Introduction:

The Sermon on the Mount is possibly one of the most well

known yet confronting passages of scripture in the Bible. It covers
so many different topics and yet hardly any of them appear to be
linked. Matthew 7:1-12 deals with topics such as judging, prayer and
one person’s actions to another. At first glance there does not
appear to be much in common between these topics. This paper will
look at the context in which Matthew 7:1-12 was written, the
audience to whom it was written and what the text says.

Context:
The gospel of Matthew was written towards a Jewish audience
which can be seen through the establishment of the genealogy in
the first chapter (Matt 1:1-17), through the large use of Jewish
material in this gospel and from all the links that are explicitly made
with the Old Testament (Green, 2000, p.27).
The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) consists of “ethical
teachings” of Jesus (Drane, 1999, p.159-166). The theme within the
Sermon on the Mount is “attitudes and actions” of a disciple (McKim,
1996, p.256).
Keener (1999), Wiersbe (2007), and Talbert (2004) suggest
that this passage is directed at the “Pharisees who were
judgemental (e.g. 9:11; 12:2; 15:1-2) while not practice what they
preach (23:2-4)” (Talbert, p.131). France (1985), Phillips (2005),
Green (2000) and Stott (1992) view it as an outline for the disciples
and followers of Christ to adhere to.

Content:
Matthew 7:1-12 can be broken into four points: “[do not] be so
critical (v1-5); but be a little critical (v6); ask in prayer (v7-11) and
use your imagination (the Golden Rule) (v12)” (Bruner, 2007,
p.336). Although Bruner’s outline has been used for this paper,
Talbert makes a valid point when he suggests that these verses

-page 1 of 11-
should be divided into two “units” but that these two parts fit
together. Unit one (Matt 7:1-6) “focuses on condemnation of another
by one who has not used the same spotlight on oneself” and unit
two (Matt 1:7-17) focuses “on the discernment necessary for
appropriate action to avoid such laxity” (p.133). Thus whilst the first
section focuses on the act of not being judgemental lest it be done
to oneself, the second section gives the perimeters for the
discernment of judging to take place.

Do not be so critical (1-5):

Do not judge others, or you too will be judged. For in the same
way you judge others, you will be judged and with the same
measure you use, it will be measured to you.
France (1985) draws a parallel between these verses and
those of Matt 6:14-15: For if you forgive men when they sin against
you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not
forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive you. So just as
God will forgive those who forgive others, he will judge those who
judge others (p.142).
The word judge is found four times in the first two sentences.
When translating from the Greek there are three different uses of
the word. It can be paraphrased as this: if you all will (command)
κρινετε (judge at this at this present time), you will (statement of
probability) be κριθητε (judged at one point in the past). For in the
same way that you all will (command) κρινετε (judge at this at this
present time) others, you will (statement of fact) be κριθησεσθε
(judged in the future). Nolland (2005) suggests that it is the “very
act of judgement establishes a set of criteria which the one judging
must expect to answer (in relation to one’s own conduct) before
God” (p.319). This is similar to what is being said in Romans 2:1,3:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who mass judgement on
someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are
condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the
same things… so when you, a mere man, pass judgement on them

-page 2 of 11-
and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s
judgement?
This does not mean that one is not to judge ever – there are
guidelines in the Bible where judgement is permitted – however
what is being “prohibited is censoriousness - a critical, faultfinding
spirit that prompts us to condemn people without the facts and
without remembering our own vulnerability” (Phillips, 2005, p.122).
So what Phillips is saying is that the old phrase “do not judge
someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes” is relevant to
this text.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s
eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can
you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’
when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
Carson gives the example of the conversation between King
David and the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 12:1-7 as an illustration
of verses 3-5. David commits adultery, has the husband of his
mistress killed when she falls pregnant. Nathan comes and tells a
story of a poor man and his lamb and a rich man who takes it when
he has many of his own. “David is incensed; perhaps some of the
force of his wrath arises from his own suppressed guilt. In seething
indignation, and quite unconscious of any irony, he asks who this
wicked farmer is” to which David is told it is himself. “Somehow,
King David, incredibly blind, had been unconscious of the plank in
his own eye as he fumed over the speck of sawdust in the rich
farmer’s eye” (p.109-110). David is so incensed by what had
happened to the poor farmer, pronounced judgement on the rich
man, and yet he did not realise he had done a similar thing.
However, the issue is made worse here by the act of apparent
kindness (Stott, p.178). Stott notes that humans have a “fatal
tendency to exaggerate the failings of others and minimise the
gravity of their own”. It seems “impossible” so stay “objective and
impartial” when comparing ones life to another’s (p.178).

-page 3 of 11-
 These are rhetorical questions used to get the audience’s
attention as well as the obvious size difference between a speck of
sawdust and a plank. The Greek word translated speck, καρφος,
“stands for small moral defects while its antithesis, [the Greek word
translated plank] δοκον, stands for sizable moral defects” (Davies &
Allison, 1989, p.671).
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s
eye.
The image is given of a person who has no way of seeing
anything because of their vision is clouded by a plank and yet they
wish to point out a minor speck in someone else. With this in mind,
it is no wonder that the phrase you hypocrite is used. Nolland notes
that the hypocrite here, is not aware of their own hypocrisy however
they are still responsible. “The self blindness is a result of culpable
failure to perceive how things really are. V.5 makes clear that there
is no problem in seeking to help others in their areas of failure. Such
help, however, must be based on a realistic assessment of and
attention to one’s own situation” (p.320).
France offers the suggestion that it could be possible for the
hypocrite to be “aware of his own failings but concealing them, it is
more likely that he is criticised for failing to apply the same
standards to himself that he applies to others… and thus being
unaware of the inconsistency of his behaviour; v. 3 speaks of “failing
to notice” rather than deliberate deception. It is other people,
especially God, who can see the hypocrisy of his self-righteousness
for what it is” (p.276). Thus while it is not always apparent to the
person, it generally is to the people around them.
Stott links the previous five verses with verse six by saying “if
we are not to judge others, finding fault with them in a censorious,
condemning or hypocritical way, we are not to ignore their faults
either and pretend that everyone is not the same” (p.180).

-page 4 of 11-
But be a little critical (6):
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to
pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then
turn and tear you to pieces.
Pigs in Jewish culture were seen as unclean. In Leviticus 11:7
the pig is declared as ceremoniously unclean. Just by touching the
animal, whether they were aware of doing so or not, makes that
person unclean and “guilty” (Lev 5:2). But this verse is going deeper
than just looking at clean and unclean animals. Carson suggests
that the pigs in question were possibly descended from “wild boars”
and therefore “capable of certain violence”. The dogs are not
domestic pets but rather “semi-wild hounds” (p.112). The scene is
set:
A man holding a bag of precious pearls, confronting a pack of
hulking hounds and some wild pigs. As the animals glare
hungrily, he takes out his pearls and sprinkles them on the
street, thinking they are about to gulp some bits of food, the
animals pounce on the pearls. Swift disillusionment sets in – the
pearls are too hard to chew, quite tasteless, and utterly
unappetising. Enraged, the wild animals spit out the pearls, turn
on the man, and tear him to pieces (p.112-113).

Metaphors are used in these verses to illustrate the message.

The pigs and dogs are referring to certain people with whom the
gospel (what is sacred) should not be shared with (Carson, p.113;
Green, p.107). The use of discernment is needed. It is not
unbelievers, in general, that this text is talking about. Carson
suggests that it is to people who are “persistently vicious,
irresponsible, and unappreciative” with whom the gospel should not
be shared (p.113). France suggests that the dogs and pigs here are
talking about the variety of people within the “disciple community,
in which weeds grow alongside wheat (13:24-30, 36-43), bad and
good together (22:10), and in which there are prophets and miracle
workers whim Jesus does not recognise (7:21-23)” (p.277).
Regardless of which point of view is held as to the possible
meanings of those words, France makes a valid point when he states

-page 5 of 11-
that there is a need to be “discriminating in sharing the sacred
things of the gospel and the treasures of the Father in heaven, so as
not to lay the m open to abuse but to avoid offering a more specific
identification of who are to be regarded as unsuitable or incapable
of receiving them (cf. Paul’s insistence in 1 Cor 2:13-16 that only the
spiritual can receive spiritual teaching)” (p.277).
It is suggested that this verse is used as a connection from the
previous text (vs1-5) to the following passage (Keener, p.244;
Nolland, p. 323). Keener also notes that “the text sounds like a note
of reciprocity to be repeated in 7:12. If 7:6 means something along
these lines, it does not allow one to prejudice who may receive
one’s message (13:3-23), but does forbid one to try to force it one
those who show no inclination to accept it (10:13-16)” (p.244).

Ask in prayer (7-11):

After having issued two statements in the negative form: do
not judge (v1-5) and don’t give to dogs… (v6), this statement is in a
positive command: do ask, seek and knock.
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock
and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks
receives; he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will
be opened.
The Greek words for ask (αιτειτ), seek (ζητειτε) and knock
(κρουετε) are all in the second person, present tense, imperative,
active and plural. It is an action that they themselves must make.
Carson notes that these commands are “emphatic” (p. 116). The
Greek words for given (δοθησετα), find (ευρησετε) and opened
(ανοιγησετα) are in the future, indicative. Thus, all believers must
ask, seek and knock now and continue to do so but what they
receive from their actions will happen in the future and be done to
them. There is persistence required in prayer “within the context of
the Sermon on the Mount, prayer that is a burning pursuit of God.
This is an asking for the virtues Jesus has just expounds; this

-page 6 of 11-
seeking is a seeking for God; this knocking is a knocking at heavens
door” (Carson, p. 117).
Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though
you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how
much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who
ask him!
There is a comparison given here between human parents and
God. If humans are natural evil and prone to sin, yet give good gifts,
who can fathom what God can do? By contrasting between earthly
fathers and the heavenly Father, it is bringing to light preconceived
ideas of how a parent should act and how this was being applied to
God (France, p. 280; Nolland, p.326). France notes “if God is father,
his fathering cannot fall short of the commitments of human
fathering” (p. 280). The phrase how much more can also be looked
at in the negative sense. How much less can the Father in heaven
give? Nothing! God is not bound by sin and human failings. “God’s
care is of course far more than even the best human parent can
give, but it is never less” (p. 280).
Talbert suggests that “reading verses 7-11 on context results
in seeing the periscope as an enablement of verse [six]. If one
needs to discern what is appropriate judging and discerning, ask
God for wisdom and he will provide it” (p.135).

Use your imagination (the golden rule) (12):

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do
to you,
It could be said that this is the key verse in the passage.
France calls this verse the “summary of Jesus’ ethic” (p.145). This
“rule” is often found in philosophical writing, but usually in the
negative form – what you do to others will be done to you. Confucius
phrases it “do not impose on others what you yourself do not
desire” (p.112). Socrates writes “do not do to others what would
anger you if done to you by others” (Poulshock, 2004, p.126).

-page 7 of 11-
Immanuel Kant (2008) wrote: “Act as if the maxim of [your] action
were to become by [your] will a universal law of nature” (p.39). This
verse is not telling people to do something just because wish it to be
done to them; it is calling for a consideration of a person’s feelings
and the attitude in which the actions take place. Jesus’ phrasing
takes the emphasis of oneself and puts it on the other person. It is a
call to think of the other person rather than oneself. “The positive
form is thus far more searching than its negative counterparts”
(Carson, p.121).
Wiersbe believes that this is “one of the most misunderstood
statements of the Bible. This statement is not the sum total of
Christian truth, nor is it God’s plan of redemption. We should no
more build our theology on the Golden Rule than we should build
our astronomy on ‘Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star’”. He suggests that it
should be the guidelines by which a person’s attitude should be set
towards others, that it “only applies to believers and it must be
practiced in every area of life” (p.26).
Carson suggests that “such behaviour conforms to the
requirements of the kingdom of God, the kingdom which is the
fulfilment of the Law and the prophets” (p.121).
For this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
France (p.282), Nolland (p.328) and Talbert (p.135) suggest
that this verse is used to bracket Matthew 5:17 where Jesus said
that he came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets.
The principle of this golden rule “is so all-embracing that
[Jesus] can declare not so much that it is the greatest
commandment but that it actually ‘is’ the law and the prophets”
(France, p.282). The Law and the Prophets have to do with the Old
Testament covenant and the laws that are outlined in the Torah.

Application/Conclusion:
When first reading Matthew 7:1-12, it is possible to look at it
and assume that it is a group of different statements places

-page 8 of 11-
together with no relative theme. However there is a thread that
looks at attitude. A person should not make snap judgements on
someone else; they should be considerate of the fact that they do
not necessarily have all of the information needed to make an
informed decision. But that does not mean that they should not
make judgements at all. There is a need to be discerning. By asking
God he will provide the ability to discern, but a person should not do
to others what they would not have done to themselves. This is the
Law and the Prophets. This is what Christ came to fulfil (5:17). The
Jews in time of the New Testament were well aware of the religious
leaders who walked around believing that they were better than
everyone else yet this passage would have been confronting to
them. A call to do only to others what one would have done to
oneself would have been very confronting, both then and now.

-page 9 of 11-
Reference:
Archaeological Study Bible: New International Version. (2005). Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Bruner, F. D. (2007). Matthew: A Commentary – Volume 1: The
Christbook, Matthew 1-12. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdermans Publishing.
Carson, D. A. (1978). Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and his
confrontation with the world. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books.
Confucius. (1979). The Analects. (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Middlesex, UK:
Penguin Books
Davies, W. D. & Allison, D. C. (1989). A critical and exegetical
commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew
(the international critical commentary, Vol. 1).
Edinburgh, U.K: T & T Clark.
Drane, J. (1999). Introducing the New Testament. (rev. ed.). Oxford,
UK: Lion Publishing.
France, R. T. (1985). The gospel according to Matthew: an
introduction and commentary (Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdermans
Publishing.
Green, M. (2000). The Bible speaks today: the message of Matthew.
(rev. ed.). Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press.
Kant, I (2008). Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals.
(T. K. Abbot, Trans.). Radford, VA: Wilder Publications.
Keener, C. S. (1999). A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdermans Publishing.
McKim, D. K. (1996). Westminster Dictionary of Theological terms.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the
Greek text (New International Greek Testament
Commentary). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdermans Publishing.

-page 10 of 11-
Phillips, J. (2005). Exploring the Gospel of Matthew (John Phillips
commentary series). Grand rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications.
Poulshock, J. (2004). The Leverage of Language on Altruism and
Morality. In P. Clayton & J Schloss (Eds.), Evolution and
Ethics: Human morality in biological and religious
perspective. (pp. 114-131). Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdermans Publishing.
Stott, J. (1992). The Bible speaks today: the message of the Sermon
on the Mount. (2nd ed.). Nottingham, UK: Inter-Varsity
Press.
Talbert, C. H. (2004). Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character
formation and decision making in Matthew 5-7. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic.
Wiersbe, W. W (2007). Wiersbe Bible Commentary NT (Wiersbe Bible
Commentaries). Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook.

-page 11 of 11-