The phrase 'Do not judge' as a total prohibition

The Greek verb κρίνω (krino) has a wide semantic range. It can mean 'to discern', 'to decide', 'to evaluate', but also 'to condemn', 'to sentence'. In the context of Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus' subsequent explanation (logs and specks, judging by the same standard) indicates that he refers to condemnatory, hypocritical, and harsh judgment, devoid of self-examination and mercy, that seeks to tear down rather than restore. It does not prohibit the discernment necessary for godly living or brotherly correction.

Patristic

The Church Fathers consistently interpreted Matthew 7:1 not as an absolute prohibition of all judgment, but as a condemnation of hypocritical and rash judgment. Origen (184-253), in his *Commentary on Matthew* (fragments on Mt 7:1-5 preserved in catena traditions; the attribution to 'Book XI, Chapter 15' does not correspond precisely to the canonical division of the surviving text), teaches that the prohibition targets those who condemn in others the very faults they themselves commit, stressing the necessity of prior self-correction. John Chrysostom (347-407), in his *Homilies on Matthew*, specifically Homily XXIII (PG 57, 309-318), on Mt 7:1-5, states explicitly that Christ does not forbid judging in absolute terms, but forbids rash judging—judging without examination and condemning others for faults of which one is oneself guilty. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), in *De Sermone Domini in Monte* (Book II, ch. 18, nn. 59-61; PL 34, 1293-1295), distinguishes between pharisaical censure driven by pride and corrective judgment exercised in charity, and expressly affirms the legitimacy of fraternal correction when preceded by the purification of one's own heart. All three authors agree that true discernment, guided by love and humility, is not only permissible but necessary for the life of the Church.

Reformed

Reformed theology, following Calvin, has emphasized that Matthew 7:1 prohibits presumptuous, malicious, and condemnatory judgment that usurps God's place. However, it does not prohibit the discernment necessary for the purity of the church, sound doctrine, and holy living. Calvin, in his *Institutes*, argues that believers are called to exercise spiritual judgment to distinguish truth from error and to correct sin with a spirit of humility and restoration (Galatians 6:1).

Interpretive tension: Tension in Reformed application can arise in seeking to balance the need to confront sin and maintain sound doctrine with humility and grace, avoiding falling into legalism or the condemnatory harshness that Jesus himself criticized.

Arminian

The Arminian tradition, exemplified by Wesley, also understands Matthew 7:1 as a prohibition of rash, harsh, unfounded, and uncharitable judgment. Wesley, in his *Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament*, clarifies that judgment on 'open, undeniable sin' is not prohibited, nor is prudential judgment on character or actions for protection or guidance. The emphasis lies on the motivation and spirit with which one judges, always seeking restoration and with a deep sense of one's own fallibility.

Interpretive tension: Tension in Arminian application can lie in the risk that, by emphasizing the individual responsibility to judge charitably, the necessary firmness to establish clear moral boundaries or confront doctrinal error might be diluted, overly favoring 'tolerance'.

Contemporary

Contemporary interpreters often highlight the need to differentiate between 'judging' in the sense of condemning hypocritically and 'discerning' in the sense of evaluating with love and wisdom. D.A. Carson, in his commentary on Matthew, emphasizes that Jesus does not forbid us from making moral judgments or differentiating between good and evil, but prohibits a particular type of judgment that is Pharisaic and hypocritical. Tim Keller, in his book *The Prodigal God*, discusses how modern culture has confused 'tolerance' with 'approval', and how true faith requires moral discernment. N.T. Wright argues that Jesus is teaching his disciples how to live a new kingdom ethic, which involves radical self-examination before attempting to reform others.