Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 7

The plan and sequence of the discourse, as has been said, are less apparent in this last portion. Whether this is the result of omission or insertion, this much at least seems clear: while Matthew 5 is mainly a protest against the teaching of the scribes, and Matthew 6 is mainly a protest against their corruption of the three great elements of the religious life—almsgiving, prayer, and fasting—and the worldliness from which that corruption grew, this section deals chiefly with the temptations incident to the more advanced stages of that life when lower forms of evil have been overcome. It addresses the temper that judges others, the self-deceit of unconscious hypocrisy, and the danger of unreality.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. These words point to a tendency inherent in human nature and are therefore universally applicable; but we must remember they had a special bearing on the Jews. As they were at the forefront of the religious progress of mankind, they took it upon themselves to judge other nations. All true teachers of Israel, even though they represented different aspects of the truth, felt this danger and warned their countrymen against it. In this matter, both St. Paul (Romans 2:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5) and St. James (James 4:11) echo the teaching of their Master. The temptation still continues. In proportion as any nation, church, society, or individual rises above the common forms of evil surrounding them, they are disposed to sit in judgment on those who are still in that evil.

The question of how far we can obey this precept is not without its difficulties. Must we not, as a matter of duty, be judging others every day of our lives? The juror giving a verdict, the master who discharges a dishonest servant, the bishop who enforces the discipline of the Church—are they acting against our Lord’s commands? If not, where are we to draw the line? The answer to these questions is not found in the distinctions of formal casuistry. We must instead remember that our Lord here, as elsewhere, gives principles rather than rules, and He embodies the principle in a rule that, because it cannot be kept in the letter, forces us back to the spirit.

What is forbidden is the censorious, judging temper—one that is eager to find faults and condemn people for them, suspicious of motives, and quick to detect and denounce, for example, the faintest shade of heresy in a controversy. No mere rules can guide us as to the limits of our judgments. What we need is to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evil, to cultivate a sensitive conscience and clear self-knowledge. Briefly, we may say:

1. Judge no one unless it is your duty to do so.
2. As far as possible, judge the offense and not the offender.
3. Confine your judgment to the earthly side of faults, and leave their relationship to God to Him who sees the heart.
4. Never judge at all without remembering your own sinfulness, and the ignorance and infirmities that may lessen the sinfulness of others.

With what judgment you judge... — Here again, truth takes the form of a seeming paradox. The unjust judgment of humanity does not bring upon us a divine judgment that is also unjust. Rather, the severity we have unjustly meted out to others becomes, by a retributive law, the measure of what is justly dealt out to us.

Why do you see the mote...? — The Greek noun translated this way means a “stalk” or “twig” rather than one of the fine particles of dust floating in the sun to which we attach the word “mote.” The illustration seems to have been a familiar one among the Jews, and a proverb almost verbally identical is found as a saying of Rabbi Tarphon. Similar illustrations have been found in the proverbs and satires of every country, all teaching that people are keen-sighted about the faults of others but blind to their own. The Gracchi complain of sedition, and Clodius accuses others of adultery. We all need the wish—

“Oh, wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as others see us!”

But you do not consider — There is the same contrast between “seeing” and “considering” in Matthew 6:26 and 6:28. Our own faults require the careful scrutiny that we never give them, while we should be content to glance at the faults of others.

How will you say — that is, how will you have the face to say.

You hypocrite —The man deserves this name, because he acts the part of a teacher and reformer when he himself needs repentance and reform the most. The hypocrisy is all the greater because it does not know itself to be hypocritical.

Then you will see clearly —Here the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount rises far above the level of the maxims which, to a certain extent, it resembles. It gives a new motive to the work of self-scrutiny and self-reformation. While we are blind with self-deceit, we are but bunglers in the work of dealing with the faults of others. When we have wrestled with and overcome our own besetting sins, then, and not until then, will we be able, with the insight and tact which the work demands, to help others to overcome theirs.