Jesus as Both Advocate and Judge – and We as Advocates

[Anonymous]

We had a wonderful lesson in our High Priests Group, and I want to share one particular insight I had near the end of the lesson:

We talk about Jesus as the Judge, but I like another title better: Advocate with the Father. I like the framing of Jesus representing us at the judgment seat of the Father – being our advocate (defender) for mercy, with the Father being the actual Judge. I like it conceptually, but I also like the practical application that hit me on Sunday.

When we take his name upon us, we are NOT assuming his post-mortal responsibilities, including that of Judge. In fact, we are told explicitly not to judge (with a result that we won’t be judged ourselves). Rather, we are accepting a place in his mortal ministry. We are doing for others what he did for them during his life and through his death. We are promising to recognize their inherent value as children of God and advocate for them. We can’t do that unless we refrain from judging them, strive to understand them, and look for justifications to defend them.

In our current system, the ONLY conflict is for Bishops, since they are called Judges in Israel. However, even they can start with their responsibility to be Advocates, and then, and only then, move on to acting as Judges. This approach, if understood and followed, would result in judges and judgments that are as merciful, gracious, and loving as possible – based on understanding WHY people did what they did and not just WHAT they did. If this was our default orientation (being an advocate/defender), much of the problem we have with overzealous, Pharisaical, strict exactness and our sometimes exclusive obsession with worthiness would disappear.

I still am working out my full thoughts on this epiphany, but I wanted to share the initial impression with all of you here.

[Anonymous]

Oh I am loving it. Keeping going.

Quote:

We are doing for others what he did for them during his life and through his death. We are promising to recognize their inherent value as children of God and advocate for them

That is going in my quote book.

[Anonymous]

Yes I like it, and fitting it into my personal framework of “earth life is school” this concept could be seen as its own important course of study.

As I try to equate “final judgment” with the Father as something that comes at the end of schooling I wonder if it can be related to commencement, or more of a recognition than the traditional idea of “judgment.” Of course those who do not receive a diploma (and cannot progress to a career) may feel judged.

[edit:] After putting that into words it sounds more “earn your way” than I intended.

[Anonymous]

I tend to imagine the Judgement more like an overall review. Since I was a teen I had trouble with a God who allowed his children a chance to come to a foreign place, try their wings, and then judges them. I know part of that came from the fact that my mom is a convert, her parents were non-religious, though they were Christian and from my point of view they were some of the best people I’d ever met. I couldn’t come to terms with a God who would dismiss or downgrade a sincere and good person’s efforts. I still can’t.

Somewhere along the way, probably during seminary, I came up with the review board plan. Jesus helps you set up the presentation. Guides you through it. Maybe even leans over and reminds you of things. I see God asking me questions and inquiring how or why I did such and such. I always assumed I would get to help decide what my final outcome would be.

Maybe it’s a pipe dream to help me soften the blow of knowing I will never fit the ideal mold. Ray and Orson I am going to add your ideas to it. I might as well enjoy the judgment day my way as fully and as long as I can. Cause if it’s the other method, I am guaranteed to be below. Just sayin’.

[Anonymous]

In our lesson, the consensus was that there is no traditional judgment but that we simply inherit the kingdom that best matches the condition of our soul – and I was able to mention my belief that such a “placement” will happen only after each of us has spent time and eternities in process of eternal progress (that we will inherit a kingdom only when we have finished growing in any way). I didn’t make the obvious link to nearly universal exaltation, but I was happy with the strong support of the overall conclusion.

[Anonymous]

I am entertaining myself here thinking of other analogies. I see a process of becoming more than “proving” our worth. Our goal is to learn and grow, if our heart is in that purpose we “win”, if it isn’t we are then like a dead seed.

Similar to what you’re saying Ray maybe we can imagine ourselves as different types of seeds in God’s garden. After given time to sprout and grow the “judgment” may be seen as the Father moving down the garden rows inspecting each plant: “yes you are a handsome stalk of corn, hello what a beautiful tomato plant, …and here we have a hearty batch of pumpkins…

Our fruit is its own worth, what we become is who we are. The whole process glorifies God. The conditions we have been given enable our growth.

[edit:] …and obviously God would also be an exalted vegetable plant, not a perfect analogy but illustrates a goal of growing into our potential.

[Anonymous]

Amen Orson. Love the analogy.

Ray – This is so enjoyable. Thanks for starting it.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

In our current system, the ONLY conflict is for Bishops, since they are called Judges in Israel. However, even they can start with their responsibility to be Advocates, and then, and only then, move on to acting as Judges. This approach, if understood and followed, would result in judges and judgments that are as merciful, gracious, and loving as possible – based on understanding WHY people did what they did and not just WHAT they did. If this was our default orientation (being an advocate/defender), much of the problem we have with overzealous, Pharisaical, strict exactness and our sometimes exclusive obsession with worthiness would disappear.

SP’s are also judges in Israel, are they not? They preside over “courts” for endowed members, Melch Priesthood Holders, etcetera? And they also give counsel?

Anyway, you have addressed a criticism we level at Bishops — that we can’t trust them with our deepest thoughts, or seek meaningful counseling because they have the obligation to protect the church. They often feel that discipline is good for the sinner, even when the sinner may not even need it. I have been in situations where they feel they have to have a council even when the person is repentent.

And this is in the context of Leadership Roulette. At least Christ doesn’t have imperfection to deal with…

I think it’s a beautiful concept, but I see the Bishop different from Christ in that he is both counselor and judge. I don’t see him as an advocate for us very much[ perhaps to the SP if a Stake disc council must be called, but if the sinner did a really bad thing, the BP may not be much of an advocate. I am not sure if he’s even at the Stake disciplinary council unless asked to be there.

For me, the analogy doesn’t hold. Beautiful concept for the Savior, if we are in fact deserving of advocacy. What about the times we are not, for the sake of justice, or when mercy has been extended so many times, and we have “broken” it so many times we no longer deserve it?

Sorry to be so contrapuntal but these are my thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

In fact, we are told explicitly not to judge (with a result that we won’t be judged ourselves).

There’s an interesting phenomenon that I see play out in our church lessons when those scriptures are shared. Nearly every time someone shares those scriptures someone else will point out that in the Joseph Smith translation it says:

Quote:

Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.

There are lots of ways to interpret that. Most of the time when someone makes that clarification I think they really mean we should discern whether something is good or evil. In other words it isn’t a call to judge people, it’s a call to make a determination on whether something leads us toward god.

I’ve also heard it used in the context of, “Well our judgement is righteous, so we’ve got nothing to worry about.” But what really constitutes righteous judgement? Is it a measure of how sanctimonious we can be?

And now I’m that guy sharing b… b… but unrighteous judgement when someone says judge not. Great. 😳

If you want to read something fun (and I’ll point out, very dated):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

But what really constitutes righteous judgement? Is it a measure of how sanctimonious we can be?

Righteousness is the cord upon which the law hangs. Any guesses? “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Righteousness can only come out of love. If it is not love, it is not righteous.

When someone needs help on a Sunday, and the only way to help happens to involve shopping — what is the righteous path? Failing to help is unrighteousness, “was man made for the Sabbath?” Obviously this is only one example.

I won’t say “tough love” doesn’t exist, but we should always be striving to stay true to love, not some impostor. There are many, and the names may vary from piety to “self”righteousness. The “self” negates the love, which severs the tie to God and the law.

In the garden analogy Love is the water that supports the life and growth in the garden. Truth is the fertile soil.

[Anonymous]

My only point in the quoted comment was that considering your own judgement to be righteous may lead someone to become arrogant.

Love is a tricky mistress. I’ve heard love used as a justification in instances where people believe that they are saving people from themselves. The classic example is people actively fighting gay marriage and other gay rights because they don’t want gay people to get the impression that homosexuality is okay. They feel they are helping because other people are “digging their own graves” so to speak.

In some instances that kind of love for people works out, in other cases it doesn’t. Maybe there’s an alternate word to describe that phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

My only point in the quoted comment was that considering your own judgement to be righteous may lead someone to become arrogant.

Yes, I agree. Pride and arrogance is the risk and the challenge of mortality. Our call to “become” says we must be capable of pride, but then our task is to deny ourselves of any ungodliness. Many fail, we all fail, this is life.

nibbler wrote:

Love is a tricky mistress. I’ve heard love used as a justification in instances where people believe that they are saving people from themselves. The classic example is people actively fighting gay marriage and other gay rights because they don’t want gay people to get the impression that homosexuality is okay. They feel they are helping because other people are “digging their own graves” so to speak.

The way I see it: real Godly love involves listening, it cannot support an agenda, it cannot be conditional. Humans often do have errant understanding which leads to misplaced motivations etc. etc. We are prone to misdirect our love, but Godly Love is what we are called to emulate. This type of Love is righteousness, the impostor will “draw near with lips” but deny in the heart. It may wear a thin disguise of Christian intent but at the core it fails. Christian Love knows how to “lose it’s own life” (and agenda) for the sake of righteousness.

The companion of real Love is humility, where arrogance is present Love is anemic.

[Anonymous]

Yes, people often twist that verse to be about making distinctions and judging things or situations or actions. Of course, we have to do that. In context of the entire Sermmon on the Mount, however, it is clear that the verse applies to judging people as a sentencing judge would.

This is where translation issues make a difference. The original word is Greek (krineo) and means “condemn by judgment” more than “judge” as we define that word in English. We are told not to judge people (the condition of their heart and their ultimate destination/reward), since we all have motes and beams and blind spots.

[Anonymous]

Thought I’d throw this in…

Background: when I was a young child, someone harmed me in a terrible way. To date I have never harbored anger towards this person. Part of that comes from the fact that it never occurred to me to BE angry. Another part is that I can look at this person’s life now and see what sad condition it is in. I pray for this person’s safety. I pray for happiness.

Every Psych book says that I should be in counseling. I should be going through 12 steps. I should be in bad shape. Everyone says that I have the right to be angry. I should demand justice. And, I guess in some ways I certainly could seek justice and I could be angry. I’m justified in doing so, right?

But I am not and it isn’t even a dilemma on my part.

I have forgiven this person.

So, now we think, “Okay, they’ll be punished in the hereafter.”

Maybe.

But, here is how I picture judgement day (sort of):

Say we are at the bar of judgement and those whom we have harmed are allowed to come and air grievances. Maybe they can petition the court to punish us. Perhaps we are reminded of those wrongs before our accusers show up…you know, to prepare our case. lol. Either way, let’s say that we can see the court docket and when we see someone who wronged us, we can show up at the appointed time and ask for justice.

If this scenario is correct, I will not be found pressing charges against the person who harmed me. In fact, I may show up as a character witness to point out the good things and charitable acts that I’ve witnessed from this person. Maybe I’ll not even mention the harm done to me. Of course this person will have other “crimes” that will be brought up in court, but I won’t be an accuser.

Now, when it’s my turn at the bar to be judged, I sure hope that the people whom I’ve harmed choose not to “press charges” against me either

So, I guess I see the Savior act in a similar way that He did when the woman taken in adultery was brought before him.

He was asked to be a judge in that situation.

At some point, He asked the woman where her accusers were.

There were none…for that crime.

Maybe He was then an advocate and encouraged her to change her ways.

When our time comes, may we not have accusers either. :thumbup:

I hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

That is beautiful, QA.

Thank you for sharing it.

[Author]

Posts