p. 10 | Do Not Judge by G. H. Heald

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Aug 11, 1904

Do Not Judge

By G. H. Heald

G. H. HEALD

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not despise him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.” Rom. 14: 1-4.

The apostle here distinguishes between two classes of people. One class believes it is their privilege to “eat all things;” another class, designated by the apostle as “weak,” selects a diet consisting of herbs. We would now call them vegetarians, I suppose. Whether Paul designed to indicate such as weak in mind, or in body, or in the faith it is not necessary to consider now, though the first verse of the chapter rather indicates that the last was the apostle’s intention. It would seem at any rate that so far as Paul was concerned, the man who believed he could eat all things was nearer right (see 1 Tim. 4:4, comparing the third verse, also Rom. 10:25); but his main contention is that each man should be free to follow the dictates of his own conscience in these matters, without adverse criticism from his fellow men. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.”

The Saviour, in the sermon on the mount, as recorded in Matt. 7:1-5, teaches that the spirit of criticism is a worse evil than the thing criticized. “Thou hypocrite,” he says, “first cast out the beam, out of thine own eye; and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Paul, in the first verse of the second chapter of Romans, says, “Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” He who indulges a spirit of criticism against the diet of others has not yet become possessed of the true principles of healthful living. A spirit of criticism necessarily embodies malice and envy, and of itself is a hindrance to the highest enjoyment of health.

A feeling of irritation on my part, because a neighbor who I think ought to know better is indulging in pork chops, ham sandwiches, cigars, and other abominations, would be an indication that my health reform is not that “born of the Spirit,” but an article which I have manufactured and put on. It is, in fact, a spurious, hand-made article. I am, in the language of Paul, doing the same thing as the person I have criticized; or, as Jesus says, I am a hypocrite.

If anything is plainly taught in the New Testament, it is that, whatever our belief may be regarding diet, we are not to condemn others for not doing as we do. It is right to educate, to spread the principles of healthful living far and wide; but in doing it we should adopt as our guide the Saviour’s words, “If any man receive not my words, I condemn him not.”

The gospel of health is a message of salvation, not of condemnation. If I have more knowledge on these lines than my brother, it is not my prerogative to rein him up to my standard, but it is my privilege to so live that he shall not stumble over what he sees in my life. “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to those that are weak.” 1 Cor. 8:9. Read also the eighth verse for the connection.

I will conclude with a modernized version of the parable of Luke 18:—

Two men went up to the church to pray,—the one an Adventist and the other a saloon-keeper. The Adventist stood thus and prayed with himself. God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this saloon-keeper. I keep the Sabbath, I live health reform, I pay tithes of all I possess, and give liberally to the cause: and the saloon-keeper, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other.

Is this a forced application of the parable? Let us see. The Pharisees were a very good sort of people, as men go.

They were conscientious and scrupulously careful as to their daily lives. The Saviour selected for the parable the classes that to the people seemed the best and worst in society—those who made most pretentions to righteousness, and those who made no such pretentions. To the remnant church he says in Revelation, “Thou sayest, I am rich and increased in goods, . . . and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” The tendency is to overlook our own faults, and see as with a magnifying glass the faults of others.

Let us “judge not.”