Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

22. I say ] A most emphatic formula, which implies the authority of a lawgiver.

without a cause ] The Greek word is omitted in the oldest MSS., and has probably been inserted by a copyist desirous of softening the expression.

the judgment ] = the local court: see next note.

Raca ] A word of contempt, said to be from a root meaning to “spit.” The distinction between Raca and Thou fool is lost, and naturally, for they belong to that class of words, the meaning of which depends entirely on the usage of the day. An expression innocent and unmeaning in one age becomes the watchword of a revolution in another. There is, however, clearly a climax. (1) Feeling of anger without words. (2) Anger venting itself in words. (3) Insulting anger. The gradation of punishment corresponds; liable (1) to the local court; (2) to the Sanhedrin; (3) to Gehenna.

council ] i. e. the Sanhedrin. See note ch. Mat 26:3.

hell fire ] Lit. Gehenna of fire, i. e. “burning Gehenna.” Gehenna is the Greek form of the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom or “Valley of Hinnom,” sometimes called “Valley of the son of Hinnom,” also “Tophet” (Jer 7:31). It was a deep narrow glen S. W. of Jerusalem, once the scene of the cruel worship of Moloch; but Josiah, in the course of his reformation, “defiled Tophet, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch” (2Ki 23:10). Cp. Milton, Paradise Lost i.:

“First Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood

Of human sacrifice and parents’ tears;

Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,

Their children’s cries unheard that passed through fire

To his grim idol.”

After that time pollutions of every kind, among them the bodies of criminals who had been executed, were thrown into the valley. From this defilement and from its former desecration Gehenna was used to express the abode of the wicked after death. The words “of fire” are added, either because of the ancient rites of Moloch, or, if a Rabbinical tradition is to be credited, because fires were always burning in the valley, or, further, as a symbol of everlasting punishment.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But I say unto you – Jesus being God as well as man Joh 1:1, Joh 1:14, and therefore, being the original giver of the law, had a right to expound it or change it as he pleased. Compare Mat 12:6, Mat 12:8. He therefore spoke here and elsewhere as having authority, and not as the scribes. It may be added here that no mere man ever spake as Jesus did, when explaining or enforcing the law. He did it as having a right to do it; and he that has a right to ordain and change laws in the government of God must be himself divine.

Is angry with His brother without a cause – Anger, or that feeling which we have when we are injured, and which prompts us to defend ourselves when in danger, is a natural feeling, given to us:

1. As a proper expression of our disapprobation of a course of evil conduct; and
2. That we may defend ourselves when suddenly attacked.

When excited against sin, it is lawful. God is angry with the wicked, Psa 7:11. Jesus looked on the hypocritical Pharisees with anger, Mar 3:5. So it is said, Be ye angry, and sin not, Eph 4:26. This anger, or indignation against sin, is not what our Saviour speaks of here. What he condemns here is anger without a cause; that is, unjustly, rashly, hastily, where no offence has been given or intended. In that case it is evil; and it is a violation of the sixth commandment, because he that hateth his brother, is a murderer, 1Jo 3:15. He has a feeling which would lead him to commit murder, if it were fully acted out. The word brother here refers not merely to one to whom we are nearly related, having the same parent or parents, as the word is commonly used, but includes also a neighbor, or perhaps anyone with whom we may be associated. As all people are descended from one Father and are all the creatures of the same God, so they are all brethren: and so every man should be regarded and treated as a brother, Heb 11:16.

Raca – This is a Syriac word, expressive of great contempt. It comes from a verb signifying to be empty, vain; and hence, as a word of contempt, denotes senseless, stupid, shallow-brains. Jesus teaches here that to use such words is a violation of the spirit of the sixth commandment, and if indulged, may lead to a more open and dreadful infraction of that law. Children should learn that to use such words is highly offensive to God, for we must give an account for every idle word which we speak in the day of judgment, Mat 12:36.

In danger of the council – The word translated council is in the original Sanhedrin, and there can be no doubt that the Saviour refers to the Jewish tribunal of that name. This was instituted in the time of the Maccabees, probably about 200 years before Christ. It was composed of 72 judges: the high priest was the president of this tribunal. The 72 members were made up of the chief priests and elders of the people and the scribes. The chief priests were such as had discharged the office of the high priest, and those who were the heads of the twenty-four classes of priests, who were called in an honorary way high or chief priests. See Mat 2:4. The elders were the princes of the tribes or heads of the family associations. It is not to be supposed that all the elders had a right to a seat here, but such only as were elected to the office. The scribes were learned people of the nation elected to this tribunal, being neither of the rank of priests or elders. This tribunal had cognizance of the great affairs of the nation. Until the time when Judea was subjected to the Romans, it had the power of life and death. It still retained the power of passing sentence, though the Roman magistrate held the right of execution. It usually sat in Jerusalem, in a room near the temple. It was before this tribunal that our Saviour was tried. It was then assembled in the palace of the high priest, Mat. 26:3-57; Joh 18:24.

Thou fool – This term expressed more than want of wisdom. It was expressive of the highest guilt. It had been commonly used to denote those who were idolaters Deu 22:21, and also one who is guilty of great crimes, Jos 7:15; Psa 14:1.

Hell fire – The original of this is the gehennah of fire. The word gehenna, geenna, commonly translated hell, is made up of two Hebrew words, and signifies the valley of Hinnom. This was formerly a pleasant valley near to Jerusalem, on the south. A small brook or torrent usually ran through it and partly encompassed the city. This valley the idolatrous Israelites devoted formerly to the horrid worship of Moloch, 2Ki 16:3; 2Ch 28:3. In that worship, the ancient Jewish writers inform us, the idol of Moloch was of brass, adorned with a royal crown, having the head of a calf, and his arms extended as if to embrace anyone. When they offered children to him they heated the statue within by a great fire, and when it was burning hot they put the miserable child into his arms, where it was soon consumed by the heat; and, in order that the cries of the child might not be heard, they made a great noise with drums and other instruments about the idol. These drums were called toph, and hence a common name of the place was Tophet, Tophet, Jer 7:31-32.

After the return of the Jews from captivity, this place was held in such abhorrence that, by the example of Josiah 2Ki 23:10, it was made the place where to throw all the dead carcasses and filth of the city, and was not unfrequently the place of public executions. It became, therefore, extremely offensive; the sight was terrific; the air was polluted and pestilential; and to preserve it in any manner pure, it was necessary to keep fires continually burning there. The extreme loathsomeness of the place; the filth and putrefaction; the corruption of the atmosphere, and the lurid fires blazing by day and night, made it one of the most appalling and terrific objects with which a Jew was acquainted. It was called the gehenna of fire, and was the image which our Saviour often employed to denote the future punishment of the wicked.

In this verse it denotes a degree of suffering higher than the punishment inflicted by the court of seventy, or the Sanhedrin, and the whole verse may therefore mean, He that hates his brother without a cause is guilty of a violation of the sixth commandment, and shall be punished with a severity similar to that inflicted by the court of judgment. He that shall suffer his passions to transport him still further, so that he shall make his brother an object of derision and contempt, shall be exposed to severer punishment, corresponding to that which the Sanhedrin (council) inflicts. But he who shall load his brother with odious appellations and abusive language shall incur the severest degree of punishment, represented by being burned alive in the horrid and awful valley of Hinnom.

The amount, then, of this difficult and important verse is this: The Jews considered but one crime a violation of the sixth commandment, namely, actual murder, or willful, unlawful taking life. Jesus says that the commandment is much broader. It relates not only to the external act, but to the feelings and words. He specifies three forms of such violation:

1. Unjust anger.
2. Anger accompanied with an expression of contempt.
3. Anger, with an expression not only of contempt, but wickedness.

Among the Jews there were three degrees of condemnation: that by the judgment, the council, and the fire of Hinnom. Jesus says likewise there shall be grades of condemnation for the different ways of violating the sixth commandment. Not only murder shall be punished by God, but anger and contempt shall be regarded by him as a violation of the law, and punished according to the offence. As these offences were not actually cognizable before the Jewish tribunals, he must mean that they will be punished hereafter, and all these expressions therefore relate to degrees of punishment proportionate to crime in the future world – the world of justice and of woe.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 22. Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause] – , who is vainly incensed. “This translation is literal; and the very objectionable phrase, without a cause, is left out, being more properly translated by that above.” What our Lord seems here to prohibit, is not merely that miserable facility which some have of being angry at every trifle, continually taking offence against their best friends; but that anger which leads a man to commit outrages against another, thereby subjecting himself to that punishment which was to be inflicted on those who break the peace. , vainly, or, as in the common translation, without a cause, is wanting in the famous Vatican MS. and two others, the Ethiopic, latter Arabic, Saxon, Vulgate, two copies of the old Itala, J. Martyr, Ptolomeus, Origen, Tertullian, and by all the ancient copies quoted by St. Jerome. It was probably a marginal gloss originally, which in process of time crept into the text.

Shall be in danger of the judgment] , shall be liable to the judgment. That is, to have the matter brought before a senate, composed of twenty-three magistrates, whose business it was to judge in cases of murder and other capital crimes. It punished criminals by strangling or beheading; but Dr. Lightfoot supposes the judgment of God to be intended. See at the end of this chapter.

Raca] from the Hebrew rak, to be empty. It signifies a vain, empty, worthless fellow, shallow brains, a term of great contempt. Such expressions were punished among the Gentoos by a heavy fine. See all the cases, Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. 15: sec. 2.

The council] , the famous council, known among the Jews by the name of Sanhedrin. It was composed of seventy-two elders, six chosen out of each tribe. This grand Sanhedrin not only received appeals from the inferior Sanhedrins, or court of twenty-three mentioned above; but could alone take cognizance, in the first instance, of the highest crimes, and alone inflict the punishment of stoning.

Thou fool] Moreh, probably from marah, to rebel, a rebel against God, apostate from all good. This term implied, among the Jews, the highest enormity, and most aggravated guilt. Among the Gentoos, such an expression was punished by cutting out the tongue, and thrusting a hot iron, of ten fingers breadth, into the mouth of the person who used it. Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. 15: sec. 2. p. 212.

Shall be in danger of hell fire.] , shall be liable to the hell of fire. Our Lord here alludes to the valley of the son of Hinnom, Ghi hinom. This place was near Jerusalem, and had been formerly used for those abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to pass through the fire to Molech. A particular place in this valley was called Tophet, from tophet, the fire stove, in which some supposed they burnt their children alive to the above idol. See 2Kg 23:10; 2Ch 28:3; Jer 7:31-32. From the circumstances of this valley having been the scene of those infernal sacrifices, the Jews, in our Saviour’s time, used the word for hell, the place of the damned. See the word applied in this sense by the Targum, on Ru 2:12; Ps 140:12; Ge 3:24; Ge 15:17. It is very probable that our Lord means no more here than this: if a man charge another with apostasy from the Jewish religion, or rebellion against God, and cannot prove his charge, then he is exposed to that punishment (burning alive) which the other must have suffered, if the charge had been substantiated. There are three kinds of offences here, which exceed each other in their degrees of guilt.

1st. Anger against a man, accompanied with some injurious act.

2dly. Contempt, expressed by the opprobrious epithet raka, or shallow brains.

3dly. Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed by the term moreh, or apostate, where such apostasy could not be proved.

Now, proportioned to these three offences were three different degrees of punishment, each exceeding the other in its severity, as the offenses exceeded each other in their different degrees of guilt.

1st. The judgment, the council of twenty-three, which could inflict the punishment of strangling.

2dly. The Sanhedrin, or great council, which could inflict the punishment of stoning. And

3dly. The being burnt alive in the valley of the son of Hinnom. This appears to be the meaning of our Lord.

Now, if the above offences were to be so severely punished, which did not immediately affect the life of another, how much sorer must the punishment of murder be! Mt 5:21. And as there could not be a greater punishment inflicted than death, in the above terrific forms, and this was to be inflicted for minor crimes; then the punishment of murder must not only have death here, but a hell of fire in the eternal world, attached to it. It seems that these different degrees of guilt, and the punishment attached to each, had not been properly distinguished among the Jews. Our Lord here calls their attention back to them, and gives then to understand, that in the coming world there are different degrees of punishment prepared for different degrees of vice; and that not only the outward act of iniquity should be judged and punished by the Lord, but that injurious words, and evil passions, should all meet their just recompense and reward. Murder is the most punishable of all crimes, according to the written law, in respect both of our neighbours and civil society. But he who sees the heart, and judges it by the eternal law, punishes as much a word or a desire, if the hatred whence they proceed be complete and perfected. Dr. Lightfoot has some curious observations on this passage in the preface to his Harmony of the Evangelists. See his works, vol. ii., and the conclusion of this chapter.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

22. But I say unto youMarkthe authoritative tone in whichas Himself the Lawgiver andJudgeChrist now gives the true sense, and explains the deep reach,of the commandment.

That whosoever is angry withhis brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; andwhosoever shall say to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of thecouncil; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool! shall be in danger ofhell-fireIt is unreasonable to deny, as ALEXANDERdoes, that three degrees of punishment are here meant to beexpressed, and to say that it is but a threefold expression of oneand the same thing. But Romish expositors greatly err in taking thefirst two”the judgment” and “the council”torefer to degrees of temporal punishment with which lesser sinswere to be visited under the Gospel, and only the last”hell-fire”torefer to the future life. All three clearly refer to divineretribution, and that alone, for breaches of this commandment;though this is expressed by an allusion to Jewish tribunals.The “judgment,” as already explained, was the lowest ofthese; the “council,” or “Sanhedrim,”which satat Jerusalemwas the highest; while the word used for “hell-fire”contains an allusion to the “valley of the son of Hinnom”(Jos 18:16). In this valley theJews, when steeped in idolatry, went the length of burning theirchildren to Molech “on the high places of Tophet”inconsequence of which good Josiah defiled it, to prevent therepetition of such abominations (2Ki23:10); and from that time forward, if we may believe the Jewishwriters, a fire was kept burning in it to consume the carrion and allkinds of impurities that collected about the capital. Certain it is,that while the final punishment of the wicked is described in the OldTestament by allusions to this valley of Tophet or Hinnom (Isa 30:33;Isa 66:24), our Lord Himselfdescribes the same by merely quoting these terrific descriptions ofthe evangelical prophet (Mr9:43-48). What precise degrees of unholy feeling towards ourbrothers are indicated by the words “Raca” and “fool”it would be as useless as it is vain to inquire. Every age and everycountry has its modes of expressing such things; and no doubt ourLord seized on the then current phraseology of unholy disrespect andcontempt, merely to express and condemn the different degrees of suchfeeling when brought out in words, as He had immediately beforecondemned the feeling itself. In fact, so little are we to make ofmere words, apart from the feeling which they express, that asanger is expressly said to have been borne by our Lord towardsHis enemies though mixed with “grief for the hardness of theirhearts” (Mr 3:5), and asthe apostle teaches us that there is an anger which is not sinful(Eph 4:26); so in the Epistleof James (Jas 2:20) we find thewords, “O vain (or, empty) man”; and our Lord Himselfapplies the very word “fools” twice in one breath to theblind guides of the people (Mat 23:17;Mat 23:19) although, in bothcases, it is to false reasoners rather than persons that suchwords are applied. The spirit, then, of the whole statement may bethus given: “For ages ye have been taught that the sixthcommandment, for example, is broken only by the murderer, to passsentence upon whom is the proper business of the recognizedtribunals. But I say unto you that it is broken even by causelessanger, which is but hatred in the bud, as hatred is incipient murder(1Jo 3:15); and if by thefeelings, much more by those words in which all ill feeling,from the slightest to the most envenomed, are wont to be cast upon abrother: and just as there are gradations in human courts ofjudicature, and in the sentences which they pronounce according tothe degrees of criminality, so will the judicial treatment of all thebreakers of this commandment at the divine tribunal be according totheir real criminality before the heart-searching Judge.” Oh,what holy teaching is this!

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

But I say unto you,…. This is a Rabbinical way of speaking, used when a question is determined, and a false notion is refuted; it is a magisterial form of expression, and well suits with Christ, the great teacher and master in Israel; who spake as one having authority, opposing himself, not to the law of “Moses, thou shalt not kill”; but to the false gloss the ancient doctors had put upon it, with which their later ones agreed. You say, that if one man kills another himself, he is to be put to death by the sanhedrim; and if he does it by proxy, he is to be left to the judgment of God, so wholly restraining the law to actual murder; but I affirm, that

whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of judgment. By “brother” is meant, not in a religious sense, one that is of the same faith, or in the same church state; nor, in a strict natural sense, one that is so in the bonds of consanguinity; but in a large sense, any man, of whatsoever country or nation: for we are to be angry with no man; that is, as is rightly added,

without a cause: for otherwise there is an anger which is not sinful, is in God, in Christ, in the holy angels; and is commendable in the people of God, when it arises from a true zeal for religion, the glory of God, and the interest of Christ; and is kindled against sin, their own, or others, all manner of vice, false doctrine, and false worship: but it is causeless anger which is here condemned by Christ, as a breach of the law, “thou shalt not kill”; and such persons are

in danger of judgment; not of any of the courts of judicature among the Jews, as the sanhedrim of three, or of twenty three, or of seventy one, which took no notice of anger, as a passion in the mind, only of facts committed; but of the judgment of God, as in the preceding “verse”, it being distinguished from the sanhedrim, or council, in the next clause.

And whosoever shall say to his brother Raca, shall be in danger of the council, or “sanhedrim”. The word Raca is expressive of indignation and contempt; it was used as a term of reproach. Some derive it from to “spit upon”; as if the person that used it thought the man he spoke to deserved to be spit upon, and treated in the most contemptuous manner: but rather the word signifies “empty” and “vain”, and denotes a worthless, empty headed man; a man of no brains; a foolish, witless, fellow: so it is often used in Jewish writings. Take a few instances, as follow:

“a certain person said to R. Jochanan w, Rabbi, expound, for it becomes thee to expound; for as thou hast said, so have I seen: he replied to him, Reka, if thou hadst not seen, thou wouldst not have believed.”

Again x, it happened to R. Simeon ben Eliezer of Migdal Edar, who went from the house of Rabbi; and he met with a certain man very much deformed; he says unto him, Reka, how many are the deformed sons of “Abraham our father?” Many more instances might be given y. Now I do not find that the use of this reproachful word was cognizable by the Jewish sanhedrim, or great council; nor is it our Lord’s meaning that it was, only that it ought to have been taken notice of in a proper manner, as well as actual murder. He adds,

but whosoever shall say thou fool, shall be danger of hell fire. The word “fool” does not signify a man of weak parts, one that is very ignorant in things natural; this the word Raca imports; but a wicked reprobate man; in which sense Solomon often uses the word. The Persic version renders it here “wicked”. There is a manifest gradation in the text from causeless anger in the breast, or reproachful words; and from thence to a censorious judging of a man’s spiritual and eternal estate, which is what is here condemned. “Thou fool”, is, thou wicked man, thou ungodly wretch, thou graceless creature, whose portion will be eternal damnation. Calling a man by such names was not allowed of by the Jews themselves, whose rules are:

“he that calls his neighbour a servant, let him be excommunicated; a bastard, let him be beaten with forty stripes; , “a wicked man”, let him descend with him into his life or livelihood z.”

The gloss upon it is,

“as if he should say, to this the sanhedrim is not obliged, but it is lawful to hate him, yea to lessen his sustenance, and exercise his trade,”

which was done to bring him to poverty and distress. So, it seems, the sanhedrim were not obliged to take notice of him. Again, they say,

“it is forbidden a man to call his neighbour by a name of reproach a everyone that calls his neighbour , “a wicked man”, shall be brought down to hell;”

which is pretty much what Christ here says,

shall be in danger of hell fire; or deserving of hell fire; or liable to, and in danger of punishment, even “unto hell fire”. An expression much like this may be observed in Jarchi, on Isa 24:23 where he speaks of some persons , “who are guilty”, deserving, or in danger of “hell unto hell”. The word

, here used, and which is often used in the New Testament for “hell”, is but the Hebrew , “Ge-Hinnom”, the valley of Hinnom, where the children were caused to pass through the fire to Moloch. This place, the Jewish writers b say,

“Was a place well known, near to Jerusalem, a valley, whose fire was never quenched; and in which they burned the bones of anything that was unclean, and dead carcasses, and other pollutions.”

Hence the word came to be used among them, as might be shown in innumerable instances, to express the place and state of the damned; and very fitly describes it.

w T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 100. 1. T. Bava Bathra, fol. 75. 1. x Massechet Derach Eretz, c. 4. fol. 18. 1. y Vid. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 32. 2. Zohar in Exod. fol. 50. 2. z T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 28. 1. Bava Metzia, fol. 71. 1. a Zohar in Exod. fol. 50. 3. b Sepher Cosri, fol. 57. 2. Vid. Kimchi in Psal. xxvii. 13.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

But I say unto you ( ). Jesus thus assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations and proves it in each of the six examples. He goes further than the Law into the very heart.

“Raca” () and

“Thou fool” (). The first is probably an Aramaic word meaning “Empty,” a frequent word for contempt. The second word is Greek (dull, stupid) and is a fair equivalent of “raca.” It is urged by some that is a Hebrew word, but Field (Otium Norvicense) objects to that idea. “Raca expresses contempt for a man’s head=you stupid! More expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel” (Bruce).

“The hell of fire” ( ), “the Gehenna of fire,” the genitive case ( ) as the genus case describing Gehenna as marked by fire. Gehenna is the Valley of Hinnom where the fire burned continually. Here idolatrous Jews once offered their children to Molech (2Ki 23:10). Jesus finds one cause of murder to be abusive language. Gehenna “should be carefully distinguished from Hades () which is never used for the place of punishment, but for the place of departed spirits, without reference to their moral condition” (Vincent). The place of torment is in Hades (Lu 16:23), but so is heaven.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Hell – fire [ ] . Rev., more accurately, the hell of fire. The word Gehenna, rendered hell, occurs outside of the Gospels only at Jas 3:6. It is the Greek representative of the Hebrew Ge – Hinnom, or Valley of Hinnom, a deep, narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where, after the introduction of the worship of the fire – gods by Ahaz, the idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to Molech. Josiah formally desecrated it, “that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech” (2Ki 23:10). After this it became the common refuse – place of the city, into which the bodies of criminals, carcasses of animals, and all sorts of filth were cast. From its depth and narrowness, and its fire and ascending smoke, it became the symbol of the place of the future punishment of the wicked. So Milton :

“The pleasant valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence And black Gehenna called, the type of hell.”

As fire was the characteristic of the place, it was called the Gehenna of fire. It should be carefully distinguished from Hades [] , which is never used for the place of punishment, but for the place of departed spirits, without reference to their moral condition. This distinction, ignored by the A. V., is made in the Rev.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “But I say unto you,” (ego de lego humin) “Then l tell you all,” as one with administrative directive authority which the Father had given into his hand from anointing, Mat 3:16-17; Luk 4:16-21; Joh 3:35.

2) “That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause,” (hoti pas ho orgizomenos to adelpho autou) “That everyone being or holding anger with his brother,” or harboring an attitude of malice in his soul toward his brother. Such is to be “put away,” by God’s children, laid aside as an old soiled garment, Eph 4:30-32. The phrase “without a cause” does not appear in older manuscripts.

3) “Shall be In danger of the judgment:” (enochos estai te krisei) “Shall be liable (for such) to the judgment,” under the law of God against such, Num 35:16-31; Deu 16:18.

4) “And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,” (hos Wan elpe to adelpho autou hraka) “Then whosoever shall say to his brother (toward Whom he holds this anger or brooding malice) Raca,” a word of scorn toward one who is despised, as a worthless person, 2Sa 6:20-23.

5) “Shall be in danger of the council:” (enochos estai to sunedrio) “He shall be (held) liable to or before the council,” before the Sanhedrin, the adjudicators of Jewish law.

6) “But whosoever shall say, thou fool,” (hos d’an eipe more) “And then whoever should say you moron,” or you wicked and reprobate person in whom there is no God or image of God, as the fool who said “there is (exists) no God,” Psa 14:1.

7) “Shall be in danger of hell fire.” (enochos estai eis ten geennan tou puros) “He shall be liable to the fires of, hell.” The image of God is in every man and such as deny it are themselves infidels, in danger of an eternal hell. Judas Iscariot was perhaps one of whom He spoke, Luk 6:16; Joh 6:71; Joh 13:2.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

22. But I say to you His reply is not opposed to the command of Moses, (Exo 20:13; Lev 24:21; Num 35:16😉 but to the interpretation usually put upon it by the scribes. Now, as the Pharisees boasted of antiquity, (for it is always the custom to plead the prescription of a long period in defense of errors,) (398) Christ reminds the people of his authority, to which all antiquity ought justly to give way. Hence we conclude, that truth is of greater weight than custom or the number of years.

He who shall say to his brother Christ assigns three degrees of condemnation besides the violence of the hands; which implies, that this precept of the law restrains not only the hands, but all affections that are opposed to brotherly love. “Those who shall only be angry with their brethren, or treat them with haughty disdain, or injure them by any reproach, are murderers.” Now, as it is certain that the word Racha occupies an intermediate place between anger and openly reproachful language, I have no doubt that it is an interjection of contempt or disdain. Though Christ adjudges to the hell of fire none but those who break out into open reproach, we must not suppose, that he declares anger to be free from a similar punishment; but, alluding to earthly judgments, he assures them that God will judge and punish even concealed anger. (399) But, as he who manifests his indignation by bitter language goes farther than this, Christ says, that that man will be held guilty by the whole heavenly council, that he may receive severer punishment.

Those, again, who break out into reproaches are adjudged to the hell of fire: which implies, that hatred, and every thing that is contrary to love, is enough to expose them to eternal death, though they may have committed no acts of violence. Γἔεννα ( hell) is, beyond all question, a foreign word. גיא ( Ge) is the Hebrew word for a valley. Now, “the valley of Hin-nom” was infamous for the detestable superstition which was committed in it, because there they sacrificed their children to idols, (2Ch 33:6.) The consequence was, that holy men, in order to excite stronger hatred of that wicked ungodliness, used it as the name for hell, that the very name might be dreaded by the people as shocking and alarming. It would appear that, in the time of Christ, this was a received way of speaking, and that hell was then called by no other name than gehenna, ( γέεννα ,) the word being slightly altered from the true pronunciation.

(398) “ Pour maintenir et defendre les erreurs ou abus en la matiere de la religion;” — “to maintain and defend errors or abuses in matters of religion.”

(399) “ L’indignation secrette qu’on aura eue en son coeur contre le frere;” —”the secret indignation which they shall have had in their heart against their brother.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(22) I say unto you.The I is emphasized in the Greek. It was this probably that, more than anything else, led to the feeling of wonder expressed in Mat. 7:28-29. The scribe in his teaching invariably referred to this Rabbi and that; the new Teacher spoke as one having a higher authority of His own.

Angry . . . without a cause.The last three words are wanting in many of the best MSS. They may have been inserted to soften down the apparent harshness of the teaching; but if so, it must have been at an early datebefore the fourth century. They may, on the other hand, have been in the text originally, and struck out, as giving too wide a margin to vain and vague excuses. Ethically, the teaching is not that the emotion of anger, with or without a cause, stands on the same level of guilt with murder, but that the former so soon expands and explodes into the latter, that it will be brought to trial and sentenced according to the merits of each case, the occasion of the anger, the degree in which it has been checked or cherished, and the like. As no earthly tribunal can take cognisance of emotions as such, the judgment here is clearly that of the Unseen Judge dealing with offences which in His eyes are of the same character as those which come before the human judges. Hates any man the thing he would not kill?

Raca.As far as the dictionary sense of the word goes, it is the same as that of the vain fellows of Jdg. 9:4; Jdg. 11:3; Pro. 12:11; but all words of abuse depend for their full force on popular association, and raca, like words of kindred meaning among ourselves, was in common use as expressing not anger only but insolent contempt. The temper condemned is that in which anger has so far gained the mastery that we no longer recognise a brother in the man who has offended us, but look on him with malignant scorn.

The council.Offences of this kind are placed by our Lord on the same level as those which came before the great court of the Sanhedrim. That word, though it looks like Hebrew, is really only a transliterated form of the Greek word for council. The court consisted of seventy or seventy-two members, with a president and vice-president, and was made up of the heads of the twenty-four courses of the priests, with forty-six or forty-eight (how chosen it is not known) from the elders and scribes. Like the Areopagus at Athens, it took cognisanceas in the case of our Lord (Mat. 26:65) and Stephen (Act. 6:13)of blasphemy and other like offences, and its peculiar prerogative was that it could order death by stoning. The point of our Lords teaching was, therefore, that to scorn Gods image in man is to do dishonour to God Himself. We cannot truly fear God unless we also honour all men (1Pe. 2:17). The reverence for humanity as such must extend even to the man who has most provoked us. In the unseen eternal world the want of that reverence has its own appropriate punishment.

Thou fool.The Greek word so rendered agrees accidentally in its consonants with the Hebrew word translated rebel (mre) in Num. 20:10, and hence it has been thought by some that we have here, as with raca, a common Hebrew term of opprobrium. There is no evidence, however, that the word was thus used, and it is more probable that the Greek is a translation of some word which, like the fool of the Old Testament, implied, as in Psa. 14:1, utter godlessness as well as lack of intellectual wisdom. With that meaning it embodied the temper, not, like that represented by raca, of petulant contempt, but of fixed and settled hatred. That it was the temper and not the utterance of the mere syllables which our Lord condemned is seen in that He Himself used the word of the scribes and Pharisees (Mat. 23:17; Mat. 23:19), and St. Paul of the sceptical Greek materialist (1Co. 15:36). The self-same word might spring from a righteous indignation or from malignant hatred.

Of hell fire.Literally, of the Gehenna of fire. Great confusion has arisen here and elsewhere from the use of the same English word for two Greek words of very different meanings: (1) Hades, answering to the Sheol (also for the most part translated hell) of the Old Testament, the unseen world, the region or state of the dead, without any reference to their blessedness or misery; (2) Gehenna, which had come to represent among the later Jews (not in the time of any Old Testament writer) the place of future punishment. The history of the word is worth studying. Originally, it was the Greek form of Ge-hinnom (the Valley of Hinnom, sometimes of the son or the children of Hinnom), and was applied to a narrow gorge on the south of Jerusalem (Jos. 15:8). There Solomon erected a high place for Molech (1Ki. 11:7). There the fires of that god had received their bloody offerings of infant sacrifice under Ahaz and Manasseh (2Ki. 16:3; 2Ch. 28:3; 2Ch. 33:6). Josiah, in his great work of reformation, defiled it, probably by casting the bones of the dead and other filth upon it (2Ki. 23:10-14); and the Jews on their return from captivity showed their abhorrence of the idolatry of their fathers by making it, as it were, the place where they cast out all the refuse of the city. Outwardly, it must have been foul to sight and smell, and thus it became, before our Lords time, a parable of the final state of those in whom all has become vile and refuse. The thought first appears in the Targum or Paraphrase of Isa. 33:14 (Gehenna is the eternal fire). It is often said that fires which were kept burning to consume the solid refuse added to the horror of the scene; but of this, though it is suggested by this passage and Mar. 9:48. there is no adequate evidence. Here the analogy of the previous clauses suggests also the thought that the bodies of great criminals were sometimes deprived of burial rites, and cast out into the Valley of Hinnom; but of this, too, there is no evidence, though it is in itself probable enough. In any case, the meaning of the clause is obvious. Our passing words, expressing states of feeling, and not the overt act of murder only, are subject to the judgment of the Eternal Judge, and may bring us into a guilt and a penalty like that of the vilest criminals.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

22. But I say unto you Our Lord here uses the Ego, I, with great emphasis. All the traditions of the whole generation of rabbies are to be as nothing before the declarations of this majestic I. Angry with Since all murder is rooted in the angry passion, all unholy anger is incipient murder. His brother That is, any one. The term does not signify a blood relative, but is used in conformity with the custom of calling all Israelites brethren. Without a cause Rashly or vainly. It implies all feeling inconsistent with love, or a desire to bring about mild justice and reformation. Some have indeed supposed, without good grounds, that the words without a cause are spurious. But, first, there is such a thing as a righteous anger, (Mar 3:5; Eph 4:25; Jas 1:19,) which is not only not forbidden, but commanded. 1Sa 3:13. And, second, there is the anger for just cause, which in its due measure is just. It is the feeling implanted in our nature which requires our right when wronged; which seeks the reformation of our injurer, and the reparation of our wrong. In default of these it justly demands the infliction of penalty. Raca A Syriac word signifying blockhead. Our Lord here does not refer to the mere pronunciation of the word; but to its utterance as the outward symbol of an inner malignant purpose to destroy a man’s just reputation for intellect. Fool In Scripture the fool is an impious fellow, a stupid atheist, a man defective intellectually, because depraved morally. It stands here as the symbol for a malignant purpose in the heart to destroy the just moral reputation of a man. Here, then, are three sins of the heart: 1. Wrath; 2. A hostility to one’s intellectual rights; and 3. A destructiveness toward one’s moral character, (the two last indicated by symbols,) rising in grades above each other. For these three grades of sin our Lord pronounces three grades of punishment. He indicates the grades symbolically; and, as before remarked, the meaning is obtained by translating the symbol into its literal. The judicature of the earth stands as an emblem of the judicature of heaven. And the adjustment of the degree of penalty by man to the degree of crime, is paralleled by the adjustment by God to the degree of wickedness, of the penalties of a future world. The symbolical terms here used are, 1. Judgment; 2. Council; and 3. Gehenna of fire; that is, death, 1. by sword; 2. by stoning; and 3. by burning. This will appear by the following explanation: 1. The judgment was the penalty of civil crimes, passed by the lower courts, liable to appeal, and it could amount in capital cases to execution by sword. 2. The council was the Sanhedrim, or court, or senate of seventy-two, (established under the Maccabees,) which decided questions of war and peace, as well as the higher crimes of false prophets, etc. These were cases of spiritual treason, and the severer capital penalty of stoning to death was inflicted. 3. Last was the giving over the dead body to the horrible valley of Hinnom. Upon this see note on Mat 10:28.

The amount of the entire verse, then, is this: Not merely bodily killing, but the mental impulse and purpose, which are the root of all murder whether it be mental murder of the body, of the intellectual reputation, or of the moral honour are to be punished according to their aggravations in the high Court of Heaven. Our Lord here conceptually frames a code of divine retribution above, as parallel to the codes of earthly criminal law.

That our Lord did not here lay down rules for human courts is plain. For, first, he was no legislator for human jurisprudence; second, anger cannot be proved or tried by human law; and third, no human court ever hurt a person for saying Thou fool.

It follows, therefore, here, 1. Our Lord here does, in opposition to Universalism, threaten a penalty for sin in a future world. 2. That penalty is strictly judicial, and not a mere natural consequence of sin. It is a positive infliction by the hand of divine justice. 3. The degree of intensity (not the duration) of that punishment is adjusted to the grade of the sin.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“But I say to you, that every one who is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgment.”

“I say to you.” This will be repeated on each proposed extension of men’s understanding of the commandments. Jesus speaks with a unique authority. He does not need to appeal to the fathers, or to the wisdom of the past. He can speak on His own authority. This is basically at the minimum a Messianic claim. And He does it as One Who expects that His authority will be accepted.

Jesus now looks at three examples of people’s attitudes towards each other, each of which God is concerned about, and each of which, (and even more so when they were combined), could lead up to murder. And He describes three punishments for them which get severer as they go along. These are first the ordinary law court (compare Deu 16:18), then the Supreme Court (the Sanhedrin, or the court of twenty three members set up to deal with criminal matters), and finally the tribunal of God. His point is that as we become more involved in sin so the judgment gets steeper, and that while no one would, of course, be taken to court, or before the Supreme Court for such behaviour as He describes, they should certainly recognise that it might eventually lead on to that if the anger gets out of control, and that meanwhile they can be certain of the fact that they will have to face the judgment of the Messiah and of the Supreme Court of God, where they can be sure that they will receive the full punishment for their behaviour. For let them be in no doubt about it, for such things they will be cast into the destructive fire of Gehenna.

The fact that there is a build up in the level of the punishment, (compare also the building up of the situation in Mat 5:25-26) suggests that we are to see a build up in the level of sin. What He may thus be saying is that men commence with anger, then they move on to ridicule and contempt, and then they move on to more serious accusations, and as their crime grows (with the seething anger still there) so does their being deserving of condemnation. All of us know what it means to allow anger to build up into resentment, and resentment to build up into more violent reaction It was as a result of this that the people had persecuted the prophets. And this would eventually be why His disciples would be persecuted, because this was how people regularly behaved. And yet no one in authority had as a whole really stopped and considered these matters. As long as the number who were murdered had been kept to a reasonable level they had been satisfied with passing judgment on the murderers, and had left the world to seethe on by itself.

The first example He speaks of is anger. Jesus here goes beneath murder, and other acts of violence, and asks what it is that causes them. And His reply is that it is people’s ‘anger’. Control people’s anger and there will be far less murder. So He points out that as far as God is concerned, not only murder, but to show unreasonable or undeserved anger towards others also puts men and women in danger either of men’s judgment or of God’s judgment. It is in a sense equally deserving of the same kind of punishment as murder (‘the judgment’), for it is murder in waiting. Anger may well even in this life lead to activities which result in a chargeable offence before a court, or it may not, but however that might be, they can be sure that it will certainly be a chargeable offence in the judgment to come. In God’s eyes, if not in man’s, it is seen as ‘judgment-worthy’.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

“And whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, will be in danger of the council.”

The next example is of someone calling his brother or sister ‘Raca’. We do not know exactly what this denoted, but it is clearly either a comment of extreme animosity, or of grave insult or of supreme contempt. Many see it as being a transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Rake’ signifying, ‘blockheaded, empty headed, stupid imbecile’ (as multi-language Jews many of Jesus’ listeners would be used to carrying words over from Aramaic into Greek). Others have referred to a Zenon papyrus of 257 BC where the word is used in an uncomplimentary, if not foul manner, and where it is not related to the Aramaic. But either way the idea is not just of a casual comment (although such too should be watched) but of a comment made as a specific judgment on someone, a judgment which could only cause offence. Jesus may have seen this as a sin standing on its own. But He may equally well have seen it as the next stage on top of anger. First the anger, then the insult spoken in anger. That would explain why the judgment becomes more severe. In God’s eyes he should be in danger of ‘the council’, the Supreme Court (either the central or a local sanhedrin, or the court of twenty three).

So Jesus mention of the ‘council’ (or Sanhedrin) as being what men and women who say such things will be in danger of, rather than just ‘the judgment’ as in the case of anger, may well be His way of demonstrating that because the sin is building up, the judgment is building up. Let men and women not think that God will treat such things lightly Of course the Sanhedrin would only actually be interested in such a ‘crime’ if the insult was made against people who were considered to be important (such as themselves). But Jesus wants them to know that God treats seriously all people who behave like this to anyone.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

“And whoever shall say, ‘You fool’, will be in danger of the hell of fire.”

How we see this will depend on the meaning we give to the word ‘fool’ (moros). It could refer to someone being seen as ‘foolish’ or ‘lacking in common sense’ (the usual meaning of the Greek word), or it could be seen as a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘moreh’ signifying ‘God-despiser’, ‘rebel’ (see Jer 5:23; Psa 78:8; Num 20:10; Deu 9:23; Deu 21:18; Jos 1:18; 1Sa 12:15; Neh 9:26; Isa 1:10; Isa 63:10; compare Psa 14:1, although LXX has aphrown here and never uses moros). In this latter case it is therefore the equivalent of declaring them to be worthy of Hellfire, which helps to explain the severity of the punishment. They are receiving what they wished on others.

If we take it as the first this might indicate that Jesus is selecting the severest punishment for what may seem the lesser ‘crime’. In that case He may be harking back to the same principle as lay behind His reference to ‘the least commandment’ (Mat 5:19). As He has already pointed out there is no such thing as a least commandment. All are important. And now He may be pointing out that there is no least sin, all are important. So even calling a brother or sister ‘a fool’ is to deserve the greatest punishment of all. For it is a sin, and all sin brings forth death.

Or He may be saying that as the person’s anger has built up, and has then moved on to insult and contempt, it has now finally boiled over into an accusation which in that society would have been seen as the height of insult, or even worse. It was a suggestion that the person was godless and a rebel against God in a society where to be that was to be despised and even hated. Thus the person responsible for these words is now in even greater danger, he is in danger of the Gehenna of fire.

The Gehenna of fire originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. It had been defiled by idolatry and child sacrifice (2Ki 23:1), and had been turned into a rubbish dump and place for the disposal of the bodies of criminals (compare Isa 66:24 which refers to such a rubbish dump). But by the time of Jesus it had come to signify the eternal judgment of God.

So Jesus’ meaning is clear. His point is that in giving the commandments God had always intended His people to go to the root of them, in this case to the root of unrighteous anger and unfeeling contempt.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Christ’s exposition is not so narrow:

v. 22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.

The statement of the Lord is very general: Every one, none excepted; it is a universal prohibition of angry passion. He that gives way to such wrath is guilty of judgment, of condemnation. Anger against a brother, any member of the human family, is a deadly sin. It should properly come under the jurisdiction of the council or court, Deu 16:18; 2Ch 19:5. This is speaking relatively. The person that gives way to anger is as great an offender in God’s sight as the one that slays his brother in cold blood, Gal 5:20; Col 3:8; Jas 1:19-20. The same condemnation, but with greater emphasis, falls upon him that cannot control his anger, permitting it to burst forth in maledictions. Raca is an Aramaic word meaning an empty head, a stupid. The one using angry epithets of this nature is guilty of the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jews that tried the worst offenses and inflicted the severest penalties. Anger that is not quickly controlled will become hatred combined with contempt, and freely indulge in railing, 1Pe 3:9. A still greater insult lies in the epithet, “Thou fool,” which was used to denote a good-for-nothing, hopeless, helpless, morally worthless fool, and expressed contempt for a man’s heart and character. This expression of utter disregard of the fellow-man’s position in the eyes of God is an offense equal to that of murder, it is a damnable sin, 1Jn 3:15; Rev 21:8. It is punishable by the fire of Hinnom, the valley where the refuse of Jerusalem was burned a figure often used by Jesus in speaking of the punishment of hell-fire.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 5:22. But I say unto you Which of the prophets ever spake thus? Their language is, Thus saith the Lord. Who hath the authority to use this language?he who is able to save and destroy. The Lord Jesus Christ does not mean here that anger, or every scornful or reviling word deserves the same punishment from the magistrates as murder; that is to say, death; but only that anger, being in direct violationofthesixthcommandment, because it tends and disposes men to murder, the judgment of God will take cognizance of such anger, as well as of all desires of revenge, hatred, opprobrious or reviling language, &c. See 1Jn 3:15. The word , without cause, though found in almost all the Greek manuscripts, is omitted in most manuscripts of the Vulgate. By brother is meant another Christian; this is the meaning of the Greek word , in the sacred writings; and that the same sense is put upon it here is evident from the next verse. The Jews would give the name of brother to no one who was not an Israelite. They vouchsafed to give that of neighbour to a proselyte, but would by no means bestow it on a Gentile. Our Lord did not design to authorize a like distinction, when he made use here of the word brother;forhe elsewhere enjoins his disciples to forgive all men in general, and shews that our neighbour is any man whatever. Luk 10:29-30; Luk 10:42. The word judgment here unquestionably must signify punishment from God; since this causeless anger might be so concealed in the heart, as not to admit of conviction before men. “He shall be liable to a worse punishment from God, than any which your common courts of judicature can inflict.” See the note on Mat 5:21. Our Saviour goes on, “Whosoever to his secret anger shall add opprobrious and contemptuous words,for instance, shall say to his brother, Raca, that is, thou worthless, empty fellow! shall be exposed to yet more terrible effects of the divine judgment, and be obnoxious to a yet severer punishment; as far exceeding the former, as that inflicted by the Sanhedrim, which extends to stoning, exceeds that which follows the judgment of the inferior courts, which only have the power of the sword.” Raca is a Syriac word, which, according to Lightfoot, signifies a scoundrel; according to Drusius, a coxcomb; and so is a term of great contempt. , vain man, used Jam 2:20 seems to be a translation of it; for, as St. Jerome observes, it is derived from the Hebrew , rik, which signifies vain or empty. See Parkhurst on the word. The council, in the Greek , a word which the Jews adopted into their language, giving it a Hebrew termination, sanhedrin, signifies the council or senate of the nation. It consisted of seventy-two judges, or, according to others, of seventy, besides the president. It used to sit at Jerusalem. Concerning the place where it met, see Joh 19:13. This was the supreme court of judicature among the Jews, and to it appeals were made from inferior tribunals. It took cognizance only of the most important matters; as, for instance, such wherein a whole tribe was concerned; those that related to the high-priest, a false prophet, idolatry, treason, &c. and could, while the Jewish government continued independent, inflict the heaviest punishments; particularly stoning, and burning with melted lead poured down the throat of the criminal after he was strangled. See Beausobre and Lenfant, and Calmet’s Dictionary. Our Saviour goes on, “Whosoever, in his unreasonable passion, shall say to his brother, Thou fool, that is to say, thou graceless wicked villain;thereby impeaching his moral character, as well as reflecting on his intellectual; shall be obnoxious to the gehenna of fire; or, to a future punishment, more dreadful even than being burned alive in the valley of Hinnom; whence the name of the infernal regions is borrowed.” Wicked men are so often called fools in the Old Testament, especially in the writings of David and Solomon; that the appellation of fool, in the Jewish language, signifies not so much a weak thoughtless creature, as a man deliberately wicked; for, as religion is the highest wisdom, vice must be accounted the extremest folly. Dr. Sykes draws the same sense from the word, by deriving it from the Syriac , rebellavit, he has rebelled; so that, according to him, the original signifies a rebel against God, or an apostate from the true religion. The valley of Hinnom, called also Tophet, was the scene of the detestable worship of Moloch, as we have before observed, 2Ki 23:10. See also Isa 30:33. In after-times continual fires were kept in this valley, for burning the unburied carcases and filth of the city, that, beingthus polluted, it might be unfit for the like religious abominations. The Jews, from the perpetuity of these fires, and to express the utmost detestation of the sacrifices which were offered to Moloch in this valley, made use of its name to signify hell, of which they conceived it a fit emblem. Hence our translators have given Tophet, or Gehenna, its metaphorical meaning in the present passage, whereas it ought rather to have had its literal signification; forour Lord, intending to shew his hearers that the punishment of causeless anger, contemptuous speeches, and abusive names, shall, in the life to come, bear a proportion to the guilt which is in these sins; and finding no means in the language of men, by which those different degrees of punishment could properly be expressed, he illustrated them by the punishment wherewith the Jews were acquainted. This interpretation of the punishment, in the latter clause of the verse, has a particular advantage attending it, as it prevents the reader from imagining, that only the sin of calling his brother fool will be punished with hell-fire. See Lightfoot and Macknight. St. Austin observes, thathere is a gradation in the faults reprehended. The first is anger, deliberately and causelessly conceived in the mind; the second, when that breaks forth in wrathful expressions; the third, when it vents itself in contumelious abuses. It is by these steps that a man, enraged with anger, sometimes proceeds to actual murder, but much oftener to the commission of it in his thought and intention; and we are here warned, that all these steps are criminal in their several degrees, and that the law not only prohibits murder, but even the remotest tendencies toward it.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 5:22 . I, on the other hand, as the fulfiller of the law, already declare unrighteous anger to be as worthy of punishment as the act of murder was declared to be to those of old time; as still more worthy of punishment, however, the expression of such anger in injurious language , to which I, in the worst cases, even assign the punishment of hell. Observe (1) that Jesus does not at all enter into the question of murder itself , by which He makes it to be felt that it was something unheard of amongst those who believed on Him; (2) that for the same reason He does not mention any outbursts of anger in acts , such as ill-usage and the like; (3) that the abusive words, which are quoted by way of example, represent different degrees of outbursts of anger in speech, in accordance with the malignity of the disposition from which they proceed; and (4) that , , , illustrate different degrees of greater culpability before God (for and are also analogical representations of divine , although temporal , penal judgment), down to the everlasting damnation; so that (5) as the general moral idea in the concrete discourse, whose plastic ascent in details is not to be pressed, the highest and holiest severity appears in the point of unlovingness (comp. 1Jn 3:15 ), and therein lies the ideal consummation of the law, , not only in itself, but also in the antithesis of its traditional threat, , etc.

.] has the emphasis of opposition to .

] does not go beyond the popular conception (a member of the nation, comp. Mat 5:47 ), out of which grew at a later time the representation and designation of Christian brotherly fellowship. The conception of the from the point of view of humanity, Luk 10:29 , is not contained in the .

If were genuine (but see critical remarks), then this idea would be contained in it, that Jesus does not mean simply being angry, but the being angry without a reason (Rom 13:4 ; Col 2:18 ), the anger of mere passionateness, without moral justification; would stand as equivalent to (Polyb. i. 52. 2), (Polyb. i. 74. 14), (Polyb. iv. 14. 6). There is, moreover, a holy anger, which has its basis in what is right, and in its relation to the unholy world. Comp. on Eph 4:26 . But never ought it to be unloving and hostile anger; and that such an anger is here meant is shown by the context, therefore would not even be an appropriate closer definition.

] as Jerome and Hesychius already correctly interpret it, is the Chaldee , vacuus, that is, empty head!

At that time a very common word of opprobrium. Buxtorf, Lex. talm. p. 2254; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 264; Wetstein in loc. That it is, so far as regards its idea, of the same nature with that follows, speaks rather in favour of than against this common interpretation. Comp. (Jas 2:20 ; Soph. Ant. 709), (Aesch. Prom. 761), (Sibyll. iii. p. 418). Ewald thinks of the Aramaic , and interprets it: rascal.

] , fool, but in the moral sense (Hupfeld on Psa 14:1 ), as the virtuous man was rightly regarded as wise (comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 4) and the wicked as foolish; therefore equivalent to “wicked,” and thus a stronger word of opprobrium, one affecting the moral character, than ; see Wetstein.

] literally: into hell, [407] which is to be regarded as a pregnant expression from the idea of being cast down into hell. Winer, p. 200 [E. T. 267]; Buttmann, p. 148 [E. T. 170], Plastic representation with the increasing liveliness of the discourse, instead of the more abstract dative. No example elsewhere. , properly , or ) , name of a man otherwise unknown; other interpretations, as “ valley of howling ,” are arbitrary), a valley to the south of the capital, where the idolatrous Israelites had formerly sacrificed their children to Moloch (2Ki 23:10 ; Jer 7:32 ; Jer 19:2 ); Ritter, Erdk . XVI. 1, p. 372; Robinson, Pal . II. p. 38, The name of this hated locality was transferred to the subterranean abode of the damned. Lightfoot, Hor.; Wolf on the passage; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 323 ff. So always in the N. T., where, however, it is found only in the Synoptics and James.

[407] The attributive genitive (Mat 13:42 ; 2Th 1:8 ), as an expression of the specific nature, is to be explained from the well-known popular representation of hell (comp. Mat 3:11 , Mat 18:8 f., Mat 25:41 , and elsewhere). The explanation of Kuinoel, who follows the older interpreters, “is dignus est, qui in valle Hinnomi vivus comburatur ,” is, irrespective of the illegality of burning alive, opposed to the constant usage of as signifying hell , which usage also forbids us to think of the burning of the body in the valley of Hinnom (Michaelis) after execution, or at least of a casting forth of the latter into this detested place (B. Crusius, comp. Tholuck).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Ver. 22. But I say unto you ] This is his teaching with authority, and not as the scribes. To their false glosses he opposeth his own sole and single authority. He delivers himself like a lawgiver: “but I say unto you,” and you shall take it on my bare word, without any further pawn or pledge. He that is , is likewise . The Pharisees’ phylacteries were not so broad but their expositions of the law were as narrow; which therefore our Saviour letteth out and rectifieth, by taking away their viperine a glosses that did eat out the bowels of the text: and here observe with me, that Christ taketh not upon him to be a new lawgiver, but to be an interpreter of the old law by Moses. He maketh not new commands or counsels (as Popish expositors dream), but throws away all that earth that the Philistines had tumbled into that spring.

That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause ] Rashly giving way to unruly passion, and not taking reason into counsel, as the word here signifieth. b This is a degree of murder that the Pharisees dreamt not of, and a mortal sin, though the Papists conclude it venial from this very text, because not threatened (as calling fool) with hell fire. But judgment, counsel, and Gehenna, note not here different punishments, but only various degrees of the damnation of hell, which is the just hire of the least sin. There is a lawful anger, as that of our Saviour, Mar 3:5 ; Mat 16:22 . And we are bidden to “be angry, and sin not,” Eph 4:26 ; Dan 3:19 . Now he that would be angry and not sin must (for the matter) be angry at nothing but sin, and that not so much as it is an injury to us as an offence to God. Next, for the measure, he must not be so transported with anger, as to be unfitted and indisposed thereby either for prayer to God or pity to men. Moses was very angry at the sight of the golden calf, yet could pray, Exo 32:19 ; Exo 32:31 . Our Saviour was heartily angry at the Pharisees, but also grieved at the hardness of their hearts ( ), Mar 3:5 . Jonah on the other side, through anger, thought to have prayed, but fell into a brawl with God, quarreled with him for his kindness; and had little pity on so many poor Ninevites; though afterwards he yielded to better reason, and showed his submission by laying his hand upon his mouth, and saying no more, Joh 4:1-11 . Anger is a tender virtue (saith one), and such as, by reason of our unskilfulness, may be easily corrupted and made dangerous. The wrath of man (usually) worketh not the righteousness of God: nay, it lets in the devil, that old manslayer, and is the murder of the heart (as here), making way to the murder of the tongue and hand, Jas 1:20 ; Eph 4:26 . It is the match to receive the fire of contention, and the bellows to blow it up, Pro 15:18 . Now where strife is, there is confusion and every evil work, not murder excepted, Jas 3:16 .

And whosoever shall say unto his brother, Raca ] c Anger (as fire), if smothered, will languish; but let out, will flame into further mischief. Cease from anger, saith David, for else thou wilt fret thyself to do evil, Psa 37:8 ; Pro 20:22-23 . (Mercer.) And if thou hast done evil (or played the fool, as others read it), saith Agur, in lifting up thyself, and puffing against thy brother, against whom in thine anger thou hast devised some mischief, if thou hast thought evil against him, yet lay thy hand upon thy mouth: say not so much as Raca, utter not any so much as an inarticulate voice, snuff not, snort not, spit not, as he, Deu 25:9 ; stamp not with clapping of the hands, as Balak, Num 24:10 ; say not so much as fie to thine offending brother, saith Theophylact; Thou him not, saith Chrysostom; call him not silly or shallow, one that wants brains, saith Irenaeus, qui expuit cerebrum, as the word signifieth, if it signify anything. d Surely (saith Agur, setting forth the reason of his former precept by a double similitude) the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath (the giving it its forth and full scope, and not suppressing it when it first begins to boil in a man’s breast) bringeth forth strife. Let therefore the first heat of passion settle, and that darkness pass that hath clouded the mind. Ut fragilis glacies, occidat ira mora. Walk into the garden with Ahasuerus, into the field with Jonathan, 1Sa 20:11 , when his father had provoked him to wrath, Eph 6:4 ; (against the apostle’s precept). Divert to some other company, place, business, about something thou canst be most earnest at. Give not place to wrath, no, not a little; set God before thy tumultuating passions, and so silence them, else worse will follow. Say not with the civilian, De minutis non curat lex: the law takes not notice of small faults. God’s law is spiritual, and reacheth to a raca, to a sirrah, &c. Rom 7:1-25 .

But whosoever shall say, Thou fool, &c. ] How much more, rogue, bastard, devil, and other such foul and opprobrious terms, not fit to be mentioned among saints, yet common with many such as would be counted so. What makest thou here, thou archdevil, troubling our city? said the Bishop of Geneva to Farellus, seeking to set up the reformed religion. e And a Spanish Jesuit disputing with us about the Eucharist (saith Beza) called us vulpes, serpentes, et simias, foxes, serpents, and jackanapes. Contrarily, it is observed of Archbishop Cranmer, that he never raged so far with any of his household servants, as once to call the meanest of them varlet or knave in anger, much less to reprove a stranger with any reproachful word; least of all did he deal blows among them, as Bishop Bonner: who in his visitation, because the bells rung not at his coming into Hadham, nor the church was dressed up as it should, called Dr Bricket knave and heretic; and therewithal, whether thrusting or striking at him, so it was, that he gave Sir Thomas Josselin, Knight (who then stood next to the Bishop), a good blow upon the upper part of the neck, even under his ear; whereat he was somewhat astonishied at the suddenness of the quarrel for that time. At last he spake and said, What meaneth your lordship? have you been trained up in Will Sommers’s school, to strike him who standeth next you? The Bishop, still in a rage, either heard not, or would not hear. When Mr Fecknam would have excused him by his long imprisonment in the Marshalsea, whereby he was grown testy, &c., he replied merrily, So it seems, Mr Fecknam; for now that he is come forth of the Marshalsea he is ready to go to Bedlam. Our Saviour here threateneth a worse place, tormenting Tophet, the Gehenna of fire, to that unruly evil, the tongue, that being set on fire of hell, fetcheth words as far as hell to set on fire the whole coarse of nature, Jas 3:6 .

Shall be in danger of hell fire ] Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, was reputed a contemptible place, without the city, in the which they burnt (by means of a fire continually kept there) the carcases, filth, and garbage of the city, so that by the fire of Gehenna here is intimated both the restless torments of hell ( sc. by the bitter cries and ejaculations of poor infants there burnt to Moloch), and also the perpetuity and endlessness of them. The idol Moloch or Saturn was represented by a man-like brazen body, with the head of a calf. The children offered were inclosed within the arms of this idol; and as the fire increased about it, the sacrifice with the noise of drums and other instruments filled the air, that the pitiful cries of the children might not be heard.

a In allusion to the supposition that the female viper was killed by her young eating their way out at birth. D

b from , cedo; qui cedit affectibus, adeo ut rationem in consilium non adhibeat. Piscat. in Rom 13:4 .

c Vox convitii levioris.

d . Chrysost. vit. Syros hoc nomine uti pro . Hesych.

e Quid tu, diabole nequissime, ad hanc civitatem perturbandam accessisti? dicit Episcopus Genevensis.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

22. ] The sense is: ‘There were among the Jews three well-known degrees of guilt, coming respectively under the cognizance of the local and the supreme courts; and after these is set the , the end of the malefactor, whose corpse, thrown out into the valley of Hinnom, was devoured by the worm or the flame. Similarly, in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, shall the sins even of thought and word be brought into judgment and punished, each according to its degree of guilt, but even the least of them before no less a tribunal than the judgment-seat of Christ.’ The most important thing to keep in mind is, that there is no distinction of kind between these punishments, only of degree . In the thing compared, the inflicted death by the sword, the death by stoning, and the disgrace of the followed as an intensification of the horrors of death; but the punishment is one and the same death . So also in the subject of the similitude, all the punishments are spiritual; all result in eternal death; but with various degrees (the nature of which is as yet hidden from us), as the degrees of guilt have been. So that the distinction drawn by the Romanists between venial and mortal sins, finds not only no countenance, but direct confutation from this passage. The words here mentioned must not be superstitiously supposed to have any damning power in themselves (see below), but to represent states of anger and hostility , for which an awful account hereafter must be given.

(On (see var. readd.) Euthymius remarks: , , . Grotius: ‘Merito additum. Neque enim iracundus est quisquis irasci solet, sed qui oh , , , ut Aristoteles loquitur.’) On the sense, cf. 1Jn 3:15 .

] empty; a term denoting contempt, and answering to , Jas 2:20 . On the representing the , see Tholuck’s note p. 172, edn. 3.

] Two interpretations have been given of this word. Either it is (1), as usually understood, a Greek word, ‘ Thou fool ,’ and used by our Lord Himself of the Scribes and Pharisees, ch. Mat 23:17 ; Mat 23:19 , and its equivalent of the disciples, Luk 24:25 ; or (2) a Hebrew word, signifying ‘ rebel ,’ and the very word for uttering which Moses and Aaron were debarred from entering the land of promise: : ‘Hear now, ye rebels.’ Num 20:10 . “Others take the Greek word, according to the Hebrew usage of , in the sense of . So Phavorinus: .” Thol. p. 174.

. is perhaps a pregnant construction for : but see reff.

. . ] To the S.E. of Jerusalem was a deep and fertile valley, called , ‘ the vale of Hinnom ,’ and rendered , Jos 18:16 , LXX. In this valley (also called Tophet, Isa 30:33 ; Jer 7:31 ) did the idolatrous Jews burn their children to Moloch, and Josiah ( 2Ki 23:10 ) therefore polluted it; and thenceforward it was the place for the casting out and burning all offal, and the corpses of criminals; and therefore its name, , was used to signify the place of everlasting punishment.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 5:22 . . Christ supplies the defect, as a painter fills in a rude outline of a picture ( ), says Theophy. He goes back on the roots of crime in the feelings: anger, contempt, etc. . Every one; universal interdict of angry passion. : not in blood (the classical meaning) or in faith, but by common humanity. The implied doctrine is that every man is my brother; companion doctrine to the universal Fatherhood of God (Mat 5:45 ). is of course a gloss; qualification of the interdict against anger may be required, but it was not Christ’s habit to supply qualifications. His aim was to impress the main idea, anger a deadly sin. , here as in Mat 5:21 . The reference is to the provincial court of seven ( Deu 16:18 , 2Ch 19:5 , Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, 14) possessing power to punish capital offences by the sword. Christ’s words are of course not to be taken literally as if He were enacting that the angry man be tried as a criminal. So understood He would be simply introducing an extension of legalism. He deserves to go before the seven, He says, meaning he is as great an offender as the homicide who is actually tried by them.

: left untranslated in A. V [20] and R. V [21] ; a word of little meaning, rendered by Jerome “inanis aut vacuus absque cerebro”. Augustine says a Jew told him it was not properly a word at all, but an interjection like Hem . Theophy. gives as an equivalent spoken by a Greek to a man whom he despised. And the man who commits this trivial offence (as it seems) must go before, not the provincial seven, but the supreme seventy, the Sanhedrim that tried the most heinous offences and sentenced to the severest penalties, e.g. , death by stoning! Trivial in appearance, the offence is deadly in Christ’s eyes. It means contempt for a fellow-man, more inhuman than anger a violent passion, prompting to words and acts often bitterly regretted when the hot temper cools down. , if a Greek word, the equivalent for = fool, good for nothing, morally worthless. It may, as Paulus, and after him Nsgen, suggests, be a Hebrew word, (Num 20:24 , Deu 21:18 ), a rebel against God or against parents, the most worthless of characters. Against this Field ( Otium Norviccuse ) remarks that it would be the only instance of a pure Hebrew word in the N. T. In either case the word expresses a more serious form of contempt than Raca . Raca expresses contempt for a man’s head = you stupid! More expresses contempt for his heart and character = you scoundrel. The reckless use of such opprobrious epithets Jesus regarded as the supreme offence against the law of humanity. . He deserves to go, not to the seven or the seventy, but to hell, his sin altogether damnable. Kuinoel thinks the meaning is: He deserves to be burned alive in the valley of Hinnom: is dignus est qui in valle Hinnomi vivus comburatur . This interpretation finds little approval, but it is not so improbable when we remember what Christ said about the offender of the little ones (Mat 18:6 ). Neither burning alive nor drowning was actually practised. In these words of Jesus against anger and contempt there is an aspect of exaggeration. They are the strong utterance of one in whom all forms of inhumanity roused feelings of passionate abhorrence. They are of the utmost value as a revelation of character.

[20] Authorised Version.

[21] Revised Version.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

brother. An Israelite by nation and blood; while a neighbour was an Israelite by religion and worship (= a Proselyte). Both distinct from the heathen. So the Talmud defines them.

without a cause. Omitted by LT [Trm. A], WH R.

in danger of = liable to.

judgment. The council of three in the local synagogue. See App-120.

Raca. In 1611 edition spelled “Racha”; changed in 1638 edition to “Raca”. An Aramaic word, see App-94.; not a contumelious epithet, but a contemptuous interjection, expressing the emotion or scorn of a disdainful mind (so Augustine), like Eng. “You! “Compare Latin. Heus tu, Greek. raka. Occurs only here.

in danger of = liable to.

the council = the Sanhedrin. The supreme national court. See App-120.

Thou fool. Greek. mores. Hebrew. nabal. Always = a wicked reprobate, destitute of all spiritual or Divine knowledge (compare Joh 7:49).

of = to or unto. Greek. eis. App-104.

hell fire = the gehenna of fire, from Hebrew. gey Hinnom = the valley of Hinnom, profaned by the fires of Moloch worship (2Ch 33:6), and defiled by Hezekiah. Also called “Tophet”, Isa 30:33. Here the refuse of Jerusalem was continually being burnt up by the perpetual fires (compare Jer 7:31-33. 2Ki 23:10. Mar 9:48. Isa 66:24). See App-131.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

22.] The sense is: There were among the Jews three well-known degrees of guilt, coming respectively under the cognizance of the local and the supreme courts; and after these is set the , the end of the malefactor, whose corpse, thrown out into the valley of Hinnom, was devoured by the worm or the flame. Similarly, in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, shall the sins even of thought and word be brought into judgment and punished, each according to its degree of guilt, but even the least of them before no less a tribunal than the judgment-seat of Christ. The most important thing to keep in mind is, that there is no distinction of kind between these punishments, only of degree. In the thing compared, the inflicted death by the sword, the death by stoning, and the disgrace of the followed as an intensification of the horrors of death; but the punishment is one and the same-death. So also in the subject of the similitude, all the punishments are spiritual; all result in eternal death; but with various degrees (the nature of which is as yet hidden from us), as the degrees of guilt have been. So that the distinction drawn by the Romanists between venial and mortal sins, finds not only no countenance, but direct confutation from this passage. The words here mentioned must not be superstitiously supposed to have any damning power in themselves (see below), but to represent states of anger and hostility, for which an awful account hereafter must be given.

(On (see var. readd.) Euthymius remarks: , , . Grotius: Merito additum. Neque enim iracundus est quisquis irasci solet, sed qui oh , , , ut Aristoteles loquitur.) On the sense, cf. 1Jn 3:15.

] empty; a term denoting contempt, and answering to , Jam 2:20. On the representing the , see Tholucks note p. 172, edn. 3.

] Two interpretations have been given of this word. Either it is (1), as usually understood, a Greek word, Thou fool, and used by our Lord Himself of the Scribes and Pharisees, ch. Mat 23:17; Mat 23:19,-and its equivalent of the disciples, Luk 24:25; or (2) a Hebrew word, signifying rebel, and the very word for uttering which Moses and Aaron were debarred from entering the land of promise: : Hear now, ye rebels. Num 20:10. Others take the Greek word, according to the Hebrew usage of , in the sense of . So Phavorinus: . Thol. p. 174.

. is perhaps a pregnant construction for : but see reff.

. .] To the S.E. of Jerusalem was a deep and fertile valley, called , the vale of Hinnom, and rendered , Jos 18:16, LXX. In this valley (also called Tophet, Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) did the idolatrous Jews burn their children to Moloch, and Josiah (2Ki 23:10) therefore polluted it; and thenceforward it was the place for the casting out and burning all offal, and the corpses of criminals; and therefore its name, , was used to signify the place of everlasting punishment.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 5:22. , …, every one, etc.) This is opposed to the lax rule[201] of the Scribes.- , who is angry) either with a lasting feeling or a sudden emotion.- , with his brother) This appellation shows the unworthiness of anger.-, without a cause) This gloss[202] evidently betrays its human origin.[203] He who is angry without a cause is superfluously angry: not even the Pharisees taught that it was lawful to be angry without a cause. Even if there be a cause for being angry, there ought to be no anger. God also forbids us to hate even with cause, in that He commands us to love our enemies.-Tertullian de Spectaculis, ch. 16. On the other hand, the magistrate, in killing those who ought to be killed, does rightly, and yet it is never said, Thou shalt not kill without a cause.- , shall be criminal as far as belongs to the judgment or municipal tribunal) i.e. he is a murderer. Cf. Mat 5:21.[204] As he who looks upon a woman to lust after her is an adulterer, so he that hateth his brother (1Jn 4:15) is a murderer. This verse does not indicate three degrees of human or temporal punishment; for neither was it the part of the municipal tribunal and the Sanhedrim to punish the emotion of anger or the utterance of Raca, nor was the valley of the son of Hinnom the place for any punishment, much less for any punishment inflicted by any other power than that of the municipal tribunal or the Sanhedrim, still less for punishment on account of the abusive epithet of Fool. The judgment, therefore, and the council, are assigned to the emotion of anger and the utterance of Raca, as to the first and second degree of murder, deserving the first and second degree of punishment in hell: and the fiery Gehenna[205] is appropriately assigned to the third degree of murder, the abusive epithet of Fool, and indicates a more fiery punishment in hell. There is, therefore, a metonymy of the consequent for the antecedent. He is criminal as far as belongs to the tribunal, etc.; signifying, he is a murderer in the first, second, and third degree. Civil guilt denotes spiritual guilt, both as to the fault and the punishment.-, shall say) in his heart or with his lips once or continually.-, Raca) A Hebrew word, frequently used by Hebrews according to Lightfoot, the force of which no Greek word expresses. It denotes a sort of middle term between anger and the appellation of Fool.[206] Chrysostom on this passage says, that Raka denotes in Syriac the same as thou, uttered contemptuously: others derive it from the Syrian RAK, he spits. An old English Version renders it Fie. Light persons are called in Jdg 9:4; Jdg 11:3; 2Ch 13:7; and , empty or vain, is thus used in Jam 2:20. Reproof should reach even the trivial expressions and common manners of mankind, and that specifically; see Mat 5:34-35, etc.; 1Co 15:32; Jam 2:3; Jam 4:13.- , the Sanhedrim) or Great National Council of seventy-two Judges, which was held at Jerusalem, and decreed the more severe punishments.-, thou fool) A most harsh taunt denying common sense, without which a man is incurable and utterly deplorable; cf. , in Mat 5:13, and the note upon it. The LXX. used the word very sparingly, the Son of Sirach frequently.- , he shall be criminal for the fiery Gehenna) An elliptical mode of speech[207] for, so that he may be consigned to the fiery Gehenna-sc. the valley of the Son of Hinnom, where carrion and carcases lie unburied, and at length are burnt. The word , Gehenna, does not occur in the Septuagint; in the New Testament it is used by St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, and St James; but not by either St John, St Paul, St Peter, or St Jude. Hiller (in his Onomata Sacra, p. 811) derives it from the Hebrew , the Valley of Lamentation. Concerning the fire of that valley, see Jer 7:31-32, etc.-, etc., is used with the same force as in the expression , to the ravens.[208]

[201] In the original sanctione, a somewhat peculiar expression.-(I. B.)

[202] Which Luther rightly omitted.-Not. Crit.

[203] It is retained by E. M.-(I. B.) B Vulg. Origen, omit it, and Lachm. and Tisch. read accordingly. But Dabc Iren. 242, 247, Cypr. 306, Lucf. 121, and after ., Iren. 165, Hilary 128 (625) retain .-ED.

[204] For whatever is repugnant to meekness and love, is a principle rising up against life, and so breathes the spirit of murder.-Vers. Germ.

[205] – (vallis), Hinnom, the valley at the foot of Moriah, and in which Siloa flows (Jerome on x. 28), on the east of Jerusalem, desecrated by the idolatrous fires of Moloch (Jer 7:31; Isa 30:33), and called Topheth, from Tuph, the tympanum used to drown the cries of children there immolated.-Wordsworth in loc.

[206] Dreamy indolence (oscitantia) was the reproach usually meant to be conveyed by it, or else a headlong and hasty mode of action.-Vers. Germ.

[207] See, on the Locutio Concisa, Appendix.-ED.

[208] A phrase used by the Greeks to denote not only the disgrace of the gallows, but the still greater one of remaining unburied.-Liddell and Scott.-(I. B.)

Josiah therefore polluted it (2Ki 23:10); and thenceforward it was the place for casting out and burning all offal and the corpses of criminals; and therefore its name, , was used to signify the place of everlasting punishment.-Alford in loc.-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

hell fire

Gr. “Geenna” = Gehenna, the place in the valley of Hinnom where, anciently, human sacrifices were offered. 2Ch 33:6; Jer 7:31 The word occurs,; Mat 5:22; Mat 5:29; Mat 5:30; Mat 10:28; Mat 18:9; Mat 23:15; Mat 23:33; Mar 9:43; Mar 9:45; Mar 9:47; Luk 12:5; Jam 3:6. In every instance except the last the word comes from the lips of Jesus Christ in most solemn warning of the consequences of sin. He describes it as the place where “their” worm never dies and of fire never to be quenched. The expression is identical in meaning with “lake of fire”.; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10; Rev 20:14; Rev 20:15.

See “Death, the second” (Joh 8:24; Rev 21:8); also (See Scofield “Rev 21:8”) See Scofield “Luk 16:23”.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

I say: Mat 5:28, Mat 5:34, Mat 5:44, Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5, Deu 18:18, Deu 18:19, Act 3:20-23, Act 7:37, Heb 5:9, Heb 12:25

That: Gen 4:5, Gen 4:6, Gen 37:4, Gen 37:8, 1Sa 17:27, 1Sa 17:28, 1Sa 18:8, 1Sa 18:9, 1Sa 20:30-33, 1Sa 22:12-23, 1Ki 21:4, 2Ch 16:10, Est 3:5, Est 3:6, Psa 37:8, Dan 2:12, Dan 2:13, Dan 3:13, Dan 3:19, Eph 4:26, Eph 4:27

his brother: Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24, Mat 18:21, Mat 18:35, Deu 15:11, Neh 5:8, Oba 1:10, Oba 1:12, Rom 12:10, 1Co 6:6, 1Th 4:6, 1Jo 2:9, 1Jo 3:10, 1Jo 3:14, 1Jo 3:15, 1Jo 4:20, 1Jo 4:21, 1Jo 5:16

without: Psa 7:4, Psa 25:3, Psa 35:19, Psa 69:4, Psa 109:3, Lam 3:52, Joh 15:25

be: Mat 5:21

the judgment: An inferior court of judicature, in every city, consisting of 23 members, which punished criminals by strangling or beheading.

Whosoever: Mat 11:18, Mat 11:19, Mat 12:24, 1Sa 20:30, 2Sa 16:7, Joh 7:20, Joh 8:48, Act 17:18, 1Co 6:10, Eph 4:31, Eph 4:32, Tit 3:2, 1Pe 2:23, 1Pe 3:9, Jud 1:9

Raca: that is, vain fellow, 2Sa 6:20, Jam 2:20

the council: Sanhedrin, [Strong’s G4892], composed of 72 elders, who alone punished by stoning. Mat 10:17, Mat 26:59, Mar 14:55, Mar 15:1, Joh 11:47, Act 5:27

fool: Psa 14:1, Psa 49:10, Psa 92:6, Pro 14:16, Pro 18:6, Jer 17:11

hell: Mat 5:29, Mat 5:30, Mat 10:28, Mat 18:8, Mat 18:9, Mat 25:41, Mar 9:47, Luk 12:5, Luk 16:23, Luk 16:24, Rev 20:14

Reciprocal: Gen 30:2 – anger Exo 20:13 – General Exo 32:19 – anger Lev 10:16 – angry Num 16:15 – very wroth Num 20:10 – General Deu 5:17 – General 2Ki 23:10 – the valley 2Ch 16:9 – Herein Neh 8:8 – and gave the sense Job 31:30 – mouth Psa 53:1 – fool Mal 2:9 – but Mat 6:25 – I say Mar 13:9 – councils Rom 7:14 – the law 1Co 13:5 – is not Col 3:8 – anger 1Ti 2:8 – without Jam 1:19 – slow to wrath

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5:22

Jesus is teaching that under the standards of right and wrong that he will establish, being angry with a brother without a cause will endanger one before the same judgment seat as murder did in old time. As a further indication of increased strictness, to give way to one’s temper to the extent of calling his brother Raca (a term of reproach meaning empty-headed or senseless), would endanger him before the greater court; the council which was the Sanhedrin. Still increasing the picture of responsibility, to accuse a brother of being a fool will put a man in danger of hell fire. According to Thayer, Robinson and Greenfield, the word for fool means “a wicked rebel against the Lord.” And it should be noted that all of the evil actions are on condition that they are without a cause. The word hell is from CEHENNA which refers to the lake of unquenchable fire into which the wicked will be cast after the Judgment. A fuller definition of the English word “hell” as it is used in the New Testament will be given in another part of the COMMENTARY.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[But I say unto you.] But I say; the words of one that refutes or determines a question, very frequently to be met with in the Hebrew writers. To this you may lay that of Isaiah, Isa 2:3, “And he will teach us of his ways,” etc. Where Kimchi writes thus, This teacher is king Messias. And that of Zechariah, Zec 11:8; where this great Shepherd destroys “three evil shepherds,” namely, the Pharisee, and the Sadducee, and the Essene.

[That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, etc.] first let us treat of the words, and then of the sentences.

[With his brother;] the Jewish schools do thus distinguish between a brother and a neighbour; that a brother signifies an Israelite by nation and blood: a neighbour; an Israelite in religion and worship, that is, a proselyte. The author of Aruch, in the word A son of the covenant; writes thus; “The sons of the covenant, these are Israel. And when the Scripture saith, ‘If any one’s ox gore the ox of his neighbour,’ it excludes all the heathen, in that it saith, ‘of his neighbour.’ ” Maimonides writes thus: “It is all one to kill an Israelite and a Canaanite servant: for both, the punishment is death; but an Israelite who shall kill a stranger-inhabitant shall not be punished with death, because it is said, ‘Whosoever shall proudly rise up against his neighbour to kill him’ Exo 21:14; and it is needless to say he shall not be punished with death for killing a heathen.” Where this is to be noted, that heathens and stranger-in-habitants, who were not admitted to perfect and complete proselytism, were not qualified with the title of neighbour; nor with any privileges.

But under the Gospel, where there is no distinction of nations or tribes, brother is taken in the same latitude as among the Jews both brother and neighbour were; that is, for all professing the gospel: and is contradistinguished to the heathen; 1Co 5:11; “If any one who is called a brother”: and Mat 18:15; “If thy brother sin against thee,” etc., Mat 5:17; “If he hear not the church, let him be a heathen.”

But neighbour is extended to all, even such as are strangers to our religion: Luk 10:29-30; etc.

[He shall be guilty;] [W]ords signifying guilt or debt [are] to be met with a thousand times in the Talmudists. Isa 24:23; “They shall be gathered together, as captives are gathered into prison.” Where R. Solomon speaks thus, Guilty of hell unto hell; which agrees with the last clause of this verse.

[Of the council;] Of the Sanhedrim; that is, of the judgment, or tribunal of the magistrate. For that judgment; in the clause before, is to be referred to the judgment of God; will appear by what follows.

[Raca.] A word used by one that despiseth another in the highest scorn: very usual in the Hebrew writers, and very common in the mouth of the nation.

“One returned to repentance: his wife said to him, Raca; if it be appointed you to repent, the very girdle wherewith you gird yourself shall not be your own.”

“A heathen said to an Israelite, Very suitable food is made ready for you at my house. What is it? Saith the other. To whom he replied, Swine’s flesh. Raca (saith the Jew), I must not eat of clean beasts with you.”

“A king’s daughter was married to a certain dirty fellow. He commands her to stand by him as a mean servant, and to be his butler. To whom she said, Raca; I am a king’s daughter.”

“One of the scholars of R. Jochanan made sport with the teaching of his master: but returning at last to a sober mind, Teach thou, O master, saith he, for thou art worthy to teach: for I have found and seen that which thou hast taught. To whom he replied, Raca; thou hadst not believed, unless thou hadst seen.”

“A certain captain saluted a religious man praying in the way, but he saluted him not again: he waited till he had done his prayer, and saith to him, Raca; it is written in your law,” etc.

[Into hell-fire.] The Jews do very usually express hell; or the place of the damned; by the word Gehinnom; which might be shown in infinite examples; the manner of speech being taken from the valley of Hinnom; a place infamous for foul idolatry committed there; for the howlings of infants roasted to Moloch; filth carried out thither; and for a fire that always was burning, and so most fit to represent the horror of hell.

“There are three doors of Gehenna; one in the wilderness, as it is written, ‘They went down, and all that belonged to them, alive into hell’ (Num 16:33). Another in the sea, as it is written, ‘Out of the belly of hell have I called; thou hast heard my voice’ (Jon 2:2). The third in Jerusalem, as it is written, ‘Thus saith the Lord, whose fire is in Sion, and his furnace in Jerusalem,’ Isa 31:9. The tradition of the school of R. Ismael; ‘Whose fire is in Sion,’ this is the gate of Gehenna.”

The Chaldee paraphrast upon Isaiah, Isa 33:14, Gehenna, eternal fire; etc. The Gehenna of eternal fire.

We come now to the sentences and sense of the verse. A threefold punishment is adjudged to a threefold wickedness. Judgment to him that is angry…without cause. Judgment also, and that by the Sanhedrim, to him that calls Raca. Judgment of hell to him that calleth Fool.

That which is here produced of the threefold Sanhedrim among the Jews pleases me not, because, passing over other reasons, mention of the Sanhedrim is made only in the middle clause.

How the judgment in the first clause is to be distinguished from the judgment of the Sanhedrim in the second, will very easily appear from this Gloss and commentary of the Talmudists, “Of not killing”: “he is a manslayer, whosoever shall strike his neighbour with a stone or iron, or thrust him into the water, or fire, whence he cannot come out, so that he die, he is guilty. But if he shall thrust another into the water or fire, whence he might come out, if he die, he is guiltless. A man sets a dog or serpent on another, he is guiltless.” See also the Babylonian Gemara there; “Whosoever shall slay his neighbour with his own hand, striking him with his sword, or with a stone, so that he kills him; or shall strangle or burn him so that he die, in any manner whatsoever killing him in his own person; behold, such a one is to be put to death by the Sanhedrim. But he that hires another by a reward to kill his neighbour, or who sends his servants, and they kill him; or he that thrusts him violently upon a lion, or upon some other beast, and the beast kill him; or he that kills himself, every one of these is a shedder of blood; and the iniquity of manslaughter is in his hand, and he is liable to death by the hand of God; but he is not to be punished with death by the Sanhedrim.”

Behold a double manslayer! Behold a double judgment! Now let the words of our Saviour be applied to this Gloss of the ancients upon the law of murder: “Do ye hear,” saith he, “What is said by the ancients, Whosoever shall kill, after what manner soever a man shall kill him, whether by the hand of one that he hath hired, or by his servants, or by setting a beast on him; he is guilty of the judgment of God, though not of the judgment of the Sanhedrim: and whosoever shall kill his neighbour by himself, none other interposing, this man is liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrim: but I say unto you, That whosoever is rashly angry with his brother, this man is liable to the judgment of God; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca; he is liable to the Sanhedrim.”

These words of our Saviour, perhaps, we shall more truly understand by comparing some more phrases and doctrines, very usual in the Jewish schools. Such as these, Absolved from the judgment of men, but guilty in the judgment of Heaven; that is, of God. Death by the Sanhedrim, and death by the hand of Heaven.

And in a word, cutting off; speaks vengeance by the hand of God. They are very much deceived who understand…cutting off; of which there is very frequent mention in the Holy Bible, concerning the cutting-off from the public assembly by ecclesiastical censure; when as it means nothing else than cutting off by divine vengeance. There is nothing more usual and common among the Hebrew canonists, than to adjudge very many transgressions to cutting off; in that worn phrase… “If he shall do this out of presumption, he is guilty of cutting off; but if he shall do it out of ignorance, he is bound for a sacrifice for sin.” When they adjudge a thing or a guilty person to cutting off, they deliver and leaven him to the judgment of God; nevertheless, a censure and punishment from the Sanhedrim sometimes is added, and sometimes not. Which might be illustrated by infinite examples, but we are afraid of being tedious. Let these two be enough on both sides.

I. Of mere delivering over to the judgment of God, without any punishment inflicted by the Sanhedrim, those words speak, which were lately cited, “He is absolved from the judgment of men, but liable to the judgment of Heaven.”

II. Of the judgment of God and of the Sanhedrim joined together, these words in the same place speak: “If he that is made guilty by the Sanhedrim be bound to make restitution, Heaven [or God] doth not pardon him until he pay it.” But he that bears a punishment laid on him by the Sanhedrim is absolved from cutting off. “All persons guilty of cutting off, when they are beaten are absolved from their cutting off: as it is said, ‘And thy brother become vile in thy sight.’ When he shall be beaten, behold, he is thy brother.”

Liable or guilty even to the hell-fire. He had said, guilty of judgment and of the council; before; but now he saith unto hell; and that in a higher emphasis; as if he should have said, “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Fool; shall be guilty of judgment, even unto the judgment of hell.”

But what was there more grievous in the word fool; than in the word Raca? Let king Solomon be the interpreter, who everywhere by a fool understands a wicked and reprobate person; foolishness being opposed to spiritual wisdom. Raca denotes indeed morosity; and lightness of manners and life; but fool judgeth bitterly of the spiritual and eternal state, and decreeth a man to certain destruction. Let the judgings and censures of the scribes and Pharisees concerning the common people serve us instead of a lexicon. They did not only suffer themselves to be styled wise men; but also arrogated it to themselves, as their merit and due. But what do they say of the common people? “This people, that knoweth not the law, is cursed,” Joh 7:49.

You have a form of speaking, not much unlike this which is now under our hands: He that calls his neighbour Servant, let him be in excommunication. The Gloss is, “They therefore excommunicate him, because he vilified an Israelite: him, therefore, they vilify in like manner.” “If he call him bastard; let him be punished with forty stripes. If wicked man; let it descend with him into his life”: that is, according to the Gloss, “into misery and penury.”

After this manner, therefore, our Saviour suits a different punishment to different sins by a most just parity, and a very equal compensation: to unjust anger, the just anger and judgment of God; to public reproach, a public trial; and hell-fire to the censure that adjudgeth another thither.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 5:22. But I say unto you. This implies equal authority with Him who gave the Decalogue, greater authority than those who expounded it. The two thoughts of Mat 5:21 require two here.

Every one who. This is the literal sense.

Angry with his brother. Brother is equivalent to neighbor, in the wide sense.The best authorities omit without cause. Probably inserted by way of mitigation. Several fathers expressly say that it is not in the text

The judgment. As before, the earthly court.

Raca. This is a word of contempt, meaning either empty head, or spit out, i.e., heretic. It is rendered, vain fellows, in the plural, by the translators in 2Sa 6:20.

Council. The Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, consisting of seventy-two members; the highest earthly court.

Thou fool. The Greek word implies stupid fool. It may be a Hebrew expression (moreh) containing a charge of wickedness and great impiety. Perhaps an allusion to the atheist, Psa 14:1.

In danger of, literally, into, i.e., in danger of being cast into, the hell of fire, Gehenna of fire. The first word originally meant the valley of Hinnom, once a place of idolatrous worship, on the south side of Jerusalem. It became a place of defilement, where the corpses of malefactors were thrown, and was also, it is said, the scene of execution in certain cases. Of fire; either because of the fires kept burning in this valley to consume the offal of the city, or on account of the worship of Moloch, practised there, in which children were burnt alive. In either case, the whole phrase is a significant expression for the place of future punishment. It probably means this here, but not necessarily.General sense: murderous feelings and words are deemed a proper ground of condemnation in Christs kingdom. A more particular explanation involves a difficulty. Two kinds of earthly punishment are spoken of, and then a future one is attached to the use of a word, which does not seem very different from the preceding ones. Since no earthly court does punish feelings of anger, it would seem that all three refer to a future punishment, or at least to Gods judgments, the degrees being represented by Jewish usages. It is clear from the passage that there are different degrees of guilt, and that even the germ of sin in the heart condemns before God. The sin is not in the word and act as such, but in the motive and spirit. There is also a righteous indignation and wrath, an innocent use of terms like those forbidden here (comp. Mat 23:17; Mat 23:19; Luk 24:25; Gal 1:8-9; Gal 3:1; Gal 3:3; Tas. Mat 2:20).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 22

Brother; any fellow-being.–The judgment; and inferior court of the Jews.–Raca; a term of opprobrious reproach, meaning worthless, senseless.–The council; the superior court of the Jews, called the Sanhedrim, which had jurisdiction over graver offences. This body is often alluded to in the New Testament. (Acts 5:27-41,6:12,22:30)–Thou fool. The connection which this verse sustains to Matthew 5:21, shows that, in respect to all these expressions, the Savior speaks of them only as used under the influence of angry, malicious, or revengeful feeling. He himself sometimes employed this last term in just rebuke of folly and sin. (Matthew 23:19.) The meaning of the whole passage is, that the displeasure of God, and the terrible penalties of his law, are incurred by feelings of malice and anger, however slight may be the outward expression of them.

Matthew 5:23,24. The meaning is, that we cannot offer acceptable worship to God, while cherishing unkind or hostile feelings towards a fellow-man, or neglecting to make reparation for any injury which we may have done him.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be {i} in danger {k} of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the {l} council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of {m} hell {n} fire.

(i) He speaks of the judgment of God, and of the difference of sins, and therefore applies his words to the form of civil judgments which were then used.

(k) Of that judgment which was ruled by three men, who had the hearing and deciding of money matters, and such other small causes.

(l) By that judgment which stood of 23 judges, who had the hearing and deciding of weighty affairs, as the matter of a whole tribe or of a high priest, or of a false prophet.

(m) Whereas we read here “hell”, it is in the text itself “Gehenna”, which is one Hebrew word made out of two, and is as if to say “as the Valley of Hinnom”, which the Hebrews called Topheth: it was a place where the Israelites cruelly sacrificed their children to false gods, whereupon it was taken for a place appointed to torment the reprobates in Jer 7:31 .

(n) The Jews used four kinds of punishments, before their government was taken away by Herod: hanging, beheading, stoning, and burning. It is burning that Christ meant, because burning was the greatest punishment; therefore by making mention of a judgment, a council, and a fire, he shows that some sins are worse than others are, but yet they are all such that we must give account for them, and will be punished for them.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus contrasted His correct interpretation with the false common understanding of this command. His, "But I say to you" (Mat 5:22; Mat 5:28; Mat 5:32; Mat 5:34; Mat 5:39; Mat 5:44) was not a common rabbinic saying, though it did have some parallels in rabbinic Judaism. [Note: Hagner, p. 111.] It expressed an authority that surprised His hearers (cf. Mat 7:29). Thus Jesus "fulfilled" or established the meaning of the passages to which He referred (Mat 5:17). [Note: See Roger D. Congdon, "Did Jesus Sustain the Law in Matthew 5?" Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):125.]

"Jesus implicitly claimed deity in at least twelve ways. He claimed three divine rights: (1) to judge mankind, (2) to forgive sins, and (3) to grant eternal life. He declared that (4) his presence was God’s presence as well as the presence of God’s kingdom and that (5) the attitude people took toward him would determine their eternal destiny. He (6) identified his actions with God’s actions, (7) taught the truth on his own authority, and (8) performed miracles on his own authority. He (9) appeared to receive worship or obeisance. He (10) assumed that his life was a pattern for others, a ’divinely authoritative form of life.’ He (11) applied to himself OT texts that describe God and (12) in several parables indirectly identified himself with a father or king who represents God." [Note: Daniel Doriani, "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):339-40.]

When God gave the sixth commandment, He did not just want people to refrain from murdering one another. He wanted them to refrain from the hatred that leads to murder. Murder is only the external manifestation of the internal problem. The scribes and Pharisees dealt only with the external act. Jesus showed that God’s concern ran much deeper. Refraining from homicide does not constitute a person righteous in God’s sight. Inappropriate anger renders one subject to judgment at God’s heavenly court "since no human court is competent to try a case of inward anger." [Note: Stott, p. 85.]

Jesus often used the term "brother" in the sense of a brother disciple. The term usually occurs on Jesus’ lips in the first Gospel, and Matthew recorded Him using it extensively. The relationship is an extension of the fact that God is the Father of believing disciples. Thus all believers are brothers in the spiritual sense. The early church’s use of the term reflects that of Jesus.

"Raca" is the transliteration of the Aramaic reka. It means "imbecile," "numbskull," or "blockhead." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 149.] The "supreme court" (NASB) or "Sanhedrin" (NIV; Gr. synedrion) probably refers to God’s highest court in view of the context, not the Jewish Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day. "Fool" (Gr. mores) is another similar term that a person who felt hatred for even his brother might use. He, too, would be in danger of divine judgment. Jesus said the offender is guilty enough to suffer eternal judgment, not that he will. Whether he will suffer eternal judgment or not depends on his relationship to God. There does not seem to be any gradation or progression in these three instances of anger. Jesus simply presented three possible instances with an assortment of terms and assured His hearers that in all cases there was violation of God’s will that could incur severe divine torment (cf. Mat 3:12).

The word "hell" translates the Greek geenna, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew ge hinnom or "Valley of Hinnom." This was the valley south of Jerusalem where a fire burned continually consuming the city’s refuse. This place became an illustration of the place where the wicked will suffer eternal torment. [Note: See Hans Scharen, "Gehenna in the Synoptics," Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):324-37; 149:596 (October-December 1992):454-57.] Matthew recorded 11 references to it.

Jesus’ demonstrations of anger were appropriate for Him since He was God, and God gets angry. His anger was always righteous, unlike the anger that arises from unjustified hatred. It is possible for humans to be angry and not sin (Eph 4:26). Here Jesus was addressing unjustifiable anger that can lead to murder (cf. Col 3:8).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)