Because Jesus said, "Judge not" (Matthew 7:1), and Paul wrote, "Who are you to judge another man’s servant?" (Romans 14:4), and James wrote, "Who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12), some honest and well-meaning Christians back off from any criticism of anybody, concluding that all judging is sinful.

But they have not studied enough. Jesus also said, "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24), and Paul also wrote, "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" and "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life?" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and James also wrote that "the wisdom which is from above is indeed first pure" before being "peaceful" (James 3:17).

Of a fornicating Christian, Paul wrote, "I have already passed judgment on him" (1 Corinthians 5:3), and he rebuked the Christians who refused to judge: "Are you not to judge those who are within [the church]? ... Put away the wicked man from among you" (5:12-13).

Christians sit in judgment not only on questions of morals, but also on other matters of doctrine:

On Peter’s refusing to eat with a Gentile, Paul’s remark to him was not:

Instead, Paul "opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong," and his rebuking Peter was not in private, but "in front of them all" (Galatians 2:11, 14).

If a Christian says, "I will stay completely out of the judging business," his wisdom is not from above, which says, "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning" (1 Timothy 5:20).

Jesus’ command "judge not" (Matthew 7:1) was not given to sincere loving people, but to hypocrites, picky about specks in someone’s eye, overlooking a log in their own (Matthew 7:5).

I was grieved to hear an educated (?) preacher in a sermon repudiate the restoration work of Alexander Campbell as an "anachronism, completely out of date, 1829 vs. 1993)." In his mind Campbell fought denominationalism but did not exalt Christ. Perhaps Campbell never heard of the word "cruciform," but no one believed more than he in the meaning of Calvary.

When people needed instruction on the existence of God, and the deity of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Bible, Campbell was always ready, as in his public debate with an agnostic, Robert Owen. But when Campbell debated Bishop Purcell of the Catholic Church and N. L. Rice of the Presbyterian Church, he did no cruciform preaching. Both of those opponents were believers, and so Campbell wisely used his time on full gospel obedience.

I was also grieved when the same "educated" (?) preacher criticized the Jule Miller filmstrips and Ivan Stewart’s "Open Bible Studies," methods that have led hundreds to gospel obedience. Miller and Stewart, wisely "making the most of the time" (Ephesians 5:16), do not repeat to denominational believers what they already believe, but they show them the way of the Lord "more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). Aquila and Priscilla did not give Apollos a lesson on the existence of God, but showed him his error on baptism.

I wrote a letter to the preacher, and to the elders where he preaches, about his criticisms of Campbell, Miller, and Stewart. To my dismay, he paid no attention to what I had written, but turned on me as a sinner because I had not gone to him privately. However, his sermon was public, and he had not offended me personally. If he had, I would have gone to him privately, as Matthew 18:15 teaches.

But Matthew 18:15 does not teach that public sermons or printed articles are immune from criticism until one goes to the speaker or writer privately. In this case, the preacher had himself criticized two living men publicly without going to them privately.

Matthew 18:15 addresses private offenses which are to be handled privately. Two manuscripts do say, "If your brother sins, go and reprove him in private" (NASV), but that cannot be what Jesus said, for, since everybody sins, who would go to whom? All the other Greek manuscripts report Jesus as saying, "If your brother sins against you (eis se), go and reprove him in private."

So, personal sins were what Jesus was discussing. And that is the way that Peter understood Jesus, for he asked, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me (eis me), and I forgive him" (v. 21; cf. Luke 17:3-4).

Jesus himself did not go privately to correct the Sadducees, but did it publicly while the crowds listened (Matthew 22:23-33). Similarly, the Pharisees had not sinned against Jesus personally, and so Jesus did not go to them privately, but he "spoke to the crowds and to his disciples" about the sins of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-36).

Paul had no personal grievance against Hymenaeus and Philetus, but he criticized their teaching publicly (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Paul loved the Christians at Corinth (2 Corinthians 11:11; 12:15), but he wrote a letter some 200 miles away, criticising their lawsuits and misbehavior at the Lord’s table, and asked them, "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love, and with a gentle spirit?" (1 Corinthians 6:1-8; 11:20-22; 4:21).

Paul did not board a ship and go to Corinth to see the fornicating brother privately, for the man had not sinned against Paul personally. But Paul’s written message, criticizing both the sinner and the church, was public (1 Corinthians 5).

John knew that Diotrephes needed a rebuke, but not because he had offended John personally. It was because he had sinned against "the church" (3 John 9-11). John did not see Diotrephes privately, but he would not have been a faithful man of God to ignore the situation. So, at a distance ("if I come"), he rebuked him publicly in a letter.

Jezebel, in the church at Thyatira, was teaching a false doctrine, and Jesus knew that the situation should not be ignored. The elders at Thyatira should have withdrawn fellowship from her, but they had not. Though her activity was not a personal sin against Jesus, from heaven above he sent his words of criticism for all to read (Revelation 2:18-29).