Hello, brother or sister. Welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ. This is an in-depth Gospel study. If you'd like to read it from the beginning, you can click this link.
Last time we met, we finished off Jesus' "Teaching About the Law," which we largely dismissed as contrary to the greater body of Jesus' ministry, and thus of little value to us in our search for the moral code of the historical, true Jesus. We even ventured to guess that the "Teaching About the Law," as it appears in the Gospel According to Matthew in the latest revision of the New American Bible, may not be historical at all.
Today, we will begin the next subset of verses, the "Teaching About Anger." The "Teaching About Anger" contains phrasings that, unlike those in the previous teaching, can only be seen as congruent with the greater body of the teaching of Jesus' Galilean ministry. It contains phrasings that, if they are historical, count among the most important recorded sayings of Jesus' in terms of understanding his true moral philosophy.
As a brief aside, in regard to the christening of these sets of verses, I should mention that the titles were added by various translators and transcribers long after the Gospel was first written, and were not present in the original Greek writings. The headings of these verse subsets vary some from Bible to Bible, but are mostly ubiquitous. Just keep in mind that, in the original scripture, there was no line break between the "Teaching About the Law" and the "Teaching About Anger" to let the reader know that the subject was changing. The verses just kept coming.
As a brief aside, in regard to the christening of these sets of verses, I should mention that the titles were added by various translators and transcribers long after the Gospel was first written, and were not present in the original Greek writings. The headings of these verse subsets vary some from Bible to Bible, but are mostly ubiquitous. Just keep in mind that, in the original scripture, there was no line break between the "Teaching About the Law" and the "Teaching About Anger" to let the reader know that the subject was changing. The verses just kept coming.
That said, let's let the verses keep coming.
Enjoy.
------------------------------
Matthew 5:21 through 5:22
21 “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
------------------------------
Today's verses constitute the first of the Six Antitheses. The Six Antitheses of Jesus are a short, very structured series of sayings or teachings that appear back-to-back here in the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. We describe the Antitheses as "structured" because they all follow a common pattern: in each Antithesis, Jesus will mention a particular portion of the old Law of Moses ("you have heard that it was said...") and then immediately he will contradict the Law and augment it with his own words ("...but I say to you...").
Let's imagine this, though: we're on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee. The sun shines down and the air is hot and still. Jesus has ascended a short way up the side of what was once known as the Mount of Eremos. He is giving a definitive sermon explaining his doctrine. Slightly below Jesus, where everyone can see, we sit amongst a throng of his new followers, anxious to hear what he will say next. It is a certainty that we are, and everyone in the crowd around us is, Jewish. It is a certainty that everyone in the crowd believes in the Law of the Torah.
In a law-obsessed culture such as that of first-century Palestine, it would have been quite a bold thing for anyone, even a High Priest or an official of the court, to have said anything about changing the Law. The Law, of course, was up for interpretation within certain confines, but no man would have been permitted to alter the Law itself. We can imagine, then, that as their teacher begins his talk about changing the Law, some of Jesus' followers are uncomfortably shuffling their feet or shifting in their seats.
We can imagine murmuring under the hot desert sun: "did he say that he is changing the Law?"
"Can he say that?"
"Who does this guy think he is?"
Shock.
We know that Galilee was, at that time, a hotbed of alternative thought, and so we can imagine that some in the crowd are not murmuring and spitting but nodding in agreement with Jesus, or offering the kinds of verbal support a crowd often offers a speaker. "Hear, hear!"
So what exactly is Jesus saying in this First Antithesis? To find out, first we'll look at these verses from the linguistic side and define a couple of terms. After that, we'll paraphrase these verses and consider the logical implication of the First Antithesis. Then, we'll tease four take-away facts out from all of this.
First, let's get some Greek going.
The word "kill" here is from the Greek "phoneuó," which can alternatively be translated as "slay, murder, dispatch or slaughter."
The word "judgment" comes from the original Greek "krisis," meaning, alternatively, "decision, trial, tribunal, or accusation."* It is interesting to know that the English word "crisis" comes from the ancient Greek "krisis" by way of Latin.
The word we have translated in English here as "is angry with" comes from the Greek "orgizomenos" meaning, alternatively, "is infuriated with," or "is enraged with."
The word "brother" comes from the Greek "adelphos," meaning simply "brother," but deriving from a Proto-Indo-European term meaning "of the same womb." (We will argue later that when Jesus uses terms like "brother" he is referring to any other human, not just to one's literal siblings, and not just to one's religious kinfolk.)
"Raqa" is likely an ancient Aramaic term meaning "empty headed." It appears only once in the entirety of the New American Bible. Scholars argue over just how offensive this slight would have been.
The "Sanhedrin" were a system of courts that existed in first-century Palestine to administer and maintain the Law. Usually, in the Gospel, "Sanhedrin" refers to the large, main court in Jerusalem. Many towns in the area had their own smaller Sanhedrin court, but the larger Sanhedrin in Jerusalem held dominion over the others, and served as a kind of Supreme Court. As we've mentioned elsewhere, the totality of the Law of Jesus will nullify any court of men, so when Jesus talks about the Sanhedrin, we sometimes have to search for alternative interpretations.
Finally, the term "Gehenna" refers to a place called the Hinnom Valley on the southern border of Jerusalem. Some scholars think that the Hinnom Valley served at times as a kind of trash incineration site, and also as a place to burn the bodies of those who had been denied a proper burial, both lending to the "fiery" description. The land of the Hinnom Valley was considered cursed because, as we see in 2 Chronicles, it is there that Ahaz, King of Judah, sacrificed his sons to Moloch, a Canaanite God.** As it appears in the lexicon of Jesus Christ, "Gehenna" refers to "a real bad time," but, I would challenge, not necessarily "hell."
Ok, enough of the Greek and Aramaic. Now let's do some processing.
To paraphrase our first verse here, Jesus is saying: "you know what God told Moses: 'do not kill. Any Jew who kills another human will be judged harshly by the Court of Law.' " The commandment to which Jesus refers here appears both in Exodus 20:13 and in Deuteronomy 5:17, and is known to all Christians and all Jews.
Continuing our paraphrasing, Jesus says: "What God told Moses didn't go far enough, though! I say that even if you are simply angry with another human, you will be held to account by the judgment of God. I say that if you call someone "empty headed," you will be held to account by the judgment of God. I say that if you call someone a "fool," that you should be exiled by God to the place where they burn the trash and the bodies of the unholy."
"Wow!" I can almost guarantee that's what his followers were thinking.
We see here that the immorality of killing is a far gone conclusion for Jesus. He says that not only is killing immoral, but that the first step on the road towards murder, that being anger, is, in and of itself, immoral. He says that merely verbally attacking another human is immoral, and worthy of some punishment or judgment.
If one believes that Christ's words were divine revelation, then, in Matthew 5:21 and 5:22, the Law has officially been changed. If one believes that Christ's words constitute divine revelation, then the Jews and all followers of Christ are now obligated to rid their hearts and minds of anger.
"Wow!"
Imagine the implications of this commandment; this new Law of Christ. Jesus is asking his followers to reform themselves from the inside. He is asking them not only to refrain from an outward action, but to refrain from an inward disposition. He is telling his followers that it is not right for them to become indignant at the actions or beliefs of other human beings. This commandment of Jesus is a tall order, indeed.
In fact, from one vantage point, Jesus appears here to command the impossible from his followers. After all, who among us can say that we never become angry with another person? Indeed, there is a strong argument to be made that anger is subconscious, at times, and not always under the control of the person experiencing it.
Is Jesus asking the impossible from his followers here? One would think not. So, assuming that some human anger is subconscious, and that no human is fully capable of being completely rid of anger, and that Jesus understands this fact, then, at the end of the day, what can we take away for certain from these verses?
We can, for certain, take away the following four things:
1 - Jesus does intend, after all, to change the Law of Moses.
2 - Jesus agrees with the Law of Moses in regards to the sinfulness of killing another human.
3 - Jesus deems killing so sinful that he would judge even the first mental step toward killing, that being anger, as sinful.
4 - Jesus deems slander or verbal insults as sinful.
That's your takeaway, and we'll leave it at that. We will definitely be revisiting these verses as we read the rest of the Gospel. We have not said everything that could be said in their regard.
Next time, the "Teaching About Anger" will continue, and we will learn how important it is to Jesus that we be reconciled fully with our brethren when we've offended them. Until then, thank you so much for reading.
Please share this writing.
Love.
-------------------------
* As we slowly illuminate Jesus' worldview, we will realize that Jesus refers to a kind of cosmic or Godly "judgment" here, and not to an earthly judgment by a human authority. We can say this for certain because, again and again as we shall see, Jesus warns his followers not to judge one another, not to commit violence or coercion against one another, and not to resist the evil in others. It follows logically that, in a society where no single human is allowed to judge another human, commit violence or coercion against another human, or even resist the evil that might exist in another human, there would be no single human capable of sitting on a court bench in judgment of other humans. No human court can exist, so Jesus must be referring to some higher "judgment."
** Recall that King Ahaz appeared in the list of genealogy at the beginning of Matthew, and that scholars place his reign in the eighth-century BC.
Today's verses constitute the first of the Six Antitheses. The Six Antitheses of Jesus are a short, very structured series of sayings or teachings that appear back-to-back here in the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. We describe the Antitheses as "structured" because they all follow a common pattern: in each Antithesis, Jesus will mention a particular portion of the old Law of Moses ("you have heard that it was said...") and then immediately he will contradict the Law and augment it with his own words ("...but I say to you...").
There is much of interest to mention and consider here with these verses, and with these Antitheses. The first thing I would point out is how Jesus' "Teaching About the Law" from last week relates to the twenty-eight verses that follow it. Recall that Jesus has just told his followers that "not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law." In unequivocal terms, he said that the Law will remain unchanged. Then, in the subsequent teaching, Jesus seems to change the Law, contradicting everything he just said. This fact is part of what I consider the evidence that Jesus' "Teaching About the Law" didn't occur the way it is recorded in Matthew, if it occurred at all.
Let's imagine this, though: we're on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee. The sun shines down and the air is hot and still. Jesus has ascended a short way up the side of what was once known as the Mount of Eremos. He is giving a definitive sermon explaining his doctrine. Slightly below Jesus, where everyone can see, we sit amongst a throng of his new followers, anxious to hear what he will say next. It is a certainty that we are, and everyone in the crowd around us is, Jewish. It is a certainty that everyone in the crowd believes in the Law of the Torah.
In a law-obsessed culture such as that of first-century Palestine, it would have been quite a bold thing for anyone, even a High Priest or an official of the court, to have said anything about changing the Law. The Law, of course, was up for interpretation within certain confines, but no man would have been permitted to alter the Law itself. We can imagine, then, that as their teacher begins his talk about changing the Law, some of Jesus' followers are uncomfortably shuffling their feet or shifting in their seats.
We can imagine murmuring under the hot desert sun: "did he say that he is changing the Law?"
"Can he say that?"
"Who does this guy think he is?"
Shock.
We know that Galilee was, at that time, a hotbed of alternative thought, and so we can imagine that some in the crowd are not murmuring and spitting but nodding in agreement with Jesus, or offering the kinds of verbal support a crowd often offers a speaker. "Hear, hear!"
So what exactly is Jesus saying in this First Antithesis? To find out, first we'll look at these verses from the linguistic side and define a couple of terms. After that, we'll paraphrase these verses and consider the logical implication of the First Antithesis. Then, we'll tease four take-away facts out from all of this.
First, let's get some Greek going.
The word "kill" here is from the Greek "phoneuó," which can alternatively be translated as "slay, murder, dispatch or slaughter."
The word "judgment" comes from the original Greek "krisis," meaning, alternatively, "decision, trial, tribunal, or accusation."* It is interesting to know that the English word "crisis" comes from the ancient Greek "krisis" by way of Latin.
The word we have translated in English here as "is angry with" comes from the Greek "orgizomenos" meaning, alternatively, "is infuriated with," or "is enraged with."
The word "brother" comes from the Greek "adelphos," meaning simply "brother," but deriving from a Proto-Indo-European term meaning "of the same womb." (We will argue later that when Jesus uses terms like "brother" he is referring to any other human, not just to one's literal siblings, and not just to one's religious kinfolk.)
"Raqa" is likely an ancient Aramaic term meaning "empty headed." It appears only once in the entirety of the New American Bible. Scholars argue over just how offensive this slight would have been.
The "Sanhedrin" were a system of courts that existed in first-century Palestine to administer and maintain the Law. Usually, in the Gospel, "Sanhedrin" refers to the large, main court in Jerusalem. Many towns in the area had their own smaller Sanhedrin court, but the larger Sanhedrin in Jerusalem held dominion over the others, and served as a kind of Supreme Court. As we've mentioned elsewhere, the totality of the Law of Jesus will nullify any court of men, so when Jesus talks about the Sanhedrin, we sometimes have to search for alternative interpretations.
Finally, the term "Gehenna" refers to a place called the Hinnom Valley on the southern border of Jerusalem. Some scholars think that the Hinnom Valley served at times as a kind of trash incineration site, and also as a place to burn the bodies of those who had been denied a proper burial, both lending to the "fiery" description. The land of the Hinnom Valley was considered cursed because, as we see in 2 Chronicles, it is there that Ahaz, King of Judah, sacrificed his sons to Moloch, a Canaanite God.** As it appears in the lexicon of Jesus Christ, "Gehenna" refers to "a real bad time," but, I would challenge, not necessarily "hell."
Ok, enough of the Greek and Aramaic. Now let's do some processing.
To paraphrase our first verse here, Jesus is saying: "you know what God told Moses: 'do not kill. Any Jew who kills another human will be judged harshly by the Court of Law.' " The commandment to which Jesus refers here appears both in Exodus 20:13 and in Deuteronomy 5:17, and is known to all Christians and all Jews.
Continuing our paraphrasing, Jesus says: "What God told Moses didn't go far enough, though! I say that even if you are simply angry with another human, you will be held to account by the judgment of God. I say that if you call someone "empty headed," you will be held to account by the judgment of God. I say that if you call someone a "fool," that you should be exiled by God to the place where they burn the trash and the bodies of the unholy."
"Wow!" I can almost guarantee that's what his followers were thinking.
We see here that the immorality of killing is a far gone conclusion for Jesus. He says that not only is killing immoral, but that the first step on the road towards murder, that being anger, is, in and of itself, immoral. He says that merely verbally attacking another human is immoral, and worthy of some punishment or judgment.
If one believes that Christ's words were divine revelation, then, in Matthew 5:21 and 5:22, the Law has officially been changed. If one believes that Christ's words constitute divine revelation, then the Jews and all followers of Christ are now obligated to rid their hearts and minds of anger.
"Wow!"
Imagine the implications of this commandment; this new Law of Christ. Jesus is asking his followers to reform themselves from the inside. He is asking them not only to refrain from an outward action, but to refrain from an inward disposition. He is telling his followers that it is not right for them to become indignant at the actions or beliefs of other human beings. This commandment of Jesus is a tall order, indeed.
In fact, from one vantage point, Jesus appears here to command the impossible from his followers. After all, who among us can say that we never become angry with another person? Indeed, there is a strong argument to be made that anger is subconscious, at times, and not always under the control of the person experiencing it.
Is Jesus asking the impossible from his followers here? One would think not. So, assuming that some human anger is subconscious, and that no human is fully capable of being completely rid of anger, and that Jesus understands this fact, then, at the end of the day, what can we take away for certain from these verses?
We can, for certain, take away the following four things:
1 - Jesus does intend, after all, to change the Law of Moses.
2 - Jesus agrees with the Law of Moses in regards to the sinfulness of killing another human.
3 - Jesus deems killing so sinful that he would judge even the first mental step toward killing, that being anger, as sinful.
4 - Jesus deems slander or verbal insults as sinful.
That's your takeaway, and we'll leave it at that. We will definitely be revisiting these verses as we read the rest of the Gospel. We have not said everything that could be said in their regard.
Next time, the "Teaching About Anger" will continue, and we will learn how important it is to Jesus that we be reconciled fully with our brethren when we've offended them. Until then, thank you so much for reading.
Please share this writing.
Love.
-------------------------
* As we slowly illuminate Jesus' worldview, we will realize that Jesus refers to a kind of cosmic or Godly "judgment" here, and not to an earthly judgment by a human authority. We can say this for certain because, again and again as we shall see, Jesus warns his followers not to judge one another, not to commit violence or coercion against one another, and not to resist the evil in others. It follows logically that, in a society where no single human is allowed to judge another human, commit violence or coercion against another human, or even resist the evil that might exist in another human, there would be no single human capable of sitting on a court bench in judgment of other humans. No human court can exist, so Jesus must be referring to some higher "judgment."
** Recall that King Ahaz appeared in the list of genealogy at the beginning of Matthew, and that scholars place his reign in the eighth-century BC.
-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.
For the index of Christ's words, click here.
