Matthew 7, Judging Others

[Just Dave]

Matthew 7:1-6 is probably one of the most misquoted/taken out of context passages in the Bible. I've seen these verses misused by believers and non-believers alike and I think it would be a good idea to take a look at them.

Matthew 7:1-6 (NASB)

1 Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Point #1: This isn't a judgement towards condemnation, only God can do that. This is a judgement of behavior and/or character that could lead to eternal condemnation if that person doesn't repent.

Point #2: These verses are also a warning from Jesus about hypocrisy (v.5), the point being that before you judge (correct) someone don't be guilty of doing the same thing.
In other words make sure your side of the street is clean before you start pointing fingers.

Point #3: "Remove the speck from your brother's eye" demonstrates the purpose of judging is to correct others when they are doing wrong with the hope they will repent.

Point #4: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs" (v.6) Some people will not receive correction and others will not receive God or the things of God, Jesus calls them dogs (yes, this is judging) and exhorts us to use wisdom.

What do you say?

[Adeodatus]

Yup, pretty much. The passage is about how to judge rather than a proclamation to never judge.

[Just Dave]

Yup, pretty much. The passage is about how to judge rather than a proclamation to never judge.

Yes, good summary

[Not a Cook]

Just Dave - thanks for posting this! Far too many folks are quick to spout "judge not" without having any clue what Christ was teaching in context. He was not forbidding all judgment. In context, He was forbidding hypocritical, self-righteous judgment.

Without making a whole sermon out of this, here are some basic points I'd like to briefly point out:
1. In verse 5 of this passage, Christ makes it plain He's talking about hypocritical judgment. Not only that, but He tells us to remove the plank from our own eye so that we can then see clearly to remove the speck from our brother's eye.
2. In verse 16 of this passage, Christ makes it clear that we will know false prophets by their fruits. This necessarily involves judgment - judgment of the fruits and judgment of recognizing false prophets for what they are.
3. When studying the Scriptures, it is not only necessary to consider the immediate context, but also the whole counsel of the Scriptures. In John 7:24 (NKJV) we read that Christ said,

As such, Christ is clearly not forbidding all judgment in Matthew 7. In fact, He tells us here to judge righteously.
4. 1 Corinthians 5 clearly tells us to judge those inside the church.
5. Romans 16:17 also requires that Christians righteously judge others.
6. A lot of folks don't understand what judgment is. If God has declared His judgment concerning a matter already (e.g. God has declared homosexuality an abominable sin), then for us to say the same thing is not us judging. It is merely proclaiming what God has already declared in His righteous and perfect judgment.

Christians should (and must) judge. However, our judgment must be without hypocrisy and self-righteousness. We must remove the planks from our own eyes before dealing with the mere specks in our brothers' eyes.

A Christian who has been lulled into not judging at all is lacking discernment and in danger of swallowing all sorts of dangerous doctrines and opening themselves up to the "ravenous wolves" in "sheep's clothing" about which Christ warned us. He or she is also in danger of violating the clear commands of 1 Corinthians 5 and Romans 16:17.

[Just Dave]

Just Dave - thanks for posting this! Far too many folks are quick to spout "judge not" without having any clue what Christ was teaching in context. He was not forbidding all judgment. In context, He was forbidding hypocritical, self-righteous judgment.

Without making a whole sermon out of this, here are some basic points I'd like to briefly point out:
1. In verse 5 of this passage, Christ makes it plain He's talking about hypocritical judgment. Not only that, but He tells us to remove the plank from our own eye so that we can then see clearly to remove the speck from our brother's eye.
2. In verse 16 of this passage, Christ makes it clear that we will know false prophets by their fruits. This necessarily involves judgment - judgment of the fruits and judgment of recognizing false prophets for what they are.
3. When studying the Scriptures, it is not only necessary to consider the immediate context, but also the whole counsel of the Scriptures. In John 7:24 (NKJV) we read that Christ said,

As such, Christ is clearly not forbidding all judgment in Matthew 7. In fact, He tells us here to judge righteously.
4. 1 Corinthians 5 clearly tells us to judge those inside the church.
5. Romans 16:17 also requires that Christians righteously judge others.
6. A lot of folks don't understand what judgment is. If God has declared His judgment concerning a matter already (e.g. God has declared homosexuality an abominable sin), then for us to say the same thing is not us judging. It is merely proclaiming what God has already declared in His righteous and perfect judgment.

Christians should (and must) judge. However, our judgment must be without hypocrisy and self-righteousness. We must remove the planks from our own eyes before dealing with the mere specks in our brothers' eyes.

A Christian who has been lulled into not judging at all is lacking discernment and in danger of swallowing all sorts of dangerous doctrines and opening themselves up to the "ravenous wolves" in "sheep's clothing" about which Christ warned us. He or she is also in danger of violating the clear commands of 1 Corinthians 5 and Romans 16:17.

Yes, it's interesting that Jesus teaches us how to judge in the first 5 verses and then goes on to warn us about a list of things that require us to judge in order to spot them.

You brought up John 7, I was hoping someone would do that.. 'when you judge do so rightly'.

[Sailormilan2]

I can agree with most of that, except for v.6. If you look at Deut. 23:17,18, you will find that V.18 refers to v.17. The "whore" of v.18 referring to the "whore" of v.17, and the "dog" of v.18 referring to the "sodomite" of v.17. In fact, Strong's says that an idiomatic meaning of "dog" in Aramaic is a "male cult prostitute".
Now, if that is the case, then Christ, as a Galilean speaking idiomatic Aramiac, may be referring to "sodomites" in v.6.
Again, if that is the case, then John's idiomatic use of "dogs" in Rev.22:15 means "sodomites". John being a Galilean who spoke idiomatic Aramaic.
Just thoughts, and they may be wrong.

[Not a Cook]

I can agree with most of that, except for v.6. If you look at Deut. 23:17,18, you will find that V.18 refers to v.17. The "whore" of v.18 referring to the "whore" of v.17, and the "dog" of v.18 referring to the "sodomite" of v.17. In fact, Strong's says that an idiomatic meaning of "dog" in Aramaic is a "male cult prostitute".
Now, if that is the case, then Christ, as a Galilean speaking idiomatic Aramiac, may be referring to "sodomites" in v.6.
Again, if that is the case, then John's idiomatic use of "dogs" in Rev.22:15 means "sodomites". John being a Galilean who spoke idiomatic Aramaic.
Just thoughts, and they may be wrong.

You're on a rabbit trail. There's lots of places we can point, but Leviticus 20:13 (NKJV) might clear things up for you:
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

[Sailormilan2]

I have no problems with the Leviticus verse. I was just pointing out a possible meaning for the word "dogs" in the Matthew verse. Too many people I know seem to think that Christ was touchy feely good, and would never say anything bad about anyone.

[Just Dave]

I have no problems with the Leviticus verse. I was just pointing out a possible meaning for the word "dogs" in the Matthew verse. Too many people I know seem to think that Christ was touchy feely good, and would never say anything bad about anyone.

In the 1st century dogs were considered filthy animals, they also walked around in packs causing all different types of trouble... Like Dagos in Australia they would steal your baby.

When I went to Jerusalem in 2005 I went for a walk in the wee hours of the morning only to find myself surrounded by a pack of wild dogs, I could only imagine what it was like back then.

To call someone a dog was and still is the ultimate insult.

[Not a Cook]

I have no problems with the Leviticus verse. I was just pointing out a possible meaning for the word "dogs" in the Matthew verse. Too many people I know seem to think that Christ was touchy feely good, and would never say anything bad about anyone.

Gotcha; my sincere apologies! I totally misunderstood what you were saying.

[bountyhunter]

Glad we settled that. The world doesn't spin correctly if there isn't a sanctioned way for a religion to judge and condemn the actions of other people.

I still remember Anita Bryant explaining that California's earthquakes were because God didn't like all the gays there. And Bachman says Obama's actions are going to cause the rapture (wouldn't that be a good thing?)

As long as we can hate people with a clear conscience, all's right with the world.

So, we can judge others as long as we do it "righteously"..... of course, should I even bother to point out that every human inherently believes their opinions are correct and therefore, believes that their judgements are correct?

Nope.... just too easy.

Definition:

righteous
[rahy-chuh s]

1.characterized by uprightness or morality:
a righteous observance of the law.

2.morally right or justifiable:
righteous indignation.

3.acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous:
a righteous and godly person.

So, since we are all knowing, we can certainly be secure that our own judgements are correct, right?

Nobody would ever have a religion where they were sure they were being righteous but actually were not? ISIS ring a bell?

[WASR10]

Glad we settled that. The world doesn't spin correctly if there isn't a sanctioned way for a religion to judge and condemn the actions of other people.

I still remember Anita Bryant explaining that California's earthquakes were because God didn't like all the gays there. And Bachman says Obama's actions are going to cause the rapture (wouldn't that be a good thing?)

As long as we can hate people with a clear conscience, all's right with the world.

So, we can judge others as long as we do it "righteously"..... of course, should I even bother to point out that every human inherently believes their opinions are correct and therefore, there judgements would be correct?

Nope.... just too easy.

How does disagreement or the judging of righteousness equal hate?

Sent from my tappy device thingy

[Sailormilan2]

My question is this. If God commands certain actions for certain activities, are we "judging" for "condemning" those activities and the people who do them?

[Not a Cook]

Glad we settled that. The world doesn't spin correctly if there isn't a sanctioned way for a religion to judge and condemn the actions of other people.

I still remember Anita Bryant explaining that California's earthquakes were because God didn't like all the gays there. And Bachman says Obama's actions are going to cause the rapture (wouldn't that be a good thing?)

As long as we can hate people with a clear conscience, all's right with the world.

So, we can judge others as long as we do it "righteously"..... of course, should I even bother to point out that every human inherently believes their opinions are correct and therefore, believes that their judgements are correct?

Nope.... just too easy.

Definition:



So, since we are all knowing, we can certainly be secure that our own judgements are correct, right?

Nobody would ever have a religion where they were sure they were being righteous but actually were not? ISIS ring a bell?

How does disagreement or the judging of righteousness equal hate?

Sent from my tappy device thingy

My question is this. If God commands certain actions for certain activities, are we "judging" for "condemning" those activities and the people who do them?

WASR10 and Sailormilan2 beat me to good responses.

I find it interesting that, when confronted with the fact that the Scriptures (including Christ's own words) demonstrate clearly that Christians MUST judge, you (bountyhunter) respond by going on a diatribe about Anita Bryant and Bachman and Obama.

I also find it interesting that you implied judgment is somehow equivalent to hate. Judgment and hate are two different things. Search the Scriptures. God will judge all humanity, each person individually. That does NOT, however, mean He hates us. The Scriptures make it clear that He loves us.

It sounds like you just don't want to acknowledge that both Christ and Paul instructed Christians to judge righteously. Have you carefully studied the passages referred to above for yourself? Your beef on this matter is with what the Scriptures say, not with me.

[bigmike82]

It sounds like you just don't want to acknowledge that both Christ and Paul instructed Christians to judge righteously.

How can you judge righteously?