Don’t Act You Age! (I Timothy 4:12)

Who does Paul tell not to let anyone despise his youth? Timothy (I Timothy 4:12)

First Timothy is a letter comprised of ministerial advice from a mentor, Paul, to his protégé, Timothy (I Timothy 1:1-2). Given this content, it is one of three New Testament writings grouped as the Pastoral Epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus). One of the issues addressed is that of age discrimination as Paul instructs Timothy not to let anyone discount him on account of his youth (I Timothy 4:12).

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. (I Timothy 4:12 NASB)

From this account, some Christian organizations have incorporated the term “Young Timothy” into their programming. Paul’s protégé is forever linked with youth, perpetually frozen in time as a young pastor.

Benjamin Fiore (b. 1943) discerns:

II Timothy suggests the same youthfulness in mentioning his mother and grandmother at II Timothy 1:5, the threat of youthful passions at II Timothy 2:22, Timothy’s education, his teachers, and his childhood at II Timothy 3:14-15. In the letters’ concern for preserving the authentic Pauline tradition, Timothy represents the next generation. (Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus (Sacra Pagina), 95)

Few biographical details emerge within First Timothy regarding the letter’s recipient. Elsa Tamez (b. 1950) compiles:

An important figure is Timothy, described as a youth (I Timothy 4:12) ordained by the elders (I Timothy 4:14, 1:18) with stomach problems (I Timothy 5:23), who has the task of easing through the instructions sent to him. (Tamez, Struggles for Power in Early Christianity: A Study of the First Letter to Timothy, xxiii-xxiv)

The admonition regarding Timothy’s age (I Timothy 4:12) does not seem to conform to the rest of the composite sketch First Timothy paints. Jouette M. Bassler (b. 1942) recognizes:

The reference to despising Timothy’s youth [I Timothy 4:12] comes somewhat as a surprise, for the letter has thus far projected an image of him as a mature, responsible church leader. It may simply be one of the numerous personal references that increase the verisimilitude of these letters (see, e.g., I Timothy 1:3, 6:12; II Timothy 1:5). Timothy was known to have been Paul’s younger coworker (Philippians 2:22) and Paul himself had instructed the Corinthian church not to let anyone “despise” him (I Corinthians 16:10-11), though he did not link this problem to Timothy’s age. On the other hand, the words may reflect a difficult issue that the church faced in its early years. The bishops and deacons, unlike the elders...did not have implicit or explicit age requirements (I Timothy 3:1-13). The “natural” subordinate relationship of youth to age could thus be overturned by the appointment of a youthful church member to one of these leadership positions...It was just the sort of situation...that led Ignatius of Antioch [35-98] to admonish the church in Magnesia (Asia Minor) in the early decades of the second century “not to presume on the youth of the bishop, but to render him all respect” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians 3.1). Within I Timothy, however, the reference to Timothy’s youth seems to serve a more literary function, for it anticipates the next section where issues related to groups defined (in large part) by age are addressed. There the natural deference of youth to age is generally upheld (I Timothy 5:1-2) and while older widows are honored (I Timothy 5:9), younger ones are viewed as dangerously flighty (I Timothy 5:11). At the same time, however, “elders” are not beyond rebuke (I Timothy 5:19-20) and, as this verse [I Timothy 4:12] signals, leadership categories can supersede age categories in defining the social order of the church (I Timothy 5:22). (Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 86)

It is not known whether Timothy has actually experienced criticism regarding his age or if his mentor merely anticipates it (I Timothy 4:12). Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) connects:

Paul apparently thought Timothy would encounter the same sort of obstacle he anticipated in the Corinthian church. Although the mandate dimension of this letter (written to Timothy but also for the church [I Timothy 1:1, 6:21) differs from that of I Corinthians (written directly to the church [I Corinthians 1:2]), the closest parallel to the kind of concern expressed here is I Corinthians 16:10-11...The issue of Timothy’s relative youth is not specifically mentioned in I Corinthians 16:10-11, but the possibility that the Corinthian church would scorn or despise him if he were sent in Paul’s place is paralleled in this text in the term “to look down upon” (cf. Titus 2:15). (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 313-14)

It seems unlikely that the author would supply the church a reason to denigrate his charge if it is not already an issue. Doing so might create a problem that does not exist. Thus, in all likelihood, in this instance, age is an issue for Timothy.

Timothy is not to be disregarded because of his youth (I Timothy 4:12). The epistle uses the Greek verb kataphronéō which is translated “despise” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “look down on” (NASB, NIV), “make fun of” (CEV), “put...down” (MSG) or “think less of” (NLT). J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997) renders the word “underrate” (Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 103).

The term is forceful. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) probes:

καταφρονειν, “to despise, treat contemptuously,” can be a strong word, denoting disgust and even hatred. Jesus said that no one can serve two masters; he will be devoted to and love one, and hate (μισειν) and despise (καταφρονειν) the other (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Jesus also says not to despise little children (Matthew 18:10). To the rich Corinthians who were abusing the Lord’s Supper Paul says that by doing so they are despising the church and humiliating the poor (I Corinthians 11:22). Peter describes those who “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (II Peter 2:10). The only other occurrence of the word in the Pastoral Epistles is when Paul tells slaves not to despise their masters because they are Christians (I Timothy 6:2), although καταφρονειν does occur as a variant for περιφρονειν where Paul tells Titus not to let anyone disregard or despise him (Titus 2:15). The strong connotation that καταφρονειν carries helps to explain why throughout the Pastoral Epistles Paul instructs Timothy on issues that Timothy already knows. Since Timothy was meeting extreme opposition, being ignored because of his age, this epistle must carry the apostle’s full authority and transfer that authority to Timothy in the eyes of the Ephesians. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

Jerome D. Quinn (1927-1988) and William C. Wacker (b. 1951) support:

In this letter, “disdain” translates the verb kataphroneitō (contrast the periphroneitō of Titus 2:15 and Jerome [347-420]’s comment in Titum [Patrologia Latina 26.589-90], who says the kata- compound denotes contempt in its proper sense, as when a martyr despises and scorns all the torments inflicted in him as of no account). In the eight other New Testament uses, Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (Synopsis of the Four Gospels §224) as well as Matthew 18:10 (in a context of leadership, a little child, and greatness!) have the verb refer to a person, and in the first examples cited, to “masters” (kyriois), as in I Timothy 6:2...it refers to “masters” (despotas). The uses in Romans 2:4 (of the riches of God’s goodness and I Corinthians 11:22 (the churches of God) are somewhat different, as are Hebrews 12:2 (Christ “despising the shame” of the cross) and II Peter 2:10 (persons despising the lordship or rule of authority of Christ? See Carl Schneider [1900-1977], Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3.632-33). Ignatius of Antioch [35-98]’s Epistle to the Smyrnaeans uses the verb of Peter and those with him who saw the risen Jesus and thereafter “despised even death” (kai thanatou katephronēsan). The three uses in The Shepherd of Hermas, similarly, do not have a personal object (Mandate 7.2 [but note the passive]; 9.10; and 10.3.1). (Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 382)

D. Edmond Hiebert (1910-1995) interprets:

The verb “connotes that the contempt felt in the mind is displayed in injurious action” (Newport J.D. White [1860-1936]). He is not to allow them to push him around because of his youth. (Hiebert, First Timothy (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 85)

Timothy’s age is underscored grammatically (I Timothy 4:12). Aida Besançon Spencer (b. 1947) acquaints:

The cause (your youth) of the negative opinion is emphasized by being placed before the verb (despise) [I Timothy 4:12]. (Spencer, 1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary), 113)

Timothy’s issue is his “youth” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, RSV), that he is “young” (CEV, MSG, NIV, NLT, NRSV), or that he exhibits “youthfulness” (NASB). The term encompasses a broad range of ages.

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) researches:

νεότης, “youth,” occurs in the New Testament elsewhere only in the phrase “since my youth” [Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21; Acts 26:4]. The rich young ruler says that he obeyed the commands since his youth (Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21), and Paul speaks of “my manner of life from my youth [ἐκ νεότητος] spent from the beginning [ἀπ’ ἀρχης] among my own nation” (Acts 26:4). Paul was a youth when Stephen was stoned (cognate νεανίας: Acts 7:58; cf. Acts 20:9 [Eutychus]; Acts 23:17 [Paul’s nephew]; cf. also the cognate νεανίσκος). The phrase ἐκ/ἀπὸ νεότητος, “from youth upwards,” is common in extrabiblical Greek (James Hope Moulton [1863-1917] and George Milligan [1860-1934], 424). The Didache says that “from their youth thou shalt teach them [i.e., sons and daughters] the fear of God” (4:9). These passages show that νεότης can refer to a very young person. Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887], Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] and Roderick McKenze [1897-1937] (1170), moreover cite several references where νεότης refers to young men of military or athletic age (e.g. Pindar [522-443 BCE] Isthmian Odes 8[7].75; Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 4.3; 9.12; Thucydides [460-395 BCE] 2.8, 20). E.K. Simpson [b. 1873] (69) cites several secular references: Aulus Gellius [125-180] (10.28) says soldiers are iuniores “up to forty-six”’ Josephus [37-100] notes that although Antonia “was still a young woman,” she refused to marry; he calls Agrippa “youthful” when he was almost forty (Antiquities 18.6§§143-239); in describing Flaminius Polybius says, “he was quite young, not being over thirty” (νέος ἡν κομιδη πλείω γὰρ των τριάκοντ’ ἐτων οὐκ εἱχε; The Histories 18.12.5; Loeb Classical Library translation). Irenaeus [130-202] (Adversus Haereses 2.22.5) preserves a fragment from The Relics of the Elders that states “But that the age of thirty years is the prime of a young man’s ability, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, every one will allow” (translation J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1889], Apostolic Fathers, 554). (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

George W. Knight, III (b. 1931) bounds:

νεότης (Mark 10:20; Luke 18:21; Acts 26:4) and the related adjective νέος are used of “children, youths, and of men at least as old as 30” (Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887], Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] and Roderick McKenzie [1897-1937] s.v. νέος). The phrase “wife of your youth” (ἐκ νεότητος σου) is used in the Septuagint (Proverbs 5:18; Malachi 2:14) and shows the second category of usage. The third category extends into and somewhat beyond the age of thirty and is evidenced by the following: Polybius [200-118 BCE] (18.12.5) speaks of Flaminius as “young” because he is only thirty, and Irenaeus [130-202] (Adversus Haereses 2.22.5) explicitly says that one could be called “young” up to forty (cf. John Henry Bernard [1860-1927], E.K. Simpson [b. 1873], JN.D. Kelly [1909-1997])...Luke called Paul a “young man” (Acts 7:58) when he was of the same age range as Timothy is now. Timothy’s age, in his thirties (the estimate most would agree on), might seem to be a handicap in the Ephesian community, where some of the other believers and other elders are older. (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 205)

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) adds:

The cognate νεόφυτος, “neophyte,” “new convert” is found in the prohibition that neophytes should not be deacons (I Timothy 3:6), but this refers to spiritual and not physical age. William Mitchell Ramsay [1851-1939] says that the cognate νέος, “new,” was used of fully grown men of military age (The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1913] 41; cited in James Hope Moulton [1863-1917] and George Milligan [1860-1934], 424). Ramsay also mentions the Νέοι, a social club of young men over twenty years old as distinct from the ’Έηβοι (adolescents) and the Γερουσία (“Council of Elders”; “Senate”; “Sanhedrin”; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 2 volumes [Oxford: Clarendon, 1895, 1897] 1:110-11; cited in Moulton and Milligan, 24). Moulton and Milligan (424) cite a passage in which the νέοι are later described as ἀνδρων, “men” (Wilhelm Dittenberger [1840-1906], Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 524 [second century B.C.])...Irenaeus [130-202] (Adversus Haereses 2.22.5) says Jesus suffered when he was thirty [Luke 3:23], “being in fact still a young man.” While there is a problem in using cognates to define related words, the meaning of νέος supports the conclusion that Timothy was in his late twenties to mid thirties. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 259)

Aida Besançon Spencer (b. 1947) contextualizes:

According to the Mishnah, twenty was the age to pursue a calling and thirty for authority (Mishnah ‘Abot 5:21). (Spencer, 1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary), 113)

William Victor Blacoe (b. 1954) augments:

Youth (Greek neotes νεότης) means newness as respecting youthfulness. The Latin translation of this word is “adulescentiam” – from which the English word adolescence is derived. The word referred to “grown up military age, extending to the 40th year.” For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) used this Latin word to describe himself when he was 27 years of age; the word is also applied to Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) when he was 33 or 35 years of age. “We may therefore presume that Timothy was now between thirty and forty.” (Blacoe, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Understanding the New Testament), 74)

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) condenses:

Among the various Greek schemes (more or less detailed) for classifying age groups (e.g. Dio Chrysostom [40-120] 74.10; Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], On the Creation 105; cf. On the Embassy to Gaius 227), a more basic distinction between “young” and “old” existed that placed youth at the age of forty and under (e.g., Irenaeus [130-202], Against Heresies 2.22.5; see also Josephus [37-100], Antiquities of the Jews 18.197; cf. I Clement 21.6-8). See further I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], 239. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

It appears that forty was always the new forty as even in the ancient world this age denoted youth.

The scope of the Greek allows for a Timothy that is older than a present-day literal reading might envision. Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) clarifies:

If, as is probable, Timothy was in his thirties, words such as “young” and “youth” [I Timothy 4:12, 5:1, 2, 11, 14] might give the contemporary reader the wrong impression, since we generally reserve these words for people in their teens and early twenties. (Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (NIV Application Commentary), 165)

Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) agrees:

We need not take Paul’s description of Timothy as “young” [I Timothy 4:12] to picture him as a teenager or a young adult in his early twenties. Acceptable estimates of Timothy’s age could easily place him between thirty and thirty-five years old. Some Christians in Ephesus could chafe at receiving instructions from a man even this young. (Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. [b. 1947], 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary), 137-38)

Though it is impossible to determine Timothy’s age precisely, it has not deterred speculation. Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) records scholarly estimates:

E.K. Simpson [b. 1873] (35-40 years old); Burton Scott Easton [1877-1950], 146 and Raymond F. Collins [b. 1935], 128 (20s); Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979], 34 (30s). (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

In addition to linguistic clues, many have attempted to gage Timothy’s age by piecing together a timeline. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) reconstructs:

Timothy started serving with Paul during the second missionary journey about A.D. 49 (Acts 16:1). Allowing for that journey, the third journey, the imprisonments (including the Roman one), and the time required for subsequent release and time spent in Ephesus (c. A.D. 62)...thirteen years or so had passed. Combined with the fact that Timothy must have been old enough in Acts 16 to have been an effective helper, this suggests that Timothy was now in his late twenties to mid thirties. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) assumes:

“That Timothy must have been thirty to thirty-five is based on the date of his joining Paul (ca. 49-50) and the date of this letter (ca. 62-64)” (Gordon D. Fee [b. 1934], p. 71). “Indeed this particular age [thirty] is stamped as full and complete by the mystery of Christ’s assumed manhood” (Jerome [347-420], Letters, LXXXII.8, p. 173). (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 126)

Dick France (1938-2012) concludes:

At the time of this letter Timothy must have been at least thirty, and it was ten or fifteen years since Paul had recruited him as his associate [Acts 16:1-3]. He was not the sort of ‘recent convert’ mentioned in I Timothy 3:6. But for all his experience he was still a ‘youth’ (I Timothy 4:12) in comparison with at least some of the ‘elders’ over whom he had responsibility, and in a culture which valued the wisdom of age he may well have found it difficult to maintain his authority; indeed some of the people whose teaching he had been appointed to oppose may well have used his age against him. (France, Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 46)

Some of his parishioners have the impression that Timothy is too young (I Timothy 4:12). Though reality may not coincide with the perception, it is still a very real obstacle for the pastor.

The designation of youth is subjective. What is young to some may be old to others. C. Michael Moss (b. 1950) asserts:

Age is relative. The elders at Ephesus, as well as many members there, could very well look at Timothy as a young man. He might, after all, be the age of some of their children. (Moss, 1, 2 Timothy & Titus (College Press NIV Commentary), 92)

John Phillips (1927-2010) illustrates:

Forty is considered old for most professional athletes, yet it is considered young for the chief executive of a corporate conglomerate and very youthful indeed for a president or prime minster. (Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles: An Expository Commentary, 127)

Noticeably, Timothy is young as compared to Paul. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) elucidates:

The words “let no one despise your youth” [I Timothy 4:12] (cf. Ignatius of Antioch [35-98] Epistle to the Magnesians 3:1) do not suggest that Timothy is either very young or a mere babe in the faith...By the time the present letter was written, Timothy was likely thirty-five or thirty-six, which certainly was young in comparison to Paul’s age. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 257)

Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) adds:

The detail is consistent with the Pastor’s presentation of Timothy as Paul’s true son (I Timothy 1:2). Timothy is portrayed as a younger man to whom the ministry of Paul, the old man, has been entrusted. (Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 128)

Timothy may also be younger than many of his parishioners. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) understands:

Timothy was dealing with people whom Paul had personally evangelized many years earlier and who had been leaders in their church for some time. It would have been natural for them to have looked down on any younger person who was correcting them. There is no similar injunction to Titus, who was probably older than Timothy and did not have to deal with this particular problem. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 259)

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) considers:

The sense of the command, “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young [I Timothy 4:12],” may compare his age to Paul’s, or to that of older people in the church over whom he would exercise some delegated apostolic authority. Each possibility would apply, as well as the simple fact that he was standing in for Paul in a situation where anti-Pauline sentiments might have been on the increase. In any case, if the noun translated “youth, state of youthfulness” is a reference to an age group, Timothy would probably have been less than forty years old. Attempts at greater precision are speculative since we do not know his age at the time he was called. But the possibility that “youth” means here simply “younger than me” or “younger than the elders in the church” should not be ruled out. Either way, the parallel in I Corinthians 16:10-11 (Titus 2:15) suggests that Paul’s practice of dispatching coworkers authorized to act in his place (instructing, disciplining) meant putting them into very ticklish ministry situations. In this case, the explicit reference to Timothy’s youth adds the burden of crossing the cultural line of age veneration. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

If Timothy’s parishioners’ definition of youth is consistent with most, it simply means that the pastor is younger than them.

Though the sentiment is often absent in contemporary American society, it is natural to venerate elders. Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) compares:

For a similar description of youth being despised, see Diodorus Siculus [90-30 BCE] 17.7.1; Romans 2:4; I Corinthians 11:22; Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], Theological Lexicon of the New Testament 2:280-84; Carl Schneider [1900-1977], Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3:631-32. The situation faced by Titus, which the similar command of Titus 2:15 addresses, may not be precisely that of youthfulness...Paul’s own insistence on the selection of older leaders (I Timothy 3:6) underlines the potential for disrespect in the case of the younger Timothy. For the veneration of age in Greco-Roman culture and Hellenistic Judaism, see Ceslas Spicq [1901-1992], 511-512. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314)

William Barclay (1907-1978) attends:

The Church generally liked its office-bearers to be people of maturity. The Apostolic Canons laid it down that a man was not to become a bishop until he was over fifty, for by then ‘he will be past youthful disorders’. Timothy was young in comparison with Paul, and there would be many who would watch him with a critical eye [I Timothy 4:12]. When the British politician the elder William Pitt [1708-1778] was making a speech in the House of Commons at the age of thirty-three, he said: ‘The atrocious crime of being a young man...I will neither attempt to palliate or deny.’ The Church has always regarded youth with a certain suspicion, and under that suspicion Timothy inevitably fell. (Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (New Daily Study Bible), 110)

Age’s twin is experience and the criticism against Timothy may reflect a perceived deficiency in this resource as well. Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) suggests:

To be sure, Timothy’s precise age cannot be determined, but perhaps his youthfulness [I Timothy 4:12] refers to a lack of work experience, especially when compared to the absent Paul or even to the elders of the congregation. The Roman world considered apprenticeship and field experience requirements of mature instruction; rather than a reference to chronological age, Paul’s exhortation may reflect concern for an incomplete or inadequate résumé for a congregational leader. The earlier catalogs of virtues were focused on what sort of person leads a sacred household rather than on expertise gained from experience, but even they assumed a level of real-world experience, since virtue is not formed in a vacuum. (Wall with Richard B. Steele [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary), 123)

In all likelihood Timothy has at least a decade of experience. As such, this criticism, if it exists, is more imagined than real.

Timothy is not the first Biblical hero to be underestimated due to youth. Much to his chagrin, Goliath famously undervalues David (I Samuel 17:43-44) and pays for his miscalculation with his life ((I Samuel 17:1-54).

Nor is Timothy the last to be castigated for his lack of years. The problem still persists into the present day. Thabiti M. Anyabwile (b. 1970) admits:

Some pastor search committees will not consider a man younger than age forty. Of course, that would have meant the end of Timothy’s candidacy, not to mention Jesus’s [Luke 3:23]. Then there are those committee members who will look at a young pastor and conclude, “He’s young but we’ll train him and fit him to our tastes.” There are also members of churches who disregard a pastor’s instruction because “he is so young and inexperienced.”...In a million ways youth can be despised. (Anyabwile, Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons, 131)

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) empathizes:

I Timothy 4:12 warns Timothy not to let anyone look down on him because he’s young; he must keep his nerve, and trust that God will be at work through him when he does what he’s been called to do. Some clergy feel the pressure of their youth, not least in the kind of parish where the average age of the congregation is twice their own. ‘We’ve been here in this church for fifty years,’ they seem to be saying, ‘and don’t you try to tell us what to think or do!’ But there are other pressures too, on clergy, not least because most of the time they are not directly responsible to anybody else; nobody is telling them to do these four things this morning, those five this afternoon, and to finish off the rest this evening. Rather, a generalized mass of possible tasks stares up at them from a crowded desk and a flashing answerphone. How many people, faced with all that, will have the courage to obey even the first of Paul’s instructions? (Wright, Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters, 51)

Isaiah prophesies that a “a little child shall lead them.” (Isaiah 11:6 KJV) and, thankfully, there are many biblical examples of youthful leaders. Wayne Rice (b. 1945) catalogs:

We have a treasure trove of biblical heroes to inspire teenagers who want to do something significant with their lives for God: Moses, Joseph, Samuel, Esther, David, even Jesus himself, who at age twelve declared “I must be about my father’s business [Luke 2:49].” King Josiah began his successful thirty-one year reign in Jerusalem when he was eight years old [II Kings 22:1; II Chronicles 34:1]. Joan of Arc [1412-1431] was only nineteen when she was martyred for her faith. There are many examples in history of teenagers who showed remarkable competence and courage as they assumed roles that day are more or less reserved exclusively for adults. And young people today are just as capable, if not more so. (Rice, Reinventing Youth Ministry (Again): From Bells and Whistles to Flesh and Blood, 45)

Though priests had a twenty-five year window between the ages of twenty-five to fifty to serve publicly, this did not prevent anyone from doing great things for God (Numbers 8:24-25). Doug Fields (b. 1962) contends:

Jesus never said, “Take up your cross and follow me when you’re and adult.” The Bible is clearly devoid of any age requirement for serving. God shattered age limits with biblical heroes like David, Jeremiah, and Mary. A sign of a healthy church is one that helps all Christians, regardless of age, to discover their gifts and express them through serving in ministry. (Fields, Purpose-driven Youth Ministry: 9 Essential Foundations for Healthy Growth, 175)

The complaint against Timothy’s youth (I Timothy 4:12) may represent a real concern on the part of the congregation but it is equally possible that it is used for convenience to mask other perceived flaws. Timothy may be facing a problem that many do when following the founding pastor of a church. He finds himself in the unenviable position of following a legend. Regardless of skill level, this scenario presents its own unique obstacles.

All pastorates come with their own intrinsic challenges. His age is just one of the many obstacles Timothy will have to overcome to adhere to his calling. Timothy may have problems, but according to Paul (and implicitly to God), however, his youthfulness is not one.

Why would parishioners resent Timothy’s youth (I Timothy 4:12)? What are the limitations of the young? What should a young person be prohibited from attempting? What are the advantages to being young? How important is experience? How does your church view its youth; is discrimination against youth still an issue in churches? What constitutes young to you? When have young people successfully led organizations? Do you prefer your leaders to have discernible age? What is the youngest pastor you have encountered; did his or her age influence your perception? How young is too young to serve as pastor? Have you ever felt discriminated against because of your age? What can Timothy, and other young pastors, do to deflect criticism?

Timothy must not be intimated by the criticism as the stakes are too high. George W. Knight, III (b. 1931) assesses:

The admonition of the apostle is that Timothy not let this become a factor, since the apostolic instruction and admonition are at stake. (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 205)

Timothy must not only avoid falling prey to the criticism, he cannot believe it to be true. He cannot allow people tell him that he cannot do something which God has called him to do. Youth is not only not worthy of criticism, it is also no excuse for being for being ineffective.

George T. Montague (b. 1929) presumes:

Timothy is to command and teach these things [I Timothy 4:11]. Conforming to the style of the advice-giving letter of elder to younger (like Pseudo-Isocrates to Demonicus), Paul repeats advice given before. It is likely that Timothy needs the boldness that comes from assurance of his authority. In light of his youth [I Timothy 4:12], he may well be intimidated by the older men in the community. (Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 99)

Anthony B. Robinson (b. 1948) and Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) supplement:

Sometimes, but not always, such tentativeness is amplified by a particular personal characteristic that flies in the face of culturally established patterns of authority, where age (as in Timothy’s case [I Timothy 4:12]) or gender (in the case of some women in ministry). Such culturally established markers, Paul indicates, are not to be heeded, because the work and the way of life of the pastoral leader are what matters. (Robinson and Wall, Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for a New Day, 121)

E. Glenn Hinson (b. 1931) pronounces:

Timothy, now in his thirties, should stop hiding behind the excuse, “I’m too young.” He should be an example of believers in all dimensions of Christian life—speech, conduct, faith or faithfulness and sexual purity [I Timothy 4:12]. A weighty expectation! (Watson E. Mills [b. 1939], Mercer Commentary on the New Testament, 1256)

Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931) advises:

The importance of the office of teaching is so great that the youthful pastor must learn rightly to resist those who might undercut or demean them solely on the basis of their younger age or limited experience (I Timothy 4:12). When thirty-year old pastors are called upon to guide and teach elders twice their age, they must keep in mind the firmness of their authorization [I Timothy 4:11]. The youth of pastors “will not be despised if they do not by youthful vanities and follies make themselves despicable (Matthew Henry [1662-1714], p. 821). (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 126)

The criticism against Timothy is especially problematic as the issue cannot be immediately resolved. Barring the magic of Hollywood as seen in movies like Big (1988) or 13 Going on 30 (2004), Timothy simply cannot age instantaneously. There are, however, ways in which Timothy can compensate for his youthfulness.

Paul not only acknowledges the problem but also provides some advice as to how to solve it by counteracting the criticism (I Timothy 4:12). The solution is not in words, through public confrontation, but via deeds, providing a good example. Timothy should live a life above reproach.

Timothy, like all pastors, is to be an “example” (ESV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “ensample” (ASV) to his flock (I Timothy 4:12). He is to practice what he preaches. Paul appeals to character which transcends age and credentialing.

William D. Mounce (b. 1953) evaluates:

“Let no one treat you contemptuously because of your youth, but be an example for the faithful in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” [I Timothy 4:12]. Charles J. Ellicott [1819-1905] translates: “Let the gravity of thy age supply the want of years” (61)...On the one hand, Timothy should not allow himself to be despised (cf. similar injunction in I Corinthians 16:11) while, at the same time, he must be a good example. Both sides of the coin are necessary for successful ministry. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 257)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) informs:

Timothy is called to be a typos, a “type” or “example” of faith in words, behavior, love, faithfulness and purity [I Timothy 4:12]. In short, he, like Paul...is to be a moral and theological exemplar of the gospel that he preaches, an embodiment of it. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 258)

Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) educates:

To overcome any liabilities associated with youth, Paul urges Timothy to become “an example for the believers” (Titus 2:7). The task of “modeling” was intrinsic both to formal and informal ancient education. Paul assumed this role in relation to Timothy (I Corinthians 4:17) and within the churches (Philippians 3:17; I Thessalonians 1:7; II Thessalonians 3:9), and in these letters to delegates, Timothy and Titus were to do the same (Titus 2:7). Elsewhere it was a responsibility to be taken up by believers in general (e.g., I Thessalonians 1:7), and expected of church leaders (I Peter 5:3). To be a model or set an example meant more than simply presenting a pattern that others were to mimic: “The more life is moulded by the word, the more it becomes typos, a model or mould.” It was a case of living out life as faith in the gospel had shaped it. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 314-15)

In doing so, Timothy is to do as his mentor, Paul, has done. J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997) associates:

To offset the handicap of youth, Timothy is invited to be an example to believers [I Timothy 4:12]. This is a truly Pauline touch; the apostle expected the Christian leader to be a model to others (Philippians 3:7; II Thessalonians 3:9). (Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 104)

Aida Besançon Spencer (b. 1947) details:

The manner of responding to negative opinions of his youth was not by speech (reprimanding such views) but by example [I Timothy 4:12]. A typos was a pattern or model “in conformity to which a thing must be made,” an archetype. Paul had already referred to himself as an “example” or prototype (hypotypōsis) of a sinner saved from punishment by Christ Jesus showing compassion toward him by forgiving him [I Timothy 1:16]. Paul has used Timothy as a model in other letters: with himself, of believers who persevere despite suffering and who work [Philippians 1:1, 3:11-19; II Thessalonians 3:7-12]. Paul had sent Timothy to Corinth as a model of someone who shares in Christ’s sufferings [I Corinthians 4:10-17]. (Spencer, 1 Timothy (New Covenant Commentary), 113)

In the process of modeling right behavior, Timothy will prove his critics wrong. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) follows:

On the one hand, Timothy is to let no one despise him because of his youth [I Timothy 4:12]. The parallel imperative (I Timothy 4:12b) suggests that the way to do this is to be such a good example that accusations have no credence. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 258)

Benjamin Fiore (b. 1943) bolsters:

Timothy can avoid scorn for his youth by not giving occasion for such scorn. Thus he is to demonstrate personal excellence and be exemplary in his ministry (I Timothy 4:12-16). He is also expected to avoid youthful passions (II Timothy 2:22), unsubstantiated accusations against elders (I Timothy 5:19), prejudice (I Timothy 5:21), and an imprudent selection of leaders (I Timothy 5:22). This advice to a young leader parallels that found in Isocrates [436-338 BCE], Ad Nicocem and Demonicus and in the kingship treatises of Plutarch [45-120] and Dio Chrysostom [40-120] . (Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus (Sacra Pagina), 94)

William Barclay (1907-1978) approves:

The advice given to Timothy is the hardest to follow, and yet it was the only possible advice. It was that he must silence criticism by conduct. Plato [427-347 BCE] was once falsely accused of dishonourable conduct. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘we must live in such a way that all men will see that the charge is false.’ Verbal defences may not silence criticism; conduct will. (Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (New Daily Study Bible), 110)

Paul’s instruction still holds true; it is best to answer criticism with actions. Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) affirms:

Nothing bridges the generation gap in the church like the spiritual maturity of the younger. At a more important level, nothing proves the veracity of the gospel as well as evidence of its life-changing power. (Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus (IVP New Testament Commentary), 109)

Paul is not just content to relay that Timothy ought be an example; he also lists five areas of emphasis (I Timothy 4:12). Philip H. Towner (b. 1953) inventories:

Paul depicts this life by attaching a string of five short prepositional phrases enumerating five of its elements [I Timothy 4:12]. The first phrase, “in speech,” is thought by some to refer to the specific kind of speech involved in preaching or teaching (e.g., I Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9). But while this might be included in the sense of what one professes, alongside of “conduct,” the broader sense of “speech” is more likely. “Conduct,” that is, manner of life, how one lives, was a natural counterpart to “speech” in Greek and Jewish moral teaching. Together they encompassed most of the observable life, and especially for the teacher, the manner of life was to correspond to what was proposed. In Timothy’s case, coherence of speech and behavior was to command the respect of one assigned to represent the apostle and his teaching in the community...The next two qualities in effect repeat the more widely used “speech/conduct” model specifically in terms of Christian maturity. Paul frequently summed up authentic spirituality in terms of “faith” (=belief in God)...and “love” (=the outworking of faith in service.)...Added to this pair is the fifth phrase, “impurity.” In this context, the reference is either to the sexual purity (chastity) required especially of young men (I Timothy 5:2), or to purity of motives. Given the concern that Timothy not give grounds for his youth to be criticized, emphasis on the need for sexual probity is most fitting...Paul calls Timothy to display a balanced and authentic Christian lifestyle. It will not only bear the traditional marks of consistency (speech/conduct), but also the stamp of spiritual coherence (faith/love) from which the opponents had deviated in their teaching and behavior. Any lingering questions related to Timothy’s relative youth were finally to be laid to rest by his refusal to slip into unchaste tendencies of speech, conduct, or inappropriate interaction with members of the opposite sex [I Timothy 4:12]. (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 315-16)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) scrutinizes:

If anastrophē [“conduct”] denotes behavior or way of life in general, these terms specify the qualities that Paul particularly wants to be modeled to the community [I Timothy 4:12]. We are not in the least surprised to find pistis [“faith”] and agapē [“love”], for these attitudes are the “goal of the commandment” that Timothy is to proclaim (I Timothy 4:5). More startling is the inclusion of “purity” (hagneia), which in the moral literature is frequently narrowed to sexual purity, or chastity (e.g., Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], On Abraham 98; On the Contemplative Life 68; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 19:331). In Polycarp [69-155]’s Philippians 5:3, hagneia is among the first responsibilities of the young men. Is this another possible allusion to Timothy’s youth? (Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Anchor Bible), 252)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and John J. Pilch (b. 1936) correlate:

The five specific areas in which the leader is to set an example [I Timothy 4:12] correspond to the three symbolic body zones that characterize biblical perception of the human person: speech (mouth-ears), conduct (hands-feet), love (heart-eyes), faith (heart-eyes); and purity (hands-feet). Three-Zone Personality. When all three symbolic zones are mentioned, the author intends to describe a total, complete picture. In this instance, Timothy, that is, the local Jesus-group leader is to be totally perfect in all dimensions of human life and behavior. In this regard, Timothy represents an ideal rather than a real figure, the ideal leader. (Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Deutero-Pauline Letters, 129)

This list is not intended to be exhaustive but does highlight issues that would be especially relevant to a youth. Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) discusses:

The qualities in which Timothy is to excel are those in which youth is so often deficient [I Timothy 4:12]. Yet for that reason they would stand out more strikingly. It would become evident to the Christian believers that authority in the community is contingent on character, not on age. Every young man called to the ministry or any position of authority would do well to heed Paul’s five-fold enumeration here. The first two, speech and life (i.e. manner of life, or behaviour) apply to Timothy’s public life, while the other three are concerned with inner qualities (love, faith and purity) which nevertheless have a public manifestation. (Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 109)

The issues Paul addresses are critical to the rest of the letter. Timothy is being asked to do what his older congregants have failed to do. William D. Mounce (b. 1953) diagnoses:

While in I Timothy 4:6-16 Paul is speaking directly to Timothy, the historical situation at Ephesus is never far in the background; between the lines can be seen a constant comparison between what the Ephesian church was doing wrong and what Timothy should do correctly. Every one of the five qualities enumerated in this verse [I Timothy 4:12] is missing from the lives of the opponents. (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary), 257-58)

In short, Timothy must live better than his adversaries, not stooping to their level.

There are many benefits to this strategy. For one, Paul’s approach incorporates responding positively, not negatively, to criticism. D. Edmond Hiebert (1910-1995) observes:

“But be thou an ensample to them that believe” [I Timothy 4:12]. This positive injunction balances the previous negative. His life is to be such as will such every such adverse reaction about his youth. (Hiebert, First Timothy (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 85)

Paul’s prescription is often counterintuitive. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) and Bryan Chapell (b. 1954) confess:

The natural inclination when our leadership is challenged is not godliness but the opposite—to become defensive and respond with sarcasm or a putdown or to pull rank and become “presidential” (“I’m the chief here!” “Ever hear of the cloth?”) or to become coldly above it all, aloof, or grieved (“How could you ever question me?”). Any young believer (and some old ones too) can easily succumb to such responses. But ministry is thus diminished. (Hughes and Chappell, 1–2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Deposit (Preaching the Word, 122)

Paul’s proposal also focuses Timothy inward, not outward. Timothy cannot control others’ prejudice or their response to his ministry. The only thing Timothy can control is his own behavior. Youth is often the time in life when others’ opinions matter most. Yet Timothy cannot regulate public opinion. He must respond by affecting the only thing he can: his own conduct.

Anthony B. Robinson (b. 1948) and Robert W. Wall (b. 1947) inspect:

“Let no one despise your youth, but until I arrive set a pattern for believers in speech, in public conduct, in love, faith, and purity [I Timothy 4:12].” In other words, pay attention to yourself and to your own way of being in the world. Again, Paul’s emphasis is on self-management, self-awareness, and Timothy’s controlling what he has control over — that is, his own behavior. Sometimes we clergy members get wrapped around the axle concerning the behavior of others. We can point it out. We can offer sound teaching. But we can’t often change other people’s behavior, at least not directly. But what we can change and pay attention to is our own behavior. And sometimes that is our very best point of leverage for supporting change in the congregation: taking responsibility for our own behavior, setting “a pattern for believers in speech, in public conduct, in love, faith, and purity [I Timothy 4:12].” (Robinson and Wall, Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for a New Day, 121)

Paul’s words kill two birds with one stone: he simultaneously affirms Timothy while rebuking the congregation (I Timothy 4:12). It must not be forgotten that in writing, Paul publicly endorses his protégé.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) perceives:

As implied by the plural “you” in I Timothy 6:21, the Ephesian Christians will here this letter read to them though it’s addressed to Timothy. So the command, “No one I to be despising your youthfulness,” is indirectly addressed to them [I Timothy 4:12]. (Gundry, Commentary on First and Second Timothy, Titus)

Thomas D. Lea (b. 1938) grants:

These words [I Timothy 4:12] produced encouragement in Timothy himself, but they could also set in order some dissident, fault-finding elements of the congregations. After all, Paul was bestowing his full blessing on Timothy, and he wanted the Ephesians to learn from what the young disciple did. (Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. [b. 1947], 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary), 137)

Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) expounds:

We now discover what is probably a hidden agenda that made it necessary for Paul to write this letter—Timothy’s youthfulness [I Timothy 4:12]. To say, don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, is very likely two edged. It is first of all a word of encouragement to Timothy, because he was in fact a younger man...and perhaps timid (cf. I Corinthians 16:10-11; II Timothy 1:6ff)...But for the same reasons, it is likewise a word to the community, to let them know that, despite his youth, he has Paul’s own authority to command and teach these things (I Timothy 4:11)...On the contrary, not only are they not to look down on him because he is young, but they are to “look up” to him. He is to set (literally, “become”) an example for the believers. That the people of God are to learn Christian ethics by modeling after the apostolic example is a thoroughgoing, and crucial, Pauline concept (see I Thessalonians 1:6; II Thessalonians 3:7, 9; I Corinthians 4:6, 11:1; Philippians 3:17; cf. II Timothy 1:13). (Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Understanding the Bible), 106-07)

Had Timothy verbally defended himself it might have added fuel to the fire and, at least in his critics’ minds, served to prove their point. Instead, Paul, who has seniority over all involved, defends his younger charge.

All Timothy can do is live well and the situation in which he finds himself is one of the hardest times to do so. In the face of criticism, Timothy is hard pressed to behave in a Christian manner. How Timothy responds is part of the modeling that he is called to demonstrate for his congregation (I Timothy 4:12). His actions in these moments will speak volumes.

Is Paul’s interjection into the situation, as a “father” to Timothy (I Timothy 1:2), indicative of Timothy’s being too young for his position? When has someone publicly endorsed you? What young person can you be encouraging? When have you seen someone refuted by compliments bestowed on their opponent? Were you Timothy, how would you handle this unwarranted criticism? How do your typically respond to judgment, positively or negatively? How would the solution be different with another demographic; e.g. how would one respond to the claim of being too old? When are the young an example to all? When do you try to set an example? Is it ever better to respond to criticism with words than deeds?

“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” - John Locke (1632-1704), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, p. 24

Moses: The Meekest Man (Numbers 12:3)

Who was the meekest of all men? Moses (Numbers 12:3)

While leading the burgeoning Israelite nation through the wilderness, Moses not only faces criticism from its concerned citizens but also from Miriam and Aaron, his siblings and co-leaders (Numbers 12:1-2). Though the Book of Numbers states that the complaints reach God there is no mention of Moses’ response or even the degree of his awareness (Numbers 12:2). Instead the text bestows a superlative: Moses is the most humble man on the planet (Numbers 12:3).

(Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) (Numbers 12:3 NASB)

This statement is generally perceived as a parenthetical aside. Though parentheses do not occur in the Hebrew text, translations are just as apt to supply them (KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT) as not (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NRSV, RSV).

Martin Noth (1902-1968) assesses:

Numbers 12:3 is a later addition which disrupts the close connection between Numbers 12:2b and Numbers 12:4. (Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 95)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) detects a narrative purpose:

A parenthetic statement by the narrator concerning the character and quality of Moses as a man and as a leader of Israel is interjected into the flow of the narrative, heightening the dramatic effect of the passage. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 202)

In Hebrew, the first word in the text emphasizes Moses’ humanity as for the third and final time in the biblical record, Moses is characterized as “the man” (Exodus 32:1, 23; Numbers 12:3). This appellation is not conferred in the contemporary complimentary sense of the idiom.

Jonathan Kirsch (b. 1949) comments:

“There is nothing divine about Moses,” observes the eminent Bible scholar Gerhard Von Rad [1901-1971], and as if to remind us of this crucial fact, the Bible refers to him with a simple, sturdy, and straightforward phrase—“the man Moses.” (Exodus 32:1, 23; Numbers 12:3). (Kirsch, Moses: A Life, 1)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) expounds:

Alone among biblical characters, he is assigned an oddly generic epithet, “the man Moses.” There may be some theological motive for this designation, in order to remind us of his plainly human status, to ward off any inclination to deify the founding leader of the Israelite people, but it also suggests more concretely that Moses as forger of the nation and prince of prophets is, after all, not an absolutely unique figure but a man like other men, bringing to the soul-trying tasks of leadership both the moral and temperamental resources and the all-too-human weaknesses that many men may possess. In regard to our experience of the character and the story, all this means that “the man Moses” remains somewhat distanced from us, that we never get the sense of intimate acquaintance with his inner life and his distinctive traits of personality that we are so memorably afforded in the stories of Jacob and Joseph. (Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 300-01)

Moses is characterized as the most “humble” (HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “meek” (ASV, ESV, KJV, RSV) human of his era. This type of description is rare in the Old Testament. Aaron B. Wildavsky (1930-1993) acknowledges:

The few direct characterizations of Moses in the Bible are elusive...The closest approach to delineating the man himself—“(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth)” (Numbers 12:3)—is the most elusive of all. (Wildavsky, Moses as Political Leader, 199)

“Humble” is more prevalent than “meek” in newer translations. Clyde M. Woods (b. 1936) and Justin M. Rogers (b. 1982) deliberate:

A discussion rages over the definition of the term ענו (‘ānāw). Many are insistent upon the fact that the term ‘ānāw does not mean “meek,” but rather “humble”...or, as Baruch A. Levine [b. 1930] interprets, “humble before God” (Numbers, p. 329). Jacob Milgrom [1923-2010] goes so far as to state, “It never means ‘meek’” (Numbers, p. 94). Actually, the term ’ענ (‘ānî) often denotes a condition of oppression or weakness, either materially or emotionally (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1.856). Thus, the idea of a “bowing” [in dejection] may be altogether appropriate (see The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1.855). In this case, “humble” seems to be a better choice than “meek” (Woods and Rogers, Leviticus–Numbers (The College Press NIV Commentary), 249)

Gordon J.Wenham (b. 1943) prefers:

‘Humble’ conveys the sense of the Hebrew ‘ānāw better than meek. It is a word that elsewhere is used only in poetry. It sometimes refers to those in real poverty (Amos 2:7; Isaiah11:4). Such people must look to God for aid, because they are unable to help themselves. But more frequently the word seems to denote an attitude of mind, more characteristic of the poor than of the rich, one of humility and dependence on God. The Psalms repeatedly assure the humble that God will deliver them, ‘The LORD lifts up the humble’; ‘he adorns the humble with victory’ (Psalms 147:6, 149;4; cf. Psalms 22:26, 25:9, 37:11, 76:9; cf. Matthew 5:5; I Peter 5:6). (Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 111)

John Sturdy (1933-1996) adds:

The word is ‘ānāw, a key term in the religious language of the psalms for the ideal religious man (e.g. Psalms 25:9 ‘He guides the humble man in doing right’), and from here inherited by Christianity (Matthew 5:5, translated ‘of gentle spirit’ in the N.E.B.). Absence of self-assertiveness in the presence of God gives the right relationship with him. Moses is here given the highest valuation that Israelite piety has. (Sturdy, Numbers (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 90)

George W. Coats (1936-2006) questions:

The key term ‘ānāw refers to a leading virtue of Moses who exemplifies the virtue better than any other person in the land. It is not, however, clear that the words, ‘meek’ or ‘humble’, do justice as tools for translating the term...What kind of virtue...belongs to Moses more than to all other persons who are on the face of the earth?...The basic thesis is that the word derives from a root ‘nw, connoting responsibility or integrity...If ‘ānāw derives from such a stem, ‘nw, with denotation of obedient response, the connotations of the word in Numbers 12 should follow in unforced sequence...The context highlights...obedience within the context of personal responsibility...The range of connotation in the word emerges even more clearly when one compares the virtue with ‘honor’...Numbers 12:3 might thus read: ‘The man Moses was the most honorable of all persons who are on the face of the earth.’ (Coats, The Moses Tradition, 92-94)

Richard S. Briggs (b. 1966) responds:

The etymological argument is probably weak on its own. As noted in one review of his proposal, “If the point of the editorial comment is to emphasize Moses’ honour, then there are far more direct and unambiguous ways of doing it than by using ‘ānāw” (Stephen B. Dawes 1990:337). (Briggs, Virtuous Reader, The: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue, 52)

Contextually, it is obvious that the comment is a compliment, even when translated “meek” which presently carries pejorative baggage. Walter Riggans (b. 1953) clarifies:

The description of Moses as “very meek” is important for understanding what God prizes in mankind. It does not mean a whimpering, spineless, uncommitted weakling. (Riggans, Numbers (Daily Study Bible Series), 102)

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) reminds:

It is stated of Moses and our Lord Jesus that they were meek. Remember that meekness is not weakness. Meekness is being obedient to God and doing his will. (McGee, Numbers (Thru the Bible), 82)

Regardless of how the term is translated the trait for which Moses is applauded is directly connected to his relationship with God. Raymond Brown (b. 1928) delineates:

The word humble is from a root meaning ‘bowed down’; in leadership he was genuinely ‘subordinating his personal interests to those of God and his cause’. His sensitive spirit must have been profoundly disturbed when members of his own family questioned his divinely appointed role and, particularly, his responsibility as the Lord’s mouthpiece. (Brown, The Message of Numbers (Bible Speaks Today), 107)

Dennis T. Olson (b. 1954) interprets:

The word “humble” does not refer so much to a general personality trait of meekness as it underscores Moses’ devotion or humility before God (George Buchanan Gray [1865–1922], p. 123; cf. Zechariah 2:3). The narrator’s parenthetical comment instantly undercuts Miriam and Aaron’s complaint and seeks to persuade the reader to stand with Moses in his defense against his siblings. (Olson, Numbers (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 71)

R. Dennis Cole (b. 1950) inspects:

The term ‘ānāw used is not the normal Hebrew word for humility, meekness or weakness but one that conveys an individual’s devout dependence upon the Lord. It may also describe a state one must experience before one is honored by God or man. In his first encounter with the Lord at Horeb in the burning bush, Moses realized his human limitations—“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11). But with the assurance of the divine presence—“I will be with you” (Exodus 3:12)—he went forth by faith, even though initially reluctant, and was used by God in ways that far surpassed human comprehension. His humility in this manner far exceeded that of any other person on the earth. (Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary), 202)

Humility entails an awareness of one’s identity in relationship to God. No other human of his time had a closer relationship to God than Moses and consequently, none would be more mindful of his own relative inadequacy.

This trait is on full display during the conflict with his siblings. Moses does not waste time attempting to subjugate his peers on the basis of his own importance. Instead he concentrates on his appointed objective, namely establishing a nation under God.

Iain M. Duguid (b. 1960) observes:

The grumbling of Moses and Aaron was not answered by Moses. His behavior in this chapter is a living affirmation of the narrator’s description of him as more humble than anyone else of the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3). Moses knew who he was before God; so he didn’t feel the need to fight to stand up for his own rights and status. A servant doesn’t feel the need to stand up for his own rights and status. It is only when we misconceive Christian leadership as being like the world’s model that we start to defend our turf. (Duguid, Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness (Preaching the Word), 162)

Glen S. Martin (b. 1953) remarks:

Moses never thought so highly of himself as to be offended by these remarks. They may have even made sense to Moses! The reason for this came from the character he embodied. He was a very humble man...Moses reflected the spirit of Christ, who “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6), but took on the form of a servant. Moses did not cling to his position and rank, but apparently stood silent. (Martin, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 299)

Moses is not motivated by gaining personal advantage over others. Numbers 12:3 implies that Moses faces the criticism in dignified silence. Timothy R. Ashley (b. 1947) speculates:

The narrator wishes the reader to know that Moses himself would probably have let this challenge go unanswered. It was Yahweh who heard it and who took it upon himself to answer it. (Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 224)

David L. Stubbs (b. 1964) compares:

In contrast to the jealousy and presumption of Miriam and Aaron, the humility of Moses is pointed out...Moses’s humility is exhibited here by his not responding directly or angrily to the murmurings of Miriam and Aaron. While Miriam and Aaron want to use their intimacy with God in order to increase their status among the people, Moses enjoys the greater good of such intimacy—friendship with God: “Moses...is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:7-8). (Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 124)

W.H. Bellinger, Jr. (b. 1949) infers:

The parenthetical comment in Numbers 12:3 indicating that Moses was more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth immediately displays a bias against the position of Miriam and Aaron. While modern readers may understand the adjective “humble” as “self-effacing,” here it probably indicates Moses’ discipline, integrity, trust, and dedication in relationship with God. This comment contrasts with the brutally honest dialogue between God and Moses in chapter 11 [Numbers 11:16-23]. Perhaps this passage should lead us to redefine humility similarly. The complaints of Miriam and Aaron are contrasted to Moses’ qualities. (Bellinger, Leviticus, Numbers (New International Biblical Commentary), 225)

Even so, the plaudit’s existence is noteworthy. Stephen K. Sherwood (b. 1943) recognizes:

Such direct characterization is rare in biblical narrative, but it is necessary here for the development of the plot. Is Moses inventing a religion in which he gives himself exaggerated authority?...The fact that the narrator felt it necessary to address this question indicates that someone was asking it with sufficient credibility to require a response. (Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 155-56)

The parenthetical aside accentuates Moses’ innocense in the face of all charges levied against him (Numbers 12:1-2). In making this claim, the narrator vindicates Moses even before God does. Contrary to his siblings’ objections (Numbers 12:1-2), Moses is in fact unique (Numbers 12:6-8).

If God is offended by Aaron and Miriam’s criticism (Numbers 12:5-9), should Moses be also? Is Moses bothered? As the nation’s leader, should Moses have responded to his siblings’ complaints? Who do you know who has been vindicated without defending themself? What quality most characterizes Moses? Who is the most humble person on earth today? If you were given one superlative what would it be?

The assertion that Moses is the most humble man on earth has garnered unique criticism due to the book’s traditional authorship. Roy Gane (b. 1955) explains:

For those who believe the traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, Numbers 12:3 raises a question: If Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on the face of the earth, wouldn’t this constitute a boast that would invalidate his humility? We understand the boxing champ Muhammad Ali [b.1942]...when he claims the epithet “The Greatest.” But “The Humblest” is a different matter. So it can be argued that...Numbers 12:3...was written by an editor of the Pentateuch, not by Moses himself (cf. Genesis 12:6; Deuteronomy 34:1-12). (Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (The NIV Application Commentary), 592)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) ranks:

Numbers 12:3 is the most difficult text in the whole book of Numbers. Critical scholars (and others) have correctly observed that it is rather unlikely that a truly humble person would write in such a manner about himself, even if he actually felt the statement was true. Many critical scholars are so convinced of the inappropriateness of recording such a note that they have used this as a strong mark against the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. (Kaiser, Peter H. Davids [b. 1947], F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] and Manfred T. Brauch [b. 1940], Hard Sayings of the Bible, 165)

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) defends:

This statement is often adduced as evidence that Moses could not have written the Book of Numbers for he would not have boasted of his own humility. On the contrary, the declaration concerning his humility is the strongest possible support for the traditional view that Moses wrote Holy Scripture as an inspired penman. Only one led by the Holy Spirit could make such a statement about himself, probably against his own natural inclination. (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 228)

James E. Smith (b. 1939) supposes:

Modern critics have argued that these words are incongruous with Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Interpreted as braggadocio this verse would be difficult to square with Mosaic authorship. Perhaps Moses, however, intended the words to be understood as a confession of weakness in leadership. Because of his very low self-esteem he did not exercise boldness in dealing with the rebels (Numbers 12:3). (Smith, The Pentateuch, 430)

Ardent defense of traditional authorship has generated other unique responses. Richard S. Briggs (b. 1966) illustrates:

Those who hold to the notion that the “Torah of Moses” requires an idea of Moses as “author”...tend to...suggest that ‘ānāw must mean something else. When this concern is driven simply by the desire to safeguard Mosaic authorship at all costs, it can have little to commend it. One example shall suffice. Cleon Rogers [b. 1955], taking it as a given that one must find a way around the “concern and consternation” caused by Moses’s apparently inappropriate statement, concludes, on the basis of an etymological root meaning “to be bowed down; afflicted” (e.g., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament 776), that the meaning of Numbers 12:3 must be ‘miserable.’ He concludes, “Moses was saying that in the light of the burden of the people and the complaint of his family he was the most ‘miserable’ person in the world” (Cleon Rogers 1986: 263). The sheer implausibility of this line of thought is highlighted by the one remaining sentence in the article: “Who has not made this statement about himself at some point in life?” whereby a text affirming a unique characteristic of Moses has come to be a truism of every person. (Briggs, Virtuous Reader, The: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue, 52)

Most interpreters understand Numbers 12:3 simply as a redaction by a later editor which enhances the narrative.

Which would bother you more, that Moses professed to be the most humble man on earth or that a later redactor inserted the comment? Could the most humble person on earth make that claim of herself? Is humility still considered a virtue? How would you define humility?

“Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it’s thinking of yourself less.” - C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

The Blind Ophthalmologist (Matthew 7:5)

What are we first to take out of our own eye? Log or beam (Matthew 7:5)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addresses judging others (Matthew 7:1-5). In making his case, he invokes graphic imagery:

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 NASB)

Jesus instructs his followers to take the dokos out of their own eye before assisting someone else. This Greek word is translated alternately “log” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “beam” (ASV, KJV) and “plank” (NIV, NKJV).

Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) defines:

κάρφοσ [karphos] refers to a small peck of anything (perhaps here “sawdust,” given the meaning of δοκός [dokos]) that may get in a person’s eyes; here it is used metaphorically to indicate some slight or insignificant shortcoming. The repeated reference in these verses to “your brother” indicates that it is primarily the Christian community that is in view. δοκός, “log,” is an intentionally ludicrous exaggeration in its contrast to the speck of sawdust. What is a tiny flaw in another is seen so clearly by a censorious person, while ironically what is an outrageously huge failure in the latter is conveniently overlooked altogether. It is the self-righteous, censorious person who is particularly eager to correct the faults of others. (Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33a), 169)

The illustration emphasizes that one’s own obstruction is far larger than her neighbor’s. R.T. France (1938-2012) analyzes:

This grotesque illustration, drawn from the carpenter’s workshop, exposes graphically the hypocrisy of the sort of criticism condemned in Matthew 7:1-2. The speck (karphos, a tiny splinter of wood or straw; the word is used in secular Greek metaphorically for something minute) and the log (more literally a beam or rafter) in the eye are found also in two Rabbinic sayings, perhaps derived from Jesus’ illustration (Arakhin 16b; BB 15b). (France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 143)

As France notes, the same imagery is found elsewhere. Daniel J. Harrington (b. 1940) surveys:

The fantastic images of the wood chip and the beam illustrate the process of fraternal correction based on Leviticus 19:17: “you shall reason with your neighbor.” The advice is given to the one who offers the correction that he should be of perfect integrity himself and not a “hypocrite” (Matthew 7:5). The same image is used in a rabbinic saying (b. Arak. 16b) but with the roles reversed: “Rabbi Tarfon said: ‘I wonder whether there is anyone in this generation who accepts reproof, for if one say to him: “Remove the mote from between your eyes,” he would answer, “Remove the beam from between your eyes.”’” (Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina), 103)

Jesus is depicting the critic as a blind ophthalmologist. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) explains:

One blinds oneself by rationalizing away one’s guilt (Matthew 7:3-5; also Matthew 6:22-23; cf. Romans 2:1-3; Tert. Apol. 39.14). A splinter or wood chip in one’s eye might render one blind, but a plank imbedded in one’s eye would certainly render one blind. The image...is graphic, even hyperbolic...consider the absurdity of one’s walking around with an thick roof beam protruding from one’s eye (as if either end of it would even fit!), totally ignorant of one’s impossibly grotesque state. Just as one would not want someone blind leading one into a pit (Matthew 15:14, 23:16), one would not want a blind eye surgeon operating on one’s eyes. Only one who sees well is competent to heal others’ source of blindness (cf. Matthew 9:27-31, 20:29-34); thus one must “pluck out” (cf. Matthew 5:30) any impediments to sight. (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 241)

The image is intended to be absurd and naturally lends itself to caricature. It is an example of Jesus’ humor. Matt Woodley (b. 1960) expounds:

In other words, imagine there’s a man with a huge beam protruding from his eye attempting to perform delicate surgery on your eye. His beam keeps smashing into your face–and everyone else around him—but he’s oblivious to his own problem. It’s funny. And that’s you, Jesus observes, when you perpetuate the cycle of judgment and condemnation. With this illustration Jesus tells us how idiotic we are, but he does it with warmth and humor. He could have shown contempt for the contemptuous and hated those who hate, but that would have accelerated our wretched pattern of judgment. Instead, Jesus threw the wrench of mercy into our hate-filled cycle, causing it to sputter and then grind to a halt. (Woodley, The Gospel of Matthew: God with Us, 90)

Humans often ignore their own shortcomings while maintaining unrealistically high expectations of others. This is why Jesus labels the offender a “hypocrite” (Matthew 7:5). The word and usage are virtually the same in English and in Greek (hupokrites). Strikingly, it is only here that the term is applied to Jesus’ disciples and not his opponents.

Michael J. Wilkins (b. 1949) pinpoints:

The real problem is that the accuser is a “hypocrite” (Matthew 7:5). Jesus uses the singular vocative, “You hypocrite,” here, which personalizes the accusation, implying that the hypocrisy is detected among Jesus’ own followers. As earlier (cf. Matthew 6:2, 5, 16), hypocrisy means to perform external acts of righteousness that mask, perhaps even from oneself, one’s own inner corruption...On the one hand, the hypocrisy may be a remedial sin that the disciple can eliminate through self-examination and confession (Matthew 7:5). On the other hand, the hypocrisy may reveal a more terminal sin. Throughout Jesus’ ministry certain people attached themselves to him, but they never truly believed. The primary example is Judas Iscariot, but there were many others who once called themselves disciples, yet never truly believed (e.g.. John 6:60-66). (Wilkins, Matthew (The NIV Application Commentary), 309-310)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) notes that “hypocrite” is especially apropos in this setting:

The word is singularly appropriate here where someone with a large fault is pictured as offering to help another whose disability is the most minor that could be imagined. Jesus is drawing attention to a curious feature of the human race in which a profound ignorance of oneself is so often combined with an arrogant presumption of knowledge about others, especially about their faults. (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 167)

John Nolland (b. 1947) contends that the offender is oblivious:

Here the hypocrite is not actually conscious of the misrepresentation, but the label indicates that he or she is responsible, nonetheless: the self-blindness is a result of culpable failure to perceive how things really are. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 320-321)

Lloyd John Ogilvie (b. 1930) suggests that not only is the log significantly bigger than the speck, but that the judgment itself is an even greater problem than the plank:

The sin in us is more serious to God than the sin in another that we criticize. The sin of negative judgment, in God’s eyes, is larger than the sin in the person we criticize. It is easy to criticize if we have never comprehended how deadly a sin this is. It eats away at us and breaks down not only our relationship with the people, but with God...The point of this pithy parable is that if we busy ourselves with the plank in our own eye, we will have less time and inclination to criticize. If our sour minds are sweetened by God’s forgiveness, we will have less negativism about others. (Ogilvie, God’s Best for My Life: A Classic Daily Devotional, 21)

This type of judgment is often an egotrip whereby we tear someone else down in order to build ourselves up. As the discourse illuminates, the sin we hate so much in another is often something we hate about ourselves. In his novel Demian: The Story of Emil Sinclair’s Youth, Herman Hesse (1877-1962) writes, “When we hate a person, what we hate in his image is something inside ourselves. Whatever isn’t part of us can’t excite us (Hesse, 73).”

Psychologists have termed this common phenomenon projection. Both Jesus and Paul addressed the subject (Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 2:1-3, 21-23). Frank Minirth (b. 1946) and Paul Meier (b. 1945) inform:

Many “loners” will imagine that other people do not want to get close to them. In reality, they are rejecting the intimacy of others. But in their imagination they blame others because they do not want to become aware of their own irresponsibility. This defense mechanism is known as projection, because they are “projecting” their own rejecting behavior onto others in much the same way that a slide projector projects the slide within itself onto a screen. Matthew 7:3–5 is an excellent description of projection and its hypocrisy. (Minirth and Meier, Happiness Is a Choice: The Symptoms, Causes, and Cures of Depression, 55)

Myron S. Augsburger (b. 1929) sees judgment as evidence of one’s own ignorance of her true nature (Romans 3:23):

Respect for others is an indication of one’s own self-understanding. The awareness of the complexity of our own lives and the limitations of our own nature should help us to be more considerate and understanding of others. This does not mean that, by an attitude of acceptance towards others, we are thereby endorsing their practice. But we can be discerning without being judgmental. The approach of love is to use personal power or privilege to benefit another. And the sanctity of service is realized only as we serve another in the way which that person wishes to be served, else, in serving in the way we wish to serve them, we are actually determining or controlling their lifestyle. In fellowship with another we affirm the worth of the other personality without copying or subscribing to his total life pattern. Hence, to build the community of the kingdom, Jesus asks His disciples to avoid censoriousness, to avoid prejudgment or prejudice, to refrain from stereotyping persons which thereby limits their possibilities for fulfillment. (Augsburger, Matthew (The Preacher’s Commentary), 90)

Do you think the original audience found Jesus’ macabre image offensive? Who do you hold to higher standards, yourself or others? Can you think of an example of projection? Have you ever judged someone harshly without realizing that you were guilty of the same sin? Is their actually fault in the brother or is the issue simply wrong judgment? Is Jesus informing that Christians are entirely prohibited from judging?

R.T. Kendall (b. 1935) examines:

Matthew 7:5 is surely saying at least one of three things: No one ever gets rid of the plank; therefore, no one can ever judge...We can get rid of the plank and then—and only then—can we judge another person...The best situation occurs when one focuses on his or her own plank, and then self-effacingly offers correction to another in a way that will be most welcomed...What is our Lord’s purpose in these words? He wants to help us in the difficult situations we confront in life and bring a balance between a godly, forgiving spirit and an attitude of judgmentalism. (Kendall, Total Forgiveness, 127)

Like most of Jesus’ teachings, some have taken this admonition against judging to the extreme. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) relays:

This does not mean (as some have thought) that no follower of Jesus should ever be a magistrate. God intends that his world should be ordered, and that injustice should be held in check. Jesus is referring, not to official lawcourts, but to the judgments and condemnations that occur within ordinary lives, as people set themselves up as moral guardians and critics of one another. (Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 1: Chapters 1-15 (New Testament for Everyone), 69)

Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) asserts:

The disciples are not to judge because any judgment that needs to be made has been made. For those who follow Jesus to act as if they can, on their own, determine what is good and what is evil is to betray the work of Christ. Therefore, the appropriate stance for the acknowledgment of evil is the confession of sin. We quite literally cannot see clearly unless we have been trained to see “the log that is in [our] eye.” But it is not possible for us to see what is in our eye because the eye cannot see itself. That is why we are able to see ourselves only through the vision made possible by our participation in a community of forgiveness that allows us to name our sins. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 85)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) counters:

The crucial phrase is “first cast out.” Jesus is not directing disciples never to judge others but stressing that their first responsibility is to purify themselves. They have not been called to be moral or theological watchdogs over others (see Romans 14:4). A cartoon typical of Semitic humor warns against trying to remove a sliver from a brother’s eye without first doing the logging on oneself. The order is judge oneself first, then one can see clearly to help, not condemn, another. One is also to remember that the brother’s sliver is just that, a sliver. The real danger of a judgmental spirit is not simply that one will get back what one dishes out to others (see Matthew 18:35), but that it strangles the love for the other. (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel, 84-85)

Citing contextual evidence, Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) agrees:

The hypocrisy is pretending you have no faults as you look down on someone else and criticize them. While many have interpreted this to mean you should not judge at any time, that clearly does not fit the context, for Matthew 7:6 in many ways is a judgment as to whether an individual is worthy of the gospel...It is obvious here that once you have dealt with your problems, you will have “clear” sight to help others with their difficulties. (Osborne, Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 203)

W.D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison (b. 1950) concur:

In Matthew 7:3 one simply sees (blepein). In Matthew 7:5 one sees clearly (diablepein). In the latter instance one sees in order to help. The stare to find fault becomes the genuinely friendly eye of a brother or sister who is a servant. Some commentators fail to discern in Matthew 7:3-5 any instruction concerning fraternal correction. For them, the text prohibits judging altogether. But Matthew shows a special concern elsewhere for the proper procedures of dealing with sin in others; see Matthew 18:15-20. (Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary, 106)

Ulrich Luz (b. 1938) adds:

The admonition to think first of the log in one’s own eye is—like the admonitions to forgo the use of force (Matthew 5:39-41)—an exemplary illustration of the principle of Matthew 7:1. Thus the verses by no means want to limit the principle of not judging only to the admonition to see first the log in one’s own eye when one deals with the neighbor. Rather it is a specific example in the area of interpersonal relations. The sharpness of the verses lies not in the fact that the ego of the judging individual is put in a new light. The judging one becomes one who is judged. The tangible power of the metaphors is impressive. The hyperboles of the splinter and the log are “a blow struck at the heart of the man who know good and evil.” The listener is questioned, is startled. The direct address with “you” (singular) intensifies this effect. (Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible), 417)

Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) writes that the passage speaks to judmentalism not judging:

The word “judgmentalism” does not appear in all dictionaries, but it names a phenomenon we know all too well. Judgmentalism is a social sin; it is the habit of constantly finding fault with what others say and do. It is a disease of the spirit. The critic arrogantly assumes a superiority that entitles him or her to access the failings of others...It is in response to God’s overwhelming mercy that we renounce the habit of harshly judging others. Matthew is well aware of this connection, as is indicated by his later inclusion of the parable of the unforgiving debtor (Matthew 18:23-25). Just as we forgive because we have been forgiven, so we are generous in our judgment of others because God has dealt generously with us. (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 76)

Michael Green (b. 1930) concludes that being judgmental should never be one of the defining qualities of a Christian:

Instead of the critical spirit, disciples should be known for their humility, recognizing their own shortcomings. They should also be known for their helpful spirit, wiling to alleviate the troubles of others by practical help rather than adding to them by carping criticism. (Green, The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven (Bible Speaks Today), 106)

When do you judge others? When you judge someone else, do you remember to inspect yourself first? What planks do you need to remove from your own eye?

“When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.” - Wayne W. Dyer (b. 1940), You’ll See It When You Believe It: The Way to Your Personal Transformation, p. 267