Matthew 7:1

Judge not.

Against censoriousness

I. The prohibition. It refers to the conduct of private individuals, not to men in a public capacity; nor to hinder private persons from forming any opinion upon the misconduct of others. It forbids the indulgence of a censorious temper.

II. The methods by which he reproves and condemns it.

1. He refers to the common principle of retribution.

2. As another corrective we are reminded of our own imperfections.

(1) Men of this description have no right to sit in judgment on others, who are themselves guilty of the same crimes.

(2) They have no moral qualification for its discharge.

3. Our Saviour directs us to reform our own conduct before we undertake to sit in judgment on that of others.

III. The caution which we must observe in its discharge-“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,” etc. (J. E. Good.)

Judgments and retributive judgments

I. Judgments.

1. We are warned against judgments that are prejudiced. Not to judge others by a sort of hasty inspiration, by their manner, or by their class or locality.

2. We are warned against judgments that are uncalled for. Sometimes our duty; but often not required of us to judge our neighbour’s character.

3. We are warned against judgments that are one-sided. Must hear both sides.

4. We are warned against unmerciful judgments. Danger arises from attributing motives. We must beware lest we ignore the possibilities of good even in a bad man. Be as merciful as you can be to the sinner.

5. We are warned against blind judgment-“Why beholdest thou,” etc. Evil men more suspicious of others.

II. Retributive judgments-who will inflict them (Luke 6:37).

1. The first solution is that they are the judgments of men. This not practically true.

2. Consider the interpretation which attributes the retributive judgments to angels. It is not our Lord’s wont to attribute judgment, forgiveness, etc., to angels.

3. God will inflict them. He judges men according to the state of mind in which they live. (J. E. Rust, M. A.)

The evil of judging rashly

I. The duty-“Judge not.”

1. From the context it is evident that the Saviour here speaks only of those judgments that we form concerning our neighbour. Favourable judgments are not forbidden; unfavourable judgments allowed, when our station or clear evidence require. Judges, parents, teachers, must condemn and publicly censure. Our Lord condemns-

1. The inward disposition of the mind which inclines persons to judge the actions of their neighbours with

(1) precipitance,

(2) malignity,

(3) rigour.

2. He condemns the habit of communicating to others the rash and severe judgments we have formed, when no necessity requires it. We multiply the injury in proportion to the number of persons to whom we communicate our unfavourable opinions.

II. The motive. If we thus judge our brethren, there is more than one tribunal at which we shall be condemned.

1. We shall find for ourselves in society judges without pity.

2. The rigour at the last judgment. God will punish those who have encroached upon His rights, and who have trampled down the rules of justice and charity. (H. Kollock, D. D.)

Reasons against a censorious spirit

1. Such judgment provokes retaliation.

2. Such judgment is not becoming in us. Such a sinner has no right to sit in the judgment seat.

3. Such judgment shows incapacity for true judgment. (Sermons by Monday Climb.)

Against rash censuring and judging

There are divers sorts of judging which it is requisite to distinguish from the judging prohibited:-

1. That exercising public judgment, or administering justice, is not here prohibited.

2. The trial and censure, although out of court, which any kind of superiors do exercise on their inferiors, committed to their care, such as masters and servants.

3. Neither is friendly reproof proceeding out of charitable design, on clear ground, in fit season, within reasonable compass, concerned in this prohibition.

4. All observing and reflecting on our neighbours’ actions, all framing an opinion about them, and expressing our minds concerning them, are not forbidden.

5. We are not hence obliged to think so well of all men as without competent knowledge always to rely on their pretences, or to entrust our interests in their hands.

6. We are not obliged, in contradiction to plain sense, to judge all men well.

We observe:

1. No judge should intrude himself into the office, or assume a judicial power, without competent authority, either by delegation from superior powers, or by voluntary reference to the parties concerned.

2. A judge should be free from all prejudices and all partial affections.

3. A judge should never proceed in judgment without careful examination of the cause, so as well to understand it.

4. A judge should never pronounce final sentence, but after certain proof and on full conviction.

5. Hence there are divers causes wholly exempt from our judgment, such as the secret thoughts of men.

6. Hence we should not judge the state of our neighbour in regard to God.

7. A judge should not proceed against any man without warning, and affording him opportunity to defend himself.

8. Moreover a judge is obliged to conform all his determinations to the settled rules of judgment.

9. He must be a person of good knowledge and ability.

10. It is proper for a judge not to make himself an accuser.

11. He should himself be innocent.

12. He should proceed with great moderation.

Again:

1. Censuring is an impious practice in regard to God.

2. In respect to our neighbour it is an unjust practice.

3. It is an uncharitable practice.

4. It is a foolish and vain practice.

5. It will produce many inconveniences and mischiefs.

(1) We provoke others to requite us in the same kind.

(2) We pass censure on ourselves, as we are seldom clear.

(3) We aggravate our own faults and deprive them of excuse.

(4) We forget to what a dreadful judgment we stand obnoxious to.

(5) It causes us to leave our own faults uncorrected.

(6) The best men are the most candid and gentle.

(7) It signifies bad conscience; a vulturous nature smelleth out carrion. (Dr. Barrow.)

Social self-echoes.
A

little boy once went home to his mother and said, “Mother, sister and I went out into the garden, and we were calling about, and there was some boy mocking us.” “How do you mean, Johnny?” said his mother. “Why,” said the child, “I was calling out, ‘He!’ and this boy said, ‘He!’ So I said to him, ‘Who are you?’ and he answered, ‘Who are you?’ I said, ‘What is your name?’ he said, ‘What is your name?’ And I said to him, ‘Why don’t you show yourself?’ he said, ‘ Show yourself?’ And I jumped over the ditch, and I went into the woods, and I could not find him, and I came back, and said, ‘If you don’t come out I will punch your head!’ and he said, ‘I will punch your head!’ “So his mother said, “Ah, Johnny I if you had said, ‘I love you,’ he would have said, ‘I love You.’ If you had said, ‘Your voice is sweet,’ he would have said, ‘Your voice is sweet.’ Whatever you said to him, he would have said back to you.” And the mother also said, “Now, Johnny, when you grow and get to be a man, whatever you say to others they will, by and by, say back to you.” And his mother took him to that old text in the Scripture, “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

Censoriousness a compound of the worst passions

Censoriousness is a compound of many of the worst passions; latent pride, which discovers the mote in our brother’s eye, but hides the beam in our own; malignant envy, which, wounded at the noble talents and superior prosperity of others, transforms them into the objects and food of its malice-if possible, obscuring the splendour it is too base to emulate; disguised hatred, which diffuses, in its perpetual mutterings, the irritable venom of the heart; servile duplicity, which fulsomely praises to the face and blackens behind the back; shameless levity, which sacrifices the peace and reputation of the absent, merely to give barbarous stings to a jocular conversation; altogether forming an aggregate the most desolating on earth, and nearest in character to the malice of hell. (E. L. Magoon.)

Men self-reflected in their judgment of others

Pedley, who was a well-known natural simpleton, was wont to say, “God help the fool.” None are more ready to pity the folly of others than those who have a small share of wit themselves. “There is no love among Christians,” cries the man who is destitute of true charity. “Zeal has vanished,” exclaims the idle talker. “O for more consistency,” groans out the hypocrite. “We want more vital godliness,” protests the false pretender. As in the old legend, the wolf preached against sheep-stealing, so very many hunt down those sins in others, which they gladly shelter in themselves. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Judgment should combine moderation

Avoid forming refined and romantic notions of human perfection in anything. For these are much apter to heighten our expectations from others, and our demands upon them, than to increase our watchfulness over ourselves; and so every failure provokes us more highly than it would have done else.