Francois Viljoen has, in numerous studies, utilised a comprehensive approach to interpret the Sermon on the Mount as the literary and theological centrepiece of Matthew’s Gospel. Viljoen (2013:2) considers the Sermon on the Mount as one of Matthew’s five foundational discourses, functioning as the ‘Constitution of the Kingdom of Heaven’ that shapes Matthew’s Jewish-Christian community identity through its central theme of δικαιοσύνη [righteousness]. According to Viljoen’s analysis (2018:55, 71, 136, 179–180, 326, 350) in his monograph, The Torah in Matthew, Matthew depicts Jesus as the ‘new Moses’ who delivers his authoritative Torah interpretation to persuade a synagogue-estranged community to live according to a superior righteousness that surpasses that of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. Viljoen (along with Aniedi M. Akpan) has also developed a sophisticated framework for understanding parables, treating them as complex rhetorical and metaphorical devices rather than simple illustrations (Akpan & Viljoen 2021:1–8). Viljoen and Akpan conceptualise parables as fictional narratives that metaphorically bridge everyday experiences with religious and ethical teachings, creating what he calls a ‘surplus of meaning’ that invites interpretation while being guided by contextual constraints.

Akpan and Viljoen’s (2021:9) interpretive methodology (2021:9) rests on six key principles. They emphasise ‘correlating parable interpretations with Jesus’s broader non-parabolic teachings’ to avoid speculative readings and situating each parable within its Gospel context to serve the specific ‘evangelist’s theological purposes’. Their approach furthermore demands a comprehensive analysis of ‘narrative structure and rhetorical elements’, a strict focus on textually explicit information without foreign additions, and a careful attention to ‘first-century Jewish-Palestinian social contexts’ and ‘conventional metaphors’. Finally, they advocate for a measured engagement with allegorical elements, rejecting wholesale allegorisation while recognising genuinely intended allegorical features where the evangelist clearly signals transferred meanings.

This chapter will firstly build on the work of Viljoen on the Sermon on the Mount and the interpretation of parables by exploring the sophisticated rhetorical strategies employed in the Matthean Jesus’s teaching on judgement in Matthew 7:1–5. Matthew 7:2–3 that forms part of the rhetorical unit of Matthew 7:1–5 meets Zimmermann’s definition (2009) of a parable.¹ According to Zimmermann’s definition, Matthew 7:3–4 qualifies as a parable because it fulfils all six of his essential criteria cohesive. The passage presents a short, fictional narrative about someone attempting to remove a speck from another person’s eye, drawing from the known reality of everyday experiences with eye irritants. However, the extreme contrast between the speck (κάρφος) and the massive log (δοκός) functions as a clear transfer signal, indicating that its meaning transcends the literal level – the absurd image of someone with a log protruding from their eye trying to help someone with a speck immediately signals metaphorical intent. This vivid, almost comical imagery creates an appeal structure that challenges readers to look beyond the surface narrative, while the surrounding context of Matthew 7:1–5 about judgement and the broader framework of the Sermon on the Mount, guides the metaphoric transfer towards understanding the passage as teaching about hypocrisy and self-examination, rather than literal ophthalmology.

Matthew 7:1–5 was chosen as the focus text for this article because, although conducive to analysis through the method proposed by Viljoen (2018), Kazen and Roitto (2024), it is not analysed in their respective monographs. The chosen pericope will be interpreted within the narrative and theological framework of Matthew’s Gospel with particular attention given to its argumentative structure and its immediate literary context (5:3–7:27; Akpan & Viljoen 2021:4). The ethical framework underlying the Matthean Jesus’s teaching on judging others will also be considered within its socio-historical context and correlated with his non-parabolic teaching on interpersonal relations. The stock metaphors and symbols of the parable will also be considered (Akpan & Viljoen 2021:6). While the allegorising of the parable in Matthew 7:2–3 will be resisted, the cognitive frames underlying it will be studied. In this regard, the analysis of Matthew 7:1–5 will use the insights of the recent study of Thomas Kazen and Rikard Roitto, ‘Revenge, Compensation and Forgiveness in the Ancient World’, which examines ‘moral repair’ strategies across Jewish, Christian, Greek, and Roman traditions, using interdisciplinary cognitive science methodologies. One method used by Kazen and Roitto that focuses on the underlying cognitive frames shaping ancient morality will be employed to understand the ethics evident in Matthew 7:1–5. The method focuses on identifying the shared human biological underpinnings that create similar moral linguistic frames across cultures, while acknowledging cultural variations (Kazen & Roitto 2024:22, 99). This analysis will enable us to situate the ethics of judgement of the Matthean Jesus within its socio-historical context.

As argued in a previous study (Nel 2015:2–4), the Gospel of Matthew broadly follows the threefold τάξις of an ancient Greek βίος. It begins with a prologue [προοίμιον] that gives an overview of the genealogy, birth, and beginning of Jesus’s ministry (Mt 1:1–2:23). This is followed by a long narration [διήγησις] of the major events in his ministry (Mt 3:1–25:46) and an epilogue [ἐπίλογος] that describes his honourable death (26:1–28:20; Burridge 1997:521). The διήγησις of the Gospel of Matthew differs from that of most Greco-Roman βίοι in the way it interweaves the teaching of Jesus, that are grouped in five extended discourses, with an extended narrative of his deeds (cf. Mt 4:17–11:1; 11:2–13:52; 13:53–16:20; 16:21–19:2; 19:3–25:46). Matthew 7:1–5 is part of the first of these extended discourses – the Sermon on the Mount (5:3–7:27).

Matthew structured the Sermon on the Mount as a deliberative rhetorical argument that endeavours to persuade its readers to specific acts of obedience, with a view to the immediate future (Combrink 1988:182; Kennedy 1984:45–46). Despite a consensus on its rhetorical nature, there is no agreement regarding the precise structure of the argumentative texture of the Sermon on the Mount (Betz 1995:50–58; Kennedy 1984:48–49; Mack 1990:82–85). While Kennedy (1984:48–49), Mack (1990:82–85), Combrink (1992:16) and Betz (1995:50–58) agree that Matthew 5:3–16 is the exordium of the Sermon on the Mount, and that 5:17–20 as propositio sets the basic propositions of the main argument (which begins in 5:21), there is no further consensus regarding the rhetorical structure of the Sermon on the Mount. Particularly, the determination of where the probatio ends and transitions to the peroratio, is unclear. Kennedy (1984:49), for example, takes Matthew 7:21–27 as the epilogue; Mack (1990:84–85) 6:25 to 7:27 as a series of negative and positive admonitions (6:25–7:14) and warnings (7:15–27) that end with a narrative conclusion (7:28–29); Combrink (1992:16) 7:13–27 as peroratio; and Betz (1995:58–59) 7:24–27 as probatio. In this article, 7:12 is taken as the conclusion of the probatio, following Guelich (1982:36–40), Lambrecht (1985:28), Allison (1987:437–438), Combrink (1992:16), Hagner (1993:84) and Betz (1995:57). The reason for this choice is that Matthew 5:17–20, together with 7:12, provide the hermeneutical keys for the correct interpretation of the law² (Betz 1995:62), while the correspondence between 5:17 and 7:12 forms an inclusio that binds the propositio and the probatio into a larger rhetorical unit (Betz 2008:62; Carter 1994:85; Hagner 1993:84). The structure outlined in Box 1, proposed by Thom (2009:315–316) and followed by Viljoen (2018:112), seems to be the most acceptable for the argumentative texture of the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 7:1–5 forms part of the probatio and its argumentative structure and therefore needs to be analysed in greater detail to understand the parable of the hypocrite with a beam in his eye within its particular Gospel context (Akpan & Viljoen 2021:3).

Matthew 7:1–5 as a rhetorical unit is introduced by a thesis in the form of a proverb (Betz 1995:489; Guelich 1982:349) which is followed by the theological grounds for it, formulated as a synonymous parallelism in verse 2 (Davies & Allison 1988:670; Guelich 1982:349; Turner 2008:205). The thesis of verse 1 is supported by an argument for the implausibility of acting contrary to it through the hyperbolic metaphor of the beam in the eye of the one who wants to remove a speck from his brother’s eye (cf. Rhet. 2.23.21). The argumentative texture of the rhetorical unit is that of a wisdom discourse, as it focuses on the social relationships between people, and their influence on their relationship with God (Robbins 2002:5–7).

To situate the ethics of judgement of the Matthean Jesus in Matthew 7:1–5 within its socio-historical context, and within his broader non-parabolic teachings in Matthew, aspects of Kazen and Roitto’s work, Revenge, compensation, and forgiveness in the ancient world (2024) will be applied to the rhetorical unit. Although they do not themselves explicitly discuss Matthew 7:1–5, their comprehensive framework for analysing interpersonal infringement and moral repair in antiquity provides several conceptual frames that are useful for understanding judgement in interpersonal relationships.¹⁰

A conceptual frame, often used synonymously with cognitive frame, functions as a methodological tool employed to analyse the understanding of abstract concepts through metaphorical expressions derived from concrete, embodied, and social experiences. This theoretical approach, significantly influenced by George Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory posits that human thought is profoundly embodied and emotionally grounded, with emotions being an intrinsic part of the cognitive process (Kazen & Roitto 2024:32–33). These frames enable us to comprehend how humans conceptualise interpersonal relations, their associated feelings, and their methods of conflict resolution, connecting these to biological and cultural conditions that enable survival. Conceptual frames provide us with lenses for understanding moral judgement in interpersonal relations (Kazen & Roitto 2024:33, 40–44) and enable us to understand how the central metaphor of ‘measure’ and the vivid imagery of ‘speck and log’ in Matthew 7:3–4, taken from everyday experiences, can be used to understand the passage’s cognitive underpinnings.

Cognitive frames allow us to compare the ethics of a particular text, like the Gospel of Matthew, with those of others, as the moral imagination is based fundamentally rooted in the embodied human experience (Kazen & Roitto 2024:32–33). While diverse cultures may cultivate distinct moral imaginations, certain patterns exhibit universality due to shared embodied experiences and innate predispositions, such as the inherent appreciation for fairness (Kazen & Roitto 2024:59). Emotions, including contempt, anger, disgust, shame, embarrassment, guilt, pride, empathy, awe, elevation, and gratitude, are deeply involved in moral appraisal, thereby influencing behaviour and values (Kazen & Roitto 2024:31). Critically, all these frames are ‘profoundly embodied and emotionally grounded’, arising from evolutionary processes that historically contributed to fitness and survival.

While numerous conceptual frames exist for Interpersonal Judgement, the following are important for the analysis of interpersonal moral judgement in antiquity in general and Matthew 7:1–5 in particular. The measure frame is foundational to discourse concerning justice, distribution, status, and fairness and is common in Jewish, ancient West Asian, Greek, and Roman legislation and thinking alike (Kazen & Roitto 2024:58–72). It originates from experiences related to resource sharing and equitable distribution, and is the dominant frame in nearly all legal discussions. Concepts such as compensation and revenge are frequently conceptualised as balancing scales. For instance, the principle of talion [an eye for an eye] expresses a principle of balance that was often converted into monetary or other resources, aiming to restore a disturbed equilibrium for renewed social interaction. The SIZE frame, on the other hand, is inherently hierarchical, linked to body size and social status, and is crucial for comprehending issues of honour and shame (Kazen & Roitto 2024:72–81). Infringements on personal integrity and honour, such as bodily violence or public shaming, are understood through this frame. It shapes social hierarchies, status, and honour that exert a pervasive and decisive influence on defining relationships and appraising infringements, frequently overshadowing more egalitarian values.

The two frames of measure and size frequently interact with each other (Kazen & Roitto 2024:72). For example, Aristotle’s concept of distributive justice, which assigns goods proportionally to a person’s worth, illustrates how the size frame modifies the measure frame, meaning that relative status significantly impacts the conceptualisation of fairness and balance in justice (Kazen & Roitto 2024:43). This interplay complicates the tension between justice and domination, as hierarchies can inspire competition for honour and status, potentially leading to conflict and abuse. Other cognitive frames also influence broader moral discourse. accounting, related to the MEASURE frame, and prominent in early Jewish thought, views sin as a debt (Kazen & Roitto 2024:44–47; also see Anderson 2009; Nel 2017). While it draws on interpersonal experiences, its primary application is often in the hierarchical human-divine relationship, where divine power tracks human transgression.

The conceptual frames identified in Matthew 7:1–5 (measure, accounting and size), represent consistent conceptual patterns throughout Matthew’s Gospel, demonstrating the evangelist’s systematic use of these metaphorical frameworks to structure moral discourse. The measure frame, emphasising reciprocal standards and equitable treatment, appears prominently throughout Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew 6:14–15, the reciprocal nature of forgiveness is explicitly stated: εἰ γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος·ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν), οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν. This establishes a clear measure-for-measure principle in which divine action mirrors human behaviour. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Mt 18:23–35) exemplifies the measure frame through its narrative structure and explicit monetary calculations. The king’s question to the unmerciful servant, οὐκ ἔδει καὶ σὲ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν σύνδουλόν σου, ὡς κἀγώ σε ἠλέησα, demonstrates the expectation of proportional response. The parable’s conclusion reinforces this reciprocal measure: οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν. The parable in Matthew 25:14–30 operates on principles of proportional expectation and return, where servants are judged according to how they handle what they’ve been given. The master’s response to the faithful servants, εὖ, δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ πιστέ, ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἦς πιστός, ἐπὶ πολλῶν σε καταστήσω (Mt 25:21, 230) reflects the proportional nature of the divine reward based on faithfulness.

The accounting frame, which conceptualises moral issues as divine bookkeeping of debts and credits, permeates Matthew’s Gospel through various parables and teachings. In Matthew 6:19–21, Jesus contrasts earthly and heavenly treasures: μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς […] θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ. This passage establishes God as the ultimate keeper of accounts who tracks what truly matters, with the metaphorical language of accumulating and storing representing moral actions as ‘bankable commodities’. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant again serves as a prime example of the accounting frame, with its detailed monetary calculations contrasting μύρια τάλαντα against ἑκατὸν δηνάρια. These accounting terms present moral relationships in terms of debts, forgiveness as debt cancellation (ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ τὸ δάνειον), and divine judgement as the restoration of the original debt. The parable’s accounting logic makes the servant’s inability to forgive a much smaller debt particularly egregious within this framework. Some of Matthew’s parables, however, challenge the accounting frame. The Workers in the Vineyard parable (Mt 20:1–16), for example, challenges conventional accounting logic while still operating within an accounting framework of wages, contracts, and fairness. The landowner’s question, οὐκ ἐξόν μοί ἐστιν ὃ θέλω ποιῆσαι ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς, subverts expected accounting principles while maintaining the metaphorical structure of divine economy. The Final Judgement scene (Mt 25:31–46) presents the ultimate divine accounting, where deeds of mercy and neglect are tallied and result in eternal consequences. The king’s accounting of actions, καθ᾽ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε, demonstrates how individual acts are recorded and calculated in the divine ledger.

What makes the conceptual frame underlying Matthew’s ethics unique is the way the size frame, relating to hierarchy, status, honour, and shame, is critiqued. This is particularly prominent in Matthew’s critique of religious leaders and his teachings on true greatness. Matthew 23:1–12 extensively employs size language in condemning the scribes and Pharisees who φιλοῦσιν δὲ τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις καὶ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς. The passage culminates in the principle of hierarchical reversal: πᾶς δὲ ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. The discourse on greatness in the kingdom (Mt 18:1–4) also directly addresses status hierarchy through the disciples’ question, τίς ἄρα μείζων ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. Jesus’s response uses a child as an example for true greatness: ὃς οὖν ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὡς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μείζων ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν, inverting conventional status markers. The request of James and John’s mother (Mt 20:20–28) explicitly discusses positions of honour with her petition: εἰπὲ ἵνα καθίσωσιν οὗτοι οἱ δύο υἱοί μου εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων σου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου. Jesus’s response redefines greatness through service: ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν μέγας γενέσθαι, ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος, fundamentally challenging conventional honour-shame hierarchies.

The conceptual frames used by Kazen and Roitto that underlie Matthew 7:1–5, in view of the above, are not isolated occurrences but represent consistent conceptual patterns throughout Matthew’s Gospel. The evangelist repeatedly employs these metaphorical frameworks – measure, accounting, and size – to structure moral discourse, creating a coherent theological system where divine justice operates through principles of reciprocity, moral bookkeeping, and inverted status hierarchies. This systematic use suggests that Matthew’s conceptualisation of moral relationships was deeply influenced by these cultural and cognitive metaphors, which would have been readily understood by his ancient Mediterranean audience and continue to provide insight into the Gospel’s ethical framework.

Following the steps identified by Akpan and Viljoen has made it apparent that Matthew 7:1–5 and the parable of the speck and beam is directed at maintaining inter-community relationships between fellow believers. While Kazen and Roitto do not explicitly discuss Matthew 7:1–5, their work provides a robust set of tools, particularly the measure, accounting, and size conceptual frames for understanding the passage’s underlying moral logic, social dynamics and cognitive processes within the 1st-century Mediterranean world. In contrast to its dominant values of honour and shame, the Matthean Jesus emphasises the importance of not challenging the honour of others by condemning them. Both inconsistent measuring and overcritical judging distort reciprocity in interpersonal relationships. For the Matthean Jesus, forgiveness and generosity should take precedence over judging and measuring others. While unfair standards invite harsher divine judgement, God’s generous measurements, as indicated in the Matthean narrative, should shape human behaviour. The parable itself prioritises self-criticism over negative stereotyping of others, while the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12, to which it is linked conceptually, goes even further by reversing this stance. The abundant righteousness demanded by the Matthean Jesus, furthermore, upends the power hierarchies that shaped the ancient Mediterranean world. It is thus apparent that in the relatively short rhetorical unit of Matthew 7:1–15 the conceptual frames and rhetorical strategy of Matthew, based on Divine reciprocity, provide key insights into the abundant righteousness that characterised the kingdom of Heaven.