I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved;
Because they kept not thy word (Psa 119.158).
“Mind your own business.” “Judge not.” “To each his own.” How does these slogans strike you? Do you generally agree or disagree with these sentiments?
Personally, I am torn. For me, it all depends how they are intended. Each one is either right from the Bible or very close to its maxims, and yet the one who quips them today may mean something very wrong.
For example, the first slogan corresponds to this: “Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you” (1 Thess 4.11). “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you” (NIV84). Also, 1 Peter 4.15 says, “Let none of you suffer . . . as a busybody in other men’s matters.” Paul condemns certain people who “learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies” (1 Tim 5.13). Indeed, we all should “mind our own business.”
The second slogan shortens what Jesus said in Matt 7.1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and in Luke 6.37, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.” Many commonly assume he meant that virtuous persons make no judgments about whether others are doing right or wrong, but this interpretation is patently absurd, for even Jesus did not practice that, nor his apostles, nor the prophets of old. However, Jesus’ prohibition, rightly interpreted, is a very important part of what it means to be truly godly. “In their own day-to-day conduct the disciples are forbidden to usurp the place of God in judging and condemning other people.”1 “What is prohibited is an arrogance that reacts with hostility to the worldly and morally lax, viewing such people as beyond God’s reach.”2
“To each his own” could also be used in a praiseworthy sense. I must recognize that God’s will in some things for some people might be different than what it is for me, and I must avoid imposing my preferences upon them. Scripture advocates a healthy sense of respect for others and their personal liberty. In discussing the option of marriage, Paul wrote, “For I would that all men were even as I myself [i.e., single]. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Cor 7.7).
There is more. In certain controversial matters within the church, Paul wrote, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom 14.4-5). This may shock you even more. “Keep what you believe about this matter, then, between yourself and God. Happy are those who do not feel guilty when they do something they judge is right!” (Rom 14.22 TEV). Let us avoid any notion of “cookie cutter Christians” where absolute uniformity of judgment about everything is expected. There needs to be freedom within the church to disagree about “doubtful things” (Rom 14.1) while manifesting our essential spiritual unity in Christ and his gospel. If “to each his own” means this, it is indispensable to the spiritual well-being of every believer and every church.
However, such legitimate biblical perspectives have been twisted to support a libertine antinomianism where “every man does that which is right in his own eyes” (Judg 17.6; 21.25) and disaster is inevitable. It is commonly supposed to be virtuous in the name of “tolerance” to make no judgments whatsoever about other people’s religions or lifestyles, as if we all must remain agnostics—or if you do have strong opinions of such matters, you must keep them to yourself. Ironically, we would not know of this proposed ethic if those who hold it had kept their opinion to themselves, consistent with the morality they profess. Denouncing the intolerant sure seems an intolerant thing to do.
As intended by the worldly, then, the slogans, “mind your own business,” “judge not,” and “to each his own,” are poisonous, and we ought to repudiate them utterly.
David’s inspired text beginning this meditation may be considered in three parts.
HIS OBSERVATION OF SINNERS
“I beheld the transgressors.” David lived in the real world. Because human nature never changes, we can easily believe there was just as much sin of various kinds in the ancient world as there is today, and that the truly righteous were then a minority, just as today.
As a thoughtful man of God, David cared about his fellow man, and reflected upon the state of society. “I beheld,” he says, indicating a thoughtful pondering about the way things were and why they were that way. The original word literally means “I see,” and is variously rendered in different places as examine and consider. David’s example reproves self-obsessed naval-gazers who fail habitually to muse upon public matters, except as directly related to their own private case.
How did David characterize the ones he beheld? The AV “transgressors” renders a noun that describes someone who deals treacherously, covertly, fraudulently, deceitfully, or unfaithfully. People like this are not promise-keepers. Their word is not their bond; it means nothing or next to nothing. In our culture they may be habitually late for appointments. They renege on agreements. They declare bankruptcy instead of climbing that difficult hill of repaying one’s creditors. They unjustly divorce their spouses. If politicians, their administration policies are far from their campaign rhetoric. If car dealers, they sell you a lemon or sneak in surcharges after it would be difficult for you to reverse your decision to buy. If preachers, they care more about pleasing their hearers to keep the donations flowing than saving them to fill heaven with worshippers to God’s praise. As David’s society abounded with such people, so does ours. Thoughtful observance makes that obvious, does it not?
HIS FEELING ABOUT SINNERS
“And [I] was grieved.” The Hebrew uses a very strong word. It denotes the feeling of one who hears something so abhorrent to his very soul that he responds with all sincerity, “I think I’m about to be sick,” and then he vomits. The root word means “the deep emotional reaction of the subject issuing in a desired repulsion of the object.”3 It is the same word God uses of his own deep irritation with the sinful Canaanites: “I abhorred them” (Lev 20.23).
While heaven-bound saints live in the midst of a corrupt society populated and molded mostly by hell-bound reprobates, a genuinely-holy sickness of heart is inevitable. In fact, anyone utterly devoid of loathing for and grief over the transgressors may be sure he is not a real Christian. When Judgment Day comes, such a worldling will be like those carefree Jews in Ezekiel’s vision of Jerusalem, not marked with those to be spared destruction. “Set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. . . . Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark” (Ezek 9.4-6). We see from this that to be righteously grieved by sinners is a universal trait of those whose hearts have been changed to beat in sync with the holy Lord himself.
HIS UNDERSTANDING OF SINNERS
“Because they kept not thy word.” This is both explanation and justification. Why did David feel as he did, and was it right to feel that way? If he were grieved merely because they were hurting him in some way, we could chalk that up to self-interest which may not be righteous. If he felt irritated because they did not make good subjects in his kingdom and were a cause of his personal dishonor, again it would be unworthy. But David explains that the fundamental reason for loathing them was that they were not loyal subjects to the sovereign Lord. The evidence was that they were not faithful to live according to God’s revealed will. Whether pagans or formally within Israel, these proved unbelievers because of the lack of truly good works done for God’s glory.
David’s greatest concern was not personal but theological. Above all things he was jealous for the honor of God, as God himself is. So much of what is labeled “righteous indignation” does not deserve that name because it is motivated by something less than zeal for God’s glory.
What a challenge to us! Are we aware of society’s general anti-God character? Does that truly and deeply grieve us? Is God’s glory our supreme motivation? To the degree that we are truly humble, loathing our own sins, and setting apart Jesus as Lord in our hearts, it will be, and that will prompt us to faithful, benevolent conduct and ministry. Amen.
Notes:
1. Marshall, NIGTC, on Luke 6.37.
2. Bock, BECNT, on Luke 6.37.
3. TWOT #1996.