Matthew 7:1 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Immediate Context: Jesus speaks this during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), addressing a crowd of disciples and others on a Galilean hillside. The genre is ethical teaching/discourse, part of a larger sermon on kingdom living. This verse opens a passage (7:1–5) that continues with warnings about hypocrisy and the imagery of the speck and the log.

Interpretive Fault Lines

Scope of Prohibition:

Absolute pole: All moral evaluation of others is forbidden
Qualified pole: Only certain kinds of judgment (hypocritical, final, uncharitable) are prohibited

Agent of Judgment:

Individual pole: Personal condemnation of other individuals
Institutional pole: Judicial or ecclesiastical processes of accountability

Genre of Command:

Literal imperative pole: Binding legal/ethical prohibition
Rhetorical exaggeration pole: Provocative wisdom statement meant to arrest attention, not literal rule

Relationship to Later NT Texts:

Self-contained pole: This verse stands on its own terms
Harmonizing pole: Must be read through 1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 18, John 7:24, etc.

Judgment as Act vs. Judgment as Attitude:

External pole: Forbids the speech act of pronouncing judgment
Internal pole: Forbids the heart posture of condemnation

The Core Tension

The central disagreement is whether Jesus prohibits all evaluative discernment or only a specific corrupt form of it. Readings that emphasize the absolute force of "judge not" collide with other New Testament commands to exercise discernment, confront sin, and practice church discipline (1 Cor 5:12, Matt 18:15–17, John 7:24). Competing interpretations survive because the verse itself does not specify what kind of judgment is forbidden, and the Greek term krinō has a semantic range spanning "evaluate," "condemn," "discern," and "pass sentence." The tension persists because the verse can be read either as a radical prohibition that destabilizes conventional morality or as a qualified warning against hypocrisy that preserves the need for discernment.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

κρίνω (krinō):

Semantic range: To separate, distinguish, evaluate, judge, condemn, decide, go to law
KJV/NKJV/ESV: "Judge" (preserves ambiguity)
NIV: "Do not judge" (emphasizes prohibition without specifying type)
NLT: "Do not judge others" (adds specificity not in Greek)
Amplified Bible: "Do not judge and criticize and condemn" (expands to show range)
Catholic/Orthodox traditions: Often translate with emphasis on condemnation rather than discernment
Reformed traditions: Often distinguish "judging" (forbidden) from "discerning" (required)

The fracture is whether the single Greek verb encompasses all evaluation or only final condemnation. Traditions that see the verse as absolute prefer translations that leave "judge" unqualified. Traditions that harmonize with other NT texts prefer translations or glosses that distinguish types of judgment.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Absolute Prohibition of Moral Evaluation

Claim: Jesus forbids all evaluative judgment of other persons' moral status.

Emphasizes: The unqualified force of "judge not," the radical ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, the later warning "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (7:2).

Downplays: NT texts commanding church discipline (1 Cor 5), Jesus' own command to "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24), the speck-and-log passage that implies eventual judgment after self-examination (Matt 7:5).

Handles fault lines by: Taking scope as absolute, genre as literal imperative, agent as individual. Sees later NT commands as addressing different situations (e.g., formal excommunication, not personal condemnation).

Cannot explain: How Paul can say "judge them that are within" (1 Cor 5:12) without contradicting Jesus, or how the church can practice Matthew 18 discipline.

This reading conflicts directly with Reading 3, which sees the verse as prohibiting only hypocritical judgment, not all discernment.

Reading 2: Prohibition of Final/Eschatological Judgment

Claim: Jesus forbids assuming God's role as final judge of eternal destiny, not everyday moral discernment.

Emphasizes: The passive construction "that ye be not judged" (implying God as judge), the eschatological context of the Sermon's warnings about the last day (7:21–23), the distinction between human and divine prerogatives.

Downplays: The immediate context of the speck and log (which concerns everyday fault-finding, not eternal destiny), the lack of explicit eschatological language in 7:1 itself.

Handles fault lines by: Scope is qualified (only final judgment), agent is individual claiming divine authority, genre is literal but with theological precision.

Cannot explain: Why the passage moves immediately to the speck and log (a mundane example), rather than continuing with eschatological themes.

This reading conflicts with Reading 1, which does not limit the prohibition to final judgment, and with Reading 4, which sees the verse as rhetorical rather than a precise theological distinction.

Reading 3: Prohibition of Hypocritical Judgment

Claim: Jesus forbids judging others for faults one has not addressed in oneself, not all moral evaluation.

Emphasizes: The speck-and-log passage (7:3–5), which explicitly addresses hypocrisy, the Pharisaic context (Jesus repeatedly condemns Pharisaic hypocrisy in Matthew), the implication that after removing the log, one should help with the speck (7:5).

Downplays: The unqualified wording of 7:1 itself (no mention of hypocrisy until 7:3), the possibility that 7:1 is a broader statement qualified by 7:3–5 rather than equivalent to it.

Handles fault lines by: Scope is qualified (only hypocritical judgment), agent is individual, genre is literal imperative qualified by immediate context, attitude (self-righteous condemnation) is the target.

Cannot explain: Why Jesus uses the unqualified imperative "judge not" if he only means "do not judge hypocritically."

This reading conflicts with Reading 1, which takes "judge not" as absolute regardless of the judge's moral state.

Reading 4: Rhetorical Overstatement / Wisdom Provocation

Claim: "Judge not" is hyperbolic wisdom rhetoric meant to provoke self-examination, not a literal legal prohibition.

Emphasizes: The genre of wisdom sayings (compare Proverbs, rabbinic paradoxes), the Sermon's pattern of radical provocations ("if your eye offends you, pluck it out"), the expectation that hearers will discern the intent behind the rhetoric.

Downplays: The imperatival force of "judge not," the risk of evacuating the text of normative content, the lack of explicit signals of hyperbole in 7:1 itself.

Handles fault lines by: Genre as rhetorical exaggeration, scope indeterminate (the rhetoric destabilizes without specifying limits), agent is individual.

Cannot explain: How to distinguish this from other Sermon commands that are taken literally (e.g., "let your yes be yes"), or what actionable guidance the verse provides.

This reading conflicts with Readings 1, 2, and 3, all of which treat the command as a literal prohibition with specifiable content.

Harmonization Strategies

Strategy 1: Two-Judgment Distinction

How it works: Distinguishes krinō (condemn/pass final sentence) from anakrinō or diakrinō (discern/evaluate). Matthew 7:1 forbids the former, John 7:24 ("judge righteous judgment") and 1 Corinthians 5 command the latter.

Which readings use it: Reading 2 (final judgment) and Reading 3 (hypocritical judgment) rely on this strategy to reconcile Matthew 7:1 with other NT texts.

What it cannot resolve: The Greek text does not use different verbs—krinō appears in both Matthew 7:1 and the passages commanding judgment. The distinction is imported from theology, not evident in lexical choice.

Strategy 2: Individual vs. Corporate Distinction

How it works: Matthew 7:1 addresses personal condemnation between individuals; 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18 address formal church discipline, a different context with different authority.

Which readings use it: Reading 1 (absolute prohibition) uses this to preserve the radical force of 7:1 while allowing for institutional accountability.

What it cannot resolve: The same Greek verb krinō is used in both contexts, and Matthew 18:15 begins with individual confrontation ("if thy brother shall trespass against thee"), not corporate action.

Strategy 3: Before-and-After Hypocrisy

How it works: Matthew 7:1–5 is a sequence: (1) Do not judge (7:1), (2) because you are hypocritical (7:3–4), (3) first deal with your own sin (7:5a), (4) then you can help your brother (7:5b). The prohibition is temporary, not absolute.

Which readings use it: Reading 3 (hypocritical judgment) depends on this narrative structure to allow for eventual discernment.

What it cannot resolve: Why the opening command is absolute in wording ("judge not") rather than conditional ("do not judge until..."), and whether "cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (7:5) is itself a form of judging.

Strategy 4: Condemnation vs. Discernment

How it works: "Judge" in Matthew 7:1 means condemning the person; "discern" means evaluating behavior or teaching. The NT forbids the former, commands the latter.

Which readings use it: Readings 2 and 3 employ this to harmonize with 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ("prove all things"), Philippians 1:9 ("abound in discernment"), 1 John 4:1 ("test the spirits").

What it cannot resolve: The lexical evidence does not support a sharp semantic distinction between "condemn" and "discern" in krinō—the word is used for both, and context determines sense.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Anabaptist / Peace Church Traditions

Emphasis: Radical nonresistance and nonviolence; Matthew 7:1 is read as part of a broader prohibition against coercion, punishment, and institutional force.

Supporting documents: Schleitheim Confession (1527), Mennonite Confession of Faith (1963)

How differs: More likely to read 7:1 as absolute or nearly absolute, extending beyond personal condemnation to systemic judgment (courtrooms, prisons, war). Resistant to harmonization strategies that preserve institutional judgment.

Reformed / Calvinist Traditions

Emphasis: The necessity of church discipline and moral discernment; Matthew 7:1 warns against hypocritical or rash judgment, not righteous discernment.

Supporting documents: Westminster Confession of Faith XXX.2–3 (1646), Calvin's Institutes IV.12, Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 105

How differs: Strongly favors Reading 3 (hypocritical judgment) and harmonization via Two-Judgment Distinction. Emphasizes Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and Galatians 6:1 as qualifying and specifying the kind of judgment permitted.

Roman Catholic Tradition

Emphasis: Distinction between judgment of actions (licit) and judgment of souls/final state (reserved to God). Magisterial authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19, 18:18).

Supporting documents: Catechism of the Catholic Church §1861, §2477–2478; Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II Q60 (On Judgment)

How differs: Employs Strategy 1 (Two-Judgment Distinction) and Strategy 2 (Individual vs. Corporate). Strong sacramental/institutional framework allows for formal ecclesiastical judgment while preserving the prohibition on private condemnation.

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Emphasis: Spiritual danger of judging; even true judgments damage the soul of the judge through pride. Emphasis on therapeutic correction, not juridical condemnation.

Supporting documents: Sayings of the Desert Fathers (e.g., Abba Moses' "judge not"), Ladder of Divine Ascent (John Climacus, Step 10), liturgical prayers ("Judge me, O God, yet judge not my sins")

How differs: Less concerned with harmonizing Matthew 7:1 with church discipline texts; more focused on the spiritual effect of judgment on the judge. Even when judgment is "correct," the act of judging is seen as spiritually perilous.

Progressive / Mainline Protestant Traditions (20th–21st century)

Emphasis: Inclusion, anti-judgmentalism as social ethic, critique of moral gatekeeping especially on sexuality, gender, lifestyle.

Supporting documents: Social statements from ELCA, UCC, PCUSA on inclusion and non-discrimination; popular works (e.g., UnChristian by Kinnaman & Lyons, 2007)

How differs: Often cites Matthew 7:1 against traditional moral teachings, especially those seen as exclusionary. Less emphasis on harmonization with church discipline texts; more emphasis on the verse as critique of Christian moral arrogance. Sometimes approaches Reading 1 (absolute prohibition) in rhetoric, though not always in formal theology.

Reading vs. Usage

Textual Reading: In historical-critical and most traditional readings, Matthew 7:1 is embedded in a discourse on hypocrisy, self-examination, and the dangers of fault-finding without self-awareness. The verse does not stand alone; it introduces a passage that assumes eventual moral evaluation ("first cast out the beam... then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote," 7:5).

Popular Usage: Frequently deployed as a conversation-stopper to shut down any moral critique: "Who are you to judge?" or "The Bible says 'judge not.'" Often invoked without reference to 7:2–5 or to other NT texts.

Where They Diverge: Popular usage often treats 7:1 as an absolute, decontextualized prohibition applicable to all moral claims, while textual readings (even those emphasizing the radical ethic of the Sermon) recognize that the passage itself envisions a process of self-examination leading to moral clarity.

What Gets Distorted: The verse becomes a shield against accountability rather than a call to self-scrutiny. The original rhetorical force (which destabilizes self-righteous judgment) is inverted to destabilize all moral discernment, including the kind Jesus elsewhere commands.

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd–5th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Sectarian boundary-drawing, rigorist vs. laxist debates (e.g., Donatist controversy over lapsed Christians)

Named anchors:

Clement of Alexandria (Stromata II.15): Distinguishes judging the person (forbidden) from discerning actions (required)
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew 23.1): Emphasizes hypocrisy; the log-and-speck passage is central, not peripheral
Augustine (De Sermone Domini in Monte II.18.60–61): Warns against judging hidden motives, but allows judgment of manifest acts. The prohibition is against rash or final judgment.

The Fathers generally read 7:1 in light of 7:3–5, resisting absolute readings.

Medieval Era (6th–15th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Jurisdictional disputes (ecclesiastical vs. secular courts), inquisitorial procedures, monastic debates over correction

Named anchors:

Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II Q60): Systematic treatment distinguishing types of judgment. Formal judicial judgment is licit when authorized; private condemnation of persons is not. Matthew 7:1 forbids usurping judgment, not exercising legitimate authority.
Bernard of Clairvaux (On Consideration I.8): Warns bishops against excessive zeal in judging; spiritual leaders must examine themselves first.

Medieval exegesis formalized the distinction between judgment of acts (licit) and judgment of interior state (reserved to God).

Reformation Era (16th–17th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Authority of church discipline vs. individual conscience, role of civil magistrate in religious matters

Named anchors:

Luther (Sermon on the Mount, 1532): Distinguishes the office of judging (commanded for magistrates, pastors) from private vengeance or condemnation. Matthew 7:1 addresses the latter.
Calvin (Institutes IV.12.1–13, Harmony of the Gospels on Matt 7:1): Strong defense of church discipline. The verse forbids "inconsiderate and proud judgment," not righteous discernment. Failure to discipline is unfaithfulness.
Anabaptists (e.g., Menno Simons, Complete Writings): Emphasize nonresistance; some read 7:1 as incompatible with judicial oaths, magistracy, capital punishment. Tension with mainstream Reformers.

The Reformation divided over whether Matthew 7:1 limits institutional authority or only individual arrogance.

Modern Era (18th–21st centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Secularization, pluralism, decline of moral consensus, culture wars over sexuality and identity

Named anchors:

19th-century liberalism (e.g., Harnack, What Is Christianity?, 1900): Emphasizes the ethical core of the Sermon; "judge not" as universal humanitarian principle, less attention to church discipline.
20th-century existentialism (e.g., Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, 1926): Radicalizes the demand; the hearer is thrown back on existential decision, not moral casuistry.
Evangelical resistance (e.g., D.A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount, 1978): Critiques popular misuse of the verse, insists on harmonization with church discipline texts.
Postmodern/Progressive readings (late 20th–21st century): Appropriates "judge not" as critique of Christian moral imperialism, especially on LGBTQ issues. The verse is weaponized against traditional sexual ethics.

The modern era sees the verse polarized: either a prop for moral relativism or a misunderstood command in need of rescue by exegetical precision.

Open Interpretive Questions

Does the Greek verb krinō in Matthew 7:1 carry a narrower sense (condemn, pass final sentence) or a broader sense (evaluate, discern, form moral judgments)? Lexicons list both; context must decide, but the immediate context (7:2–5) does not resolve the question definitively.
Is Matthew 7:1 a standalone aphorism that circulated independently, or is it inseparable from 7:2–5? Source-critical questions about Q and oral tradition leave this open. If originally separate, the absolute reading gains plausibility; if always part of the speck-and-log unit, the qualified reading is stronger.
How does the passive "that ye be not judged" function? Is it a divine passive ("that God not judge you"), a reciprocal social observation ("that others not judge you"), or an eschatological warning ("that you not be condemned at the last day")? Each option supports a different reading.
What is the relationship between Matthew 7:1 and other Gospel sayings of Jesus? Does John 7:24 ("judge righteous judgment") contradict, qualify, or clarify Matthew 7:1? Are they addressed to different audiences or situations?
Is the speck-and-log passage (7:3–5) a parable, an example, or a literal instruction? If parabolic, the application is flexible; if literal, it specifies a process for moral correction.
Can the Sermon on the Mount be harmonized with the rest of the New Testament, or does it represent a distinct (kingdom, interim, prophetic) ethic? This hermeneutical question affects all Sermon interpretation, including 7:1.

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Consensus Points

The verse appears in the Sermon on the Mount, addressed by Jesus to disciples and crowds.
The immediate context includes the principle of reciprocity (7:2) and the speck-and-log passage (7:3–5).
The Greek verb krinō can mean both "evaluate" and "condemn."
The verse has been widely used in popular rhetoric, often detached from its context.
Jesus elsewhere commands or practices discernment (John 7:24, Matt 18:15–17, parables of judgment).

Persistent Disputes (mapped to Fault Lines)

Scope of Prohibition:

Does "judge not" forbid all moral evaluation, or only a specific corrupt form?
Is the command absolute or qualified?

Agent of Judgment:

Does the verse apply to individuals only, or also to institutional authorities (church, state)?

Genre of Command:

Is this a literal imperative, a rhetorical provocation, or a wisdom saying requiring interpretive discernment?

Relationship to Church Discipline Texts:

Do 1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 18, and related passages contradict, qualify, or presuppose Matthew 7:1?
Can harmonization strategies resolve the tension, or do competing canonical voices remain?

Translation and Lexical Range:

Should krinō be translated to preserve ambiguity ("judge") or to specify sense ("condemn," "evaluate")?
Do different English renderings smuggle in interpretive decisions?

Judgment as Act vs. Attitude:

Does the prohibition target the external act of pronouncing judgment, the internal attitude of condemnation, or both?

These disputes remain unresolved because the verse itself is compact, the key term is semantically broad, and the canonical context includes both radical-sounding prohibitions and clear commands to exercise moral discernment.

Related Verses

Matthew 7:2 — Reciprocity principle: "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"
Matthew 7:3–5 — Speck and log: hypocrisy in judging others
John 7:24 — "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment"
1 Corinthians 5:12–13 — "Do not ye judge them that are within?"
Matthew 18:15–17 — Process for confronting sin in the church
Romans 14:13 — "Let us not therefore judge one another any more"
James 4:11–12 — "He that speaketh evil of his brother... judgeth the law"
1 Corinthians 4:5 — "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come"
Luke 6:37 — Parallel: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged"