, The Evolution of a Creationist (Rockwall: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2002), 132.

¹⁷ Jobe Martin, The Evolution of a Creationist (Rockwall: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2002), 209.

¹⁸ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1952), 20.

¹⁹ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1952), 8.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Cahill, Mark. One Heartbeat Away. Rockwall: BDM Publishing, 2005.

Campbell, Neil. Biology 2^nd ed. San Francisco: Benjamin/Cummings, 1990.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species, 6^th ed. London: John Murray, 1872.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1996.

Devine, Bob. God in Creation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Heribert-Nilsson, Nils. Synthetische Artbildting. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1953.

Hoyle, Fredrick and Chandra Wikramasinghe. Evolution from Space. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1981.

Lewis, C.S.. Mere Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1952.

Martin, Jobe. The Evolution of a Creationist. Rockwall: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2002.

Moreland, J.P.. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1987.

Periodicals

Dawkins, Richard. “‘Book Review’ of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint.” The New York Times, April 9, 1989, section 7.

Leakey, Richard. The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983.

Electronic Documents

Miller, Kevin, and Ben Stein and Walt Ruloff. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. DVD. Directed by Nathan Frankowski. Salt Lake City: Rocky Mountain Pictures, 2008.

How Should We Judge?

I have also recorded this message here just in case you learn better visually.

When I was a boy, I remember seeing people hold signs at baseball games that said John 3:16 on them.  Years ago, that was the most well known verse in America.  It has been replaced.  Can you guess what has become the most popular verse in America?  You probably can.  “Judge not,” which comes from Matthew 7:1.

As someone who did not grow up in a Christian home, I was not familiar with either one of these verses.  I had seen the John 3:16 signs, but failed to discover the verse behind it until someone bought me a Bible shortly prior to becoming born again.  Even though I was unfamiliar with John 3:16 and Matthew 7:1, I was still a strong believer that no one should impose their ideas on anyone else.  In my mind, anyone who declared something was right or wrong was a judgmental bigot.  It’s funny though; in my mind, it was okay for me to judge someone to be a judgmental bigot.  What a hypocrite I was.

It was not until God saved me, removing the veil from my eyes, that I began to see the truth.  I used to look at abortion as a woman’s right and homosexuality as something people could not help; all religions were the same and no one had any business saying otherwise.  I thought murderers and rapists were bad, but my sin was okay because God knew my heart.  God’s word began to show me otherwise.  I realized that God did know my heart, and that inside of it was all kinds of evil.  When I surrendered to Christ, he took care of that wicked heart of mine.  I then fell in love with the Word of God, and began reading it daily.  Therefore, I began to understand that I was called to make judgments; and my eyes had been opened to my responsibility to preach the Word of God to a lost and dying world.

Though these things began to become clear to me, I still struggled with what the Bible said about judging.  Should we, or should we not judge?  That was the question with which I struggled.  I wonder if you have struggled with this as well.  Have you ever wondered what the Bible really says about judging?  It seems clear that Matthew 7:1 teaches not to judge, but then Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2:15 said that a spiritual man judges all things.  What’s the deal with that?!  Were Paul and Jesus teaching two different things?

My goal in this message is to reveal what God truly says about the issue of judging.  We could examine all of the scriptures that speak on this issue, but that won’t be necessary.  In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus addressed everything that needed to be addressed concerning the issue of judging.  Therefore, we will only unpack this section of scripture.  Then, you can take what you have learned here, and see how it relates to other verses throughout the Bible that speak on judging.  And remember, the Bible never contradicts itself.

Allow me to prematurely let the cat out of the bag.  Jesus did not say, “Judge not.”  Yes, the words came out of his mouth, but that’s not what He was saying.  I want to show you, today, that when someone says, “Judge not.” inferring that we are not supposed to make judgments, they are in serious error.  Their error is no different than someone saying that Jesus said, “Go and sin!”  Both of these statements came from the mouth of our Lord, yet both of these statements have a context.  Text out of context is pretext.  Jesus said, “Go and sin…no more.”  And His statement, “Judge not.” was only the beginning of a teaching on how we should judge.

Let us now read Matthew 7:1-5, where we will see that Jesus laid down the parameters for judging.

Matthew 7:1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

At this point, you might disagree with me when I say that Jesus did not say that we should not judge.  If so, hopefully your mind will be changed after we have thoroughly explored this passage.  The truth is, Jesus is not saying that we should not judge.  He is simply giving us the parameters, or guidelines, on how we should judge.  The first, and perhaps the most important guideline is that before we even think about judging anyone, we need to remember that we are not the Judge.  We need to realize that Jesus is the Judge.

Main Idea of the Text:  God has called you to judge, but you had better remember that He is the Judge.  Not you.  You are only relaying His message in order to help your brother.

WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR MAKING RIGHT JUDGMENTS?

1.  Jesus is the Judge.

vs. 1-2a “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged…”

The text says “Do not judge.”  However, it is important that we understand that the Greek word here for judge is krino; meaning, “to assume the office of a judge.”  So, Jesus is really saying, “Do not assume the office of a judge.”  Of course, he is not speaking about the use of judges in our judicial system.  He is talking about you, a man, making yourself out to be the one who determines right and wrong.

Consider the historical context of these words.  Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount.  His immediate audience was His disciples, but a multitude had also gathered to hear His teaching.  Throughout this sermon, he repeatedly addressed things that the Pharisees did, which many people would have thought were actually noble things.  For example, in Matthew 6, Jesus told them not to be like the hypocrites; giving, praying and fasting, in order to be seen by men.  In these passages, He was confronting the practices of the Pharisees.

In Matthew 7:1 He continues to confront the practices of the Pharisees.  They were the ones who had “assumed the offices of judges.”  They were the ones who had inwardly broken the commands of God, yet had no problem pointing out the sin in others.  Jesus is basically saying, “Look, don’t be a hypocrite like the Pharisees, judging people based on your own standards.  If you do, God is going to deal with you in the same way.”  We need to realize that Jesus is the Judge; not us.  Any judgment we make must be a judgment He has already made.  We are not the judge, but we are commanded to relay the ruling of the only true Judge.

Unfortunately, many today make this verse out to say that we should never engage in making any form of judgment…usually concerning a sin that they have determined is okay.  However, they won’t say that about something they agree is bad.  Let me give you an example.

Let’s say that I am taking a walk, and out of the corner of my eye, I see a woman loading her four children in her SUV, as she is pushing it into a lake.  I am far off, so I yell to her, “Stop!  Don’t do it!”  I run to her, continuing to plead with her, “Please!  You will regret this!  That’s murder!”  Now, do you think that a bystander would confront me with my message, saying, “Hey man!  Who are you to judge?”  How ridiculous!  Of course not.  Everyone knows that it is wrong for a woman to kill her children.

But then again…let’s change the scene.  Let’s say that I am ministering at an abortion clinic.  A woman is walking into the clinic with the intention of doing away with her unwanted pregnancy.  In other words, she intends to murder her unborn child.  So, I say, “Please ma’am!  Don’t do this!  You will regret it for the rest of your life.  Come talk with me.  I’m here to help.  This child has done nothing deserving death.  Please.  This is murder…”  In this case, a majority of Americans might pull me aside and say, “Hey man!  Who are you to judge?”

So what is the difference in the two situations?  It is certainly not God’s Standard.  It’s man’s standard.  In the case of the woman pushing her children in the lake, most would agree that is wrong.  However, in the case of the woman paying a doctor to put her unborn child to death, many would say it’s “a woman’s right.”

Both instances are sins against God, but because many do not determine abortion to be a sin, I have no right to make that judgment.  However, I am not worried about what others might say.  I have a responsibility to speak the truth in love.  I know that I will have to answer, not only for the things I do, but also for the things I do not do.  I am not the judge, but I must declare what the Judge has already said.  For, one day, I will have to give an account for the things I have done or not done.  2 Corinthians 5:10 says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

Jesus is the Judge.  We are His spokesmen.  Therefore, we must speak.  You might still struggle with not knowing what Jesus would say on certain things.  Abortion, for example.  Well, all you have to do is turn to His word.  The Bible does not say, “Thou shalt not have an abortion.”  However, there are many verses and passages that speak on how God recognizes an unborn child as a life.  Therefore, we apply the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not murder.”

So we are called to judge, but we are called to do it biblically.  That requires that we first realize that we are not the judge; Jesus is the Judge.  Then, we must rightly relay the ruling of the Judge.  In order to make right judgments, we must use the right measure.

2.  His Word is the Measure.

vs. 2b “and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

The Greek word for measure, used in this verse, is metron.  It is used figuratively to denote a rod or rule for measuring.  In this passage, Jesus is referring to judging the actions of others.  So we should not assume the office of judge; wrongly judging the actions of others.  We wrongly judge when our measure is our own standard.  The measure we ought to use is the Word of God.  Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the law and to the testimony!  If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”

The Pharisees had come up with an array of traditions.  If they saw fellow Jews not keeping these traditions, they set themselves up as judge, and took action against them.  They were using the wrong measure.

This happens frequently in our day and age.  Everywhere you look, people are saying, “Thou shalt not judge!” yet many are guilty of making superficial judgments.  For example, a man preaching on a street-corner will be judged by many as a hypocritical bigot.  They don’t even have to hear what he is saying.  Simply because he has a Bible in his hand, and happens to be preaching, many will judge him to be a hypocrite.  I wonder if you have ever been guilty of making this judgment?

Superficial judgments are frequent today.  They were also quite prevalent in the first century.  James, the brother of Jesus, warned his hearers not to make these types of judgments.  James 2:1-4 says, “1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?”  Do you see that James calls it evil when we make superficial judgments?

Listen to what he has to say in verses eight and nine, “8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”  He is addressing Christians.  Christians should know better than to make these types of judgments, yet he still had to deal with it taking place.  Unfortunately, we have to deal with the same sort of thing taking place in churches all across America.  Cases like this are when it truly is applicable to say, “Who are you to judge?”  We have no business judging someone, using our own measure.  It’s “to the law and the testimony.”  Anything else is superficial, and as James puts it, evil.

We need to be careful.  As the saying goes, “We cannot judge a book by its cover.”  We never know what’s inside.  However, this can be taken too far.  We shouldn’t judge a poor man by the fact that he is poor, but neither should we show him favoritism because he is poor.  If we get a chance to read the book, it does not matter the condition of the cover.  We can then make a judgment on what’s inside.  Forget the cover, altogether!  Likewise, when you are able to examine the character of an individual, you will be able to clearly see how he lines up with the correct measure—the Word of God.

As we look into this passage on judging, we first see that we are not the Judge; Jesus is.  Then we see that we must use the correct measure when making judgments.  When you realize these things, there is still the danger of having a self-righteous spirit, like the Pharisees.  They knew the Law of God, yet they thought they had kept it to a tee.  However, Jesus made it clear that they were hypocrites.  So the third parameter you must use when making judgments, is that you must judge yourself first.  To avoid hypocrisy you must first remove the plank from your eye.

3.  Remove the plank from your eye.

vs. 3-5a “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite…”

Can you picture this image Jesus has given us?  Imagine a man walking around with a plank sticking out of his eye, pointing out the speck of sawdust in the eye of another man.  How ridiculous!  Yet it is just as ridiculous for you to go around judging others for lying when you are a compulsive liar.

Again, Jesus is still speaking to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.  They were extremely good at pointing out the sin in others, yet inwardly they were full of corruption.  I cannot help to picture an extremely large door at the temple so the Pharisees can get in an out, while having a log sticking out of their eyes.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:2-4, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.  They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”  Jesus, then, expressed his deep contempt for their hypocrisy in what is known as the Seven Woes from Matthew 23.  There is no doubt that Jesus has a special hatred for hypocrisy.

In these woes, He was not just busting them for no reason.  He was trying to bring them to a place where they would examine themselves and repent.  That is His desire for us as well.  Before we point out the sin in others, we must first examine our own hearts.  What is in there?  Are our hearts unclean?  If so, the last thing we need to worry about is the state of someone else’s heart.  But remember, after you have removed the log from your eye, Jesus has called you to love your brother, and help him to remove the spec from his eye.

4.  Remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

vs. 5b “…and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

This is probably the most difficult step in fulfilling the will of God when it comes to making judgments.  The world calls it hate speech when someone loves his neighbor enough to confront him in his sin.  Out of the fear of our neighbor hating us, as well as the fear of others looking at us has hate-mongers, we often fail to fulfill this Christian duty.  And it is a duty.

However, not only it is our Christian duty to make judgments and confront sin; it is the loving thing to do.  It is not hate, as the world would say.  Rather, hatred for our neighbor would be displayed through our silence.  Leviticus 19:17 says, “Do not hate your brother in your heart.  Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.”  Proverbs 27:5 says, “Better is open rebuke than hidden love.”  Proverbs 27:6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”  So, regardless of what the world might say, the loving thing to do is to confront our neighbor.

Imagine if an oncologist examined a woman with breast cancer.  All of the tests were in and it was clear.  If she did not begin treatment immediately, her chances of survival are minimal.  So, she sat down with him and he told her, “Well, everything looks great!”  Several months later, she died.  Now, was that the loving thing to do?  He knew she had cancer, but he didn’t want to cause her any grief.  No one in their right mind would say this was loving.  The only way I could imagine a doctor would ever withhold the truth from his patient is if he hated her.  According to the Bible, that is exactly what it is when we withhold the truth from our neighbor.

Therefore, we need to do the right thing.  It can be easy to judge when done superficially.  However, when you judge according to the Word of God, it can be the hardest thing in the world.   We must do it though.  This can be especially difficult because of how the church views judging.

Conclusion

Much of the evangelical church has taken a non-biblical approach on how or if we should judge.  This stems, largely, from an incorrect interpretation of Matthew 7:1.  If you look at that verse by itself, you might come to the conclusion that we should never judge.  We have shown that the correct interpretation teaches the opposite.  We are called to judge.  We just need to do it, realizing that Jesus is the Judge, and we need to do it according to God’s Standard.  We then need to examine ourselves before we examine others.  However, much of the church’s stance is to completely stay away from anything controversial, and to never call sin sin.  They think the loving thing is to just leave everyone to themselves and trust that God will deal with it in time.  This has been devastating.  This view is like a disease, killing the church from within.

I didn’t come up with this term, but if we were to label this disease of the church, “Spiritual HIV” would fit nicely.  If you know how HIV operates, you will understand what I mean.  The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) invades the cells of our immune system, reprogramming them to become HIV-producing machines.  For example, when infected by the HIV, antibodies can no longer perform their primary function, which is to identify and neutralize foreign objects such as bacteria and viruses.  When attacked by the HIV, this Y-shaped protein loses its ability to distinguish good from bad.  Therefore, the antibody is rendered useless.

Does that sound familiar?  When the church is infected by unbiblical teaching, the arms and legs of the church are rendered useless; no longer good for anything.  Jesus said, in Matthew 5:13, “You are the salt of the earth.  But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?  It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.”  Largely due to the church embracing this false teaching that we should never judge, much of the church has lost its saltiness—it no longer has the ability to preserve.  HIV corrupts and disables the system that should be guarding against HIV.  When the church embraces false teaching, she corrupts and disables God’s system that should be guarding against false teaching.

The only answer to this is a return to the Word of Almighty God.  Men of God (spiritual antibodies) need to rise up and confront these false teachings (Spiritual HIV), and smash them by rightly dividing the Word of Truth.  We need to learn how to distinguish good from evil.  If we do that, we can win the battle against “Spiritual HIV.”  However, our first step will be getting the log out of our own eyes.  May we turn to God’s Word, allowing it to cut us to the marrow.  We need to repent, so that we can follow the command of our Lord and call others to repentance.

This is a call to battle.  Have you heard the call?  Has God challenged you today?  If so, how has he challenged you?  Have you been guilty of condemning those who dare to answer the call of God to make right judgments?  Have you judged others by your own standards, rather than God’s?  Have you been guilty of hypocrisy?  Have you judged others for sins that you, yourself, are guilty of?  Or maybe you have kept your mouth shut when you should have spoken.  You might have thought you were doing the loving thing by not saying anything, yet truthfully, you were showing hatred toward them by remaining silent.

Will you respond to the word of God today?  Now is your chance.  You might have thought that the Bible teaches we should never judge.  Well, now you know the truth.  The question is, will you allow the truth to change you?  Come and do business with God today.  The church is in disarray regarding the issue of judging.  The only way this can be reversed is if the people of God repent and begin to speak the truth in love.

My prayer is that God would cut all of us to the heart.  I doubt that anyone who has read this message today, can say that they have always made right judgments.  May God put His finger on the specific sins in all of us.  And may the fruit of the Holy Spirit’s conviction be the response of His people, leading to the wonderful gift of repentance and restoration.  May God restore the truth about judging in His Church.  May it start here and now.  In Jesus’ name, Amen.