In his sermon 'Rendering Righteous Judgments,' Peter Allison delves into Proverbs 18 to explore the principles of making fair and righteous judgments. The sermon emphasizes the importance of acquiring true knowledge and the need to hear both sides of a story before rendering a judgment. It highlights four key principles: the role of gifts in opening avenues for truth, the necessity of hearing both sides and cross-examining witnesses, the use of casting lots for impartial decision-making, and the preference for non-adversarial methods to resolve disputes. Allison warns against the dangers of partiality and underscores the need for forgiveness in conflict resolution. He also discusses the broader applications of these principles in legal systems, interpersonal relationships, and doctrinal debates, urging listeners to pursue truth with integrity and caution, reflecting the impartiality of God.

Our scripture reading is Proverbs 18. I like to read verses 15 through 19. The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. A man's gift makes room for him and brings him before great men. The first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Casting lots causes contentions to cease and keeps the mighty apart. A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, and contentions are like the bars of a castle. As far as the reading of God's Word, Heavenly Father, your Word is truth. Your word is truth. We ask that you would teach that truth to us, that we may not merely be aware merely be aware of it, but that we might know it, that we might know you, for you have revealed yourself in your word.

I pray that you might sanctify these sinful lips to proclaim that truth, For you have ordained that message to be proclaimed by vessels of clay in order that the glory may belong to you. We desire, Lord, to look upon your glory. We ask that you may show it to us in Jesus name. Amen. Well, this passage deals with principles or the principle of rendering a righteous judgment.

Speaks to us about the principles of how do we sift through the details of a matter that is before us and arrive at the correct conclusion. The correct conclusion being that which is the truthful conclusion, that which is the righteous judgment. And There are four principles that are given here in these verses. The first verse I read in verse 15 is one of these verses that looks both ways. There are a number of these verses throughout Proverbs.

They sort of look backwards and they tie What what went before to what what comes what follows? So we saw last week the connection between this verse and Dealing with our problems dealing with the broken spirit the depression that comes because of anxiety or other issues, and saw that there is the answer to these problems in the knowledge of God's Word, in the truth of God's Word, and that the wise seek that knowledge. They seek the Lord's Word for that understanding. And that has application to depression. But this also looks forward, that verse looks forward to these principles of rendering righteous judgments And we see again that knowledge is proper knowledge, true knowledge is an essential part of this process.

There are four principles in these verses. The first is that a gift can prepare the way. A gift can prepare the way for our story to be told. A gift can be a bribe and it can pervert justice. And usually when the Bible is speaking of that type of gift, it uses a different word than what is used here.

There are different words. So earlier when it talks about people taking gifts, judgments, perverting the way, we've seen some of those passages before that we've looked at where gifts are seen as bribes and they pervert justice, they turn people unrighteously away or toward, they cause the people to justify the wicked and condemn the righteous and so on. That's a different word that's used. This word here is a word that usually means, not 100%, there are a couple places where It refers to a bribe or it's used it's used To something that could refer to a bribe for the most part this word here is Used to speak of a gift in a good sense a gift of opening the door for our story to be told. Remember when Abigail came before David after Nabal had slandered essentially David, spoken harshly to David's servants, turned them away despite David having looked out for Nabal's crops, flocks.

And so David is angry, unjustly angry certainly, but he's angry. He's purposed to do harm to Nabal and his whole family. Abigail hears word of it and she wisely secures a number of gifts. She goes to meet David and she presents him with the gifts and she speaks a soft word. She acknowledges the foolishness of her husband's answer and the righteousness of David's conduct toward them and in helping them.

And David's heart is moved and he is very grateful for Abigail's wisdom in all that she did and how she brought a gift and turned David's heart away from what David realized would have been shedding innocent blood. He had no reason to kill Nabal, even despite Nabal being a fool and acting foolishly. He didn't act in a way that was a capital crime. And David in that scene is not the judge of the land either. A gift opens the door for Eliezer, Abraham's servant.

When he came to Rebecca's house and he's asking, he's seeking a wife for Isaac, he brought many gifts and those gifts opened the door for him in that home. Gifts show respect And in some cultures it's just a part of anytime you come, coming to anyone in authority to bring a gift as a, as a sign of respect. It was used by Jacob to gain a hearing with Joseph when they went back he had his sons to bring a gift because it does it shows a willingness to sacrifice when someone brings a gift it shows that they have they've thought about it that they are serious about what they're asking. It shows their willingness to sacrifice. When you see somebody's willingness to sacrifice, then you know that this is something that is important to them.

That's why there's a substantial fee to file a lawsuit. It has to be important enough that you're willing to sacrifice something, you're willing to give something for a value, for the opportunity to present your case. Now, it shouldn't be so great that it prevents, becomes a block to people being able to obtain justice, but it does need to be something that is substantial, significant enough that it shows you're willing to sacrifice it. You put great importance on this. Otherwise there would be an endless stream of complaints coming down before the judges.

There was no skin in the game, there was nothing to sacrifice, no fee to file their complaint. You can imagine all the people that would just come down and file complaints because they're free to do so. So a gift can prepare the way, but it also shows that when we come with a complaint that we are serious about it It's important enough for us to be willing to sacrifice something to give something for it and so a gift can prepare the way. But here's the central principle of rendering a righteous judgment, and that is hearing both sides of the case, both sides of the matter. A fool is enamored, we saw, with his own opinion and his own insight.

He doesn't want to listen. And those who render a judgment we saw earlier without hearing it, that's a folly to them. But verse 17 warns us of a danger of hearing halfway. Hearing halfway is almost worse than not hearing at all. Hearing halfway, Only listening to one side of a story and making a judgment without hearing the other side.

Interestingly, in God's providence, I spent six hours yesterday living this reality. I struck me a number of times. This was the verse that I've been meditating upon this week. And on Thursday, I got a call and an opportunity to spend six hours Seeing this principle put into play that The first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him. You all know the truth of this.

You probably all experienced it many, many, many times. The first one who comes and tells his story, it's a foregone conclusion. We're sold. And then we learn a few other things. Then his neighbor comes and examines him.

And all of a sudden we see it's not quite what we thought it was. There are two aspects to hearing both sides that are presented here. The first is that there is a presentation of the case by both parties. The first one to plead his cause seems right until somebody else, another party, somebody who is representing the other side comes and presents his story, presents it his way. You see, just as every coin has two sides, the truth has at least two sides to it.

Or more. I mean, God's wisdom is called manifold. Manifold. That's many different aspects to it. Manifold means appearing in various ways and at various times.

Different ways that it can appear. The truth is manifold. And it's finite people. We struggle to know all the aspects, all the various aspects to truth. Let alone to be able to express all those aspects properly, perfectly, with perfect accuracy.

The other principle here of hearing both sides is the ability to cross-examine witnesses. This is so critical and without this process you cannot arrive at the truth. There needs to be the ability to cross examine the witnesses, to question, to ask questions of the other side that they are required to answer. That's vital to understanding the truth. You can hear both sides, but there needs to be the ability to cross-examine.

That's what it says here, it says, until his neighbor comes and examines him. The neighbor comes, he presents his case, but he's also examining the other party, the first party. The Second party examines the first party. He asks questions. We call that cross-examination today.

This principle of hearing both sides and cross-examining the witnesses is the backbone of our legal system. It is written into our constitution. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused person to face their accusers, to be able to question them. If they're not there, if you can't face them, then you can never question. You don't even know what they are saying, but you are not able to question them.

When that witness is testifying against you, or testifying differently than you, or is on the other side of the complaint, however you want to phrase that, you are able, our Constitution says you are able to examine them, to face them and to question them. One American lawyer wrote that cross-examination is, quote, beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. Well, he's half right. It wasn't recently invented. In fact, it's been right here in the Word of God for 3, 000 years and known before that.

Because this is a very, an eminently biblical and righteous concept. This is a way of testing the truth. Testing the truth. And that's something we are taught to do. We are to test the spirits, John says, because they're not all from God.

Candidates for office are to be tested or tried before being obtained. Cross-examination holds people accountable for what has been said, so that they can't abandon their words. If someone writes a check for more than is in their bank account, something probably all of us have inadvertently done at one time or another, The law says that we have abandoned our tender. We have abandoned our offer to pay. A check is an offer to pay something.

And when you write a check that doesn't have enough funds in the bank you've abandoned the losses you have abandoned your offer to pay. In law and cross-examination in a very similar way cross-examination holds people accountable for what they have said so that they are not free to simply abandon their words, to say something that is not quite accurate or not what they meant to say, and then to just ignore that it was ever said. Cross-examination brings up what was said and requires some accountability. This is what you said. There needs to be either a recognition of, yes, this is what I meant to say or, well, no, that's right.

You're right. It needs to be refined. It needs to be edited. It needs to be amended a little bit Wasn't quite accurate the way it was stated cross-examination brings out these nuances Oftentimes people don't intend to lie and when there is trust in among people we don't assume that people are lying but we are finite with respect to our vision. We're finite with respect to what we hear.

We're fallible with respect to our memory and our interpretation. We don't see everything. Just ask anybody that's ever investigated an accident or something, a crime, and they question the witnesses and they'll tell you that first-person witnesses are notoriously contradictory. Well, they're not necessarily all lying. Some of them might be, but they're not necessarily lying in most cases.

They have just seen things that are from a different perspective, different things stuck out to them in their memory. And so it's the duty then of somebody who is the trier of fact to be able to cross-examine all these witnesses and to bring their stories together to, from that story, determine what the truth is. We do not see with our eyes and we don't really see here with our ears. We see and we hear with our brains in a physical sense and as well as in a non-physical sense. Everything that we see and hear is interpreted.

We are completely unable to see without interpretation or to hear without interpretation. Those two things are inseparable. We bring our interpretation to it. All light and all sound is interpreted light and interpreted sound. And the same, you know, our sense of knowing is our interpretation, our presuppositions about the lights and the sounds that are hitting our eyes and our ears.

It's our brain that that sees it in a physical sense and in a non-physical sense. There are gaps in the light that strike your eyeball where the optic nerve is. But you don't see a big black spot in the middle of your field of vision, if you have good vision. You see a continuous image. Why?

Because Your mind fills in that black spot. It just fills it right in. And you are not even aware that there is a hole in the middle of your sight. There are certain things you can do to demonstrate that fact to yourself. You can't see color with your peripheral vision, and yet, if I look out to the side, and probably for you too, you're going to see color out there.

Why? Because your mind fills all that in and makes it color. It just does it. You don't even realize it's doing it. Our minds work that same way with what we see and with what we think.

We apply our presuppositions to our thinking. And we interpret what we see in the light of those presuppositions. And so there is this necessity then for cross-examination if we are to understand the truth. And you know what I'm talking about when you have listened to one side of a story and it just seems like a foregone conclusion. It seems ironclad and it seems absolute.

Then you hear another side and there are other facts that are brought out. It wasn't that anything was wrong that was the first person said. It's just that there are more things that they may not have been aware of or they may not have thought important or they may have missed or Or they may just have omitted and When those things are brought out then it all of a sudden it changes our our understanding of the situation. And so a very, very critical part of a legal system, whether that's in the civil realm or in the church or in the family. We make judgments.

All of us are called to render judgments in those situations as God has called us. So it is very important to remember when any time we are in that position of needing to make a judgment that we, at the first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and cross examines him. Cross examination, it's vital. You cannot convict somebody of anything without the ability to cross examine the witnesses, without sitting them down under oath, holding them especially accountable before God to speak what is true. And then to ask them to give an account for the words that have been said and to explain those words in the light of other words that have been said.

Again, It's not because people are lying, although sometimes that is true, but it's because we are finite, because we are limited, because everything we see and hear is interpreted. And we cannot simply express with perfect detail everything that happened. There are some things that are pressed more importantly upon us than other things. It's a cross-examination and it's a vital part of knowing what is true. Now the third principle is, A lot is a non-adversarial method of judgment.

It provides an impartial way of rendering, making a decision between two things. A lot is not a revelation, it is not a revelatory statement from God. It's not like the Scriptures. It's providence. It was used by Joshua to divide the inheritance among the different tribes, to provide the land of Israel among the different tribes.

The principle here is that a lot causes contentions to cease. Any mother or father who has divided up the cake knows that if the pieces aren't equal, you might have contentions about, well, their piece is bigger than my piece. And you can imagine now having whole tribes that were saying, well, their place is better than my place. And you didn't give them, you know, you didn't give us enough land or whatever. Just an untold number of contentions.

But by using a lot, it took out that personal element. They couldn't say, well, Joshua, you gave your tribe the best land. All the land, All the inheritance was chosen by Lot. It was used to replace Judas as the apostle. They quoted Psalm 109 that another should take his place and they said to find people, find disciples who have the criteria was they had been with Jesus from his baptism to his ascension.

One of his disciples that can be a witness with us of his resurrection. And so they picked two people that met that criteria, but they used a lot to determine which of those two would be numbered with the Apostles. So it's useful, it's not useful, it shouldn't be used, where we need to render a judgment on a matter between right and wrong. We can't use the lot to decide whether something is right or wrong, But we can use it where both outcomes are lawful outcomes. A or B are both lawful.

And so before we use the law, we need to ensure that the things that we are picking, that both are lawful, and that every effort has been made to apply all the knowledge of scripture, all the truth that is in the Word of God, to apply all of that knowledge to the situation that is before us. And when we have done that and then there is more than one option available to us, then it's perfectly appropriate, and even biblical, to use a lot to make the choice. So the election of somebody to an office, they couldn't elect both because they wanted 12 apostles. So they wanted somebody that they could number with the disciples who were the remaining 11 apostles. So they didn't take both of them.

They had to pick between them. But who should they pick? They were both qualified. Instead of making it a popularity contest, who was liked by more people, they prayed, knowing that the outcome of the Lot is in the hand of the Lord, and they prayed and then they chose by Lot. And so, a Lot is another way then that we can remove our own biases when we have to make a choice between two things that to us seem rather very equal.

You know, if only one person can, if there's only one seat available, and you've got three people that would equally like to go, how are you going to pick between them? A lot is a good way to take your own biases out of that. If you want to choose between the three equal people, a lot is one way to do it. It's a biblical way to do it. You can draw straws, you can use a numbered cube, you can use a coin.

There are many different ways that one might draw a lot. It eliminates contentions by placing the arbiter, the one making the choice, beyond human reach. And so it's a good principle to remember in making judgments. And Fourthly, the fourth principle is that a non-adversarial method ought to be used whenever possible. A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, and contentions are like the bars of a castle.

Brother offended is very hard to win. Cross-examination can very easily become an adversarial process, especially where there is a lack of trust. You're challenging someone's understanding. You're challenging, even among people who trust each other and are speaking the truth, you're challenging somebody's understanding and saying, I'm not sure if it's quite right. How do you connect what you're saying or rationalize what you're saying with this other piece of information over here.

We're being called to account. It's a good thing and yet it's difficult for proud humans to do that. And so there can be difficulty in that process. It is a testing and it can lead to offenses. It shouldn't, but it can.

And so a non-adversarial way can sometimes be better and should be used if it's possible, but there's an even better way and that's in Matthew 18 and Colossians 3 where Jesus says you can forgive those who have wronged you. And Peter says, well how many times should I forgive someone who's wronged me and Jesus said well 70 times 7 Or Colossians 3 were to bear with one another and if one Has a complaint against another Paul wrote forgive each other as the Lord has forgiven you. So you also must forgive. But the fact remains that we are sinners and we must forgive but at times we don't. This is a very important principle to remember in any of these processes.

That it is very easy to give offense and an offended brother is harder to win than a strong city. Well there are many applications of these principles, many applications to our life beyond the court of law, even as parents, children, especially siblings can be quick to bring contentions to us. There should be a bar there. There should be a price to pay to be able to bring a contention. It shouldn't be something you can just freely do with no skin in that game, as you say, with no sacrifice.

It should be something that's important enough. And so we don't want to encourage this unlimited, unfettered bringing of complaints because there is no end to the complaints that can be brought. We need to teach forgiveness And the principle there is that a gift makes room. A gift makes room. There's some sacrifice.

You know, another application of this is in the area of doctrine. Doctrine. Here is this doctrine or is this doctrine true? They can't both be true. They're conflicting doctrines.

And You can listen to one person describe one doctrine and it sounds, oh yes, that's absolutely right. But remember, the first person to present his case seems right until the neighbor comes along and examines him. So We need to remember that in the matter of doctrines. We study the scriptures and we see that different godly men have come to differing positions on parts of the scripture that we need to cross-examine our witnesses. That can be done through books.

We can read books. We can read a book that presents this case and read a book that presents another case. We can talk to people. We can ask questions. But this should be a part of this process of coming determining the truth about a particular doctrine and and you can take time time is always good and especially if you're coming to a position that seems to be different from a confession or different from what the church has practiced that should give great pause.

No matter how many people are saying it and no matter how convincing it is. That's when we need to go out of our present time and find a witness from another time. Find somebody from another era who can come and cross examine the witnesses of today. Because there are many things that can seem very, very right to us today, but that weren't obvious to men before us. And it's not like the men before us are perfect, it's just that their imperfections are not where ours are.

And our weaknesses and imperfections are not where theirs were. And so another time, another era, witnesses of another era can become very helpful in this cross-examination process because they, coming from another time, have other weaknesses. And when we are weak, maybe they are strong and they can bring another viewpoint to the matter in front of us. If we can't see the merit of a position that is different from ours, then we are not ready to reject it because we really haven't heard both sides. When your heart fills the pull and your mind sees the why and feels the weight of the arguments for the other position, then you're in a position to decide.

Then you've heard both sides. Then you've cross-examined the witnesses. There was a minister who changed his position on a significant point of doctrine. A point of doctrine that was public. We change our positions maybe on things that are not so public, but this is a public thing.

And a few years later he changed it back to the first position. And his assessment was that he didn't really know, after he'd gone back to the first position, his assessment was that the first time he didn't really know the basis for his first position and he was ripe for the picking. Those were his words. He realized he changed without having cross-examined the witnesses And he didn't really understand the position that he was leaving. But as I listened to him speak about why he changed back to the first position, I realized he didn't understand the second position that He left any better than he understood the first position when he left it.

Although I think he understood the first position now that he was back there. But see, we have to cross-examine the witnesses. We have to understand both sides. And we know we can be more certain that we've understood both sides when we feel the pull. We feel the weight of the arguments.

We feel our heart being drawn. We see the reasons why these other godly men are attracted to this and hold to this view. When we are in that view then we are better able to judge. We have more assurance that we have heard both sides. When we can be persuaded of a new position by a book that is opposed to that position.

Are you ever convinced of a new position? Is your study of the scriptures? You have a position, you have learned that position, now you are studying a new position. When you are convinced of the new position by a book that is opposed to that position, well then you have more confidence that you have heard both sides of the argument. So ask questions.

Ask questions. That's what this passage says. This is principle. And any teacher who is offended by honest questions, asking them to defend their position. Why do you believe this?

How do you justify your view on this point with this thing over here? Anybody who, any teacher who is offended by those kinds of honest questions is not a faithful teacher. Is not a faithful teacher. Now there are dishonest questions and there are questions asked out of an impure heart, but I'm talking about honest questions. They're motivated by a desire to know, a desire to understand, and not a desire to make somebody look foolish or to make yourself look good.

There are applications in business. How many times have you heard a sales presentation? And it's whatever they're selling seems like the greatest thing since, as we say, since sliced bread. And Google has been a wonderful, wonderful device in that sense. You can hear this wonderful presentation and you can quickly Google it and say, well, what's the story on this?

And you can very quickly find out what the story is on it. Many times I've used that and been saved from making a bad purchase by being able to bring the other side. And sometimes you can confirm what has been said, and then you have more confidence in making a buying decision, and making especially something with long-term implications. Here are both sides before we render a judgment on a purchase. This is especially true in interpersonal relationships.

We all like to talk about the things that have happened to us. We all like to relate events and anecdotes and conversations about our interactions, big and little. It's very easy in those interactions to form judgments about what we are hearing, about what somebody did or didn't do, about the boss at work or that we maybe never met. It's just they are all around us. As we talk and relate, we're always talking about things and we as people are making judgments.

We really need to be very careful, both in listening and in speaking, that we don't make judgments without hearing the other side, especially where there is significance attached to those judgments. I'll tell you, there is probably more significance attached to judgments than we first might realize. This doesn't mean that there isn't a right or wrong side, but it does mean that when we're speaking we should be very careful how we tell our side, especially if it's an area of disagreement, especially if it's an area where we're bringing a complaint about not having been treated properly. Very careful how we tell our side. And we should tell it in such a way, here is I think the principle to remember, we should tell it in such a way that if the other side were present listening to us tell it, They wouldn't find fault with what we've said They would be able to acknowledge that what we've said is is accurate now.

They may want to say more and so on But but they would say they would say yes you have represented what my side accurately to the extent you represented it. That should be our goal. Anything we write, if there is any element of contention, any element of disagreement, that whatever we have said, if the other party that we are in disagreement with were to see what we've said or to hear what we've written or hear what we've said, they would acknowledge, yes, you have fairly represented my side. That is how Christ is. Christ is the righteous and impartial judge.

There is, Paul said, no partiality with God. For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of that wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. For the Jehovah your God, Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 10.17, is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe." There's that other word for gift. Peter in opening his mouth to the Gentiles said, I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality But to every nation who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him That's when the Gentiles were first coming into the church Now then let the fear of God be upon you. Be very careful what you do, for Jehovah your God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or taking of a bride.

2 Chronicles 19, 7 Ephesians 6, 9 Paul warns masters, do the same thing. Give up threatening knowing that both their master and yours is in heaven and there is no partiality with him. If you address as Father, the one who impartially judges according to each man's work. Conduct yourselves in fear during your time of stay upon the earth. Be careful, brothers and sisters, that what we say is just and that we have heard both sides of a matter before we've rendered judgment on it.

May the Lord grant to us to do that. Almighty Heavenly Father, we once again thank you for the wisdom of your word, a wisdom that even unbelievers and pagans recognize. Wisdom in how we can reach impartial and just judgments. Lord we ask your forgiveness where we have failed here and by your grace equip us to be like you, rendering judgments impartially, rendering righteous our judgments. This we ask in Jesus name, Amen.