Condemning and Rebuking

Many people rashly quote Matthew 7:1 in defense of their own peculiar sin. I had a woman who had asked for her and her boyfriend to ride bikes with us say "We're not married, just living together, but I'm a Christian, so don't judge me." In this context she is meaning  "Don't think ill of me!"

I had not said a word!  She confessed to living in fornication by making this statement. I said not a word, although I knew she was wrong!  I did not judge her, but she had just judged herself. She believed I thought ill of her!

The Bible verse which she was paraphrasing is Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

If I think to myself "That's sinful!" Have I judged? No. I acted on the information given to me. If I think or say "You're going to hell!" Have I judged? Yes. I sentenced her and I have no authority to do so; my authority is limited by own unholiness. If I have an opinion about her behavior am I wrong? No!

What if in the course of the conversation I had told her of this scripture:

1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

The verse is referring to a Christian brother or sister. If that person is a fornicator, "with such an one no not to eat"!  I make a "judgement call" (opinion) as to whether to apply Scripture or not.  If the lady confesses Christianity, but admits to fornication, my "judgement call" (opinion) is to refrain from eating (associating) with her because I'm obeying Scripture. I'm not rashly condemning the lady, but obeying Scripture.

If we look at the original Greek, "judge"  (Strong's #2919, Greek: krino) Thayer's definition in context is  "pass judgment on the deeds and words of others".  This is a circular definition for it uses "judgement" to define "judge".  Another definition from Thayer's is "to be of opinion, deem, or think ill." This latter definition is more fitting the Christian who isn't sentencing, but reproofing! Let's see what the American Heritage Dictionary says. "Judge" means to pass sentence on or condemn, the definition being obsolete for contemporary use, but right on for seventeenth century! You see, we have two definitions of the same Greek word!  I believe that the proper context for Matthew 7:1 is "condemn". I believe that she, and most people, use it in the context of "don't have a bad opinion of me"!

You see we have context! If I'm merely admonishing or rebuking. Thayer's "opinion" definition is more suitable. If one is being mean and self-righteous, American Heritage is more correct (condemn).

Rewriting Matthew 7:1 using alternate, but applicable wording says "Condemn not that ye be not condemned."  I believe this is the appropriate context and I reinforce that using Adam Clark Commentary:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."These exhortations are pointed against rash, harsh, and uncharitable judgments, the thinking evil, where no evil seems, and speaking of it accordingly"

"Condeming" someone is rash and harsh. We're being uncharitable when we damn people to hell for what they do because we deserve the same punishment ourselves! Hence, while we rightfully evaluate other's Christian walk in order that we may obey scripture ourselves and to warn the sinner, we're not to do so with condemnation or a mean streak.  Yes,we're called to "warn"!

We evaluate others constantly, although maybe not consciously. It does not say "Don't have an opinion." We are led to the spirit based on what we sense to tell people what pleases God:

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Reproof is "to rebuke" and means to criticize or repress.  It's not a ticket to condemn, but it is to lovingly inform of the consequences!  It's the nature of our perception to warn that counts, not the fact that we evaluated behaviors. That's the difference... our attitude toward the person we perceive as sinning! Do we want them to change the sin because we love them or are we being like a Pharisee? (A Pharisee had a heart of contempt, but a love of the law).

Let's look at the legal system.

I have been stopped by a trooper many times for "speeding". His instruments provided evidence that I was in fact in violation of the law. He didn't write the law, but his job is to ensure safety by monitoring drivers.  I tell the trooper "I'm not speeding." His reply may be something to the effect "It would appear from my radar that you were driving in excess of legal limits."  Have you  been judged? No! Your behaviors have been noted and evaluated for "probable cause". Are you going to jail? No! You have yet to be judged!

On rare occasions instruments are wrong or speed limit signs have been destroyed. Extraneous pieces of evidence may provide proof that I'm innocent of the charge. If the trooper is merely seeking to insure public safety he likely has no animosity toward me. He wants to save not only my life, but the lives of others. He isn't condemning (judging) me. He perceives that I did wrong. He writes a ticket which tells me where, when and to which judge to appear.

Then I appear before the judge!  The trooper is there. He tells the court why I was summoned. He perceived that I was  speeding because his radar indicated that I was driving in excess of the law. The judge then asks me if I plead "guilty" or "not guilty". If I say "guilty" I have confessed my wrong and will likely receive some type of condemnation, normally monetary loss.  If I say "not guilty" I can present the evidence that the speed limit sign was torn down, hence I'm not guilty! I can be judged guilty or innocent! Judgment is two-sided. The trooper who "rebuked" me, didn't condemn me; the judge condemned me because I condemned myself by word or deed!

Given all the evidence, the judge makes a decision. He can exonerate me of all charges of he can condemn me by requiring a fine or jail time in lieu of.  The judge not only looks at the evidence, but condemns me for my wrong!

As pertains to Matthew 7: 1, the policeman was doing what was right!  He informed (admonished) me that I was breaking the law (which he studied and knew) and told me how I was breaking it (rebuked me). He didn't punish me or ridicule either for that matter. He merely sent me to the judge to decide. The judge metes out punishment (condemns, judges). In the case of Matthew 7, the one rebuking the behavior tells the rebuked one what Scripture says about the behavior. It's done in a caring ameliorating manner.  It's not done by "Youre' going to hell!", screamed out, but "Here's is what God says about this matter."

Back to the lady who's living in sin. I surmised that she was fornicating. She attested to that by saying "Don't judge me!".  However, if she had not said that, I would have been drawing malicious conclusions without all the evidence. If she had said "I'm living with Joe." and I surmised fornication, I have judged (condemned) her without probable cause.  As an example, Abraham Lincoln, some say, was a homosexual because he slept with other men while on his lawyers circuit. He was judged (condemned) wrongly. It is without evidence and isn't charitable or loving.  That is the type of judgement of Matthew 7:1.

If my motive is to teach and warn others, rebuking is an option. If it's to criticize or condemn, I'm being uncharitable!

 Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." doesn't end there. It is modified by the next verse beginnign with "for":

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Christ told the Pharisees they were going to hell!  He has a right to condemn. In fact, he will condemn all non-repentent sinners at the Great White Throne Judgment.  Paul, although not Christ, was Christ's apostle and disciple. He, although still a sinner, rebuked many in his ministry. He preached against those in heresy in the church. He preached agaisnt fornicators in the church. He preached agaisnt the people who were incestuous relationships in the church, et al.  He used the evidence of their lives to reproof sinners! He was using Scripture for what Scripture is for!

We can acknowledge sin in people's lives without condemning, that "acknowledgement' what many see as "judging".  My best friend once told me when I was sinning "You're sinning! You need to change!" He perceived my sin based on the evidence and then reproved me!  Thank you friend! It takes a loving friend to reach out to me to get me back on spiritual track. He wasn't judging in the sense of "condemning", but in the sense of "acknowledgement".

I've told you what Scripture says, what it means using all the objective evidence and what Adam Clark Commentary says. On the other side of the thelological spectrum is what Matthew Henry Commentary says:

"We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. "

In short, Adam Clark and Matthew Henry agree and complement Scripture as well as my analysis of Matthew 7:1.  Theologians say that Matthew 7:1 is the most common Scripture quoted by those in rationalization for their particular sin. Rather than say "Don't judge me!" those using that phrase should say to Jesus "Forgive me for I'm just a sinner". Jesus forgives! He's paid the price. Please don't rationalize by using scripture out of context. Those rebuking you may be the ones who love you the most!

Man teaches. God judges. That's the way it should be!  If you're playing God by condemning, then continue reading Matthew Chapter 7. It has a lesson applicable to you!